Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 59

Language tidy on Inclusion criteria

I have attempted to shorten this section by removing the instances where we say the same thing twice. In doing so, I have also removed the references to undue weight and in universe in respect of real world as, per the debate above, I do believe we have agreed we are saying the same thing twice. Happy to revert if anyone feels I've gone too far.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you amendments make sense by making the text short without loss of meaning in every instance.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria for Fictional Topics

If a fictional topic has received significant real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

• "Significant real-world coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail using the real-world as the primary frame of reference, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant real-world coverage does not give undue weight to the primary source nor is it over-reliant on a perspective that is in universe.

• "Reliable secondary sources" are at least one step removed from primary source and have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published significant real-world coverage of their own that focus upon it. Coverage from tertiary sources does not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, e.g. directories and databases, are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

• "Independent" means published sources that are independent of the creator, author, publisher or distributor. Promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article, and even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

• "Presumed" means that substantial real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of satisfying the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets the all of the above criteria, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources or written purely from an in universe perspective may be appropriate for inclusion within another article or list that does meet these criteria.

I have put forward a broadly similar proposal before, but I feel this approach warrants further discussion because of the problems that alternative proposals have encountered by attempting to construct exemptions for fictional topics from Wikipedia's existing content polices.

This flow chart shows that a topic is needs to be the subject of significant real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources in order to meet various tests from Wikipedia's content policies. The less significant real-world coverage there is about a topic, the greater the risk that it will fail one or more of them.

Content policy doesn't exist as a restaint on editorial autonomy as Philcha might have you believe; rather it is there to support the creation of articles which anyone can edit without the need for editorial oversight by any other authority (such as a panel of experts). Wikipedia's goal of creating an increasingly better written and more comprehensive encyclopedia can only be achieved if articles are subject to peer review; the content polices exist to support this process.

It is all very well to dismiss this approach as "being the same WP:N" or "not having consensus", but we have invested so much time in proposals that have turned out to be flawed, because their guidance does not enable a topic to pass the series of tests that would enable it to pass the content policies. I would prefer if it is not dismissed this out of hand without investigating exactly why it would not work.

I think this proposal ticks all the boxes in terms of content polices, but I recognise that it may not be well received in the context of the inclusionist vs deletionist debate. However, I think this debate belongs at WP:Village pump (policy) rather than here; in my view, if this proposal meets Wikipedia content policies, it would be given a chance to succeeed where alternatives that don't can only fail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while this is all ideal and all, it does not match with what happens at AFD. Policy and guidelines must describe what happens in general and consensus, not create that. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Second check-point is wrong per the neutral point of view policy as I explained above. Hiding T 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, we have covered the AFD article in great depth in the section Notability & Deletability, but basically WP:AFD exists to support the process of article deletion through a process of peer review and is not the source of Wikipedia content polices, which are about article inclusion. In fairness to you I can see the point you are making, namely the main argument against about having a guideline about fictional topics that fits within the framework of Wikipedia existing policies and guidelines is that it would facilitate the deletion of articles which do not meet this guideline. However, this is an entirely spurious argument when you think about it. I have never participated in an AFD discussion in which a policy or guideline has been invoked, and the participants automatically agreed that this was the correct approach. AFD is conducted through a process of peer review in which all the arguments and opinions are weighed up, and everyone's opinion counts. Since policies and guidelines can proscribe what editor's opinions must be, perhaps you now realise that WP:FICT is not a magic bullet that can guarantee an article will be kept or deleted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding, the second point is not about WP:NPOV. The second point is in fact the reason we need WP:NOTPLOT or WP:N or the equivalent of it in WP:FICT. WP:NOTDIR, last point, may apply as well here. Fram (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose we should be thankful that we are in agreement that a topic that is not the subject of ignificant coverage fails Wikipedia's content policies. However, I will stick by my reasoning with this arguement: if a reliable secondary source mentions a topic only in passing, then I would suggest this would a good reason to give that "sub-topic" for a similar treatment in the article about primary subject for which that source provides substantial cover. An example is the The Terminator series of content forks (Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character)). Note that each of these covers the same topic, but uses slightly different sources, note of which address the article title in substantial detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminator (character concept) is clearly about all of the various Terminators and Terminator (character) is clearly about the character portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. And if you think a franchise is the same as a character, there's really no helping you. --Pixelface (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that Terminator (character concept) was about.....the Terminator as a character concept. Yet there is not a single source in that article that says or describes this. If there already exist articles about each of the films in which the Terminator character portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, what is the point of having content forks if the sources don't support the subject of these articles titles? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to say I reject this approach, because it depends on the sacroscanctness of pre-existing guidelines. We are making policy here, not following what someone had ordained for us. We can have whatever rules we want to have to accomplish what we want.DGG (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reject this approach if you believe that anyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia - this is what the pre-exising policies and guidelines support. The only alternative is to appoint a board of editors to decided which topics can or cannot have their own articles.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany

In the present version, the first statement is basically the reiteration of the GNG but with the addition of the real-world requirement. This makes FICT stricter than the GNG which should not be the case.

Yet, in thinking about it, while it is possible to create an article that only describes the plot of a work pulling from secondary sources (pretty much any Shakespeare play, for example). For any other topic, this would be acceptable but for fiction, we have the concept of WP:NOT#PLOT (which I will note may or may not stay there but the concept has support: that plot summary-only coverage of topics are not appropriate).

If we consider that meeting the "real-world" aspect has to come from PLOT, then the current version of FICT becomes the GNG + PLOT -- which is completely fine; this removes the need for the first section and can completely shorten this up (this is too long based on input from the last RFC). Then what's left is to describe that FICT is not a hard rule and describe the three general points where articles are kept even if not meeting FICT at the present. It doesn't change the core of what's in there, but it 1) puts it as strict but no stricter than the GNG, only a content policy as another limiting factor, 2) gets to the heart of the matter - fiction generally requires GNG but in practice is treated a bit looser and 3) making this shorter. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. Why does the 'real world' aspect come from PLOT?Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PLOT asks for more than just a plot summary as part of coverage of a fictional work. All that is real-world factors (even if it is an analysis of the plot, it treats the plot from an out-of-universe scope). --MASEM (t) 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see exactly what you mean now (sorry, I think I was a bit dozy this morning). And yes you're right, it is GNP + PLOT. Do you have proposed rewording for the first part of the document? I appreciate the desire not to labour the point, so by how much do you think it could be shortened. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, WP:FICT cannot be made looser, otherwise its guidance will fall outside the framework of Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines. However, you are correct to highlight that real-world coverage is the correct approach to describing a fictional topic, otherwise an article is not encyclopedic. The problem is bringing this altogether in this guideline. Since WP:PLOT has been changed so that it references WP:N, using WP:PLOT is no longer an option. We will have to create some new wording, perhaps using WP:WAF as a source of inspiration:

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction are embedded. They should not be over-reliant on a perpective that is wholly in universe that gives undue weight to plot summary, and in so doing, attempts to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world information.

I think wording along these lines needs to go into the preamble. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PLOT is still in dispute, so I doubt that wording will stick; the concept that still will remain will be that coverage of topics cannot just be plot summaries, thus demanding real-world info. (We should not be enforcing notability in policy, that's a whole can of worms there). All I'm suggesting is that we can cut about 50% of the text of the present version away by not reiterating the GNG, and only pointing to the GNG and to PLOT, and then stating that rules for how AFDs for fiction-based articles are kept or deleted are very haphazard. It doesn't weaking FICT beyond the GNG, keeps the PLOT content policy in place, but allows for the fact that case-by-case analysis should be done if there are questions. The section about splitting articles should be kept but also can be shortened. This will make the policy maybe 4-5 para long including any lead, but get the point across. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't support you view that this guideline can just reference GNG, because we have been down that route before were this guideline was silent about certain content and style policies and it only lead to editors, such as yourself, inserting selective interpretation of what they thought it should be instead, such as your earlier proposal for "Fictional elements as part of a larger topic" to be exempt from the inclusion criteria (i.e. spinoffs). Instead of omitting key points about content and style, it is far better that WP:FICT provide comprehensive rather than selective guidance, so that editors can familiarise themselves with all the key points step by step. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs a way of saying enough of the complete piece, without becoming so long that it is unwieldy.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FICT has never outright been just tried saying "Use the GNG". It has always been tried with "Use the GNG, or this collection of other possible routes". And it has always been the details in the "other possible routes" that have failed it. Of course, we don't ignore other content policies, and it's completely appropriate to say "Use the GNG , and watch out for PLOT.", but we should not comingle the points in the single breath as the current draft does now. Also, we need to be highly selective here - length killed the previous one, and this should be as short as possible. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing radical about this current version. It follows the same path as WP:BK, by which I mean the inclusion criteria set out General notability guideline have been modified to cover fictional topics, which is what this guideline is about. This guideline is actually shorter than the one you supported that contained "Fictional elements as part of a larger topic". I say again, making this guideline vague and open to endless amendments won't work. It has to be comprehensive and robust and consise, which this version is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be shorter based on RFC feedback from the last proposed version, even though I don't mind it being longer personally. Also, I'm not proposing making it vague or adding amendments. FICT should be the GNG with consideration for content policy PLOT, but treated with less precision when it is used at AFD, not so much to deburr the GNG, but that common sense is used (the three prongs). Right now, you have FICT as the GNG merged with PLOT, (you're requiring real-world sources in the same breath as the statement of secondary sources which is much stronger than any other notability policy alone, and that's not really acceptable. Let's keep the GNG and PLOT as two distinct ideas that if, down the road, someone wants to argue one aspect, it's not attacking FICT but those two core issues. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Masem. You have supported proposals that were much longer than this, so attempting to block this proposal on the basis of size won't wash. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Real-World

I have added the following text to the preamble, which is key to understanding why there needs to be a notability guideline for fictional topics, which are the subject by both real-world and in universe coverage:

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded. They should not be over-reliant on a perpective that is wholly in universe in which undue weight is given to fictional universe portrayed in the primary source by attempting to re-create or uphold the illusion that it is real by ignoring real-world information.

Since the last RFC at WP:NOT#PLOT, it is clear that many editors are not interested in real-world coverage for fiction, so I am expecting a lot of opposition to the points that this raises, which are made in more detail in the real-world/in universe sections of WP:WAF. Up to now, the problem of over-relaince on in universe content has been thought to be a style issue, but style and content are but different sides of the same coin: if there is something wrong with the style of an article, then there must be something wrong with its content as well. This part of the preamble attempts to explain what is wrong with in universe coverage, but I realise I can't write this on my own - I need help from other editors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine so long as "should" never becomes "must", because that would create a feeding frenzy at WP:AFD. But that second sentence ... ... ... ... ... --08:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Kill the reference to the undue weight section of WP:NPOV as it contradicts that section of the policy per consensus here, WT:WAF and WT:NPOV. YThis is a fatal misunderstanding of the undue weight policy. As has been stated time and time again, this is not about giving undue weight to a minority view. "Undue weight" on Wikipedia is limited to a very specific and tight definition which we do not want to muddy by introducing unrelated arguments. I don't want to see arguments about minority viewpoints descend into farce when people attempt to claim undue weight only applies to fiction. Please, as has been pointed out time and time again, refer to the correct policies in this instance. They are WP:NOR and WP:V, both of which have stated that article topics require secondary sourcing. This is not so much about giving undue weight to primary source as relying on sources for information which we can summarise. If there is no secondary sourcing, we have no opinion to summarise and we are left with an article which restates the attributes of the specific item. That is seldom seen as encyclopedic, borders on original research and poses issues for verification. Where such attributes are easily verifiable and are not original research, we are unsure of what the consensus is on how to proceed. Which, currently, we seem to be doing a rather overly verbose job of stating. But please, kill the reference to undue weight. Hiding T 09:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say "it has been pointed out time and time again", I think what mean to say is that you changed WP:WAF to support your opinion, which not everyone agrees with[1].--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I meant what I said, and if you go check the pages linked to and the policy pages themselves you will find they support my assertions. [2]. You'd have much more chance of stating I am a sole voice if that were an actual fact rather than at best a misunderstanding. Now you can choose to route the discussion down a sidepath rather than address the actual issues, but that won't make the actual issues disappear, it'll just lead people to believe you are practising diversionary tactics... Hiding T 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding here, which is why I reverted it. Adding this will only weaken NPOV as it tries to be used for things it was never intended for and people see it as abusing the policy for their own agenda (this guideline FE) and ultimately make Wikipedia worse. No one here I think wants that, but stretching it to fit that would do so.じんない 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, regardless of the alphabet soup, I think you are correct here. There are a couple of occasions where we use words which will cause us more problems than they solve. Since it has already been said that the contribution of the secondary source must be 'real world', that tackles 'undue weight' without having to spell it out. "The Lord of the Rings Compendium" is not a secondary source with real world content - it is an in-universe guide to the universe created by Tolkien. "The Road to Middle Earth" is a ditto, because it is Sheppey's analysis of the influences that shaped Tolkien's writing. The outpourings of Chris Tolkien ("My Father's Laundry Lists: 1939-1944" etc) do have some real world content that might validly be used in a biography of JRR Tolkien, but cannot by any stretch be described as secondary sources with respect to his works, as they contain only the author's multiple versions of his text, and his own comments thereon.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The "undue weight bit" is odd. An alternative way of balancing out coverage of fictional subjects is not to simply decrease this coverage, but to expand coverage of non-fictional subjects. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just don't agree with the real world part of it. Viewed from one perspective, artistic concepts are part of the real world. Viewed from the opposite angle, imaginative concepts are as important as material ones. In either case, the package a fiction comes in, however interesting to fans and bibliographers, is not the most important part about it. Perhaps the place for the details of production is in specialist wikis, and the place for the plot is in Wikipedia as being of more general interest. Obviously, views differ. There is no point in pretending that everyone agrees with me, though I thing they ought to. Similarly, its time those who take the opposite position stopped pretending he has consensus either. We need a balanced compromise, or we will continue to run in circles. I'm tired of this. That's why I haven't contributed much tot the discussion the last few weeks. its all been said back in April, and before that in March, and February, and back to my knowledge as long as I've been here. The balance shifts a little, but there are no new arguments and the discussion has gotten nowhere. The only basis for solution is compromise. I'm willing to; I hope others on my general part of the divide are also,but I don't see that the others are. All aspects of fiction are important. the proportion will depend on the specific subject and the available material. That doesn't settle how to handle any particular article, but it provides a basis for going forward. Insisting that one or the other is more important or more central or the basis of Wikipedia coverage does not--that produces only continued stalemate. Everyone has to give up their inundividual preferences. Is there anyone here who refuses to? DGG (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is generally the consensus that articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. I know that some editors are not interested in real-world coverage of fictional topics, and prefer to write plot summaries that rely on an in universe persective. Both these approaches can compliment each other, but we have to recognise that real-world coverage is a "must-have", rather than a "nice-to-have" component of any article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. To meet WP:V, there have to be real-world references. If it can't be tied to a real-world reference, it's original research. --John Nagle (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... what? I mean, I'm all for real-world approaches being mandatory, but what you just said is nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• So what exactly is "real world?". Is a review of a book "real world" even if it dwells on plot? If not, why do we wish to limit the reliable sources we use to those that primarily focus on things other than the story? After all, for most books (for example) the story is the focus of the work. Hobit (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A review would include some description of the plot, but it would also include an assessment of whether or not the story is good, the characters are interesting and the book is worth reading, whether it would appeal to the target audience (if the book is aimed at a particular target audience), whether this book is better than the author's last book, whether it represents a new trend or whether it is like many other similar books and so on. It is that part of the content that makes the review 'real world'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Once you have a couple of decent reviews, you can write an article that not only summarises the plot, but also lets you know "this book has been listed as "Best read for May" by The Librarian"; or "Percy has been hailed as a role model for younger boys" (cite "The Schools Book Review), or "a criticism of the book has been that it is too long" (The Hitchhiker's Guide to Reading)Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me. However, I don't then understand what non-"real-world" coverage looks like. Could someone give an example of the type of RS coverage we are trying to say doesn't count in this context? Hobit (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from my own proposal in this direction:

Real-world impact of a piece of fiction can generally, for our purposes, be divided into three categories.

• Direct impact: Some works of fiction have genuine, direct real-world effects. A famous example is the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, which has been explicitly credited as a major turning point in attitudes about American slavery. In these cases, the work of fiction itself does something in the world. Sometimes this is wholly unrelated to its artistic content. The fact that Tom's Diner was the song on which the MP3 file format was optimized is a direct impact, for example, but that fact has nothing to do with the artistic content of the song.
• Cultural impact: Other works of fiction, while they do not have the immediate and direct impact of Uncle Tom's Cabin, are nonetheless significant as cultural objects simply because of the way they have permeated the culture. Enormously popular works of fiction can be described in terms of their popularity, how they are referenced in other works of fiction and culture, reviews of them, etc.
• Artistic impact: Even a relatively minor work of fiction can have an impact, however, if it is doing something artistically significant. A work of fiction can have an impact if it develops new techniques within its medium, or exemplifies existing techniques, or has been the subject of academic or critical attention. Artistic impact is often established through reviews, analysis, and scholarly commentary.

This includes reviews that focus on plot, but it still requires that the plot be discussed as an element of technique, style, and reception, as opposed to simply gossip about imaginary people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could you provide an example of a RS which would otherwise meet WP:N's requirements but doesn't have this real-world impact? I'm trying to understand exactly what you are shooting for. IMO any RS on fiction can manage some degree of "real-world"ness. But I suspect as you're adding this, you are trying to describe things in a way that removes some RSes from being useful for notability (otherwise why include it?). I'd like an example of such so I can see what you are thinking. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. This diff [3] should give you an idea. It's not the worst - it does at least say somewhere that this is a character in a book.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the issue with the writing of an article like this. But issues with writing style belong in WAF, not in a notability guideline. What I'm trying to understand is how real-world applies to sources and our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, and to be fair, I am, at this point, inclined to treat the two issues separately - articles that provide no real-world perspectives should be deleted or merged. If we can agree on that, I suspect the pool of articles that require a notability guideline will shrink drastically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing to delete articles because the current article, as it stands, has no real-world perspective even if there are sources that do provide that? I think that goes pretty strongly against our general deletion policy WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL in general... Hobit (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but I do question the wisdom of someone pointing to sources that provide a real-world perspective while declining to add them to the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd of course argue that providing those sources is better than not doing so and certainly better than deleting without looking for them :-).

But let's get back to exactly what the goal of having the real world portion in WP:FICT is. Is it to eliminate otherwise acceptable RSes for meeting notability requirements because they lack of real-world perspective? Something else? I'm just not seeing the point you're shooting for here. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said - I'm increasingly not a fan of it in FICT. I think it is a requirement for fiction articles. I think articles that lack real world perspective need aggressive fixing, and part of aggressive fixing is the possibility of deletion. The point is to prevent bad practices on articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Erb? I think you lost me. You said above you aren't proposing to delete articles due to current state, but now you are saying you want the real world requirements as a reason to delete an article due to its current state? I think I missed a step here somewhere.

In my opinion notability for fiction should follow the same general sense of other notability guidelines: provide a sense of what makes a subject notable (and thus worthy of an article). I don't favor restricting that beyond WP:N (I think only WP:ORG does that), but I understand that might be debatable (thought I'd hope not). But I do think that's what we should be doing. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, that diff was old-after rattling their cage, the Percy Jackson crew cleaned it up. I think it's worth being clear that articles about works of fiction and elements of works of fiction should contain some real world coverage, because it provides something simple you can point new editors at when they offer up something that is exclusively in-world. This is why WP:ANIME and WP:MANGA use WP:BK as guidance - it discourages their fans from writing exclusively in-world offerings. I do think that just being written in-world is not of itself a reason to delete at the outset. I do think that if it cannot be cleaned up to include real world perspective, then it probably wants to go. Articles where you can't find real world coverage are probably about "the sixth guard on the left" type characters, which can be referenced only from the book/etc or from a fansite or fanwiki. There is a tendency from editors who are keen on a show/book to set out to create content here about everything to do with the film/series, and asking the "hey, has the rest of the world shown an interest" question does help to establish whether what you have is Dr Who or Star Trek - which have garnered massive attention, and where there are real world articles about the role of poor old "this is deck Three and its aaaaaargh! Jim.....", or whether it's something that's only available on download from some Korean torrent.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Hobbit, you can't establish notability through coverage that is not real-world, because a sources that summarise or regurgitate plot or other fictional elements are not independent of the primary source. There has to be commentary, criticism, context or analysis to establish notability and this only comes from real-world coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hummm, that's an interesting view. I didn't think a summary of something by a reliable source was thus not allowable. When the NYTs covers a bit of physics we use that as a source even though it is just summarizing the work. For purposes of notability the fact that the NYT covered it indicates that the topic has a degree of notability. Again, can anyone give an example of an otherwise reliable source that isn't acceptable because it lacks real-world context? If not, I continue to be unclear on the point of the real-world context in a notability guideline. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Hobbit, I am not saying that a plot summary isn't allowed in articles, but on its own, plot summary does not provide evidence of notability. When the New York Times publishes its bestseller list, a short plot summary is usually provided for each book. Such plot summaries are more akin to teriary sources, in that they don't contain sufficient commentary, context, criticism or analysis that a full scale book review would provide, and for this reason WP:BK says a reliable source should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. An example article would be The Magic of Krynn, a book which reached the NYT best seller list, but a full scale book review from a reliable source was never written about it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I strongly disagree with this. What we are looking for with notability is if the subject is notable. Even a pure plot summary in the NYT indicates that someone thinks the topic is important. Hobit (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Hobit, I'd agree with you here. They NYT, or Times Lit or whatever ARE reliable sources - if they aren't. we might as well pack up now. If they accept a review that is basically "read this book/watch this film" plus a plot sum, then that's still real world, still notable etc etc. An entry in "The Lord of the Rings Film Compendium" on the sixth elf on the left at the siege of Helm's Deep fails WP:RS, so there's no need to also invoke real world and notable. I don't want to make too many hoops here, just "has some surce that's *not* put out by the publisher/a fan archive/the Radio Times (the main listing mag in the UK - incase you're not UK based) thought fit to say something about the product." If it turns out that in ten years time everyone has forgotten Will Self, someone can AfD it then. Alternatively, if in ten years time Final Metal Card Captor Naruto turned out to be a hugely influential work - you can write the article then.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, just because a book is a bestseller, well written and published by the nicest people in the world, it does not mean it is notable unless it has been noted. Just being listed or mentioned in the New York Times is not the same as being noted in a proper book review. This is why real-world coverage is a necessity in order to establish notability. There is so much flap copy that is distributed in the form of press releases, that neither WP:BK nor WP:MOVIE accept it as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You're entering a world of strange hypotheticals here. Do you believe there to be actual best-selling books that are non-notable? Or are you talking about a hypothetical here? Because if the latter, I do not think that theoretical constructs of topics are really the best things to build policy based on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Campbell's bio? Anyone remember what it was called???? I suspect Russell Brand's "My Booky Wook" is going the same way. Sometimes, for no reason, something hits all the fashionista buttons, but gets forgettable faster than puffball skirts. However, I am OK with seeing an article about My Booky Wook today. I think we have to live with that. We shouldn't be trying to second guess tomorrow. Someone can always AfD it in five years time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Phil, I still don't get what you are shooting for with this real-world part in a notability guideline. I think I understand what Gavin thinks you are shooting for, but I'd like more details and (ideally) an example. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I do not think real-world should go in a notability guideline. I think, however, that articles that provide no real-world impact should be fixed, deleted, or merged into parent articles. This, to my mind, is a separate issue from notability, which we are increasingly construing primarily as a source-based issue. This is a content-based issue - i.e. not "how many sources are cited" but "what is the nature of the information included." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the largest class of published works in terms of sales is pulp fiction and its modern equivalent the Mass market paperback. Millions of books are sold each year that never attain any notability, mainly because the titles occupy a market segment in which there is a terrific churn of new titles - you have seen them in newsagents bookstands. The publishers in this segment produce large volumes of promotional material (known as "flap copy"), which is often reproduced by the likes of the New York Times bestsellers list to give its readers some idea of what is being sold. Mills & Boon type romance novels come to mind. What distinguishes flap copy from a decent review in the world of fiction is the absence of real-world coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[EC, in response to Phil] OK, sorry I guess you did say that before, I just misunderstood. I'd propose removing the real world part from these notability guidelines then. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Phil, notability is a both a content and style issue. A work or element of fiction may be a brilliant creation, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article that meets Wikipedia's content and style policies. If a topic is not the subject of real-world coverage, then it is likely to fail one or more of these policies. For instance, it is not possible to establish verifiable evidence that a topic is notable from content that is not real-world, because its source is not independent of the primary work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really believe that such a conclusion is obvious given the other guidelines and policies, why do we need to restate it here? (I think the independence thing is in effect OR on your part, but let's assume you are right for a minute). Hobit (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability has impact on content and style, but in the end, an topic's notability is judged based on the topic and the sources much more than the content of the article. There may be a relationship between notability and real-world significance, but one can be dealt with absent the other. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the biggest mistake this guideline has made until now. Many editors think that a character is notable if has been featured in the plot of more than book; some editors think that a film is notable because a plot summary has been reproduced in New York Times film listing. Yet both SNG's for these subject area say that notability can't be confered by these sources. I think we need to realise that real-world coverage is a key requirement for fictional topics - its already understood elsewhere. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And I agree - but real-world coverage can (and should) be judged on *content* not on sourcing. And we have more consensus on content than sourcing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I seem to remember that all content in Wikipedia has to be sourced, so I have no idea what you are on about. The key characteristics of fiction in terms of this guideline is that it can be the subject of

1. content that from sources that describe it as it exists in the Real World in which it is embedded; or by
2. content from sources that describe it in terms of the fantasy world which it portrays.

Since the primary frame of reference for Wikipedia is the real world, a fictional topic must be the subject of real-world coverage for a topic to be the subject of a standalone article that meets Wikipedia's content and style policies. If an article is comprised of purely of plot summary, or coverage that is written from a purely in universe perspective, then it fails WP:V because the secondary or tertiary source is not independent of the primary work. For example, this version of the article Kender, contained virtually no content that described these fictional characters from a real-world perspective, until it was cleaned and now the article Kender is the subject of real-world coverage. Perhaps if we think of some wording that explains this idea better than my first attempt, maybe will be reading from the same page so to speak. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Going round in circles Part II

Reading the discussion so far, I think we're getting caught out by our own shorthand, and using the same words to mean more than one thing. This is a problem that besets organisations that work by consensus (just look and the Church of England), they tend do avoid direct language in an effort to garner support from all sides. Often it works well, but sometimes it leads to going round in circles.

The problem word here is 'real world'. Articles should be written from a real world perspective, like this (although perhaps in better English) Fullmetal Alchemist, not like this [4] (I've put a diff up in case the article gets binned in the next hour). I don't think anyone is arguing about this - and the Manga and Anime projects demonstrate that its not impossible to do it.

However, I don't think it's necessary to insist that secondary sources write from a 'real world' perspective (and thanks Hobit for your persistence - made me think about this). If the source is a reliable source, then what it says shouldn't have a second hoop to jump through. The reviewer from the Times Literary Supplement is a reliable source, and even if most of what he writes is a plot summary, it is from the real world perspective of a book review. He may not provide enough evidence that one of the characters is notable, but that's not because what he wrote is not real world, it is because he may not have said anything notable about the character.

The issue is about reliability of source, not real world. Listings mags that list every episode, or that exist only to serve up a diet of potted soap are not reliable sources for notability, because they have nothing to say about notability, they list everything. Lists of bestselling books only tell you what sold. The Star Trek Compendium sets out to list every character that every appeared in Star Trek. Again it offers nothing about whether the character is notable, just that it appeared in the show.

This is my summary of what we are trying to say.

• Write the article from a real world perspective, not an in-world perspective. Fiction articles need a good summary of their subject - plot, description of characters etc - but they also need information about why the subject is notable.
• Include information from reliable secondary sources to establish the notability of the subject. Bear in mind that listings magazines, publishers' blurbs, advertising and fan-generated resources are unlikely to be good sources for this purpose as they are either trying to sell the product, or else they list everything. Reviews in the Press, and print and online review magazines are the most likely to generate evidence of notability.

We now return you to your scheduled service.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Functionally, yeah. The discussion of late seems to be "How much can you violate WP:WAF before someone takes an axe to your article?". Nobody's trying to say WAF is a bad guideline. It's more about how WP:BOLD you can be about taking down an WP:IMPERFECT article. Nifboy (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the first of the five pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. By some interpretations, that means that "listings mags that list every episode" might make articles qualify for inclusion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think where both listing mags and fanwikis have a use is in providing sufficient information to write an article. The source(s) that demonstrate notability may be non-trivial, but they may still not contain all the information needed to create an article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add the above as a third point.

• Remember that the content of articles must be verifiable. Listings magazines, publisher's output and fan resources can be useful in verifying plot and detail, and comments by the author/director etc can and should be used if they add to the content. Bear in mind that any resource must be reliable, and that any content can be challenged by the community. For this reason it is better to avoid including content from fan resources that speculate on plot issues or other details in an exclusively in-world way.

On that last note - I remember once reading a copy of an exchange between the creator of Babylon 5 and a fan, in which the fan asked why the heroine had been the last of three protagonists to enter the arena. The fan wanted confirmation of which in-depth explanation of in-world protocols currently being warred about was the right one. JMS said something along the lines of 'dramatic tension.' Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your view that the same words can mean more than one thing, but as regards the analogy with the Church of England, I can't say that I understand - my knowledge of ecclesiastical matters is very thin. With regards to your suggested wording, it may contain some conflicts with WP:FICT objective to provide inclusion criteria based on reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source. The reason is that, once notability of topic is established, it is left open to contributors to add whatever type of coverage to an articles within limits set by Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. However, newspaper listings, magazines, publisher's output and fan resources do not provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Spinoffs / "real world"

Spinoffs are not discouraged as the suggested guideline implies. They're an active part of WP:SUMMARY. We could stick everything in a single article, but splitting articles improves readability. Any discussion on spinoffs shouldn't focus on the subject alone, but also on the readability of the topic as a whole.

The importance of "real world coverage" is also overblown. Reliable sources often discuss fictional works at length in relation to just that fictional world. Since such coverage meets WP:RS and WP:V, putting an additional restriction on it isn't needed. Works of fiction meet notability criteria set forth in WP:NF WP:BK and related articles and any subtopics should follow along the same line. There is no need for separate criteria. Just plain common sense. We need to be accurate and comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Spinoffs are perfectly acceptable, provided that the subject matter of the spinoff article is notable - other wise it is better to avoid splitting articles: the section Derivative articles makes this clear. As regards the need for real world coverage, I think we are in agreement, since to discuss fictional works at length in relation to just that fictional world is what commentary, criticism, context and analysis of the work is all about. Where I might disagree with you is where the coverage is just a summary without discussion. Such summaries do not confer any notability, as WP:BK and WP:MOVIE make clear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

challenge assertion of "general concensus"

this line:

"It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment"

could someone please indicate when wikipedia reached a "general concensus' on that point? because i seem to have missed it...

if we don't allow logical sub-articles for a subject, then the main article pages are going to get massively bloated

from what i've seen in practice on wikipedia, it is both acceptable & standard practice to create logical sub-topic articles, rather than jam everything onto one page, or leave things out.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• It does kind of contradict guidance at WP:DETAIL. The general consensus is that articles aren't split ad nauseum or ad infinitum, but logically and based on the amount of informatiom there is to summarise. The general consensus is that we split when the consensus is to split. A lot of people like to use the GNG as a touchstone for when to split, but there are cases when a consensus will emerge that a split is acceptable without a need to meet the GNG. The fact that the latter happens is what is causing us issues in generating a consensus on wording for this guidance. SOme people refuse to believe the latter can happen, some people refuse to accept the latter should happen, and some people refuse to accept that such happenings should not be limited in any way. Basically, we have a square peg and a round hole. Nobody knows if we need a new peg or a new hole. Hiding T 13:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the guideline is based on reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments. We still seem to prefer to have the articles look like encyclopedia articles look like conventionally, not as replies at answers.com or results of Wolfram alpha. Now, this may not be the way to go in the future--and in fact i would argue we should go in the direction of atomization with multiple ways of viewing and merging content, but that is probably a project for Wikipedia 2.0, or whatever it may be called when we do it 5 or 6 years from now. At present, people expect things from us, and one of the things they expects are articles that look like encyclopedia articles. Some may be short, some may be long, but there is some coherency and organization. Simultaneously, the difficulty of transmitting and reading long files prevents us from using the very long multi-part older encyclopedia articles. So its a balance, and requires editorial judgement and some degree of uniformity. A middle way is usually best, since there can be no firm guidelines--topics differ, and so do readers. DGG (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Lx 121, no one is saying you can't create new articles, it says avoid spliting articles if the new article cannot meet inclusion criteria for topics about fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's something we need to discuss. We should be splitting out articles to some point. And yes, finding reliable sources for each part is a reasonable line to need to cross before we spin out (I'm not sure it's the right one, but...). But I _really_ want something that says that those sources don't need to be independent of the larger work (whatever that means). I see that argument all the time. Something like "sure there are 100 sources on this character, but even the ones that cover him in 3 pages are covering him as part of the larger work and so aren't useful for notability". I really want to nail that down. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Independent sourcing is a requirement of WP:V, which says that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This is why this guideline cannot support "logical sub-topic articles" - there needs to be verifiable evidence that a topic is notable, and therefore able to meet Wikipedia content policies, in order to get its own standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You've confused article subjects and topics. I suggest you go look at Wikipedia:Featured topics to discover that the concept "topic" on Wikipedia refers to something which is covered by a series or group of inter-related articles. Your statement bears no relation to current Wikipedia practises, and should therefore be discounted. Hiding T 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find I am using the term topic as it is commonly used in WP:V and WP:N. I can't vouch for how the term is used at Wikipedia:Featured topics, but since it is neither a policy nor a guideline, the term topic and article may have been used in a different context. As regards my last statement, I think you will find it is "bang on the money". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find I wrote both those instances. We can carry this on all day, but where does it get us, another diversion? Hiding T 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. I think the term 'coverage as part of the larger work' is misleading shorthand. What it means is 'this character is only mentioned in "The Star Trek Compendium" or at "Outpost Gallifrey" - ie the character or element is only mentioned in a source or sources whose purpose is to contain encyclopaedic coverage of the book/show. Sheppey's book about what inspired and influenced Tolkien to create Middle-Earth contains in depth references to several of the characters in LOTR. It would be foolish to argue that those references are only 'coverage as part of a larger work'. With reviews, a short review that only lists the major characters is only evidence that this probably is a major character - a minimum standard if you like. A long review that talks about the character as well as the book should be capable of demonstrating notability for both the book and the character. Otherwise we are creating impossible hoops for ourselves.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a real problem with that logic, though. I mean, it seems to me that it would be equivalent to saying that a literature review section of an academic paper is not a valid source for notability, because it's just a list of previous publications on a topic. Which, while true, misses the point. When we say notability is not inherited (a problematic statement to begin with), we mean that we do not make the part-whole connection ourselves. But I do not take it to mean that we are denying the argument "this subject is of such significance that multiple secondary sources have covered it aspect-by-aspect." And it's a huge change to our policy to say that this is a rule. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be missing Elen's point - a tertiary source is not evidence of notability, even if it is published by the toprank academics in their field. Nor is mention in secondary source for the same reason. If a topic is notable, it is because the sources are focused on a particular fictional work or character itself, not as part of a group, database or dictionary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the examples Elen gave are tertiary sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was intending as examples the kind of source that sets out to list all there is to know about a subject - which I was taking as a tertiary source. I don't want to set out as many hoops as Gavin, and in many ways I think we do better to set this stuff in direct language, as we don't have get our tings in a twost otherwise.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Quote from Gavin- "If a topic is notable, it is because the sources are focused on a particular fictional work or character itself, not as part of a group, database or dictionary."

I disagree with the bolded statement. As part of a group, if they are singling out some of the characters, that shows notability that they talk about those characters above others. They do not need to be singled out and talked about specifically by multiple people. Talking about them in a group, as long as through is not so broad as to include a lot of characters such as talking about all the supporting characters in a work with 20 supporting characters. FE: A reviewer who talks about two protagonist in the same article because they work together and have almost every notable scene together constitues a group, but it also shows notability of those two characters.陣内_Jinnai 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In which case, maybe the two characters are notable as a pair, duo or partnership. A classic example are the mythical twins, Castor and Pollux. Neither is notable by themselves - all the evidence shows they are always commented upon together. Not every member of a notable group is itself notable as there must be verifiable evidence that each element stands on its own feet in terms of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree here - it seems like you just want the GNG, which has been shown not to work with regard to fiction. Consensus is unclear, but it is clear then that enough people disagree with the GNG for determining notability of fictional elements. I will give you that if all the time they are commented as a pair or whatever, then that's fine. However often commentators will comment that a few characters, naming each, are special in some way, or comparing them to other characters outside the work. Very rarely is a character, or duo, given their own article or even paragraph. That is as much as most are going to get and that is what most character article real-world info will be based upon.陣内_Jinnai 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where has WP:GNG been shown not to work with fiction? And what would be the alternative inclusion criteria? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly with the requirement of having cirtical independant analysis on characters. In One Piece the one character from the series Monkey D. Luffy who kept his page was partly on "sheer recognizability" as the primary protagonist to the best-selling manga and anime in the world, despite the weak real-world information.

In that respect, that's where the GNG fails. Most characters who get comments, even protagonist, will not have much direct commentary on them. At most it will be limited to one liners or in comparisons with larger group. However, often many reviewers will note those characters, but the level of notation could qualify as "trivial" being a "one liner". However there might still numerous occasions where that's the kind of level they get, usually because they come in the form of DVD, book or episode commentaries. Characters hardly ever get their own commentaries.陣内_Jinnai 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But don't you get it, that is just the point. If there is no direct commentary, how do you write an article that addresses the article's subject matter? synthesis? I think you have to recognise that there comes a point where articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in each derivative article, otherwise you end up with little more than a fictography written from an in universe perspective. I think you might be forgetting that it is Wikipedia mission to inform, rather than immerse. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if a reviewer says X, Y and Z are like A (A being something pertaining to the real-world or another unrelated work) and they to say X is like A in an article about themselves if other reviewers say X and Z are, but not Y or X and Y or X, W and T are. Clearly in that lineup, X is talked about and could be commented upon in their own article. It's not synthesis because you don't take those sources and combine them to reach a new conclusion. You simply take them and state them as a facts in each case. Syshestis is the drawing of a conclusion within an article's text, not its existence.陣内_Jinnai 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I am following you, as the examples you are providing are very abstract. Are you saying that a topic can be notable, even if it is not the subject of substantial real-world coverage? Please give some example articles to back up your arguements. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See my proposal at the bottom for part of reasoning why. Here i was specifically refering to different characters who might have commentary with different pairings, but one out of them always stands out as being in there.陣内_Jinnai 09:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

multitude of minor direct references

The current version is unlikely to pass if we cannot find a way to reconcile the problems with the GNG and what actually occurs in reality, which is that the GNG is used as just a basic guideline for fictional elements specifically in regard to characters and episodes. I believe that part of this problem stems from "trivial" references and the fact most references would qualify as "trivial" being one line, sometimes a short paragraph, inside a larger body of work about a DVD, book, etc. Most characters will never see indivisualized commentary by reviewers on their character. Same with episodes and yet, if we require that level of commentary for a split then we are setting ourselves purposefully for WP:BATTLEGROUND because that has been shown time and again to be the case. We have 2 arbcoms and a previously failed proposal to show that too narrow (ie the GNG or stricter) or too broad (almost anything goes) is not going to cut it.

Thus I come to the proposal that for an element that recieved a multitude of minor, but direct, commentary on their element by different independant reliable sources would qualify as enough to meet the criteria. A multitude is far larger than the amount of more signifigant entries. Exact numbers should not be clarrified, but suffice it to say it is substantially more than would be a minimum required for the GNG.陣内_Jinnai 09:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jinnai|, I agree with your suggestion but think it's not limited to fiction, e.g. video game genres have a similar problem, as the vast majority of sources are reviews of individual games and say things like "game X is typical / untypical of genre G in features A, B, ..." - I was involved in a debate about the notability of 4X, which is now an FA. So I think any clarification should be at WP:GNG.

IMO WP:GNG's "address the subject directly in detail" is excessive, as some subjects are important but largely taken for granted by most sources. However "no original research is needed to extract the content" is on target.

You'll have to be clearer about the distiction between a really trivial comment and a usable in-passing comment, e.g "it must clearly present information about the characteristics and / or importance of the article's subject, not just a mention that the subject exists. It must be possible to extract this information without use of original research." --Philcha (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Philcha: WP:OR says that "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments". However, I do acknowledge that there is a great deal of disagreement about the notability a fictional character if a reliable source "mentions" a character, especially if is mentioned more than once.
So the question is, do a multitude of minor direct references provide evidence of notability? In answer to Jinnai, it is normal for reliable secondary sources to mention fictional characters to provide some sort of context about a work of fiction, so I am not sure how a reference can be minor and direct. For a character to be independently notable, it would have to be the subject of 'significant coverage' from a least one source, i.e. coverage in which the sources address the subject directly and in detail, without original research to extract the content. Many editors, desperate to provide evidence of notability, try to argue that a topic is notable if it gets a trivial mention in one or more reviews. This approach is not accepted by either WP:BK or WP:MOVIE which striclty disallow trivial coverage as evidence of notability. Trivial coverage from a multitude of minor direct references is a classic indicator that an article is a content fork from a more notable topic which is the subject of coverage in which is addressed directly in detail, such as the work of fiction itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the difference between minor and trivial would be what I call the "because reason" in which a reason is given that more than a repeat of what was said before the because. FE: "Naruto is the best character in the Naruto manga because he's cool." is not giving context, however "Naruto is the best character in the Naruto manga because the hardships he tries to befriend everyone." gives at least some minor commentary as to why.

For a character to be independently notable, it would have to be the subject of 'significant coverage' from a least one source, i.e. coverage in which the sources address the subject directly and in detail, without original research to extract the content. - this is the problem I see, mostly the in detail and signifigant part because that's really setting up for WP:BATTLEGROUND because most characters won't ever get that level of coverage and yet are clearly notable, unless your willing to allow for creator commentary to be used for this part. Monkey D. Luffy has not and probably never will, or atleast not for the forseeable future.陣内_Jinnai 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a contentious issue, but since Wikipedia works by a process of peer review and consensus, I am confident that it will not lead to a battleground. The problem is, if we ignore this issue, conflict will arise over those articles which showcase genuinely notable topics being overshadowed by content forks, which is the biggest problem faced in the whole subject area of fiction covered by Wikipedia. If editors were less concerned about creating a new topic for every character, and instead worked together to develop articles about notable topics, this would represent a real victory for consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that coming to consensus and working on improving it is best. However, I think the requirement for someone indpendant to directly give detailed analysis of a character or episode is going against community standards. Remember we do not set policy from above and force others to comply with it, we look at trends and base policy on the overall consensus. In this regard, the current WP:FICT seems to be ignoring that and saying that only the GNG should be used, or more stricter notability guidelines when there is substantial disagrreement. My proposal would be to make a very limited exception to that rule on the basis of what is actually happening and does not contradict any of our policies like WP:V or WP:OR.

Furthermore, I'm also willing to say that if you still think a RS giving detailed anaylisis is required, it should atleast in this case be allowed to use sources related to, but not of, the work itself.陣内_Jinnai 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how independent sourcing goes against community standards - verifibility by independent sources is a basic Wikipedia policy. I don't think we can make any exception, otherwise there would be no restrictions on the creation of multiple content forks, such as Terminator (character concept), Terminator (character) and Terminator (franchise), which goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia consensus. Without the inclusion criteria that require substantial real-world coverage from independent sources, it is impossible run an encyclopeida which is self-regulated, otherwise Wikipedia would have to be controlled by an editorial board for permission to create articles in order to resolve disputes about content forking. If you can think of an alternative way to get around this issue, that might help, but I cannot think of one myself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I totally agree about "substantial real-world coverage from independent sources". However I think your "confident that it will not lead to a battleground" ( 23:11, 27 May 2009) was over-optimistic - see Talk:4X/Archive 1. That's why I support Jinnai's proposal with a little clarification, but think it should be a modification of the WP:GNG. --Philcha (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. Are you proposing an exemption from verifiablity for fictional topics? My understanding is that notability is not inherited because notability requires verifiable evidence for each character, which must stand on its own feet in terms of substantial coverage.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no and will not an exemption from verifiablity for anything.

Jinnai proposed an amendment which I know from experience would be useful outside fiction, and I suggested the amendment should be applied to WP:GNG. I also added what I hoped would clarify what sort of comment in a source would qualify. (09:57, 27 May 2009)

Content forking is a separate issue that has nothing to do with this - it is possible to create a content fork from sources that discuss the topic in considerable detail. In fact I'm not sure there is a black-and-white definition of content forking. Some content forks are plainly attempts at POV-pushing. OTOH in some subjects what may look like content forks may just be different ways of arranging the same content in order to focus on different aspects, e.g. "King X" (mainly chronological) and "King X's foreign policy" or a section of a larger article on the foreign policy of the country concerned. --Philcha (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of content forking is a seperate issue. Trying to hide that under the guise of this, or any other guideline is wrong. Content forking will occur no matter what we do. Best we can do is point it out and merge back when we see it.

Furthermore, just because it's not from a independent secondary source, does not make it non-verifiable. Primary and related material is verifiable. Primary sources, ie the work itself, do not denote notability, although they can suggest it (FE: primary protagonist is more likely to be notable). Your right, notability is, at least according to Wikipedia (although I somewhat disagree) not inherited, however, notability can be shown.

As for WP:NRVE goes. my point is we should either seek to alter the GNG or invoke the last part of the 1st pragraph (bolding - my emphasis):

Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

We have according to that, the ability do define "other factors" and this is where I say that WP:FICT should define those factors that would not be devisive and lead to more battlegrounds and probably (based on past) another Arbcom, ala GNG as it stands now or stricter or so week its pointless. My proposal does not severly wealen it. It just allows for another alterate method, but one that still requires secondary sources to directly talk about the element.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about what you ares saying. Firstly lets throw out the arguement "Just because it's not from a independent secondary source, does not make it non-verifiable". Please don't forget that WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
Secondly, lets also dismiss the arguement that "Content forking is a separate issue that has nothing to do with this". If there are no reliable, third-party sources that address the topic directly and in detail, then that topic is a content fork from one that is.
The bottom line is, we can't use WP:FICT to construct exemptions for fictional topics from either WP:V or WP:NPOV just because you think these policies are "devisive and lead to more battlegrounds". We need to stay within the framework of Wikipedia's content and style policies, so that we don't have to refer editorial decisions to an editorial board. These policies exist to enable us to make these decisions for ourselves, and we create articles without verifiable evidence of their notability, otherwise they will fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept either viewpoint in the least: we should reject the entire line of thinking: heres why:

Coming back here after a week away, i not surprisingly find we've gotten nowhere at all. There is a basic divided between people who thing that the evidence of coverage in outside sources is what makes fictional elements notable, and those who go by the intrinsic notability of the fictional elements themselves .How what we settle it?. Let me add another factor: suppose we could find that there were abundant references discussing even the most minor character on the most minor show. Supposed this were a field like the classics , where all this is covered exhaustively by popular and scholarly works, and there is no character with a book interpreting his role, no episode without an article explaining the significance. I don;'t think this is idle, I think it will happen with a further googlization of the worlds resources. Hypothetically where would this leave us. For those like myself who think certain fiction topics notable by their roles in notable fiction, with no more ado being necessary bout sources than needed for verifiability, this does not change things in the slightest. The important characters continue to justify articles, the unimportant ones do not, even if it would be possible to find enough to say for us to write one. But my opponents! Do they now admit the articles on everything no matter how trivial for which there is good sourcing, and thus see a great deal more fiction articles than they would want to by the inner logic of their position--or my any other standard than this one. That's where they'd be if they really thought that 2rs=n if this field, if they really mean it. More likely , they do not really deeply mean it, but rather hopeing or knowing that such sources cannot presently be easily found for many fictional topics, they use this to keep them out, and their real concern is not maintaing the principal pf sourcing, but of finding some way top decrease the content of fiction articles. What do I expect them to do:L I expect them to do what they do now when we do find sources: to start to quibble about the sources significance, its age, its triviality , its authorship, its publication, its relevance, its availability, and all the other miscellaneous special pleading that can be used to impeach inconvenient sources.

They ask for source thinking not to get them; when they get them they deny them; when they are forfed to admit then, they finally say that it is none the less not important enough for an article because of other arbitrary requirements. But we make the rules here, and we can make them to get what we want, and we ought o be honest about it. It;s time this discussion left the GNG unmentioned, and discussed just what we want to have in articles. If the GNG gets in the way, we need only declare it inapplicable. We make the rules. There's no secret model making rules that we have to follow There is no cabel saying you have to have this and that. We can decide with very broad limits that some things we want, and others we do not want, . We get to decide what rules we want to follow. I'm tired of people pretending: yes I'm a fan, yes i;d like to have a article on this, but we just don't have the sources to justify it. If you think we should have an article on it and the encyclopedia would benefit, there is a rule to use in these cases to cut through the details: IAR, if a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it. There may be some difficulty in deciding what we do want, and we will probably have to compromise here g to get a situation we can all accept, though none of us would have it as first choice. But this need not be constrained by any preexisting dogmatic rules. This is a different sort of project, we make our own rules, and we should make then to accomplish our desired ends, We need no revolution to overturn restrictive authority, weve accomplished that much years ago, We are free of teachers and publishers telling us what we ought to do, or what is a worthy subject,. We can choose for ourselves, and we should use wisely this liberty. DGG (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that "There is no cabel saying you have to have this and that", and that is because Wikipedia has established content and style policies which have already been agreed upon by consensus that make a cabal of editors to regulate articles unncessary.
When you say "There may be some difficulty in deciding what we do want", I think the difficult stems from trying to avoid, evade or just ignore these policies. As I have said before, these polices are not there to act as a set arbitrary restrictions; they exist so that any editor can create or contribute to an article without the need to obtain permission from such a cabal. If Jinnai or DGG are proposing exempt fictional topics from policy, then do so clearly and honestly in a formal proposal, so we can evaluate its merits. However, simply saying that we should water down WP:FICT just because you think it is too restrictive, without setting out an alternative, is disingenuous and not constructive to building consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DGG's example of "the classics, where all this is covered exhaustively by popular and scholarly works" may have shown up a major weakness in WP:GNG. For example IIRC Briseis in the Iliad is just a pretext for the dispute between Achilles and Agamemon - her only speaking parts are a couple of short laments about how she keeps losing her men in battle. Nevertheless it's easy to find scholarly writings that provide "significant coverage" of this non-entity, for example Homeric variations on a lament by Briseis is a whole book about her, that "examines the paradigmatic aspects of Briseis - that is, the things that unite her with all other mortal women of the Iliad" - the rest of whom, IIRC, have as little impact on the plot, e.g. Helen was seduced 10 years before the events of the Iliad and caused a war, and that's it. This book and similar writings say much more about the "publish or perish" ethos of academia than about the importance of the character. I'm sure our Shakespeare experts can identify similarly insignificant characters on whom trees have been wasted. If I thought I were going to be around to collect, I'd bet that in 100 years' time there will be enough scholarly literature to satisfy WP:GNG about Colin Creevey, a very minor character in a couple of the Harry Potter books.

Conversely, as I've already described in the case of 4X, the current wording of WP:GNG makes it difficult for WP to cover contemporary topics about which there is little incentive to publish, or which, thanks to the wonders of modern communications, become so rapidly understood and accepted that writers seldom find it necessary to analyse them in detail.

I suggest Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) would be a good place to develop better criteria for inclusion / exclusion / merge in general. While I'm no deletionist or exclusionist, I agree we need to draw a line somewhere. A possible starting point would be to compare various minor characters and see on what grounds we'd include some as full articles, delete others and merge the rest. For example, why should Briseis have her own article, while Colin Creevey, who actually does something, is just an entry in a "list of characters" article? Then we can see how well the criteria we develop apply more generally, i.e. we should raise the issues at WT:GNG. --Philcha (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The arguement that you making runs contrary to the principal that notability is not inherited. Firstly, DGG's statement that "the classics, where all this is covered exhaustively by popular and scholarly works" is misleading. The example you have provided surely demonstrates this: if Briseis is just a pretext for the dispute between Achilles and Agamemon, then maybe it is the dispute that is notable, and not the character? Or is she notable because her character is the basis for Shakespeare's Cressida? The article does not make this clear, because no secondary source is cited. There are many well known characters that fall into the same category: you might think that they are notable, but it may turn out there is no evidence to support this view. Instead, it might be that the scene that character appears in is notable, rather than the character (an example of The Gravediggers comes to mind, who appear briefly in the notable scene before Hamelet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy).
If a line is to be drawn as to which fictional characters get their own article, we can only rely on verifable evidence from independent sources to make judgement, not faux notability based on arbitrary association or personal opinion. Personally, I would much prefer to rely on a set of relatively objective inclusion criteria, rather than having to ask DGG for his opion as whether or not I may create an article about a fictional topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Notability is not inherited" has little to do with it - I can find enough wP:RS which say quite a lot about Briseis, so according to WP:GNG she's notable. However in the Iliad, as you say, the dispute she causes is much more imprtant than the character - so WP:GNG's "significant coverage" criterion appears to miss the target. --Philcha (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've perhaps got the crux of it here. Unless a work reaches such venerability that it accrues scholarly comment - or in the real world, unless it becomes a set text for some course or other - there just won't be that depth of secondary references out there. Equally, with the scholarly thing, there are likely to be in-depth secondary references on complete nonentities. I really do think that the only thing you can ask for is that the character (element, mcguffin etc) is *consistently* mentioned in sources that do not set out to list all the characters in the work. That way there is a reasonable assumption that it is a key character.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple mentions that are trivial might infer a topic is notable, but it is still not proven. In any case, trivial coverage does not provide sufficient coverage to write a stub that would pass WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For example, if you had 30 scholars saying that "Briseis is a character from the Iliad", all you would have is one sentence and 30 footnotes. Come on guys, surely you can see this approach leads nowhere.
An analogy for this situation is as follows: if there is Circumstantial evidence that a topic is notable, then Corroborating evidence from an Expert witness will be needed to back up this assertion. You can't rely on trivial coverage/circumstantial evidence alone, no matter how many sources it comes from. At some point, significant real-world coverage that address the subject directly in detail is required as evidence of notabilty. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 2 available sources != article creation. I think more attention needs to be payed to what qualifies as "significant" in the case of sources for fictional topics. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we split this discussion, since we now appear to have:

• The original proposition that "an element that received a multitude of minor, but direct, commentary on their element by different independant reliable sources would qualify".
• The issue arising out of DGG's post (08:51, 29 May 2009) and mine (10:28, 29 May 2009), about whether relatively insignificant elements (characters, etc.) should have their own articles just because e.g. scholars have run out of anything else to write about. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An overarching response: this one of the reasons that I favor being strict about the concept that an article must rely on independent sources: if you can accumulate a multitude of minor references that allow you to assemble an article where the information derived from those references outweighs the plot summary derived from a primary source, I'm happy. If the material accumulated from those multitude of minor references can't outweigh the plot summary, then that set of references is too minor. Applying a reliance test makes it possible to judge the sum total of information, and not argue about whether an individual set of two sentences is or is not trivial in a given context.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, when have I ever said I want to totally and completely disregard policy as it applies to fiction. When? Show me? I want you to point out where I think somehow fiction is so important we can ignore everything. I bet you won't find it, because it doesn't exist. I have said we need independant secondary sources as WP:V says, but WP:V along with WP:PRIMARY states statements of fact can be made with primary source. PRIMARY even goes so far as to give an example using a novel! Furthermore WP:WAF says that any good article on fiction relies in part on the primary work. My whole point in this is that perhaps we should not rely on "signifigant" coverage from 1 source but minor (not trivial) coverage from a multitude of sources. That's it. It's a legitimate way. I understand you personally don't accept it, but to be frank, WP:N is not policy, only WP:V is. If we have to, we can ignore WP:N, but there needs to be a reason. My reasoning is based on hard evidence - the past. 2 arbcoms, a failed attempt a proposal and all with signifigant number of people, people more dedicated to improving that section of Wikipedia than most, who disagree with the guidelines on WP:N. Furthermore to back me up, I have the recent RFC on WP:N which, while it was kept, was noted that that their were serious contentious issues that needed to be delt with. It was kept largely because people agreed on the idea of notability, not on how wikipedia handles it.陣内_Jinnai 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of classics, I think that is what we were trying to do with the "importance within the work" clause, except that we had already stated that the GNG trumps that. Yes another reason WP:N is good in theory, but fails epically in practice when it comes to fiction. Remember WP:N was never written to ecompasss fiction except maybe as an afterthought. It has been showing it isn't as grand and lofty as those who hold it up as a paradign of virtue for Wikipedia when it comes to things that are completely foreign to what its creation concept entrailed.陣内_Jinnai 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "important within the work" phrase may be an idea whose time has come - a query at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Astronomy_GAs may be similar, let's see how it develops.

Elen of the Roads's "is *consistently* mentioned in sources that do not set out to list all the characters in the work" (13:22, 29 May 2009 ) looks like a good start since, mutatis mutandis, it would apply equally well to objects in star catalogues. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Should_insignificant_subjects_be_considered_notable.3F, and suggest that:

• Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Should_insignificant_subjects_be_considered_notable.3F should become the central disussion for the "well-sourced minor characters" issue, as it has wider applications.
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#multitude_of_minor_direct_references should return to its original subject, Jinnai's suggestion "for an element that received a multitude of minor, but direct, commentary on their element by different independant reliable sources would qualify as enough to meet the criteria". --Philcha (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Kww, in order to discuss any work of fiction, it is normal to mention the plot, characters and other in universe details to provide some sort of context. This applies not just to Wikipedia articles, but to reliable secondary sources as well. The point of disagreement in all the debates I have been in about a fictional character relates to just this: if a reliable source "mentions" a character, is that evidence of notability? The answer is a notable topic does not confer notability on another by association, which is another way of saying notability is not inherited.
I am sympathetic to Kww stance, because it is very hard to find 'significant coverage' about all but the most well-known characters. However, having seen some articles that are based on coverage that is less than significant (e.g. Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons), quality of coverage is definetly an issue, and I don't see how Kww's stance could benefit the coverage of fictional topics at all.
For a character to be notable, it would have to be the subject of 'significant coverage', i.e. coverage in which the sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Some editors, desperate to provide evidence of notability, take the same line as Kww by arguing along the lines that a topic is notable if it gets a mention. If that was the case, then virtually every topic would be notable by association. Its an approach that will not work, because a source that only mentions a character such as a Mimic is no better than a telephone directory - it just shows that the topic exists, without providing any commentary, criticism, context or analysis. I feel that this approach is a dead end.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking beyond notability

(Above section has got so long that I've put in a somewhat arbitrary split Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)) This entire situation is a case where we should be thinking beyond notability and consider the ultimate article quality. If the element is so minor or insignificant that there's a handle of mentions of the character though nothing substansive, even you use the primary source to write a minimal statement about the in-universe aspects, you are going to end up with a very short article that likely can never be improved beyond a couple paragraphs, and if it is, it is likely because someone has expanding the in-universe details beyond what is appropriate. Minor elements with minimal information to discuss about this should be mentioned in WP but not in their own article, but instead grouped into the larger topic; the real-world references can still be listed, a concise in-universe description can be given, but this helps prevent little articles from being created (another reason not to spinout content) and to help establish these elements in context of the larger topic. --MASEM (t) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but how do you control this. The humongous argument about plot summary suggests that consensus about what is over expansion may be hard to come by.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that stuff like creator commentary would, according to Gavin and others like him, be relevant, but not define notability. You could create a decent article with that, small plot section using primary sources and minor, but direct completely independent secondary sources.陣内_Jinnai 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to that approach because Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. In any case, this approach is forbidden by WP:MOVIE and WP:BK, which say that a topic has to be the subject of more than flap copy to merit its own standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, what do you understand by the policy WP:IAR, and can you contextualise that with regards your statement "this approach is forbidden by". I'm also curious to discover your view on the consensus position that policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, which again conflicts with any position that our policies "forbid". I ask this because it would probably allow conversations and discussions to follow a more fruitful path if we avoid such confrontational language. Hiding T 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal editing world, every editor would write about fiction from the top-down: they only write an article about the work, possibly considering split offs of lists of characters, episodes, awards, and other aspects should the article get too large, and never consider splitting off an individual aspect until it is clear that aspect can be discussed in its own context without relying too heavily on the original work. The barriers to doing this are the fact there are thousands of existing character and episode articles from WP's past before we began to scrutinize fiction coverage, and that there are editors that either do not see the value of the top-down approach (putting too much weight on NOTPAPER), willfully ignore it, or write by example, using the thousands of existing articles as a basis of example. Any FICT that attempts to make a strong statement and does not consider the difference between existing articles and new ones is going to be difficult to have consensus because editors are going to adamant about the older articles. We should be more aggressive to insuring good standalone articles for new works, but only be encouraging for any existing articles while they take time to improve, but at the same time we can't let them stay forever without improvement. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::::I do wish participants in this discussion would distinguish between policies and guidelines. Adherence to policies is mandatory, while guidelines are just guidelines and can be over-ridden by policies, including WP:IAR. Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, and therefore not one of the Ten Commandments.

It might be helpful to see what other good encyclopedias do with minor characters. Here's a start:

• Encarta's entry for Briseis is a redirect. Britannica has no independent article on her in "mergers" her into "Achilles" - can't give a URL for search results as they are presented via AJAX. OTOH my ancient copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary and recent copy of the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature both have stubs. Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman mythology (p. 68) has a short article titled "Briseis" but in fact about the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon. Isbell's edition of Ovid's Heroides (pp. 19ff) describes the Briseis of the Iliad as "litte more than a pivot ..."; Isbell comments that Ovid's Briseis, despite the greater emotional depth of Ovid's treatment, "remains no more than an item of exchange between two very powerful men." Based on Isbell's description I suggest Briseis the person should be a DAB page linking to articles about the Iliad and Ovid's Heroides. --Philcha (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. Have you read WP:PAG recently? It contains instructions that ignoring either is a very bad idea. Never mind, let's ignore RS. It's just a guideline, right? Sceptre ^(talk) 14:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Hiding and Masem, we can't ignore any of the notability guidelines, because it is underpinned by WP:V which says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. If WP:MOVIE and WP:BK say that flap copy does not constitute evidence of notability, then it is for good reason and we can't ignore it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I do believe you are conflating verifiability and notability here. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable - if I say the moon is made of green cheese, I must be able to point to NASA analysis of moonrocks that confirms this. Obviously this must be a first principle, the bedrock of the encyclopaedia - "Uh, my mam told me" is not a reliable source, nor is Wallace and Gromit. Whatever goes into it must be factual. Hence WP:V is a policy - if it wasn't, the encyclopaedia would fill up with rubbish. WP:N however is a guideline. If Wikipedia fills up with non-notable but factual things, it takes up a lot of disk space, slows searching and isn't good, but it isn't ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin is quite right that WP:V states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Articles on topics where no third-party sources can be found fail multiple policies, not just WP:N.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, but surely that's the whole reason we're having this ongoing debate about Fiction. Unless I want to analyse moonrock myself, I am dependent on a secondary source to tell me that it's made of green cheese. If I want to write about a character in a work of fiction, I have a primary source for the subject of the article that I can go to, easily accessible and verifiable by all, no original research required - I just summarise what it says in the book. This is what makes Fiction different to moonrock, and why we keep going round in these circles.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, it is people's failure to recognize that fiction and moonrocks are inherently the same that causes the problem. I don't care what an editor thinks of either one, and would prefer it if he didn't include his analysis of either. I'm happy to have him summarize what authorities think of either one, though.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"No third-party source" is not the same as "no significant third-party source" nor does is it the same as "no independent third-party source". Those terms are only applied in WP:N.陣内_Jinnai 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How can an non-independent source be classed as "third-party"?—Kww(talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the law recognises the concept of an interested third party. Getting tied up with language again - third party is a legal term for a party to an action who is neither the plaintiff nor the defendent. Third parties in this sense can be interested or disinterested (independent). What you mean is an independent secondary source - ie one not connected to or with an interest (in a legal or financial sense) in the author.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, I think we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel if we are going have inclusion criteria based on passing mentions or trivial coverage. Reading articles that are sourced from only trivial mentions is like speaking to a soldier who can only repeat his name, rank and serial number - you want them to say more, but they can't. For example, an article like Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons) might be the subject of multiple mentions, but it does not provide any commentary, criticism or analysis that a reader would expect to find in an encyclopedia to provide context about its subject matter.
More importantly, there are two technical reasons why the omission of substantial real-world coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the their subject matter is a big problem. Firstly, articles without good sourcing are very likely to fail WP:NOT. For fictional topics, that usually means that they fail WP:PLOT which prohibits plot only articles, but trivial coverage may also indicate that a topic fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:GAMEGUIDE and again the article about Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons) illustrates this. The other problem is content forking: if an article is not the subject of substantial coverage, this indicates that it a fork from a more notable over-arching topic. Since a notable topic cannot not confer notability on another by a mere association of subject matter (which is another way of saying notability is not inherited), substantial coverage is required to establish a connection between two topics. Going back to the example of Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons), there are lots of indicatiors that the character is associated with a lot of games; but what is missing is substantial coverage that actually states this explicitly. What we have is an article which is trying to infer that its subject matter is notable by mere association, rather than providing verifiable evidence that it is notable.
I think that Jinnai has to rethink his approach to sourcing and article creation. If there is no reliable secondary sourcing to establish the notability of a topic, then it is better to merge it with a topic that does, so that the reader can at least get some context about the topic that trivial mentions cannot provide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Gavin you have misinerpteted guidelines. WP:Content Forking deals with idea like Final Fantasy IV/Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy Anthology where the content and reception are generally the same and (in the case of video games and the like) the development is not siginifigantly different. Splitting articles like that is what makes them content forks, not splitting a character or other element off.

Also, once again you have distorted and twisted my words to your advantage Gavin. I'm growing very tied of it. I never did say an article should not have a secondary source. My problem is the amount of depth and possibly the independance of that secondary source. WP:V requires neither indepdant nor signifigant secodnary sources and to be frank, WP:GNG is so high of a standard for fictional elements that it creates battlegrounds because its very nature was never designed for fictional topics and the standard is so high 99% of contemporary characters would fail it while near 100% of mythological characters from antiquity would pass it, even trivial ones, the kind that are "the third man standing off to the left in the twelth paragraph".

I understand Gavin, you'd prefer to havethe GNG or stricter for fictional elements, but there is enough general oposition, most notably with those who care about the articles and actually plan to spend time writing them. This will create a battleground if the status quo, ie GNG, or something stricter, is left. History is on my side and it would seem you'd rather that than compromise. There should be some level of cutoff, but the cutoff now is so high as to be virtually unatainable for contemporary characters and laughably easy for trivial antiquity ones.陣内_Jinnai 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With regards to content forks, I have not make any misrepresentation at all. Although the article Final Fantasy Anthology is not well written, there is substantial real-world coverage contained in some of sources cited (although that coverage is not used in the article itself) to establish that this game anthology is more than the sum of its parts. If substantial real-world coverage is what distinguishes one game from another, then it is clear that this requirement is a key inclusion criteria that cannot be omitted from WP:FICT despite your personal reservations. I think you would agree that if there was no coverage of the Final Fantasy Anthology, there would be no point in having a seperate article for it, so in practise, I think we do agree on the principle, at least at a high level.
As regards WP:V, it does indeed require independent sourcing, and nowhere in this policy does it say that this policy should not apply to fictional topics, nor that fiction should get different treatment. On the contrary, you are particularly fortunate if fiction is a subject area that interests you because there is a such great quantity and range of reliable secondary sources just waiting to be harvested, as it is a subject matter in which sourcing is not restricted just to academic publications, but there is also a broad range of more accessible sources such as newspapers and magazines, whilst more and more of this reliably sourced content is become more widely available on the internet. I disagree that its application would create confrontation, as there is general consensus in Wikipedia that verifibility is basic requirement for all standalone articles, and if fiction is so well provided from a sourcing perspective, then there is no reason why we would wish to create exemptions for this subject area at all.
History has shown that exemptions from Wikipedia content and style polices are not acceptable to the wider community, because it is not possible for contributors to self-regulate articles unless fictional topics fall within the existing framework of policies and guidelines that free editors from having to obtain permission to create new articles from an editorial board. The basic cutoff point is common sense in my view: substantial real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source are need to write a decent encyclopedic article in any case; making this part of the inclusion criteria for fiction is an extension of this.We have tried to construct inclusion criteria that omitted or provided exemptions from one or more of Wikipedia's policies in the past, but the did not work. WP:FICT needs to have well defined inclusion criteria, otherwise it is failing to provide comprehensive and reliable guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) With regard to Final Fantasy Anthology, I agree that if there is absolutely no reliable source coverage, it shouldn't be mentioned (except perhaps as a brief 1 liner in the main article if it can be verified to exist as a commerical product. However, real-world reception alone does not make it enough to stand on its own as an article. It's also the type of reception (and in the case of video games it was also decided unique development), ie that the reviewers must treat it as a wholely seperate product and the reviews could not be constued to be about the original game (such as talking about graphics which didn't change), otherwise we open a floodgate to not only video games, but reprints of books and special edition DVDs, etc. having their own article if they done, especially if they are "bundled" together. I do not believe that's what you want either.
As to WP:V it does not require independant third party sourcing per the wording of the phrase. There is such a thing as a non-independant third-party. However, I do agree with you that it probably is best to have independant third-party sourcing. I am just saying that WP:V does not say that specifically. My qualm is more to do with WP:GNG being applied to fictional elements in such a way as it sets a bar so high for comtemporary popular series that it is virtually unachievable which antiquity or even classical works have the most trivial 1-line character with scholarly work that would make them easily passible, despite the character themselves being completely forgettable.
My intention is to set something that is reasonable that both those who don't want every minor character and element in existance to have a page, but not set up a wall using the GNG which has shown its failure in this reguard for fictional elements (fictional work itself is fine). WP:GNG and WP:N are not policy - they are a guidelines and they are guidelines passed at the time (and not really updated) to reflect the problems dealing with fiction.陣内_Jinnai 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, I think we are close to agreement. The reason why significant real-world coverage is so important for a game such as Final Fantasy Anthology is that without it, it would not be possible to distinguish it as a standalone topic, othewise it would be classed as content fork. One of the sources in the article (5?) does distinguish it in terms of real world characteristics from previous versions: it has a different soundtrack from the earlier games. How significant this difference is in terms of video games, I have no idea, but lets assume for the moment that this is significant. We can say in this instance that this topic is not a content fork, because there is a signficant real world difference between it and the rest of the games in the series.
However, if you were to take away the real world coverage from these sources, you would be left with nothing to report but variations in the plot which have no real world impact on the game's development, legacy, critical reception, and any analysis of its gameplay. In order to understand why a fictional topic is notable, there has to be significant real-world coverage to distinguish it from similar topics, because characters and settings are indistinguishable from the overall narrative when looked at from an in universe perspective. Contrast this with the 3 content forks derived from The Terminator film series (Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character)), none of which contain any significant real world coverage about their article titles. The fantasy world coverage of each of these articles could easily be relocated in one or other of the articles without loss of meaning, as there is no real world content to distinguish these topics from each other.
As regards the independence of sources, WP:V is quite clear that reliable sources are required, because non-independent sources are not reliable and fall under the categories of questionable and self-published sources. Going back to the example of Final Fantasy Anthology, it is not possible to tell if has been the subject of coverage from reliable sources, as the writers of so called "game reviews" are often paid to promote these products, and they themselves rarely cite their own sources.
In conclusion, if a lot of minor characters fail this test, then it is hard to understand why you would want a standalone article about them if the quality of the coverage available is so thin and unreliable. Such topics would be best merged with articles that provide significant real world coverage, as this is what provides the reader with the context needed to understand the subject and appreciate its overall significance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem is with "signifigant" or "signifigant independant" in regard to fictional elements. Lets make it clear that is does not pertain to fictional works. Final Fantasy Anthology is a work and it has elements within it.

My problem, as noted by Philcha is that it favors older topics that have even more trivial elements, but who get scholarly review (most likely because of the need to publish or perish) as there is little indication beyond the scholarly by one or two people that someone who is mentioned once in an epic story (whatever format) is anything more than trivial whereas the bar for more contemporary characters who are almost without exception never given that scholarly review and in addition the sites that do reviews do not do character reviews. There are not many non-scholarly sites that review elements of a fictional work. If they review an element it is almost exclusively within the context of a review of the work itself. This leads to battlegrounds, not because things fail WP:V or WP:PLOT, which often they do, but because they fail WP:GNG, something never designed for fiction, especially fictional elements. By invoking the GNG and requiring seperate indepedant analysis that is direct and signifigant you are essentially creating an unatainable goal...ie saying its not what wikipedia is through use of a guideline to invoke that.
If you would allow director commentary to count as "the signifigant source" or, as i mentioned above, multiple minor (but not trivial) directi mentions then that would be a whole new story and I'd be willing to back you on that whole heartedily, as well as showing sinigifance to the story to week out articles about trivial characters who may have gotten scholarly review (ultimately even if you say a lot, that doesn't change the fact that the third-man on the left on page 3 is still trivial.陣内_Jinnai 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't base notability on sourcing that is not independent: if it promotional, it will be questionable, and if it is not promotional but published by the developers of a game, it is a self-published source. Reliable sourcing is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, and WP:FICT can't back away from the need for independent sourcing.
The same goes for significant real-world coverage, it is vital a topic is the subject of it, otherwise it will be a content fork like the Terminator articles.
An analogy to this problem would be an anchor: reliable sources add weight in the form of credibility to an article, and significant real-world coverage is like the hooks that bind the sources to the topic.
Without the two, an article is lightweight, insubstantial and fails to address the subject matter of its title, like the article Mimic (Dungeons & Dragons), which provides neither evidence of notability nor significant real world coverage of its subject matter. The bottom line is, encyclopedic articles cannot be constructed where their is unreliable or trivial coverage - it just makes no sense to allow such topics to have their own standalone article - better to merge them into topics which do provide real world coverage that provides the reader with the context needed to understand the subject and appreciate its overall significance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Real World Perspective

Continuing on from the earlier discussion, there was clear disagreements about the wording proposed for the preamble for this proposed guideline. Elen mentioned that terms can be used in more than one context, and this is the issue that must be addressed next. We know that WP:WAF is a style guideline, but an article's style is dependent on the coverage it contains. So when we say that an article should be to describe its subject matter from a real world perspective, what does this mean in terms of content? This is key to understanding why there needs to be a notability guideline for fictional topics, since fiction can be covered by both real world and in universe coverage:

Special consideration must be given to writing about fictional topics because they are inherently not real. Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded. Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be an excerpt or a summary of the primary source, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Coverage of fictional topics should be more than a plot summary and provide balanced coverage that includes real-world context. Do not attempt to re-create or uphold the illusion that a fictional topic is real by ignoring real-world information or by over-reliance on a perspective that is in universe. Remember that Wikipedia's mission is to inform rather than immerse the reader.

Up to now, the problem of over-relaince on in universe content has been thought to be a style issue, but style and content are but different sides of the same coin: if there is something wrong with the style of an article, then there must be something wrong with its content as well. This part of the preamble attempts to explain what is wrong with in universe coverage, and any suggestions as to how this can be improved would be most welcome. Perhaps this paragraph is too long, and part split to discuss plot summary in a seperate section? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is getting too far into how we'd want fiction covered; WAF is a separate guideline for that reason. This guideline should only be used to determine if something should be its own article or not. Yes, it is important that fiction avoids in-universe approaches but that has nothing to do with notability beyond the fact that if there is no real-world factors for an element, in-universe is usually the only way the subject is breached, but in this case the article shouldn't exist in the first place. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, Masem, you know that real world content is key to establishing notability for fictional topics. The notability of a fictional topic requires real world coverage, because a summary of the primary source that does not contain any commentary is not independent of the fictional work. You are correct that articles about fictional topics should be written using a style that is not over-reliant on an in universe perspective, but style and content are two sides of the same coin - you can't describe fictional topics without considering both. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it requires real world content, and that is the only major point this guideline should say. We should not be getting into details of how the information is presented in this; that's WAF's job. Style and notability issues can be separated. This needs to be kept as short as possible per the issues with the last RFC on FICT. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have split the reference to plot summary into a seperate section, and reduced the above wording to the following:

Special consideration must be given to writing about fictional topics because they are inherently not real. Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded, and should not attempt to create or uphold the illusion that a fictional topic is real by the omission of real world information or by over-reliance on a perspective that is in universe. Remember that Wikipedia's mission is to inform rather than immerse the reader.

I think this sentence is key to understanding why there needs to be a seperate SNG for fiction. Real world content is need to establish notability; this is not a style issue, but a content issue that is key to understanding when a ficitonal topic merits its own standalone article. If you think you come up with alternative wording, I am open to suggestions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removals and restorations

Gavin removed a lot of text I added which I'd like to remain a bit longer than a couple of hours just so that everyone gets the chance to read it and comment. Therefore I restroed it, [5]. The term "daughter articles" exists in guidance at Wikipedia:Summary style, so I doubt it should be removed as being a "term not generally recognised". The odd thing is I even sourced my additions from current guidance, see WP:CYF, WP:SS and WP:N. I'd hate to think we were cherry-picking guidance to present here. It might lead some to think we have a policy fork on our hands. I'd at least like the courtesy of an explanation as to why the text was removed. I'd prefer a discussion, that might be better in keeping with behaviourial policies...I'd like to avoid an edit war as always, so next move is Gavin's I guess. Hiding T 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what value the extra padding provides in terms of guidance. All the stuff about Macro, micropedias comes from WP:DETAIL makes no sense in this context. If you want to create a section on the level of detail which an article should go into, why not propose one instead of taking it on here?
As regards the term "daughter article" is not used in either WP:NOTINHERITED nor WP:N. In this guideline, we are using the term dervivative article, because that is what is refered to in WP:BK.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Until someone else speaks up, I think you meant to say "I am using" rather than "we are using". The stuff I added from Wikipedia:Summary Style makes as much sense in this context as the stuff you have added from it, unless we are forking. You're cribbing without context to make a different point to the one made elsewhere, which I believe is wrong. I'd like important contextualisation to take place to make clear what existing guidance is, rather than create a new guideline which undermines existing guidance. I also see you removed the bit about lists which I cribbed from WP:N. Curious. I think I'll leave well enough alone, it appears to me you're using this as a personal sandbox. Anyone else think we should userfy this to Gavin's space? Hiding T 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am using the term Derivative article, because that what a spinoff is - its subject matter is derived from another article. I am also using that term because it is very sensibly used in WP:BK in a similar context, but also because Derivative article does not imply that notability is inherited, in the same way that "Parent-Child", "Mother-Daughter" or "Father-Son" do (or any random combination of these), which is the whole point of this section. I don't understand your changes at all in this regard when you look at the Derivative articles section in WP:BK, because you have added lots of verbage that provides not guidance at all. We need to keep WP:FICT short and consise, not long and rambling. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked at the relevant section in Wikipedia:Notability (books) I find myself concerned to see it links back to here, stating Exceptions do, of course, exist—see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I'm missing something terribly important here. If we're only restating what "Wikipedia:Notability (books)" says, we are in breach of that very guidance per that very guidance. Curious. So we have to be more verbose per guidance. I'm all for short and sweet, what I object to is when the text is edited for conciseness in a manner which removes all my additions and leaves all yours. I have no objection to you owning the page, I simply ask that we clarify that by userfying it. Now WP:BOOK simply steals a section of WP:SS, with no context and no link. Now I can bring that up over there, but then, wow, we're just asking the other parent. We've got a lot of guidance that actually conflicts with a lot of other guidance, and that's half the problem. If you want to create guidance which suits you, good luck. I'm more convinced now that you have absolutely no understanding of consensus, you're an absolutist. I think maybe it is time to kill this proposal as well, because it is quite clear you have no desire to reflect any opinion other than your own. Good luck with that. Hiding T 10:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest Hiding, that is pretty rich coming from you, since you have not discussed any of the changes you have made until after the event, and you have the chutzpah to accuse me of absolutism?
However, the issue of derivative articles is too important to fallout over, because fictional topics easily lend themselves to splitting, with the resulting articles providing little in the way of encyclopedic coverage. If we can boil this down to just a few key points, I think you will agree this would be best. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than continue this, I repeat my request that you consider mediation. Hiding T 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need mediation, we just have to accept that our edits are open to challenge. I believe this section can be improved through simple dialogue. I think we should proceed with the discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than continue this, I repeat my request that you consider mediation. Hiding T 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You have mentioned this in a seperate section, so I won't detain you further on this matter. So lets discuss the wording that has been inserted into the Derivative articles section:

Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article. Wikipedia therefore divides content amongst "Derivative articles" which expand upon certain aspects of the grand topic discussed in the parent article to allow coverage in greater detail. A Derivative article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its specific part of the topic. And so on until a topic is very thoroughly covered. Thus by navigational choices several different types of readers get the amount of detail they want.

I think there are two problems with this wording: it contains ideas that are duplicated, and can be slimmed down. I accept the point that this needs to provide more explaination than that is given in the corresponding section in WP:BK#Derivative articles. Personally I think this can be slimmed down to just three sentences without loosing any meaning:

Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. When there is enough text in a given sub-topic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article. Wikipedia therefore divides content amongst "Derivative articles" which expand upon certain aspects of the sub-topic.

I think this shorter version gets the meaning across is a less wordy fashion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's back up a little, if you please:

1. Wikipedia is not divided into a macropædia, micropædia, and concise versions as is the Encyclopædia Britannica — we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Wikipedia therefore divides content amongst "daughter articles" which expand upon certain aspects of the grand topic discussed in the parent article to allow coverage in greater detail. The daughter article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its specific part of the topic. And so on until a topic is very thoroughly covered. Thus by navigational choices several different types of readers get the amount of detail they want.

I added this from WP:SS, it's pretty much a copy and paste, so I'd be interested in what's wrong with using this. I think we need to get establish the context of Wikipedia and what derivative/daughter articles are. I'm not sold on derivative articles which has pejorative connotations, and daughter articles has a longer history on Wikipedia, but I'm open to alternatives and opinions to the contrary. I think it is very important to establish context here though. Hiding T 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

2. It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. This means that while a book or television series may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, care should be taken when creating seperate articles ensure that each topic is notable in its own right.

Again, this appears to be a copy and paste from WP:SS, which led me to believe it was suitable to copy and paste across, and also led me to believe it was important we better contextualised the guidance we are copying and pasting, rather than simply cherry-picking arguments. Hiding T 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

3. The threshold for creating a separate article is verifiable evidence, not simply volume of information. It is not enough to simply assert that an element of fiction such as a fictional character, or a segment of a fictional work, such as an episode or scene is notable because the book, film or television series from which it is derived has verified notability. Notability is not inherited since it applies to individual topics, every article about a fictional topic must stand on its own feet in the sense that it must substantiate its own claim to notability.

Have no real issues with this in theory. I worry about it in practise. I don't see it as being actionable. I'd be interested in hearing how people think i is going to apply, and how people think it can be "enforced". This seems to be causing conflict with the idea that we can cover a "topic" with a number of articles greater than one. What troubles me is the opening sentence "The threshold for creating a separate article"... Whiole I broadly support the principle, my own iteration of this view can be seen in WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'd like to rewrite to say "The threshold for creating a separate article on a topic is reliably sourced opinion, not simply volume of information." I have a problem with the term "verifiable evidence", I think the usage of the word evidence is a little off in this context. Hiding T 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

4. For this reason, it is not normally advisable to set out from the start with the intention of creating derivative articles for every fictional character, episode, scene or chapter derived from it. Rather, avoid spliting articles if the new article cannot meet inclusion criteria for topics about fiction. Daughter articles should explain the significance of the character, setting, episode or scene to the work by sourcing relevant information. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand secondary opinions as to why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work.

I added amendments to this to get across what we are looking for, which is the "why" of an element being in the work. I appreciate there is a conflict here between those of us who want to know "what" Luke did in Star Wars and those of us who want to know "why" Luke was in Star Wars. I think an encyclopedia needs to lean towards the latter approach, and therefore if we can't really summarise opinions on why Luke was in Star Wars, then Luke doesn't deserve an article outside the main topic of Star Wars. Now, if we can squeeze those four boxes into one, I'm happy to do so, but we need to get across all the main points. For me, the main points are that we go into detail when we cover a topic, that a topic has to be notable for us to cover it, and that for an element to become a topic in its own right, we need to have "secondary opinions as to why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work." The level of detail is limited to what we can summarise in secondary sources, as articles should rely on secondary sources rather than primary or tertiary ones. The work itself is a primary source. Hiding T 10:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Luke Skywalker is an article about a fictional character that does not provide evidence of notability. So in answer to Hiding, your view on fictional articles are definetly leaning the wrong way: the article content fails WP:NOT#PLOT and the lack of citations suggest it is mainly original research. So if this characterises your approach to fiction, I have to inform you that it is not supported by the existing framework of policies and guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I'm increasingly having a bit of a problem with your approach here. Broadly speaking, I think you're twisting policy to suit your desired end in a way that does violence to the policy. I agree that Luke Skywalker is a poor article, but come on - the problem with it is not notability. Nobody can seriously suggest that Luke Skywalker as a topic would not pass WP:N. You're also twisting NOR - the problem with the plot summaries is not NOR. They are implicitly cited to the primary sources. They are not footnoted because the reason we footnote a citation is so that people know where to go to verify the claims. When the article says "in Edge of Victory: Rebirth, they have a son" the need for a footnote is removed, because it is clear where to go to verify that - the novel Edge of Victory: Rebirth. You could quibble that a page number might be nice, but this is a small quibble, not a NOR violation. This, combined with your previous insistence that the problem with plot summaries was NPOV violation (still a ludicrous claim_ concerns me. You are creating terribly distorted versions of our policies to accomplish a goal that would be more easily accomplished directly. WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT, and, if it were passed, Wikipedia:Fiction would all give you the ammunition you need to force changes to Luke Skywalker. We need to get away from contorting additional policies to accomplish this goal, and start working to make sure we have policies that deal with the matter directly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not making myself clear, but my primary objection is to item 1 above, which in a roundabout way implies that articles should be split, regardless of notability, although that might not have been Hiding's intention. I know that you and Hiding believe (and quite possibly correctly - this still to be agreed upon by consensus) that "spinoff" or "daughter" articles should be allowed, regardless of whether their subject matter is notable or not. If you or Hiding wish to make this proposal, you would be more than entitled to do so, because there are many editors who share this view as evidenced by the RFC on compromise.
If that were to be the case, then it would be possible to write articles that comprise purely of plot summary on the grounds that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content even though plot summary only articles are prohibited by WP:NOT#PLOT.
You are correct that I don't subscribe to this approach to fictional topics on the grounds that it would be likely to contravene WP:NPOV and the reason is that it is not possible regulate their inclusion, as it is not possible to discern whether or not a topic is a content fork or not when it only comprises of plot summary. Plot summary only articles can be written in such a way as to emphasise or deemphaise one or more aspects of a fictional narrative to create an almost limitless number of seperately identifiable topics: characters, settings, artifacts and fictional events can have their own articles if it based on plot summary only, written is such a way that portays them the center of the narrative, as demonstrated by the Terminator content forks. I think that the changes that have occured to WP:FICT and the arguments I have put forward to support these changes comply with the existing framework of Wikipedia contents and style guidelines. The changes may be out of step with your views, but unless you put forward your views in an honest and explict way in which you state where, why and what would would be the benefit of departing from the existing framework, only then will we know if what you believe to be true is a set of inclusion criteria for fictional topics that will actually work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This straw man of my supporting spin-off articles regardless of notability is very tired, Gavin. Please stop punching it. I have stated my view previously, but here it is again: there is no consensus on notability and fiction. We ought focus our efforts on establishing fiction content policies and seeing if those are sufficient to fix the problems we have with fiction articles, and develop other policies as needed to supplement them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that the existing framework of policies and guidelines is the consensus, and that various proposals to treat fiction as if is somehow exempt from them have failed because they amount to little more than special pleading for inclusion criteria based on subjective importance rather than verifiable evidence. If there is no consensus on notability and fiction based on subjective criteria, it is because every editor has different views about which topics should or should not have their own standalone article. Only if WP:FICT is based on verifiable evidence of notability will it possible to agree on a set of incluison criteria that will enable everyone to create or contribute to articles that don't fail Wikipedia style and content policies. The only disagreements I see coming out of this approach is agreeing on the form which verifiable evidence must take, and the wording to express these requirement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other than heavy disagreement on what evidence the guideline should call for and what the guideline should say, we have a consensus. But that's a rather massive "other than." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all agreed that verifiable evidence is required. Can I presume that we agreed on this point at least? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go with no, actually, given that there's substantial precedent for presumption of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stand long enough

Gavin, you just mentioned on your talk page that you are a reasonable person. In that light, I'd like to restate my request that you allow my edits to the page to stand long enough for someone other than yourself to comment upon them. I'd also like to know why you found you were unable to do so at the first time of asking. I'm not really interested in discussing an amendment from one piece of text you authored to another piece of text you authored. Since I reject the first piece of text, I can't support the second piece of text. I am unclear why, since we are in this section relying on WP:SS, we do not use that page as our starting point for text. Perhaps you can clarify why your text is the starting position? Hiding T 13:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It cuts both ways, Hiding. If you simply over-write what I have written without discussion, then surely it is equitable if I ask for my contributions to be also be allowed to stand long enough for someone to comment upon them, including yourself? Given that the changes I have made have been discussed on this talk page in detail, why not share your views about what I have written first, before over-writing them? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree it cuts both ways. Since the version of the page pre my edits had been allowed to stand for two weeks, I don't think it is either unreasonable to ask for my edits to stand for two days or to ask you to discuss my wording. At the minute you appear to be insisting on framing the terms of engagement. Here's where I understand we are in the debate. I added text to the page. You reverted, I reverted you rewrite and are now only interested in discussing your rewrites, and have no interest in discussing any of the text I have put forwards. I'd be interested in your view, and also in gaining an understanding of why you appear to simply refuse to accept my views and preferred version or any discussion of them whatsoever. If you have no such prejudice against that, then great, let's restore and work slowly forwards. Hiding T 09:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Anyone else interested in mediation? By which I mean we get a neutral mediator in to manage discussion and be the only person who will edit the guidance itself and discern consensus. We discuss points on the talk page, within a set deadline, and let the mediator decide where consensus lies and guide the discussion. Hiding T 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• support --Philcha (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• support Hiding T 12:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure —Kww(talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• weak support Hobit (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Suppoort --MASEM (t) 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• support --陣内_Jinnai 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is legitimately no consensus on this issue among the larger community, and it is inappropriate for a small cabal (and I use that term well aware of its loaded nature) to band together and forge one amongst themselves and declare it more broadly binding. Either work within the framework of broad community consensus or simply admit that there is no controlling consensus in this matter. Mediation is not appropriate for this sort of dispute. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Phil Sandifer, who put my feelings better than I could. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral—it's been two years to the day now, and we're still debating and rewriting. 'Nuff said. The irony is that I more or less dropped out of the discussion 20 months ago. — Deckiller 00:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure My most recent advice about this has been to go forward with more than one version, call them all essays or whatever, and to see if one naturally takes on over another. The actual WP:FICT page itself could then be a summary of these views/versions. It would be an unusual take on guidelines, but in my mind it would best represent how the community feels. Give the editor both/multiple sides of the issue(s) and see what arguments/advice they go with. I'm not sure if my view would fit in with a meditation discussion, but I'll be glad to participate if I can. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Is this really a dispute among a small group of editors suitable for mediation? I can't think of another case where a dispute over a guideline wound up in the hands of a mediator.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Date delinking recently had a mediator in to work up an rfc, which is what I'm kind of suggesting here. A lot of the naming conventions were formed out of mediation cases way back when. I think the disputes on this talk page are between a small number of editors, because we can't even seem to agree on what to draft to present to the community. Given that this page has been subject of debate for over three years now, I think we really have to consider some form of mediation. Look through the archives and you can see the editors who have simply given up on the page and the process. That's heart-breaking and anti-wiki, and we shouldn't allow it to happen. We need to find some sort of consensus, and if that means we have someone who can guide that process and make sure we stay focussed on the questions at hand and actually get us to a point where we can take something to the wider community as a serious proposal, then it's got to be worth a try. Unless you think somehow the last three years are an aberration, and this month will finally see the page fly? Do ytou think if we actioned the page as it stands now, it would get accepted? And does it even do anything other than WP:N? It doesn't actually scan that different from the Deckiller revision that ultimately failed. I've checked with a mediator, and the approach I've outlined is agreeable. Hiding T 13:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reject If you guys have a proposal you want to discuss, put it forward for discussion. You don't need a mediator to hold your hand in this regard. Likewise, if you have any behavioural issues you want to discuss, bring them to the talk page of the editor in question. You can use your own initative if you want to. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• I really do feel that WP:FICT has been going in the wrong direction. And the circular nature of the discussions (going on and on forever) keeps a lot of people away. But I'm not sure this type of topic, which could draw huge numbers of people if they think their voice will make a difference, is right for mediation. I'd probably jump back in a bit if this went to mediation (in the belief we might actually end up with something, which I currently think has no chance of happening) and I'm sure others would too. (Is that good or bad? Not sure.) Hobit (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• You're currently listed as a party to the Sports Logo request, which has a huge number of parties. I don't think there'd be as many parties here, because I see mediation as at best providing us with a framework in which to either build an rfc or a way of communicating. Hiding T 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• At this point I think the processes have failed. We have tried talking amongst ourselves and it has just ended up in people leaving in frustration rather than building consensus. We have had 2 Arbcoms on this page and following that a failed proposal. Since then we still haven't managed to get anywhere as the core fundamentals of some editors remain the same and there seems to be no wording that can satisfy enough on both sides (inclusionist and deletionist).
  It is not something I jump at with enthusiasm, but feel instead a reluctant, but nessasary step.陣内_Jinnai 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. there's no good reason to work with a smaller cluster than we already do for a guideline rejected by the community, which should have died when that was over, but some people insist on beating a dead horse. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• With respect to those opposing, I'd say it's pretty clear that anything that comes out is going to need an RfC. So while a small group will be involved in writing it (as is true for almost all policy) and larger group (everyone who cares) will have a say in adopting it. I'm not sure we *need* this, which is why I'm a weak supporter, but I don't think you need to worry about a cabal dictating consensus. Hobit (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• As a comment, I think we need meditation to understand/decide if we really need a guideline for this. After the last RFC, the best solution that I believe was an essay to say "if your article on a fictional element doesn't meet the GNG, you're playing the lottery if it will be kept at AFD, but here's steps to improve those odds", and thus leaving it like that until we were pressured to go on. There are some editors that feel this must exist, and possibly writing language stronger than current practice, and thus we need a mediation to decide whether its worthwhile to even try to get a guideline (which yes, will need a separate RFC to make a guideline) or just leave as an essay. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Given the varied responses to the mediation suggestion, I've created an RFC regarding whether consensus is actually achievable. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction, feeling free to add your own views and proposals, of course. Hiding T 11:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets see if there's any consensus by case

Hiding and Gavin Collins I wonder if I could have both your attentions for a moment. I recently listed a page which was a list of characters in a book series (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other characters of Xanth although please note I am NOT asking anyone here to go comment on that AfD from any side!!!!!). This has clearly sprung, as Hiding says from a need to fit in information which is too much for an article. However, it has no references and no apparent notability, being entirely in-world. Leaving aside your arguments for a moment about semantics, can I clarify whether you are in agreement that

• this is (or is not) what you are referring to as an article that consists of nothing but a list
• this is (or is not) a type of article which requires verification
• this is (or is not) a type of article which requires evidence of notability

There does seem to be a considerable consensus within that part of the community which creates fiction articles, that there is a need to create these articles which feature characters and lists of characters, where there is not a consensus in other areas (no-one has supported retaining articles on every single piece of Lego ever produced for example). Getting down to brass tacks, how do we move forward where there appears to be a consensus that

• notability IS inherited, and
• spinout articles DO NOT require real world verificationElen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If we were not bound by WP:SIZE such information (and more specifcally, from all the Xanth character lists) would normally be contained in Xanth. But because we've chosen to limit page sizes to a reasonable amount, such lists articles are appropriate vessels to contain this information. There's still some issues with how these should be approached, but these are generally accepted despite not asserting notability on the article (this would be Hiding's example of a daughter article). --MASEM (t) 17:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I've made a suggestion in the RfC that perhaps the concept 'notability is not inherited' could be examined from the perspective of fiction topics which naturally generate a cluster of articles - could a case be made that they all share the notability of the topic? It seems to me that this is different to saying that Saskia Obama is naturally notable simply because she is the president's daughter - what you are in fact saying is that the topic covered as a whole (plots, characters, episodes, etc) is notable, and of such a size as to warrant tackling as a cluster rather than a single article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Elen, my understanding is that Other characters of Xanth is the sort of list or article that Hiding & myself have been discussing. Whether this is a list or an article makes little difference, it is still bound by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which WP:LISTS#Listed items makes clear in the case of lists. Like all lists and articles, its content has to verifiable, and since Xanth is a series of books, I would expect this list provide some indication, at the very least, which one of the books a particular character comes from, otherwise it is not possible to verify if this list is in any way correct.
Where I would part company from Masem is that I disagee with his view that articles or lists "are generally accepted if they do not assert notability on the article". Lists and articles alike that do not provide evidence of notability tend to fail WP:NOT, and in the case of lists, WP:NOT#DIR is highly relevant. Masem cites WP:SIZE as justification for his views, but he is ignoring two important considerations:

1. WP:AVOIDSPLIT says articles should not be split if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic; and
2. WP:UNDUE says an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Taking these two points together suggest to me that lists like Other characters of Xanth fail WP:NOT#DIR because there isn't any evidence to support their notablity, and that this list places undue weight on characters whose significance within the Xanth is not in evidence in the main article about this series of books.
The subject of spinoffs inhertiting notability, whether they are lists or articles, has been the subject of long and detailed discussions, as well as an RFC, and it is the general consensus that their subject matter does need to provide evidence of notability, and there is no reason to believe that they inherit notability from any other article without verifiable evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, list articles are exempt from those restrictions so they could at most be split into 1 list page. Furthermore, no article is exempt from WP:V and WP:NOR. Therefore this does not even meet verifiability, therefore notability does not come into play.陣内_Jinnai 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, thanks for restating your position so clearly. I know I must frequently come across as a nuisance, I feel that I can't take a view on this without understanding the position of others better. From my perspective, while I can understand why people want to create these huge masses of information (it's far easier than writing articles on high shear mixers after all, I can also see the huge danger of trivialising the encyclopaedia, and having it descend into fanwars. Thanks for the RfC link as well - interesting how marginal that was around tackling lists.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not a nuisance, as ideas are open to challenge and the thinking on lists may change. My understanding is that they exist to support the coverage of notable topics, and should not be, as WP:NOT#DIR says, lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.
Masem would argue that as long as the characters and episodes are are associated, that justifies their existence on the grounds of completeness, whilst Hiding argues that they are created for formatting and display purposes. However, these arguements break down where a work of fiction, such as a film or television series, has a cast of thousands of characters, e.g. (Guiding Light). I am not sure that either Masem or Hiding have thought this through the problem of what the cutoff point is between sensible lists and listcruft, and I would have thought they recognise that there needs to a cut off point at which undue weight was being given to characters or episodes that are not notable. Since there is no need to list every character, setting, episode, event or scene that is part of a work of fiction, that cutoff point is marked by which characters or epiodes are discussed in the main article, rather than using criteria such as "completeness", or "formating" as inclusion criteria. Lists are there to provide support to the coverage provided in articles about works of fiction by listing the elements that feature in those articles, not as depositories exhaustive detail of fictional elements that ever existed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not paper, and thus there is no reason not to include at least mention of the characters, episodes, and other significant facets of a fictional work (there is a line to this, however); obviously we don't want individual articles on each of these if all that can be talked about those items are from the primary work, but there's absolutely no reason not to list them, particularly if they are even close to being a likely search term. That's not undue weight, there is no "viewpoint" that is being pushed by including these as simple lists. If we had no size restriction, these lists would be included in the main article without violating any other policies; the only reason we need such lists is due to SIZE. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, as a principle your "Lists are there to provide support to the coverage provided in articles about works of fiction by listing the elements that feature in those articles, not as depositories exhaustive detail of fictional elements that ever existed" makes a lot of sense. The problem is applying it. For example:

• Some characters are marginal for inclusion in articles - for example in the Harry Potter series I suspect Madame Hooch (Quidditch coach), Madame Pomfret (matron / nurse) and possibly Prof. Sprout (Herbology) would be marginal; and Prof. Trelawney (Divination) is a marginal and comic figure most of the time, except when she makes the only accurate prophecy of her career. If you don't like examples from popular fiction, try Patroclus in the Iliad: an immature loudmouth, but his death leads to to the death of Hector and partially heals the breach between Achilles and [Agamemnon]], which is the core of the story. In such cases I think it's better to keep them in lists so that consensus will emerge about how and at what length they should be described in the list. If these characters are removed from a list every time they are removed from the last article in which they appear, the list will become harder to maintain and entries will be added hurriedly and possibly by less experienced editors.
• We probably need a more inclusive approach to characters in series, for example Ginny Weasley is just background in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone but crucial to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and very important from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix onwards. This applies both to characters in series that are still incomplete and those where our coverage of works in the series is less than GA standard, as these articles either might be quite undeveloped or alternatively may be pruned during review.
• I'd probably also favour keeping in lists relatives and associates of more important characters, if only to clarify situations. E.g. the older Weasley brothers Percy, Charlie and Bill in the Harry Potter series.
• We also need to avoid systemic bias, which appears in the sources we use. We've discussed elsewhere that there's more academic coverage of obscure characters in e.g. Homer or Shakespeare than of significant characters in recent fiction, especially popular fiction, which the academics disdain or treat as exemplars of their pet theories rather than as interesting works in their own right. There have been comments in the discussion above that, for fiction, significance of a character in the story should carry at least as much weight as the WP:GNG - which is just a guideline, and thefore subject to WP:IAR, in other words we can develop other guidelines that are more appropriate to the specific requirements of fiction. --Philcha (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in enforcing WP:NOT#DIR in such a way that every character and episode in a list has be notable or has to have featured in an article about a notable topic - its just not feasible to do this in practice. But the principle is valid, and in the case of the Other characters of Xanth, the characters have not appeared in any article, and they are not notable in their own right, then it is fair to say that this list is listcruft that does not serve any encylopedic purpose.
If it can be verified that characters are important, then I am all in favour of including them in lists to support the main article. However, lists of characters and episodes that are not notable or who are not discussed in the context of a notable work are going to fail WP:NOT#DIR.
I disagree with views on systematic bias, because whether you consider a topic to be obscure is a matter of personal judgement. However, if the coverage of obsure subjects is shallow or thin, it is probably a good indicator that the character does not warrant its own article. As WP:FICT says, "editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets the all of the inclusion criteria, it is not suitable for inclusion". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the time we'll agree that there's no need to mention some character. The issue is what happens about the less clear cases, where it's uncertain whether they will appear at all in an article in a year's time. I'd keep them in for now, for the reasons I described above. I admit this is a very grey area, and would be quite happy to see a list of marginal characters for discussion, as that would help us develop some rules of thumb. --Philcha (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read through the entire debate above, but I want to clarify that everyone understands the uses of lists on Wikipedia and their history as a navigation and information aid. I tend to agree with Gavin that we should not delve too deeply to the point of having Other characters of Xanth, this should be merged back to List of Xanth characters and editorial judgement should decide which characters merit inclusion just as such judgement defines which facts about World Leaders we include. (For example, we don't have a specific guideline or policy beyond WP:CONSENSUS on whether to include Obabma's favourite tooth-paste in his article.) Where the conflict lies is in having ancillary information in a main article and splitting it to a sub-article. From my mind we need to clarify that some lists are good and some lists are bad. We shouldn't be having "other", "minor", "major" or "notable" in the names of lists per WP:LISTNAME. Such lists should be merged to one umbrella list. What I'm concerned at is that we're losing the sense of what lists are for on Wikipedia, and that they are created for navigational purposes, that has long been established and is supported by a general consensus. I'm not looking to advance beyond what is already in current guidance and policies, because I think we have enough trouble in implementing those, so I am against any attempt to state that lists cannot be created without strict adherence to WP:N, because that undercuts guidance that lists can be created primarily for navigation. So to answer Elen's questions:

• this is a list
• this is a type of article which requires verification, but that verification can be the primary source
• this is not a notability issue, since the list already fails WP:LISTNAME. I think this is a bad article to use in this discussion because the list shouldn't exist anyway. List of Xanth characters is probably a better list to discuss notability for. My argument there would be that if Xanth is notable, then I can see a reason for a list of Xanth characters to exist, and if for navigation, formatting or display purposes that list is better displayed as a separate article, then I don't have a problem with that and I don't think Wikipedia and Wikipedia guidance should. That's my take, and also my understanding of WP:LISTS, WP:N, WP:SS, Wikipedia history and traditions. It's possible I am one of the few people to be aware that lists pre-date categories, so the use of lists springs from a separate well to that of articles. Hiding T 10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Iin fairness, I am not too far from agreeing with you, except you conclusion. A list of minor Xanth characters would make sense, if they formed part of the plot summary of one or more of the books (I am presuming the books are notable). However, if they characters are not mentioned in the articles, then it is merely a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and fails WP:NOT#DIR. I don't think that lists are created only for purely a navigation, formatting or display purposes. Rather, they are created to support their subject matter which is either notable in its own right, or is mentioned as part of an article that demonstrates notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists can be created solely for navigation. Before we had categories, it was all we had. Have a read of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. A "list of minor Xanth characters" would never make sense because of naming conventions, POV and OR. Where we are disagreeing is over article content, which has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. If we accept that a "list of characters in Xanth" is going to exist, either in the "Xanth" article or as a viable separate article, then which characters are listed is subject to editorial consensus and article content policies and guidance rather than notability. Hiding T 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ticking all the boxes

In its current version, WP:FICT ticks all the boxes in terms of inclusion criteria that apply to fiction that fall within the exising framework of Wikipedia content and style polcies. It covers all the main points you would expect in a guideline, namely the requirements for:

• Real world coverage
• Coverage that address the topic directly and in detail
• Independent sources

It also address two issues that plague fictional articles, namely:

• Splitting of topics into articles more minutiae of detail without providing evidence of notability
• Plot summary articles that do not provide balanced coverage in the form of both plot summary and real-world context

It has been agrued that these requirements are more restrictive than the General notability guideline, but actually they are applying these principals of article inclusion to fictional topics whilst recognising that they are inherently not real, and hence the requirement for real world evidence of notability.

While it is possible to create an article that contains only plot summary from secondary sources, coverage that only contains plot summary is not indpendent of the primary source. Lack of independence is a problem for many other subject areas as well as fiction (the coverage of business topics is plagued by spam for instance), but for fiction this usually manifests itself in the form of an over reliance on a perspective that is in universe, rather than overtly promotional. Until now, in universe coverage was considered to be purely a style issue, but because style and content are the two sides fo the same coin, this guideline address the issue of independent sourcing by requiring significant real world coveage.

This flow chart shows that a topic is needs to be the subject of significant real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources in order to meet various tests from Wikipedia's content policies. The less significant real-world coverage there is about a topic, the greater the risk that it will fail one or more of them.

In order to write about fiction, WP:FICT provides guidance on article inclusion that brings all of these principals together. It now ticks all the boxes whilst it does not pretend to provide exmemptions from the existing framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that enable us to contribute to articles without having to ask permission from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't tick all the boxes

I don't really feel this does tick all the boxes. Where it relates to notability it simply restates WP:N, which makes it redundant, and where it goes further than WP:N it starts to assert action over content, to which notability does not apply. If this is an attempt to write a policy or guideline on fiction, then that's okay, but I think Phil has a proposal along those lines already. I think we should just fall back to WP:N. Hiding T 15:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is that it ticks all the boxes, but says nothing new, which is what all the SNG's do. This proposed guideline does restate WP:N, but applies its principles to the specific subject area of fiction, which is what WP:BK and WP:MOVIE were also designed to do for their subject areaas (it says so in their respective preambles), and I would admit that involves restatement to a degree. As regards content, don't forget that notability is a set of inclusion critieria whose purpose is to satisfy Wikipedia's policies on content and style for a standalone article, and one policy in particular (WP:PLOT) is highly relevant to articles about fiction. Not suprisingly then, it does address content issues, which I would have thought is quite important do, especially were those content issues are specfic to fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All the other SNG's actually expand upon WP:N by adding other criteria through which a topic can be notable rather than simply restate it. Since you agree this simply restates WP:N and other content policies, we can see this proposal is unneeded due to redundancy and instruction creep. Anything this proposal is attempting to guard against is already guarded against. Hiding T 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All the other SNG's deal with subjects that are real world and observable. This proposed guideline is needed for the opposite reason, that fictional topics are unreal, and warrant special treatment in the sense that notability can only be established through real world coverage. It is this that makes this guideline necessary. Fiction is indeed covered in other policies such as WP:NOT and guidelines such as WP:WAF, but that is why this guideline is needed to dovetail with them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Content forks

• Again your flow chart introduces the content fork idea which has been countered previously. I am also incredibly wary that at the bottom we have the text "Topics that don't" rather than "Topics which may not" given the use of may in every check box on the flow chart. Other than that, it's getting better. I know what you're trying to do with the "content fork" check-box, but "content-fork" is very clear in how it is defined on Wikipedia, and is restricted to POV forking. If we once again review Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles we can see it clearly states that Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. So the second check-point has to be re-written or discarded. What do you believe this check-box covers that others won't catch? Then we can look to see how to better word it so we don't muddy the bedrock principle of the neutral point of view. Hiding T 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The section about sub-articles from WP:CFORK may be applicable in certain cases, but it is written based on the assumption that the new article provides evidence of notability, in which case the only concern would be a whether or not it is a deliberate POV fork.
However, in the context of this guideline, we are looking at topics that may or may not be notable, and if the subject is not notable, it is not going to merit its own standalone article and the reason may be it might be an unintentional content fork. If there is no significant coverage, e.g. the coverage is trivial and the subject matter is only mentioned in passing, then it is likely that the sources cited actually address another topic directly and in detail. If that is the case, then the topic is a content fork because it does not contain any commentary, criticism, context or analysis about its subject matter that is not already contained in another article elsewhere.
A good example of this is the Terminator content forks: of the three articles Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character), do not cite any sources that address the subject matter of their article titles directly or in detail. These articles address more or less the same subject matter - the Terminator as he is portrayed in the various films of the same name - which all of the sources cited in these articles refer to. If we recognise that significant coverage is what binds a topic to its sources, then if those linkages are not direct or in detail, it is likely that the sources point to a related topic from which it forks. In the case of the Terminator forks, all of their coverage relates to one of more of the films, and the Terminator himself is probably better discussed in the context of these works. This not because the Terminator is not notable, but rather because it is the film articles are all about him, and they are the best place to discuss his character. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>These articles aren't content forks, per Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles. What you are arguing is that they are non-notable "daughter/derivative" articles, and if they are non-notable, they have already failed one of the other three check boxes. If they haven't, then they are of note. However, what they could well be is what we used to call Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, and articles like that are merge candidates. So either we have non-notable articles, within the scope of this guidance, or we have duplicate articles, which are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope, or overlap articles, which are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap, and therefore not within the scope of this guidance. Instead, they would be candidates for the merge process. This is a situation which I feel merits the need to turn AFD into articles for discussion, because I think it is the only way you will subject such a situation to a diverse audience. One of the inanities of AFD is that you cannot loist an article there for any opther reason than to delete, even when that is not the best or preferred outcome. Part of Wikipedia's problem is that we have fractured discussion, so that it is possible to game the system. A merge proposal at afd could be defeated because of process, and a merge proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers could be defeated by localised consensus. Left hand, meet right hand. I think you and I would agree that a merge is the consensual position, but it is unclear how to make that happen. Hiding T 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole problem with that is that flowchart it does not assume good faith, but rather bad faith on the part of an editor, especially point 2 that they would deliberately create it for a content fork. Yes, its possible and does happen, but the problem is the statement and flowchart with checkpoints does not allow for reasoning or anything. It's cut and dry and of all the areas of Wikipedia, fiction is one of the least cut and dry places for determining notability. I would oppose any such measure that tried to make it so when other notability guidelines are not nearly so.陣内_Jinnai 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can solve that by adding another box about community consensus, and whether consensus exists to WP:IAR. Hiding T 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Hiding, I disagree with categorisation of unintentional content forks as being "non-notable daughter/derivative articles", because you are self referencing, by saying they are not notable because...they are not notable. Unintentional content forks exist where two or more articles share the same subject matter, and evidence of notability will identify one of them being the article that addresses the topic directly and in detail. In turn, this forms the rationale for merger, otherwise mergers of duplicate articles would never take place, as WP:PRESERVE dictates. I think we are agreed that certain articles need to be merged, whether we agree to call them content forks or not, and whether this is driven by WP:NPOV or some other policy, I think we are agreed that "significant coverage" is still needed to bind or link a topic to its sources.
In answer to Jinnai, no assumption of bad faith is assumed. A poorly written article could well be a content fork, but as the article is improved, evidence of notability may be revealed. As the amount of significant real-world coverage there is about a fictional topic increases, the more likely it is to be notable and meet the reqirements of Wikipedia's content policies. The flowchart is there as a guide only, as it greatly simplifies how the inclusion criteria work, and you should not read what is not written into it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the problem here is that you are conflating two separate issues, as has been pointed out to you many times previous. You state that "Unintentional content forks exist where two or more articles share the same subject matter, and evidence of notability will identify one of them being the article that addresses the topic directly and in detail." This makes absolutely no sense, since if both articles share the same subject matter, it follows that both articles are notable. This is not a matter for WP:NPOV, it is a matter for the appropriate process for dealing with articles which are duplicates or overlap each other, namely, as stated above, the merge process. If you re-read my argument more closely, you'll notice that nowhere have I made the 'categorisation of unintentional content forks as being "non-notable daughter/derivative articles"', but rather have made the assertion that 'non-notable "daughter/derivative" articles, if they are non-notable, have already failed one of the other three check boxes. If they haven't, then they are of note.' That's a very clear if/else statement, so does not categorise singularly. Given that I also provided very clear definitions of what constitutes notability, namely "one of the other three check boxes", you'll also find that the sentence is not guilty of "self referencing, by saying they are not notable because...they are not notable", since a reason has been specified for the non-notability. Is it at all possible we could focus on the substance here, which would be that if check box two is there to ensure "significant coverage" is needed to bind or link a topic to its sources, then failing that would imply the topic is not verifiable, since there are no sources cited in the article? Otherwise, I suggest you either copy WP:N and fold significant into check box three as "...the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary..." or remove the reference to content forking and replace it with a reference to trivial as "the topic may be a trivial one, since it is mentioned...". Hiding T 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of two articles that share the same subject matter and sources that are not content forks? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero and Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series, the latter which just was spun out yesterday, with both articles sharing a number of sources. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it fair to say that the Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series contains a lot of unique sources, so it is fair to say that it a notable topic in its own right and is not not a content fork in any shape or form. The other factor to consider is that the article deals with the real world impact of the game, and the issue I am trying to grapple with is content forks don't tend to that - they tend to focus on in game coverage, which is easier to share between topics. For instance none of the Terminator forks discuss their subject matter in terms of the fictional character, franchise or character concept - they are all, more or less about the Termintator films. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you explain why you are conflating notability and content forking first? Hiding T 17:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by "conflating", but if you are asking why is it relevant to the debate, I am sure I have explained myself clearly with the Terminator examples. The problem with a lot of articles about fictional elements is that they don't provide any evidence that their subject matter is independently notable from the work of fiction in which they feature, despite the fact that fictional works tend to enjoy more notability than most topics. The reason is why fictional works are much more notable is because they tend to be distributed through real world media, such as books, movies and television series which are very central to modern culture. There is evidence to show that works distributed through these media are notable on a whole range of levels, as their cultural impact is quite broad. However, if you were to stip away the influence of the medium of distribution, and focus on the narrative or the characters which don't exist in the real world, then the sourcing is very limited. Only very few elements of fiction are sufficiently notable in their own right, and usually they have to be quite extraordinary to be notable independently of the primary source. You mentioned Luke Skywalker in an earlier dicussion, and when I did a quick review of the various characters from Star Wars, I was amazed to find that only the article about Jabba the Hutt actually had any decent sources. The coverage of Star Wars characters may have improved since last year, but what stunned me was that such well known characters are not well covered in reliable secondary sources, which tend to be more focused on the film itself. The same pattern if true of the Lord of Rings characters of which only the article about Gandalf demonstrated notability about the character. In the absence of good sources, many articles about characters tend to beg, borrow or steal sources which discuss the fictional work directly and in detail, while the individual lements tend to get only a passing mention. I would argue that many character articles tend to be unintentional content forks from the works in they feature, simply because what little coverage there is features in the article about the work itself, even though the creators of the articles don't realise it or are not aware that that there are boundaries between topic in terms of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• You haven't described why it is relevant to notability. We both agree that the Terminator articles are not examples of our best work, but that they are bad articles is not because of anything to do with notability. You seem to be having issues with article content, and notability clearly does not apply to content. Hiding T 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Content forking is almost entirely a set of cautions against accusations of POV-forking, and as far as I can see does not link to any other pollcies or guidelines except wP:NPOV. Hence I don't think forking is a useful concept in a discussion of notability.--Philcha (talk|contribs) 16:55, 10 June 2009(UTC)

In answer to Philcha, content forks can be unintentional as well as deliberate POV forks, and a lot of poor quality articles about fictional elements are effectively unintentional content forks from the works from which they are dervied, because they duplicate coverage that is provided in the article about the work itself.
In answer to Hiding, a lack of significant coverage, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and content forks are related problems - the tendancy to split topics into articles which don't have evidence of notability. Take for example, the article about the film Terminator Salvation. Such films seem to spawn lots of derivative article about the films characters, but not every character will the subject of significant coverage, e.g T-600 (note to self - another terminator fork for my list). What the section Derivative articles says is to avoid splitting articles if the new article cannot meet inclusion criteria for topics about fiction. If the article is split regardless, then it is likely to be a content fork, because the coverage which the article T-600 (mainly plot summary in this case) is already contained in articles about the films in which the T-600 features.
The other terminator content forks, such as Terminator (franchise) do contain reliable sources, so they are more difficult to pin down. However, what identifies them as content forks is that the sources they quote don't address their subject matter directly and in detail, i.e. either a franchise or a film series does not get a mention. The article lifts coverage from the individual films and puts it into one article, such that that coverage is not about a Terminator franchise at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Terminator (franchise), I would have to agree that if none of them cover it directly, it probably is a content fork, although its more likely an article that isn't a final draft since for most long-running series there is a general understood consensus to have a series or, in this case, a franchise page as its dealing with the series as a whole. Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character) you'd probably have more solid ground to argue a content fork. However I also would say that if the sources talk about the character concept and character directly but not in-depth, then if enough do so that should be enough to justify it possibly and it would actually be easier to convince someone of that for talking about a character than talking about its concept. That too is a part of the general consensus.
That seems to me Gavin where you seem not to want to compromise with, when general consensus says one thing, even if it goes against existing guidelines and policies. Part of this consensus can be shown in how various fictional guidelines are setup. How they treat things. When they mention specific elements and when they don't. Others can be done though an exhaustive AfD analysis, which can be done (WP:VG is working on one for video games, although its stalled with still working on categorization).陣内_Jinnai 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I am agreeing with you Jinnai. I would expect Terminator (franchise)/(fim series) and Terminator (character) to be topics that ought to be notable, and I am suprised no one has written about the these two topics, given how much Arnie is in the news these days. However, as reagrds the articles in their current state, I think we are agreed they are unintentional content forks, as the coverage they relates to the various Terminator films themselves. That is not to say we have to mention content forking in WP:FICT; it is just too complex a subject area to discuss. However, I think most editors would agree with the principle that if a topic is not the subject of coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, then it is difficult to say its notable in ther real sense, or in terms of Wikipedia's usage of the word. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)