Wikipedia talk:Notability and fiction

Hiding's view

Created per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction. Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself. But please don't protect "positions". We don't need to restate WP:V for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies. Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced by WP:BLP. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue, it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled. Hiding T 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagee with you Hiding. Notability is not restrictive at all, as it enables editors to create or contribute to articles without having to obtain permission to do so from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators. Notability is a key to understanding which topics are suitable for standalone articles because they can meet Wikipeidia's content policies. If you discard inclusion criteria based on notability, the only alternative is inclusion criteria based on subjective criteria, which relies on personal judgement, not verifiable evidence. I think what you are proposing is fundamentally flawed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you factor Wikipedia:Consensus into the equation, it becomes quite clear that policies already safe-guard against your fears. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Hiding T 14:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what you mean by consensus is what happens at WP:AFD. Clearly Wikipedia content polices are the consensus; what your essay is focused on is the outcome at deletion debates. Deletion and inclusion are seperate from each other, so the careful not to mix them up - the tail can't way the dog! --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears I wasn't clear enough through my link and reference to the policy Wikipedia:Consensus that what I meant by consensus was the specific policy rather than "what happens at WP:AFD." So to clarify, when I speak of consensus, I specifically mean consensus as the decision making process on content, as enshrined in the foundation principles. There is no care needed regarding mixing inclusion and consensus up, since the two have been intrinsically linked since Wikipedia was founded. As you rightly say, the tail can't way the dog! The community is the ultimate decision maker. Your over-riding fear that personal judgement will rule is misguided since community consensus is enshrined throughout Wikipedia as the final arbiter, and your arguments and concerns can therefore be dismissed as being without ground! Hiding T 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on the decision making process on content is embedded in Wikipedia's framework of policies and guidelines, and WP:N is key to that framework. Notability is the inclusion criteria for standalone articles that enables any editor to create an article without having to obtain permission to do so from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators. Articles that meet the inclusion criteria provide verifiable evidence that the article meets Wikipedia's content policies. For instance, an article which does only contains trivial in universe coverage of a work or element of fiction is likely to fail WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the fact that articles are only deleted if they meet clear criteria of which notability is not one, or when a consensus emerges to do so. Thus consensus is king rather than Wikipedia's policies, as stated in WP:IAR. Once again, the tail cannot wag the dog, and guidance such as that enshrined in Wikipedia:Notability only informs our decisions. Such guidance does not mandate them. Wikipedia:Notability is not a key part of Wikipedia's framework of policies and guidelines. If that were the case, it would most definitely be a policy at the very least, and likely have been mandated by the board. The key parts of Wikipedia's framework of policies and guidelines are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:FUC and WP:BLP. These are key through board mandate, not through one editor's insistence. I hope that better clarifies why your fears are baseless and can be ignored! I see no reason to continue this line of argument, since it is becoming circular and is quite clearly based on your subjective opinion rather than the actualities of Wikipedia and the way it operates. Your argument is based upon the idea that consensus should not be the decision making process. I suggest you would be better off making that case at another talk page, probably the talk page of Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm not exactly sure how you would abolish Wikipedia:Consensus, though, it wouldn't really be proper to do so through establishing a consensus against it, would it! As I see little value in further engagement, I'll let you decide who gets the last word.Hiding T 10:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are actually arguing that because an article may be kept or deleted on the basis of subjective importance, then we should use subjective importance as the basis for article inclusion. However, you are missing that point of notability: verifiable evidence is required to demonstrate that a topic can meet Wikipedia's content polices. You might think that "consensus rules", but what you are actually arguing is that "Hiding's viewpoint rules" because you are mistakenly believing that your viewpoint is consesnsus. This page is essay is just a way of trying to argue that your subjective opinions about article inclusion are important without having to provide any evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't think this quite covers it

There should be information that somtimes trivial elements, mostly characters, that have scholarly review also make it through despite newer such elements not being allowed. It can be done as a matter-of-fact, but note that there is not consensus that they might not be violating Point-of-view forking.陣内_Jinnai 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd really really caution against calling this "forking", or even POV forking; some of these may be created because the editor is quite aware that they are making a point of the character/aspect being as important as a main character in defiance of policy/guidance, but most are made inadvertantly, usually with the logic of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The resultant articles are just really short and have no potential to grow, making a merge more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree here--it is not usually POV forking. POV forking is a dispute over the meaning and implications of a subject. It would apply here only if there were two major critical schools of thought, and we put them in separate articles. Masem has it right, as he usually does. Having a section on an character of what appears minor significance does not necessarily mean that the POV is that the character is of major significance. It means that the character is interesting enough to be separately discussed, as are even the most minor of Shakespeare's characters. The last sentence should be changed to: "These type of elements are sometimes merged if there is not enough material to justify the existence of a separate article. " In the previous sentence "several" should be changed to "a very few minor references " The alternative is to have the first section only, without the second. DGG (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been in and dabbled, does what I've done work any? Hiding T 22:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't cover it. My point is that even if there is enough evidence to support an article, it may still be merged because the element itself is of such trivial knowledge and there is the idea of "publish or perish" mentality in the scholarly world.陣内_Jinnai 03:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

General Support

I see nothing majorly wrong with an approach like this to cover the inconsistent application of notability on fiction, as well demonstrated by AFD results. At least as everyone continues editing in the same manner as to not to raise the next Ep & Char arbcom case, there's no need to try to push for a definitive answer. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"What articles may be kept"?

I think this is a poor section title, in that it presumes that deletion is the default action. In fact, most articles on fictional topics on Wikipedia ultimately reference a notable fictional work, but may stray into too much plot or trivia. In such cases, cleanup or merging is clearly preferred, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

change the tile to "Which articles are kept" DGG (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The section title actually reads "Why articles may be kept", which works for my ear. Do you still find it off, Jclemens? I don't think it does presume deletion is the default, it simply seeks to explain why articles are kept in the face of WP:N. there's certainly an expectation among some users that articles which do not meet WP:N should typically be deleted, which extends to the admin dashboard mistakenly listing notability as a speedy deletion criteria. Hiding T 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, failure to make any assertion of notability is a speedy deletion criterion (or it was the last time I looked)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

look again. It only applies to real people, groups, companies, organizations, and web content. And its assertion of importance or significance, not N in the specialized WP sense. There is even a specific statement that this is less than notability: WP:CSD#A7 DGG (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, A7 is specifically meant to prevent vanity page spamming. There will never be a CSD based on lack of notability. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MASEM. are either you or DGG seriously arguing that the admin dashboard glossing A7 as "notability", when it specifically relates to the failure to assert the notability of the topics that fall into A7, is a mistake?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognize the difference in shorthand discussion at an adminstrator's board, and the actual use of a CSD, when it comes to this. Most admins do think A7 is notability, and in a broad sense it is - but this is applied to a set of specific cases (people, companies, etc.) and only when it is clearly bordering on vanity rather than information. There are people articles on people and companies that are added without sources but also without vanity-type language but still manage to rely the sense of importance they have; these will not be speedily deleted, though if they remain unsourced for too long, they will be taken to AFD. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, are you seriously asserting that CSD A7 relates to notability when the criterion itself asserts quite clearly that it does not? "This is ... a lower standard than notability". Hiding T 10:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

If the admin dashboard says something contrary to policy, it's time to change it to read properly. Admins are expected to go by policy, not by shorthand abbreviations on templates and help pages. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Split from article that has become too long

I think the suggestion about split articles may prove to be a very significant - and contentious - one. I note on the RfC that the proposal to allow notability to devolve where there were a cluster of articles garnered twice as much opposition as support (I deliberately asked people to state if they firmly opposed, in contrast with normal practice), at least partly because of a sense that it encouraged an article on every Pokemon. The trouble with giving any kind of relief to an article which has birthed from a larger one is that in some cases the larger article was just a list of every Pokemon, and when it gets too long, hey presto, an article on every one of the wretched things is back. It is a sad truth that some people will set out to create a list of every single character in a series.Xanth is a horrible example, with articles on the Magicians of Xanth and the Family of Humfrey of Xanth and the Family of Merlin of Xanth and the Family of Ebnez of Xanth and the Centaur family of Xanth and the Goblin family of Xanth and the Mundanes in Xanth and the List of Xanth characters and when all else fails the Other characters of Xanth.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can't find the word split in the page at all. TO what do you refer to? Hiding T 10:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The question on the table is: Should a very long article such as one combining many Pokemon characters be split into multiple articles, largely on account of its length?

Elen of the Roads gives as an example the Xanth series, specifically calling out List of Xanth characters, 1007 page views (readers) in a month, Other characters of Xanth, 304 page views, and Goblin family of Xanth, 120.[1] If many articles were split from Goblin family of Xanth, they would each get only a handful of views a month. In the English Wiki, that is a poor showing.

Creating new articles, I steer away from those I guess will attract fewer than 100 in a month. It's not difficult to find books with no Wiki article, but that would get 200 hits a month, if written. (And they'll also appear 2nd or 3rd in Google search results. I've done this several times in the last year.) In terms of what is most "effort effective", the choice between writing an article about "Gouty Goblin" — one of 14 on the Goblin family of Xanth, and leaving the existing article intact, it doesn't seem to me that there's any reasonable choice — even if Goblin family of Xanth happened to be 150 kilobytes long.

An oft repeated phrase from those who want a favorite topic included that is of limited appeal is "disk space is cheap". But this ignores the major cost, which is not the few coppers of hardware, but the cost for Wiki editors to maintain the pages. There's New Pages Patrol. There's Recent Changes Patrol. There's checking and adding categories. Possibly having the article reviewed and assessed by a Editorial Team on the discussion page. Updating the article, if categories change. There's the checking of sources (although, perhaps significantly Goblin family of Xanth has none.) Should I even bother tagging the article for "no sources"? Hardly seems worth it. Even figuring an hourly rate at minimum wage (mine isn't, I'm a professional editor), the cost is very high for creating 14 new articles that might get no additional page views at all. In that time I could create a new article that added Wiki 100 hits a month. Splitting articles such as Goblin family of Xanth is not resource-effective for Wiki. Thoughts? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

circular reasoning

"the article is written to our encyclopedic standard for fiction or could be rewritten to such a standard;" obviously in order to meet the standard, the topic must be "notable", which means being sufficiently important for the encyclopedia . The sentence then reduces to " the article must be about something important enough for the encyclopedia,". Absolutely true, and absolutely useless. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)