Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Notability criterion of this guideline

The notability criterion of this guideline is, as worded, highly misleading. The guideline states: "articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources". There are at least two problems with this.

First, notability is a characteristic of topics/subjects, not articles. The subjects of articles, not the articles themselves, should be notable. Second, the wording suggests that any article that does not contain (at the moment of viewing) "substantial real-world content" is not notable. However, notability is determined by the existence of coverage in sources, not by the immediate presence or absence of such sources in an article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it "misleading", but I guess I see your point. A slight rewording should fix that. As for your second point, the guideline does point out that obvious notability is enough reason to keep an article, even if they are not immediately present. I think the wording is likely chosen to avoid cases where there isn't likely such sources, but where editors will say "there might be, and that alone should be enough". Any suggestions on the wording? -- Ned Scott 06:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to preempt claims that sources "might" exist (which is essentially less than useful speculation), but the current wording goes significantly beyond that. As for an alternate wording, perhaps something like the following would work:

Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable primary and secondary sources.

This conveys essentially the same meaning, but more accurately describes the concept of notability. As I understand it, the part about "real-world content" is effectively redundant to the requirement for coverage in secondary sources. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't include primary sources as a definition of notability. This will effectively immediately validate every solely in-universe page, and also supersedes the general notability criteria. Otherwise, yes the wording is fine as it parrots that of the general WP:N. --Masem 15:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree. I was just trying to mirror the current wording as much as possible. I have stricken it. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem, it seems, is that this guideline tries to mix notability requirements with style suggestions. This is inherently problematic as it contradicts the principle that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. It seems it would be better to create a style guideline for articles about fictional topics at Wikipedia:Fiction (currently a redirect) and leave the 'notability' aspect to Wikipedia:Notability. Any thoughts? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Me and AldeBaer are currently workIng on WT:WAF#Proposal for a careful revision in an attempt to accomplish just that (More details are on my talk page). Comments will be welcome. G.A.S 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this new consensus mean that we can finally get back to the much-lauded principle of notability through parent and sub-articles? That was swell, and it looks like it's been devoured in the endless pile of archived pages. MalikCarr 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean; but I will in short explain what I believe we want to achieve with the WAF rewrite:

• The guideline will in short explain the applicable policies and guidelines applicable to fiction.
• The guideline will be divided into three sections (in addition to the above):

• Do we write about a fictional subject — in short this will be an extract of the notability requirement, with {{tl:See Also}} to WP:FICT
• What information do we write about — this will focus on the requirement of out-of-universe information and in-universe information, proportions there-off, etc.
• How do we write/present the information — this will focus on the requirement that information should be presented from an out of universe view; as well as possibly styling, etc.

Regards, and comment will be appreciated here. G.A.S 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Which would mean, in short, that information ("what") need not be repeated here. G.A.S 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

About a month and a half ago, it was proposed that we create a reasonable, well-defined section for parent and child articles with regards to notability (specifically from primary and secondary sources), since sometimes it is not possible to establish secondary source notability for given elements of a fictional work (e.g. the copyright holder holds all reliable sources). I took a hiatus from the discussion and when I returned it looked like this was no longer being debated (and thus doomed to archive Hell). I was hoping this was up for debate again, since it was the best thing that had come out of this entire business (in my humble opinion). MalikCarr 04:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being vague, I'll just spell it out for ease of reading: For the sake of maintaining sub articles that satisfy all other criterion for inclusion, are varying standards of secondary source notability up for debate again? MalikCarr 04:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if the main article is noteable but requires splitting of content into sub-articles, those sub-articles should be covered by the main article's noteability. Jtrainor 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though with the caveat that they must still be sourced - just with less of an emphasis on the necessity of secondary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. The last thing we want to create is more crap unsourced articles. MalikCarr 05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, MalikCarr, I think we stumbled into two larger issues: one was making this guideline cohesive with WP:WAF such that while there's still two separate guidelines, they work together to support each other -- from this, I've not seen anything new on that "working together front" because of a larger issue that the general WP:N approach may be considered as being merged into one single guideline to consider all notability aspects regardless of fiction, bio, or whatnot. This *seems* to be taking a larger part of WP:N and WP:WAFs time.

As to the aspect of sub-articles, I think we're still saying that in-universe sub-articles are ok, but they have to be a last-resort and have to meet high quality standards, otherwise they will be encouraged to be trimmed, merged, transwiki'd, or at worst, deleted.--MASEM 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'd be all in favor of a high quality standard for such things - it would encourage more good articles to be written. It's true that many fiction sub articles are crap - saying that we can have these, IF they're sourced and succinct and what not, is a good idea if you ask me. MalikCarr 06:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

#Addition to support style sub-articles -- Ned Scott 07:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikia's

Here's a suggestion. Maybe we should fork all unsourced character articles where there is little to no real-world information to separate Wikia's if possible. WAVY 10 15:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See annex.wikia. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There might be a problem with this (As was done here): WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided—

"2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

"13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

--41.240.173.38 12:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Current status of rewrite

As we're getting muddled in several issues in with WP:WAF, we should restate what we've been trying to do and what needs to be done for updating this guideline.

The only significant addition outside of language/alignment with WP:WAF and WP:N is the issue of sub-articles containing only in-universe information. The general consensus on this page seems to agree that these articles should exist, but should be a rarity.

Ned Scott proposed language to the following:

To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should still strive to include real-world information when appropriate.

which many agreed with.

I will note that I still offer the suggestion of using a as-yet-to-utilized Template:In-universe rationale to be used on such sub-pages to identify when the editors decided to split it as to be able to easily identify those articles where consideration of these new guidelines has been put into place against those that are legacy or just "Well, x had it, y should have a character list too!" copycats. I think this language must be accompanied by a good deal of when and where subarticles are appropriate; the above addition is to the point, but there will be editors that just don't get it unless you provide examples and suggestions of what do to for non-appropriate pages.

If this is the only major change, we should make sure it jives first with WP:WAF and then subsequently WP:N (two very different sets of editors). I will note that we are somewhat superceding WP:N here, so we'll definitely want input there, even though fictional works come up all the time on that page. We then should likely get the various fictional projects (Films, Books, etc.) to take a look at it as well simultaneously to see how that works for them. Revise, rewrite, and reoccur the guideline to make sure all these major players are happy with it, and the release it to the world. --MASEM 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, the template proposal is still alive too. For what it's worth, I'm behind it 100% - it would cut out a lot of red tape and make creation and longevity of articles that satisfy all other policy and guideline criterion much less of a headache. MalikCarr 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the proposed rewrite of WP:WAF may lead to a cleaner WP:FICT, as a lot of information not inherent to notability would not have to be repeated here. This should make this guideline more helpful. On the other side, having 10+ notability guidelines are not particularly helpful; which might mean that merging this guideline into WP:N, along with said proposals may in fact be a good idea. (According to recent discussions on WT:N this has been suggested many times before, always to be shot down by the same group of editors.)

It may help to suspend major updates to this guideline until the above has been sorted out (Which will provide us time to help with said issues).

Regards, G.A.S 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised at the direction this has taken. It's actually even more strict now. Why aren't all the people complaining? Not that I really care, but it's still...surprising.

If I knew that the fans would eventually back off, then my original rewrite would've been similar to the current version... — Deckiller 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They are, at least those that heard about it. (see, for example User:TTN's activities in striving for notability and thus removing lots of non-notable episode pages with lots of protesting of said methods, but awareness that now notability is a key issue. --MASEM 03:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deckiller, the guideline here is by no means perfect, and a lot of the original issues with it, such as the prescriptive wording thereoff, still exists. The paragraph added above is seen as a compromise, though. At most, major editing of this guideline will only be suspended until discussions at WT:N and updating of WP:WAF is complete. G.A.S 06:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think WP:FICT is in good shape right now, but I'm very interested in seeing where these additional proposals might lead us. In any case, we seem to be heading in the right direction. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One recommendation I have picked up, and seems to make sense, is to move the examples and notes to an examples and notes section (aka references section) as is done with Wikipedia:Notability#Notes. This would have the advantage of linking the examples directly with the recommendations, and "delistify" the guideline. Would there be any objections to this? G.A.S 07:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this more strict? Currently, it makes allotments for articles that, while satisfying all other criterion for inclusion, would get nixed by the secondary sources requirement for verifiability, which downright sucks (it's difficult enough to write about fiction when half the time you can't even find a reliable primary source, much less a secondary one). I'd like to think that, at the current pace of this, the guideline will actually be more inclusive to well-referenced articles than it is now, which is a nice pace of things. MalikCarr 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Indvidual episodes (or similar)

Does this new wording affect individual episodes (or similar) of a series? The reason I ask, is that a notability tag has been placed on Grand Theft Cosmos, The Skull of Sobek and Max Warp - which are individual stories as part of the BBC7 Big Finish Adventures. StuartDD _{contributions} 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. You have two options in this case:

1. Find substantial real world information about the episodes, and integrate it into the article, as well as reference it.
2. Merge it into the list:

• Edit the episode article, and cut and paste the content in the list (edit description: "Merge content from permanent link")
• Replace the subarticles' content with #Redirect[[list#subsection]] {{R from merge}} (edit description: "Merge content to [[list#subsection]]")
• Convert the moved content and current list into list format using {{Episode list}}.

• If it is unpractical to merge all of the information into the list due to excessive lenght, it is likely that you can find enough real world content for a BBC7 Big Finish Adventures article, which could incorporate said list (It is also much easier to get such a list featured than it would be to get an individual episode featured).

I hope this helps. Regards, G.A.S 08:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Example section

Moved from an above sub-section to gather more attention -- Ned Scott 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the tables found at WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing and WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table. When I saw them I thought they were a great way to express how a guideline or policy worked in situations that had grey areas. I think something like this might be just what we need. -- Ned Scott 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It might work, but we would need actual borderline examples, as well as clear examples. I especially think that one like the WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table might be useful. G.A.S 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Example

I recommend we add the following example for To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style: —G.A.S 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

“ There was enough text about Metal Gear Solid's characters to merit its own entry; that text was excised from the present entry and replaced by a link. ”

That statement is too weak. It needs to explain why the characters have enough text to require the split. Otherwise, anything will be up for the "It's too long to fit here" wikilawyering game. TTN 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please suggest a better statement, I am all out of ideas. G.A.S 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, why do we always assume the worst in editors when we create guidelines like this? We shouldn't be trying to pre-empt every editor who feels like pushing the limits of the guideline and produce a sub-par rendition as a result. "Wikilawyering" as a whole is a term that just infuriates me to no end - there's nothing wrong with a creative interpretation of policy or guideline, and if it's too far out of step, it's not like it can't be pushed back anyway. Policy violations tend to go together, if you catch my meaning. MalikCarr 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just for fiction, but fans grasp anything close to a loophole and hold on very, very tight. If this is not worded properly, it will be the main point of at least half of the discussions. It needs to be very specific or just not included at all. As for wording, I have no idea. It's hard to actually get that wording in there without taking up two or three paragraphs. TTN 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more (to me) a matter of trying to create a preventative guideline than one that applies post-effects. The guideline should encourage people to strongly consider when a fictional sub-article is neΎeded, such that when a new fictional work comes out, we don't suddendly get 100s of new articles that we have to post-manage. So the wording has to be rather strong to state that sub-article creation should be the last consideration when making an article about fiction, and should only fall "naturally" from the article style considerations assuming all other aspects are held right. --MASEM 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need to preemptively punish editors because a handful of fans would rather write unsourced novels on Wikipedia about a tiny aspect of their favorite show. Delete the crap, keep the good ones and let's move on with our lives. This apparent hatred of fan editors is one of the reasons why those of us trying to enforce guidelines are often labeled as "anti-content Nazis" and nonsense like that. If anything, we should be encouraging people to write more articles, not trying to make an overly oppressive guideline to discourage such things. If editors create garbage articles, we have devices to remove them. A bunch of "fans" show up and vote keep? Oh well, that's how consensus works on Wikipedia today. We shouldn't be trying to sidestep the editing community at large in this matter, it'll only make things worse. MalikCarr 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is "preemptively punishing editors", and I don't know where you get off saying this is a hatred of fan editors. With the massive amount of new content added to Wikipedia daily, if we didn't discourage some forms of articles, it would not be humanly possible to maintain the website. Why else do we have things like WP:NOT, which has existed since Feb 2002? I don't think your negative summary accurately describes what we are trying to do with this guideline. -- Ned Scott 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We really need to get an example out there for that section, as there is confusion out there regarding this. The two articles I listed are both featured, so it makes sense to use them. The wording I chose was adapted from WP:SS, so it is wording there is consensus on. ("When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link."). So unless someone comes up with better wording, that example should go into the guideline. It can then be edited until everybody is happy with it. G.A.S 06:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that TTN's point above, though, needs to be closely considered and that wording tightened up to reflect the specifics encountered in fict debates. Fiction fans seem particularly uninterested in asserting encyclopedic standards and any loophole needs to be very closely defined. Eusebeus 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The current wording of the guideline requires an example.
• We all agree that the guideline's wording means that lists are an acceptable split.
• That article and list are featured.
• What would a better wording be in this case? Regards, G.A.S 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you suggest that this isn't specifically targeted at "fan editors" as a preemptively offensive action, yet a paragraph later we have the exact same sentiment echoed with a broad generalization about exploiting loopholes and not following Wikipedia policies? This mentality will only create more pain for us down the line. We can't write a sensible, fair, and most importantly, effective guideline if we've already convicted the editors this guideline is meant to help of being unproductive to the project as a whole. MalikCarr 09:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that wikipedia needs a definitive view on whether it is simply impossible to pay for and run an encyclopedia which goes into details about fiction, or whether it is possible and such considerations should be irrelevant. I'm afraid I do not see why knowledge, any kind of knowledge, is undesirable. Maybe more coverage of particle physics would give better balance to the whole enterprise, but face it, it just isn't going to happen because particle physics is a minority interest and there just aren't enough contributors to maintain such fast growth in such esoteric areas of the encyclopedia. This issue is clearly an argument between people seeking to place word count caps on fiction articles irrespective of the article merits, and those who think an article deserves the number of words needed to say what therere is to be said. Sandpiper 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are fair use/non-free issues in describing fictional works too much; one cannot just simply reiterate the plot of a work and leave it at that; fair use requires that there must be some commentary or other use of that information, otherwise, it's violating copyright. While this area is highly questionable when it comes to fan sites, the WP foundation has stated more aggressive requirements for meeting fair use guidelines, and thus we cannot have full plot and character descriptions that one would normally expect one would find on a fan site. Thus, the encouragement is to not focus so much on the in-universe information but to provide the context that then makes sense to describe the necessary parts of the plot to make the out-of-universe stuff; if a part of a fictional work is not notable enough to get noticed outside the work, it is likely not necessary to include it.

This is nothing about article size, or that WP has a limited capacity for information, it is making sure we meet the goals and requirements of the Foundation. --MASEM 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen arguments about copyright discussed and take them seriously, but the debate seldom mentions them. If copyright really is a problem then we must respect it, but frankly I have seen very little to suggest it is a serious issue for wikipedia. Perhaps for others copying wiki, (and maybe implications for the foundation wishing to sell on the content?), but not here. The restrictions generally being imposed are significantly more rigorous than legal limitations, but if you are seriously suggesting that this is the difficulty, then frame the guidelines and policy stating the legal limits and leave it at that. Some fiction no longer even has copyright: where is the alternate policy on how to treat fiction more comprehensively when no copyright applies? Do not use specious arguments about how some style gives articles pseudo academic respectability, and disparaging 'fans'. Academic jargon and a convoluted style is not something to strive for. Nor, make out that something is non-noteable despite vast numbers of people being interested in it. That also flies in the face of common senses.

As to the goals of the foundation, I thought they were to make a comprehensive encyclopedia, and any by-laws made along the way which impede this should be cast aside. Exactly what goals of the foundation will be prevented by having more comprehensive coverage of fiction? I do not see how this can amount to anything except money. Again, denying that passers by are interested in a synopsis of a plot in its own right is flying in the face of reality. I expect an encyclopedia to tell me things I want to know, and I expect its coverage to reflect the interests of its audience. I really do not see why the foundation should have any issue with this, except from the financial standpoint. I personally regard it rather stupid to create a comprehensive encyclopedia, then create major holes in its coverage just where it might reasonably attract readers. If someone comes here and likes the coverage of their favourite series, then they may well stay and do something useful elsewhere, or simply add to wikipedias overall popularity. If people expect someone like me to respect guidelines, then those guidelines have to make sense for sound and clear reasons. Frequently they don't. If the reason for a policy/guideline is that the foundation has forbidden fiction articles longer than one article in total coverage, then that is what the policy should say, not some double talk pretending that people think it is the best way of informing the reader, or presenting what someone thinks he ought to know rather than what he wants to know.Sandpiper 08:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The foundation has expressed its views on copyright material here, m:Resolution:Licensing policy, and notes that Wikipedia:Non-free content is a part of Wikimedia Foundation policy. Wikipedia:Non-free content is decided by the consensus of editors on Wikipedia, therefore your argument lacks substance, since the community here does in fact decide a very important part of the Foundation's goals, and the "by-laws made along the way" which you declare should be swept aside are a fundamental building block of the Foundations core goal, being to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license," (original emphasis). I hope that clears up any confusion, misunderstanding or misplaced idealism regarding the Wikimedia Foundations policies and goals, and also the importance of Fair Use with regards the Wikipedia project. Please do not paint this issue as a red herring, it is a very important one and one that has been defined for us by the Foundation. Hiding Talk 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert here, but isn't there also a problem with the educational content mentioned in the goals of the foundation? In-universe content does not seem very related to education, but rather to entertainment. That's not bad as such, but probably doesn't qualify under these regulations. --B. Wolterding 11:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists of fictional characters - deprecated?

Are lists of fictional characters now deprecated? I ask in the light of these two AfDs: List of Warcraft characters and List of Guild Wars characters, which are both heading towards a strong delete. The lack of sources or out-of-universe info is obvious, but it strikes me as unlikely these articles cannot be brought up to the level of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII or Characters in the Halo series.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated may be too strong, but there is emphasis to make sure lists of characters are either given out-of-world treatment (and such making them notable), or that the list only exists because the information is needed to understand the notability of the key subject but inclusion of that list in the main article body leads to stylistic problems. In both of the AfD's above, the lists are way too extensive and really do not help to provide addition insight to understand their topic (eg: Guild Wars has no story or world-history that I can see, so listing all these characters does absolutely nothing). If there really was something that could be saved, a concerned editor should jump in and say that they are trying to improve it or establish why it should stay, but I see neither on those discussions.

Short answer: No, lists of characters are not being depreciated, but there's a careful time and place for their use. --MASEM 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not that lists of fictional characters are deprecated, but more like.. you can't just dump everything into a single article that was in all those individual articles. -- Ned Scott 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that Characters in the Halo series overwhelmingly relies on Halo novels and The Art of Halo, the only difference between that and List of Warcraft characters is the amount of work someone has put into it.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just looked further, and you're right, scanned the refs show all but one seem to be from primary sources (I'm considering the novels and Art of Halo to be primary). Mind you, I will state that given that Halo spans several works (3 vid games, several novels, etc.), this is probably a reasonable example of where a sub-article of in-universe information is appropriate. --MASEM 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the same for Warcraft, though.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Warcraft articles that are being deleted have no real word context at all, not even an introduction. The Halo article is borderline brief introduction containing real world information then a long list. People are somewhat willing to look the other way on sources if the article is encyclopedic and has real world context. If it's just a long endless list of characters, races, items, etc. People are going to vote against it. Basically a list of characters with no real word context is viewed as a type of plot summary. Ridernyc 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it could potentially be improved to the standard of the Halo character article. There's no time limit, and bad content is not a reason to delete. My concern, as always, is that equivalent articles are kept or deleted soley based on the personal tastes of Wikipedians. --Nydas^(Talk) 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's possible, add some quick sources to assert some notability, get some people ready to clean it up, and go from there. If sources are not readily available, you cannot really make that claim. TTN 20:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Halo characters article is sourced from novels and an art book. Novels and art books exist for Warcraft. End of story, surely.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The quality of those materials varies from series to series. They could potentially provide a plentiful amount of information or they may provide squat. Unless someone can verify the material within them, they are useless at this point. If someone does have access to them, and the article is deleted, present that at a deletion review. TTN 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when did published sources become unreliable unless proven otherwise? In any case, you will agree that the Pokemon lists are cut from the same cloth as these ones, and should likewise be deleted.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not unreliable; they just may not have relevant information. That has nothing to do with reliability. I really don't know where the whole "exception" discussion has gone, so they may or may not be necessary. Though, you cannot compare two different lists. While both topics are popular, the coverage of the characters is different. Warcraft's characters may not need this kind of coverage (I'm not too familiar with it). TTN 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if sourced the Article would still need real world context which I just don't see happening anytime soon. If it gets deleted you can always get a copy of the article and improve it in someones userspace then recreate it. I have no problem with well written articles like the final fantasy one you linked to. In answer to question about pokemon, haven't looked at that one but trust me I'm pretty sure the vast majority of thses articles would not make it through AFD. Hopefully people will start improving articles rather then waiting for them to be deleted. Ridernyc 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Being badly written doesn't entail deletion. If we're going to have 'exceptions' for lists of characters from popular video games, surely Warcraft is eligible? Or are the exceptions just for franchises that Wikipedians favour?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the average situation, we don't have massive lists like some of the examples being discussed. Warcraft, Pokemon, whatever those should be on wikipedia or not aside, they're not the norm, and are going to be far bigger than most. So to answer the original question, are we moving away from lists of fictional characters? No, but it is likely that we need to address what kinds of lists are excessive and what kinds are reasonable, as well as how to deal with lists for major franchises or shows that have been on for ten years. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to support style sub-articles

To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should still strive to include real-world information when appropriate.

To me, this would cover most of the articles that people were worried about being deleted, but are generally allowed on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think this covers the complete problem regarding this specific issue. (The minumum changes I recommended a while back - see the project page history - should still be considered (if we are not going to rewrite the guideline). Regards, G.A.S 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if we're done with that yet (although I do favor the current guideline), but in the very least I thought it would be reasonable to include this bit. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Two things I would add, and I'll be bold with one of them, specifically that such articles should clearly identify themselves as describing a fictional work and place it in context of the main work within the lead. The other part which I'll leave for discussion is that this almost gives too much leeway for others to make any article (the "by example" issue), and thus there is need for some language in there to make this the least preferred solution and all the other points addressed by the third case in the previous green box. --Masem 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This would lead to articles that do not meet WP:NN, which this guideline is meant to be a continuation of. It would also probably cause thousands of articles that go against WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#PLOT. The topic of an article should be notable in it's own right - notability is not inherited. Editors should not have to refer to a myriad of other pages in order to deem whether an article meets the inclusion criteria or to be able to edit the article. If there is real world content available on a toipic I don't see why it couldn't be included in the article - especially as any article on a fictional concept should - in theory - be based around that information. Real world topics do not have subarticles - spouses of notable people must be notable in their own right to have an article - and I do not see why fictional topics should be any different. [[Guest9999 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)]]
  • This is the point we've been arguing for the past month; I think most of us agree that a fictional element page on its own fails several guidelines. However, there are times that for stylistic reasons that including accurate but succinct fictional elements and their notable distinctions with respect to the plot will cause the article to be too long, and that it is fair to allow for in the rare case an article written primarily from in-universe to be broken out to stand on its own, as long as it satisfies all other WP guidelines. (List of Pokemon is a good example of this, but any TV/book/comic/video game series that have a reoccurring cast of characters is also fair game). The above change is not strong enough, however, to suggest that this is a rarity, which is why I suggest that this needs to be mentioned and emphasized a lot more in the changed wording if we stick to that.
  • Also, real-world topics do have subarticles: that's the whole point of summary style, see New York City for example, and is basically the point we're trying to address for fictional works too. --Masem 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This goes back to the old debate about sub-articles and long-articles, and is one reason why I choose the wording "technical". This really is just a technicality, if something stands in it's own document or shares another. The important part is that it would still be judged as if it were in the same document (as in, if it was an unnecessary, or an excessively (plot) detailed section, it could be cut back or redirected all together). I'm hoping we can emphasize that and limit the loop-hole risk that way. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• I can't help but feel this would cause a lot of grief with both parties shouting "WP:FICT" at each other over a merge. Nifboy 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This already happens :\ -- Ned Scott 06:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm worried a section like this "defangs" notability by allowing a loophole. I worry that even with wording like "To a limited extent", it will abused in AFD to an extent that the entire section will be meaningless if someone can claim it is a "sub-article". I don't see why non-notable split-off articles can't be integrated into the main article in a shorter form. --Phirazo 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing notability in exactly this fashion is needed in many cases. We limit the depth of coverage Wikipedia can offer on a great many subjects by limiting the size of every Wikipedia article (which is sensible) and applying Notability on an article-level scale instead of a subject-level scale. This has a Procrustean bed effect. Article series should be considered as a whole when determining notability.--Father Goose 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Phirazo, even though I proposed the wording, this is also a concern of mine. I was thinking that maybe citing some specific examples might help counter some the possible abuse in AfDs. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support per my reply to Phirazo above.--Father Goose 02:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Sub-articles should be judged in the sense that they could (and perhaps should) be merged with the main article. They inherit a degree of notability from the parent. Hypothetically, if the content would be expunged after a merge with the parent (for reasons other than length), then the sub-article should probably be deleted or cleaned up. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's awkwardly worded, but it's much easier to correct stylistic problems once the principle is enshrined in the guideline than to ammend this wording and have to start a new discussion. Happy‑melon 08:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• This really needs to be thoroughly discussed before it is added. We need to actually go through maybe ten or so examples to see what people here think is actually necessary. Some people may think the amount that can be written equals the amount that should be written. Some people may feel that the main characters are an automatic split. There are a ton of possibilities. In the very least, there needs to be two or three detailed paragraphs under that one to back this idea. TTN 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Qualified Support for main characters (by main, meaning ONLY the characters whose actors in the case of television are shown on the show's open). WAVY 10 Fan 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that isn't going to happen. On that note, this should clarify that only lists apply to this kind of split. There will never be a case where an actual article is required to describe the in-universe information. TTN 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - this proposal is somewhat more conservative than I would like to see, but I am willing to take what I can! MalikCarr 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Fair warning: as a bleeding-heart inclusionist, I plan on milking this section for all it's worth. Ichormosquito 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That is why we need to discuss this thoroughly before inclusion. This is not supposed to be a way to wikilawyer. TTN 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You're probably right. My conscience sometimes betrays me. Still, I've found that many established editors continue to disregard this guideline. Its current state is out of whack with the situation on the ground. The guideline as a whole has a bright future as a cattle prod, but it needs a section like this for the sake of legitimacy. Ichormosquito 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Though with the reservations that this version is too equivocal. No need for the opening 'to a limited extent', since either there exist technical reasons, or there do not. No need for 'even these' on the next sentence, since they should not be being regarded as exceptions, but a natural consequence of good style in limiting page length for reasons of readability and organisation. Perhaps instead more neutrally, 'Such articles still need to establish noteability, but.....'. However, I regard an explicit statement that sub articles covering individual aspects of a larger whole are entirely legitimate, as essential. This is not a 'pocket guide' we are writing here. Sandpiper 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the wording of 'to a limited extent', since it helps limit the fancruft that pervades Wikipedia's coverage of fiction. --Phirazo 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Just thought I'd drop in from my extended Wikibreak and comment on the current (tweaked) version of the original rewrite. It's very good on the whole; some of the language needs to be tightened, but that will come with time and strategic distance. Anyway, continue with your bickering :) — Deckiller 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't shake the image of a reporter providing an update on a news story before stating: "We now return you to your scheduled bickering." :P – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the writers' strike that's about to start, we're in for a deluge of bickering.--Father Goose 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And I was looking forward to a great season of 24, with Tony Almeida back....oh well. — Deckiller 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tired of this policy being abused

I'm tired of every AFD nomination telling me they had to make list of every minor character in a book because the page was to long. I'm also tired of hearing that everything that can possibly be written about topic is notable because according to WP:Fiction notability is inherited from the main article. More emphasis needs to be put on the strive to include real world information. Really wikipedia is turning into one giant fan site. The policy as it is written now is so vague that it alowws anything and everything. Ridernyc 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determing if you are being sarcastic or not, because if you aren't, then it means you haven't read any of the past discussions visible on this page, or in the archives. The reason I say that is because you seem to be one of the few coming here arguing that this guideline is so vague it promotes IU perspective, when the majority of others come here to argue the opposite of that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the entire archive. I'm arguing the the notability guideline is so vague that it over rides other notability guidelines. There is no end to it. There is no clear line of what is notable and what is not notable. Reading the archive it seems the original intention was to clean things up and move minor characters and the like into lists. But I think this has just formed a new monster in that everyone now thinks they can make endless unsourced lists. All we are in effect doing is taking a detailed plot summary and spreading it across 30 list pages. I'm sorry but not every book, tv show, video game etc. is notable enough to spread out infinitely. But the way people read the guideline now that's the way they interpret it. They see no reason to source or establish notability for sub-articles because the main focus of this guideline that everyone latches onto it that everything is ok as long you link to the parent article. Ridernyc 21:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly in a minority of few that think that. The guideline was actually rewritten recently to better model the general notability guidline. The idea behind the list was that not every character is worthy of their own article, and it's better to concede a list of 30 people, than 30 individual pages. The fact that they aren't sourcing is not this guidelines fault, they still have to follow WP:V, simple as that. There isn't a "clear line" of notability because it varies from topic to topic. The basis is, "significant coverage from independent sources". That's clear as anything. Whether people follow that or not is not the problem of the guideline, but of the people not following it. This guideline doesn't say anywhere that you can ignore WP:V, being that WP:V is a policy, that isn't likely to happen anywhere. The same goes for WP:NOR. This guideline does not say you can ignore any policy. People read things differently than each other. For instance, you are coming here saying the page is vague and being abused by those that want IU perspective, whereas many others are coming here saying it is vague and being abused by those that want real-world perspective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm part of the few, I think most editors choose to look the other way. Of course most be come here and argue that that the guideline should be weaker, they are the ones writing the articles that end up in AFD. Ridernyc 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Ridernyc. The recent revisions are ambiguous, but can be read as having have created a loophole in the principle that notability is not inherited, and they have asserted for fiction a limited exemption to the general principle that notability is established by reference to independent sources. I can see no logical reason why these principles should be approached any differently for fiction than for other areas of the encyclopedia. The second para of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable_topics should either be deleted or copied verbatim to the main notabilty guideline at WP:NOTE and all the other sub-guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything since these articles have a long history of growing totally out of control stricter rules are needed. I also have issues with what constitutes a work of fiction, for example a Game may be notable for gameplay, the storyline may have no notability, yet WP:Fiction is still applied. Ridernyc 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There also seems to be no provision against recursion. If I can establish notability for a film, can I use this para to avoid having to assert notability for an article on one of it's characters, and then again for an article on that character's clothing, and thus for a spin-off article on the seamstress claimed in the film to have made them? Where does it end? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

exactly it's an infinate loophole. "To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons)". tight there it clearly says these articles need not prove notability. Therefore I can create a list of running gags in Seinfield and it's automatically notable. Or create a list of every plant and creature in WoW,...... Ridernyc 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's something the both of you have to remember, this is a guideline and not a policy. Though many of us would like for it to be a policy, and be a little more defined in areas, the simple fact is, everything is done on a case by case basis. People will abuse this guideline no matter what it says. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We aren't here to govern editor's lives to a "T". People are abusing this page, and using the section you pointed out, because they don't properly understand it. There are a lot of thing not properly understood in a lot of places, but that doesn't mean we should hold their hands like children either. I highly doubt someone could create an article on some character's clothes and it not consists of a lot of original research. If you think the gaming industry needs its own notability guideline, that'ssomething for the general notability page. The only issue with the paragraph being abuse that I can find is this sentence:"Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons)." -- I think that you need to have real world information in both articles, not just the parent article. Now, I don't see an issue with splitting off a character list that has grown too large, so long as it has real world information about the characters. You can have real world information from primary sources, so forcing that list to have "cultural impact" information might not be as important as having real world information in general (i.e. casting, creating, etc etc).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right near the start, because we have even an ounce of common sense and that is a completely impossible scenario that has no bearing on actual events? "Automatically"?! I've been very active in fiction AfD discussions as well and have seldom seen FICT invoked to save content and far more seldom seen it make a difference.
And sorry if I sound too harsh. I haven't been sleeping right in weeks. --Kizor 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the current Tolkein AFD's, it should also be noted that those AFD's were made after arguments involving WP:Fiction, this is part of what prompted this. I discovered to my amazement the BEG and I had been working to the same goals for awhile now. I admire her for having th guts to take on The Tolkein crowd. Ridernyc 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines exist for a simple reason: to ensure that as a tertiary source, wikipedia avoids original research and summarises knowledge on issues which are already the subject of secondary writing. Yet this para creates a weird anomaly: so far as I can see, I could not use the copious primary sources in my friend's house to write a standalone wikipedia article about a church in my village, which gets a brief mention in the main article. However, if my village were fictional and the church was fictional, it seems that this guideline could allow me to write a spinoff article on the church without establishing notability, and even to write spin-spin-off on the church's ancient gravestones. Why are we offering a lower threshold for fiction than for reality? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if they abuse the idea of "length". You'd probably have a tough time finding so much encyclopedic information that you needed a separate article on that fictional church. Since Wiki isn't just a big plot summary, the information will have to be more than just plot information. Wiki isn't a substition for watching, reading, hearing whatever, so if the plot information is that detailed it needs splitting, then the obvious choice is to trim it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

reset indent, Right now as the policy stands it encourages people to create a giant disorganized mess. If my article is to long don't edit to get rid unimportant information, just make a list of every section, and since I'm making a list I might as well make a really long list and include everything, but now that list is long so let me make 3 lists from this list... Splitting the article should be a last resort to proper editing, this guideline says the opposite, and is worded in such a way that people think it's fine to create an unsourced list, because everything is inherited from the main article. What you are saying in your arguments and what is implied by the policy are vastly different. The guideline for fiction really needs to take on these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It doesn't say "please create a giant list". It says "if the page becomes too long". The fact that people ignore the first part and just create the list is their problem. There seems to be confusion over people abusing this guideline in that manner, and people are have abused all the guidelines in that manner. If they adhered to the other guidelines and policies, there wouldn't be a problem with this one. If they adhered to WP:WAF there wouldn't be a problem with the amount of IU information. The guideline on fiction does not control people ignore the guideline on "writing about fiction", or the policy on plots, or verifiability, original research etc etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So why even have this guideline. It's here to try to loophole around other polices and guidelines. Ridernyc 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you can verify something doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. Verifiability doesn't say what can have an article, verifiability says what can be stated in an article. Notability is the determinant for article creation, but since it varies over mediums, it's a guideline. If you're having trouble with people creating lists that violate this page, do a little digging and point out where else they are violating guidelines and policies, because I guarantee that if they don't meet notability requirements, they probably fail other requirements not on this page. You might also want to explain how they are misinterpreting this guideline, as I have to say that I've rarely seen anyone invoke this guideline as a means to keep an article from deletion--obviously it's happened, as you've shown examples. I just don't believe it is that common...though I don't prowl the AfD page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

happens constantly in AFD, also happens constantly on talk pages. You put a notice for reference, or about in-universe and it gets removed. This is another large part of the problem this guideline confuses things that articles are starting to get sent to AFD to prove a point and force cleanup. If we are going to have a guideline it should clear up problems not cause. I still have not had it explained why this is here at all. Ridernyc 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because I've been here for two years and I've never--before you brought this discussion here--seen this page used in that respect. As for "why this is here", I don't have to justify the existence of this page. If you think it shouldn't be here, nominate it for deletion. If you are just trying to nitpick because I said that they are abusing other guidelines and policies as well, then try and stay on target. Regardless, this page will probably not become "stricter" because Wikipedia isn't a burearocacy, and guidelines are not "hard rules", like policies are. I told you where I believed the second paragraph should be changed, as for everything else on this page, I feel that it adequately explains itself. There are few, if any, rules on Wikipedia that have absolutely "no" leeway in regards to their applications. If we started doing that, people would leave and Wikipedia would die out. We can barely get people to follow the rules we already have in place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridernyc, you seem to be new to this discussion. I find it laughable to think that WP:FICT is to blame for what you speak of. "splitting the article should be a last resort to proper editing, this guideline says the opposite, and is worded in such a way that people think it's fine to create an unsourced list, because everything is inherited from the main article." Are you sure you actually read WP:FICT?

Myself and others still recognize that the "style issues" section is the weakest point of this guideline, and the most likely to be abused. That being said, it's inclusion into this guideline was somewhat recent, predating the vast majority of the situations you speak of, and was done so with the intent on improving the wording to limit future abuse. The addition itself is necessary to be inline with other guidelines and to prevent this guideline from being abused in the other direction.

We're working on example sections to help limit this, and possibly more advice on how detailed such articles should or should not be. You're tired of lists being AfDed? LISTS?! We used to have to deal with individual character articles, item articles, and much much more. I guess we should take it as a good sign that someone is bitching about lists. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is turning into a case of the people working on this are way to close to the issue. Ridernyc 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, because the issue couldn't possibly be on some other end. There's only one issue I can find with the one sentence of this guideline. The rest is pretty cut and dry, in fact, it's more in favor of what you want.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Forget about the problem of this paragraph being abused for a second, there's still a much more fundamental problem with it. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, and all articles are required to have real-world context. Articles that would seem fine on Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia may not be suitable here. This is especially important to remember when writing articles about fictional subjects. My feeling is that any fictional topic that grows too big for its parent article, but can't assert its own notability, probably doesn't have enough real-world context for inclusion on Wikipedia. Such topics should never be allowed to grow too big for their parent articles. And if they do, then they probably need to be cut down to remove trivia. —gorgan_almighty 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This can't always be met. Take The Simpsons for example, where the main article is chock-full of good secondary sources but is already edging on being excessively long, without mentioning major characters outside of the immediate Simpson family, and even then, just saying what their basic relationship (by blood) is. An article like List of characters in The Simpsons is thus appropriate even if it lacks secondary sources (to wit, most of the Simpson family characters have reasonable individual character pages that use secondary sources); I'd argue that many of the sub-pages from this page are not appropriate and can be significantly merged, but the main list page, and by reason of further necessity, the sublist pages that keep that list page from becoming unmanagible (eg: List of recurring characters from The Simpsons) are appropriate. Do note, however, that The Simpsons may be the exception, as many of the episode articles can actually be written towards notability (most have good secondary sources), and thus to explain the impact of the episode, you need to know what the characters are, and thus this lists are appropriate. Someone less notable like Dragonball Z is not going to have the same notability and use of secondary sources, so likely the amount of pages for in-universe information should be very very minimal.

It IS a case by case basis, which is why there has to be emphasis that just because a list of characters exists for one show, it does not mean that a list should exist for another show. Articles should be written from the outside in - focus on the real-world impact and notability, and only until its found that its necessary to include in-universe information to sufficiently describe how the notability is important should sub-articles be even considered, barring all other options. --MASEM 15:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The exception tests the rule: while a series like The Simpsons may provide an instance for special consideration, the fact remains that in the vast, vast majority of cases, content that grows too large for its parent article is comprised of material that does not satisfy the real-world, out-of-universe requirements of the encyclopedia and should be trimmed. To reiterate gorgan_almighty's point, there are other, excellent resources on the web which welcome fan contributions. Why do we need to even have this fight here, where the standard is clear even if unevenly applied and often thwarted by local interests. Eusebeus 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly to me WP:Plot is very clear cut. This is a notability guideline that as far I can pretty much ignores the topic of notability. Also looking at WP:WAF parts of it have the same problem. We have a policy that is pretty clear and adheres to what I think most would agree is encyclopedic. Then a bunch of guidelines that seem to be there to add encyclopedic exemptions. Ridernyc 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with gorgan_almighty. To me, the problem rather seems to be: It is a broad consensus that Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries - except among those who write collections of plot summaries. The right way to deal with this has not yet been found, maybe. However, I don't think that the problem is with the restrictions that this guideline sets - it's rather with consistently applying them. The right process seems to be lacking. There are tons of articles which are in clear violation of WP:FICTION as of now, so enough potential for cleanup. --B. Wolterding 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gorgan, you seemed to state what I had stated to Ridernyc already. That was, if the only thing being split off is plot information, that says to me that not only are they not following WP:PLOT, but WP:WAF and WP:SUMMARY as well. I'm sure they are probably not following WP:NOR, which reaches back the point that it isn't an issue with this guideline as a whole, but with those editors violating several guidelines and policies in general. This guideline is built from our basic policies, and the general notability guideline. If you fail this guideline, you're failing others as well. There should no fictional article with absolutely "no" real world content, not even one split off from a main article. That was how we ended up with 10,000 television episode articles (probably exagerated number, but there's still way too many) that were created on the same principle that those editors created those "list of characters" with nothing but plots. People are ignoring the process by which you would split off an article and just jumping straight into the split. I think B. Wolterding hit the nail on the head, in that we don't have enough editors stepping up to the plate and actually confronting the misuse of our rules and regulations, and because of that, we end up with far more articles that violate our rules and regulations than do abide by them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• As there is clearly no consensus regarding the inclusion of this paragraph, I have temporarily removed it from the official guideline. In order that discussion may continue, I'm quoting it below:

"To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content."

—gorgan_almighty 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you missed #Addition to support style sub-articles, where support was shown from both extremes of the debate. -- Ned Scott 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A straw poll is not a real indication of consensus. I and several others have voiced very important concerns over this issue, and a large number of people have agreed with those concerns. Even if there was consensus before, consensus can change. WP:FICT is an official guideline, not a proposal. Its contents are actively used in AfD and other processes, so its important that all the material in it has the approval of consensus. Until consensus has been achieved to add such a paragraph, it should not be added. —gorgan_almighty 09:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The need for this addition is well-established. The rest of us simply do not agree with your view that "[daughter] topics should never be allowed to grow too big for their parent articles". The addition explicitly emphasizes that real-world content must be presented along with in-universe content, but correctly points out that not all content can be presented in a single article as opposed to an article series (in keeping with WP:SS).--Father Goose 10:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By "the rest of us" I assume you mean the few of you who are trying to push this in against consensus? I agree with Ridernyc, in that I'm tired of this guideline being abused. WP:FICT exists to limit fictional-based trivia, not to officially sanction it. Your recent rewording of the paragraph [1] substantially changes its meaning, making it more acceptable. But as far as I can see, it is now redundant to the paragraph above it. —gorgan_almighty 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

who said daughter articles should never be able to grow. Of course there are situations when you need sub articles. However the sub articles still need to be encyclopedic. As it was written this guideline not only contradict WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF it also contradicted itself. AS it was way the Xenosaga list transwiki'd. Plain and simple you can't write a guideline that says you should only strive to follow policy. Ridernyc 11:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gorgan almighty voiced the opinion above that in-universe subtopics should not be permitted to exceed the main article. This stance puts an arbitrary constraint on the depth of coverage Wikipedia can offer. The need to keep our coverage of fictional topics grounded in the real world is obvious. WP:Notability addresses a different issue, and has some unresolved problems that clash with other Wikipedia working methods.

There's an unresolved tension between WP:SS and WP:N; it's good to split long articles into an article series to better organize the information, but something that's notable in the parent article may suddenly become non-notable when put into a sub-article. At some point, this "tunnel vision" that WP:N has must be addressed.

Separately, this guideline doesn't contradict WP:PLOT at all; both this guideline and WP:PLOT explain that you have to alloy in-universe information with real-world content. Any articles that are not in compliance with WP:PLOT are not "made acceptable" by this guideline.--Father Goose 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) There was a more substantial rewrite underway (probably in the archives) that rewrote most of the language in policy to provide more support for three specific cases: fictional elements from a work that stand easily alone outside their work on notable elements (eg Superman), fictional elements of a work that had enough real-world context to without question stand alone (Characters of Final Fantasy VIII), and then the concepts of completely in-universe fictional elements because of meeting WP:MOS / WP:SIZE / Summary style guidelines. While that paragraph above is based on that rewrite, there was a lot more text around it that described this as the method of last resort, after considering trimming, merging, transwiki, and deletion, and that such articles would then otherwise have to meet the highest scrutiny for all other WP policies/guidelines, AND that the editors should constantly strive towards establishing real-world context if at all possible. Even further, the idea in the rewrite is that articles describing fictional works should always be written from the real-world, in: describe all the reception, the development, etc. that can be secondary sourced for the work, then describe the plot to be able to set the stages for understanding those real-world aspects, then and only then considering specific elements of the plot if it needs further expansion to the level of detail to understand the plot, and even then, not breaking out the separate article until it was agreed by the other editors that such a split would be appropriate and none of the other options could work (with the suggestion of a split rationale template to help establish that means).

I don't believe we've abandoned that, but presently there's the issue of merging all notability guidelines into one at WP:N, and then other similar issues with working in cadence with WP:WAF on the language, but as to at least establish some part of the discussion that such sub-articles better be well qualified to exist (and not just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), the paragraph in question was added. It still has meaning, but outside the context of the proposed rewrite (with examples) its not as emphatic on sub-articles being the last resort.

I believe everyone involved in this discussion understands WP:N, WP:PLOT, and so forth, and generally have concerns on the proliferation of strictly in-universe articles on WP. If concerned editors like us were the only ones editing WP, then I would say with a high degree of confidence that if completely in-universe subarticles existed, they would be few and far between, but would be natural extensions of the main articles without going overboard because the info is not bound by the parent article -- (I hope) there would be no question about the ability of such articles written this way to exist on WP. Unfortunately, we're not the editors creating these types of articles: those are the editors that see WP as a place to write freely about a subject they love and do so, and then wikilawyer the policies and guidelines and are part of the majority during AfD's to justify their work when its challenged. Spoo's failure to be delisted as a FA (even moreso as an in-universe article) is a prime example of what reasoning that the guidelines for notability we're trying to establish have to work through. We have to help educate people on what notability as defined by WP:N is, help them understand that we want them to edit but that such detail is not appropriate, and work with them to help make pages on their favorite fictional works even better than with the mass proliferation on details. Even if this guideline said that in-universe fictional sub-articles are not allowed, people will come back and point to Ignore All Rules and that WP:FICT is a guideline, not policy, and continue to make such articles. Adding the case of splitting information from a main article in a sub-article as a last resort and via rationale as a guideline at least cautions editors that fictional sub-articles require a level of commitment to make sure the articles are appropriate. It is still a loophole, but a much better defined one that we can monitor better and decide, somewhat more objectively, when such articles are appropriate, than if we attempted to prevent the creation of such articles in the first place and get wikilawyered about it. --MASEM 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Glee, it's sure good to know that deletionists are still espousing a "blame editors first" blanket policy about content. I've participated in untold numbers of AfDs about fiction, and I have yet to -once- see WP:FICT cited to keep an article. User:Ridernyc and other editors that have mysteriously shown up recently espousing the same view seem to be out of touch with the current reality of articles "on the ground". If anything, this guidelie should -encourage- the creation of articles, not the other way around. What I'd like to see is a better connection to WP:CITE, because while this guideline should encourage the creation of articles, it should include more of a caveat about sourcing those articles. Unsourced fiction articles make the well-sourced and cleanly-written ones look bad. MalikCarr 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: MASEM, for what it's worth, I'm still behind you on that three-part rewrite you mentioned in the beginning of your above commentary. Any chance we'll get to bring that out again? MalikCarr 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)