Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Additional comments

1. Voting is evil. --Carnildo (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
   • (With apologies) I never understood this. If voting is evil, why are dictators also evil? And what is consensus, if not voting with your feet. You think of all the time and effort people put into claiming that guns aren't evil, and no-one's ever bothered to counter this absurdism. We need ill-applied doggerel:
     
     

“ Voting may be evil,

but then life isn't fair.
If you don't express an opinion,
you don't get to care,
and when we make a decision,
you can stick it up there.

”

1. • Best, Hiding T 08:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia is not paper. Notability guidelines are counterproductive. While I may be outnumbered on that ― at least as far as active Wikipedians go; if you count all readers I'm almost certain I'm in the majority ― I can at least lend my voice to the suggestions that weaken existing guidelines rather than expanding them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. My weighing in on individual issues of this RFC should not be taken as accepting the outcome of it as a consensus. I believe that the RFC is poorly phrased to the point where it is not a useful implement of anything. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
   • I think you are mistaken in this view: this RFC actually covers a very wide range of views on notablity and your proposal for sub-articles is at the center of these discussions, and you should be proud that is its being used as a basis for discussion in this way.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, my pleasure at a bastardized version of it that flatly contradicts things I said in proposing it is being used as a whipping boy ought know no bounds. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am not sure this is the case, but I would ask to you clarify this issue at WT:N so we can make amends if necessary.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Concur with everything Phil says here (as of my timestamp), including his disclaimer about the results of this being unlikely to represent any kind of consensus about changes (or no need for changes) to notability in Wikipedia. Gavin, I think you are missing that many people here find that this RFC represents lots and lots of nitpicks, a wide diversity of misstated positions, and a broad range of exaggerated, divisive, confusingly-written "proposals" that few can take seriously, pro or con. I see far more qualified and caveat-laden !votes, and strongly overreactive !votes, than is normal in an RFC or other similar discussion. This is a strong sign that all of the proposal language put forward is malformed, and that not nearly enough normal discussion and consensus building on the basics has taken place to develop something worth actually considering in poll fashion (if that is ever the case). I am strongly reminded of the WP:ATT fiasco with regard to the level of entrenchment that has resulted. We all (who were around then) remember how well that went. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
   • As I've mentioned elsewhere, this RFC is not considered the means to an end; it is meant to gauge how two aspects of notability - the issue of spinouts, and the relationship between GNG and SNG - are presently viewed. The proposed solutions are by no means meant to be perfect but should be thought of as a scale - such as the first one which questions if spinouts are unquestionably allows, never allowed, or in between. I don't expect one proposal to "win", and as noted, such as the first issue, if we were to stop the RFC now, we can judge that the issue of spinouts falls to limited cases of non-notable ones - a case not exactly covered by the given ones. This means that, say in the case of Phil's branched article piece, it can now be presented to align with this viewpoint. There will still be some fine tuning after all is said and done for a second RFC, this likely on a revamped version of N or maybe more exacting proposals. But at least armed with this survey of how notability is currently viewed, we can write a version of N that likely needs just fine tuning as opposed to what happened to FICT when I put it up (where we had a 25/50/25 split of votes). I still feel that if there is an aspect of an issue that should be included it should be added, and though I understand what Gavin says about avoiding adding too much to this, if people argue there is a viewpoint that really is missing then we should be adding it to gain input to that. --MASEM 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<Thread moved to talk page>

Adding new proposoals?

In response to Phil's concern that the proposals given don't reflect his view, I attempted to added language to the instructions that people should feel free to add new proposals to gain input on relative to the issues at hand. Gavin reverted this, claiming sabotage, which is far from the case. The RFC text was developed among a relatively small number of people compared to the number of editors that notability will affect; it is very likely that the RFC does not fully capture every viewpoint. Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the addition of a new proposal, as long as it is on topic for that issue and doesn't overlap. We don't want 100's of proposals per topic, but I think its completely reasonable if a new viewpoint is set forth to get input on that. We want this RFC to be the last one in a long time on the subject of notability, so as much surveying should be done. --MASEM 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An RFC can't "fully capture every viewpoint"; that is not the point at all. The point is to get all these viewpoints mingling beforehand until some consensus principles actually evolve, and then test that localized consensus against WP-wide consensus with an RFC. Holding an RFC on a matter with over a half-dozen conflicting proposals was self-sabotaging. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, and I don't mean this as taking my ball and going home, I'd rather develop the article branching proposal in detail and present it as a coherent proposal than attempt to capsule summary it here. I feel like the basic issues got hashed out well on WT:N, and like what needs to happen now is some careful work to get a proposal that deals with the stated issues and try to generate consensus for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, from what I've seen of what you're doing, it encompasses style, content, and notability guidelines, so it's rather heavyweight to include fully. However, I would think it best to test the waters with the concept now by adding a new proposal that suggests what you are trying to do, in that you are asserting that subarticles that are clearly shown to be part of a branching article structure are appropriate for sake of WP:N (or something to that wording), including a link to the example pages you have shown already, but clearly stating that this is not the final appearance of them. If the propose gains some support, then you should definitely continue building it further, but if it clear that it is not going to fly, then you know its a dead end. --MASEM 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that this RFC is turning toxic on a number of levels - I think my proposal has some real promise, based on input I've gotten on it thus far. I'd much prefer to simply note that there is a large difference between this RFC and my proposal and avoid being tied to it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The only toxicity I've noted comes from you.Kww (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, I think your statement is an oxymoron. ;) Hiding T 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After discussion on WT:N, new proposals should not be added to this page to avoid skewing results and making interpretation of the results more difficult; we can determine if something new is needed after this RFC is done. --MASEM 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Literally everyone has their own proposal. The idea is to present several overall "spirits" to pick from, rather than dozens of different rewordings of overall spirits (e.g.: "notability is inherited" versus "articles can be of endless size, and they are spread out over multiple branching sub-articles".) I suspect some people might feel strongly enough about wording issues that they would reject one proposal or another. But I doubt wording changes would result in a substantial change in support or opposition. Nothing would please me more than being proven wrong -- assuming that this RFC reaches no consensus. (Which would be a perfectly legitimate result: it reveals the nature of the dispute, and gives us evidence that the dispute needs a more authoritative resolution.) Randomran (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that none of these really are the spirits, but are just spooky and kooky apparitions, like Halloween ghosts compared to the soul. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i'm inlinced to agree, and several people are opposing proposals because the wordings are too broad, and some don't understand we are seeking insight on current guidelines - citing the same guidelines as their rationale.... -21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD and Mergers and content decisions

SMcCandlish made a comment above that brings up a subject I think hits on why we are having this discussion in the first place. Ever since we were told by arbcom that article mergers are serious business (or, in less memetic terms, mergers require a consensus of editors, preferably beforehand), AfD has become the only practical means of resolving most kinds of article mergers, especially where unanimity is not present. And I for one would not like to see content discussions drowned out by "You can't merge/delete this, it's a spin-out article!". Nifboy (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I think maybe the Pokemon poll was the beginning rather than the end of this situation, because although there was a very strong consensus to merge, that was put aside so the articles could be improved. Hiding T 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

however consensus can change... the articles were improved but not well... and in the midst of restructuring them to "try again" they got swept up in the merging frenzy. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing me. What do you mean consensus can change. The decision at the end of the poke poll was to hold off on merging in good faith to see how the improvement drive went. It seems that is what happened, so I don't understand when and how consensus changed. I'm also unclear as to what the merging frenzy you refer to is. There was a very good consensus to merge the articles. Is that what you mean? Hiding T 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about this RfC

<Moved from RfC page to prevent bogging down the main page with overall discussion of the RfC.>

Comment. Some of the proposals and phrasings that compose this RfC deeply concern me. I believe the comments regarding clarity and wording by both some involved before this RfC and those commenting only in response to it reflect my unease. I barely supported what was essentially a reworded version of my own proposal, because of the drastically different (and less clear IMO) form it takes, especially in the rationale. I am also baffled by the lack of inclusion for the consolidation proposal; it took the middle ground between the inclusionist and exclusionist positions of (respectively) support and opposition to the SNGs. Vassyana (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Masem withdrew that proposal when I raised the point that it doesn't really address the issue. Yes, we can consolidate the SNGs into the GNG, but it still doesn't offer guidance on when/how we can expand the GNG. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Other existing options would help provide that guidance. However, since 2 is essentially asking "What do we do about the SNGs?", it would seem apt to include the option here. It is particularly apt since a number of those involved in previous discussions expressed a desire for such a direction and two editors have already voice their support for such a position in this RfC.[1][2] If this RfC is intended to help resolve the issues surrounding the SNG and GNG, it would seem counterproductive to exclude an option that has already demonstrated some reasonable support from editors in good standing and would still provide valuable feedback even if it failed. Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There were actually a few other good proposals that attracted some support, such as offering new checks and balances on AFDs. But this RFC is to focus on two major points of contention, if only for the sake of organization. Consolidating our guidelines is a good idea, but it doesn't really solve the problem of how the guidelines interact, and how flexible the guidelines are. It should probably be handled at a later time, when we know how the guidelines interact. Randomran (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some proposals, such as checks and balances on AfD, are only tangentially related to the questions of notability being addressed here and I can thus understand their exclusion. However, not all missing proposals are steps removed from the topic of discussion.

There are other options that clarify how the guidelines interact. Part of the purpose of this RfC was to avoid any further RfCs or huge discussions on notability for a while. Excluding the merger proposal is directly counter to that purpose. There no reason to leave it undone when the point is a significant one, directly related to a core question of the RfC and can be handled with one option. Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, more to the point, the RFC was to determine which way the wind currently blew in regards to notability, GNG, and SNG. From the results, then we were planning on proposing a new WP:N that reflected this consensus, and possibility filtering down to other SNG guidelines. It should be clear that the proposed statements, alone, don't immediately translate to a guideline, and it could have been the case that two different proposals achieved nearly equal consensus, meaning that we'd have to massage the two proposals appropriately (as seems to be the case in dealing with selected types of spinout articles from issue A.) The key here is that we hope to walk out of this knowing how a global consensus on notability is considered and resolve the issues between inclusionists and deletionists for good (or at least, a few more years until paradigm shift happens again). --MASEM 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Vassyana, my view is that B.1 address her proposal directly, unless I am mistaken.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. B.1 places the SNGs as further restrictions on notability. B.2 casts the SNGs as defining whole new classes of sources providing exemptions from the GNG. B.3 is a mangled mess that throws in the "SNGs are exemptions" and "V=N" positions.

The proposal I made clearly defined the concept of notability as a topic with sufficient sources to meet all of the content policies, avoiding arguments about "importance" (historical or otherwise) or other such divisive criteria. (None of the B proposals clearly define notability in any meaningful fashion.) It also explicitly took the position that SNGs are neither exemptions nor restrictions on notability, but rather simply complementary criteria to the GNG (taken in the context of the notability principle definition provided).

The purpose of this RfC has been repeatedly stated to be the examination of the essential spirit of the proposals, but none of the proposals here reflect the supposedly-accepted proposal I made in any meaningful or substantial fashion. This is a symptom of a fundamental problem with the whole RfC and is far from limited to the proposal that I made. Multiple proposals and points are mangled and divorced from their underlying rationales and purpose, as illustrated by the complaints and caveats of others about the deep problems with wording. Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with these proposals as-written is that they try and put Notability in a vacuum. Sub-guidelines like WP:MUSIC are more than just alphabet soup guidelines we throw at people in AfD. They inform WP:CSD#A7 and help guide editors towards or away from AfD (or merge conversations). In that light nobody thus far has supported a proposal titled "SNGs are not needed" (B.4). Similar problems exist across the other proposals, and it seems people are more focused on how these concepts would play out at AfD. For instance, A.1. is consistently being interpreted as "a proposed policy allowing everything under the sun." (GRBerry's oppose). Nifboy (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Notability compromise - scope creep

<copied to Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise to keep discussion about the RfC at the RfC talk page>

Masem, forgive my revert of your last edit [3], but I have to ask the question, is this not an attempt to sabotage the RfC: Notability compromise by inviting additional, possibly conflicting, or even meaningless proposals to be added? I think the late additon by Kevin Murray illustrates this point: I don't believe there is widespread support for his proposal, and it just makes a long RFC longer. Surely it would be better to draft another, seperate RFC to cover addtional discussion points? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid splitting discussion, please see this section on the RFC. --MASEM 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think this discussion falls outside the scope of the RFC, and the reason I say this is that this discussion, as well as the call for alternative proposals is sabotage in all but name, in the sense that you are attempting to slow or capsize the RFC by over burdening it with last minute additions and amendments, similar in a sense to overloading a boat or making it too big so that it will sink. Another way of look at it is that you are attempting to hijack the discussions to serve your own agenda. This is out of order. If it is any consolation to Phil Sandifer, my own proposals were discussed and rejected on the discussion page during the draft of RFC and the point I wish to make here is that there was ample time to discuss amendments. There was also time to table an RFC ahead of this one, and there will be time to table another RFC after this is finished. In fairness I think you should withdraw both your proposal and the related discussion, which is little more than thinly-veiled spoiling tactics.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to delete the entire question A from the RFC, I have no objection whatsoever. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I see what you're saying, though I've seen other RFCs and similar discussions where new proposals were allowed. I don't want to dissuade Phil from not participating, either, and while Issue A (which, regardless of the branching article approach or not, is still important to consider the general case of spinouts on their own) may not accurately represent Phil's POV (or anyone else's for that matter), but still allow him to express his views somewhere in the discussion. --MASEM 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not saying it is not allowed, I am saying that it is not good ettiquette to add last minute amendments for which there is not time to discuss, particularly in view of the fact that his proposal for sub-articles is central to the discussions, and I appeal to you again to withdraw your comments and withdraw the last section as soon as possible, before it growns to a size where it over extends and sinks the RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious some mechanism is needed to add proposals and craft alternate versions. Phil's concerns about the wording choices and the like are entirely spot on IMO (and we do not see eye to eye on notability issues, particularly in regards to spin-offs). I almost opposed the version of my own proposal that made it into the RfC (only weakly supporting it), due to the horrendous wording and complete lack of connection to the underlying rationale accompanying the pre-RfC proposal. Other editors have also raised concerns about the wording and clarity of various options. When participants in notability discussions can barely recognize or support their own ideas because of wording issues and participants in the RfC note poor wording and/or a lack of clarity, it's readily apparent that the RfC needs adjusting either by adding alternate proposals and/or adding further proposals. In the absence of a means to address these shortcomings, the RfC will be essentially useless as a fair measure of consensus. (It should not be difficult to understand that if people fail to support or are reluctant to support proposals they otherwise would endorse because the proposals are poorly worded or unclear, then the RfC will be utterly inaccurate in measuring the actual opinions of the participants.) Vassyana (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(copy of comment in RFC) - Literally everyone has their own proposal. The idea is to present several overall "spirits" to pick from, rather than dozens of different rewordings of overall spirits (e.g.: "notability is inherited" versus "articles can be of endless size, and they are spread out over multiple branching sub-articles".) I suspect some people might feel strongly enough about wording issues that they would reject one proposal or another. But I doubt wording changes would result in a substantial change in support or opposition. Nothing would please me more than being proven wrong -- assuming that this RFC reaches no consensus. (Which would be a perfectly legitimate result: it reveals the nature of the dispute, and gives us evidence that the dispute needs a more authoritative resolution.) Randomran (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the intent of this RfC, it's a failed attempt. The "spirit" of one proposal was so changed and divorced from the original rationale that I struck my support. To be very blunt, if this RfC is going to be composed of proposals so poorly worded that they are utterly divorced from the original intent, leave out salient proposals and provide no mechanism to address these shortcomings, it's little more than a farce. Vassyana (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No farce. First off, there is no ownership for the proposals. Secondly, opposing any and all proposals is perfectly legitimate, and informative. Randomran (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"No ownership" does not justify utterly divorcing proposals from their proposed form and intent. I will full well agree that I don't own "my" proposal, Phil doesn't own "his" proposal, and so on. However, the form and rationales a number of proposals use in this RfC are not even an attempt to harmonize a number of similar positions raised in notability discussion (or so it seems). The problem is not a simple matter of the proposals being presented imperfectly or with flawed wording, while remaining essentially the same. The problem is that some of the proposals presented here are so mangled/misstated that they bear little resemblance and relation to the discussions and accompanying proposals leading up to this RfC. It doesn't require any sense of "ownership" to take issue with that (and indeed I would take issue with even if I was not involved in some of the pre-discussion). How you can seriously talk about discussing the "spirit" of things when the "spirit" has not been preserved is utterly beyond me. I'm sorry but if proposals are so mishandled they are utterly distinct from the pre-RfC proposals and previous notability discussion with no way to fix the problem, it is a sham (a farce, a pony show) not a real measure of consensus on discussed issues. Vassyana (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Between the addition of A.4 and an invitation to pose another version of B.3, both in response to RfC feedback, I am striking my comments above as inappropriate. There is plainly room for modification and revision in response to ongoing feedback to attempt to find some consensus. I understand and appreciate that the scope of this RfC is fairly limited and that the focus is intended to be on responding to what best seems able to garner some compromise and/or consensus (even if it takes a few rounds to hash out some lasting solution). Vassyana (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, how can you make a proposition without regard for the wording? It takes very little wording change to make a big difference in meaning (Adam is God vs. Adam is a God makes a huge difference). I don't think undertaking this RfC with the intent of using the "spirit" of the proclamations was a good idea. We need to vote on concrete proposals, not spirits.padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that if people focus on the wording, virtually any proposal will fail. It's hard enough getting people to rally behind a basic idea of a compromise. Imagine trying to get them to agree on an exact wording. Keep in mind it's not a vote: it's supposed to be a discussion, where people not only support the proposals they like, but also offer suggestions on how to improve them to make sure they achieve their purpose. Randomran (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness to Randomran, I think he has a point that any one proposal will not cover the various issues which this RFC is addressing, and I was won over by his arguements regarding my own proposals for this RFC, because there are so many different ways you can slice and dice these related issues. The way that Randomran has been drafted this RFC with its multiple proposals probably won't satisfy everyone either, on the basis that there are so many combinations and permutations possible, no single presentation will satisfy everyone. The current situation is potentially everyone is unhappy, but no one person can take this forward on their own. Randomran has at least drafted (after consultation) an RFC that addresses a broad range of issues that covers a broad spectrum of viewpoints. If there is an issue/viewpoint combination that has not been addressed, then be positive and put forward an explicit proposal at WT:N, rather than play the role of sniper, trying to shoot this RFC down with complaints, late-tabled amendments, cries of wolf and lamenations of unfair play.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to apologize to everyone for my overblown comments. I certainly should have been more civil and constructive (and less reactionary) in my contributions to the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More proposals, more creep in scope

Masem, forgive once more for my revert of your last edit [4], but I have to ask the question, is this not another attempt to add yet another proposal (groan!) without disucussing it here? Again I must question the rationale, and also the etiquette of not discussing the addition of new propsoals before adding them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion - we have decided that adding new proposals as long as they address the two issues (subarticles and SNG vs GNG) are appropriate. Adding a proposal "Abolish the GNG" for example would be creep. As several have noted the clarity of the original 3 proposals in each was not good and the additional proposals help to narrow down where consensus is. The proposal I added is based on commented from B.6, and so is perfectly valid and a different viewpoint that really needs to be included now that there's clarity in what people are looking for. --MASEM 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From where I sit adding proposals has always been an accepted practise at an rfc. The way to reject a proposal is not to refuse to add it but to argue against it in open. I'd support Masem's proposal as part of the process we're undertaking here. We finally seem to be reaching commonality. Hiding T 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that adding proposals is commonly accepted practice, but I also don't think we need more B proposals here. We have 6 options, each somewhat distinct and NONE of them will ever satisfy everyone. A seventh one wont satisfy everyone, neither will an eight. I think that the people who started this RFC are smart enough to know that the consensus from here is tentative and will follow this up with some more clear questions based on some of these past agreements. It is harder to do that as we disperse possible consensus between more and more non-distinct proposals. How do we weigh "~80% support" for two partially similar but partially contradictory proposals? Aren't we better off not doing so at all? Protonk (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, I have my doubts about this proposal, which reads "SNGs and GNG describe the content that should be included in Wikipedia". Surely WP:N already says that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content ?
  Also, why are we mixing issues on article notablity with article content? Surely this proposal is unnessary, since Wikipedia already has policy regarding content which are seperate and distinct from notability? Is not article content dealt with by the content policies which is where this proposal should be redirected? I feel this is new proposal is clearly an example of creep in scope. However, I could be mistaken, so can you clarify?.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's a fair response. I just don't think too many more proposals should be added, period. I didn't look at the merits of the added one too closely before noting that. Protonk (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Hiding T 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• That said, I'm not immune to the argument "Hey! Proposal 1-4 were total failures, let's hash out a proposal to fix what we thought was wrong with those and then throw that up". That seems reasonable. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal is not about content of articles, which is what other policies deal with, it is about the content of WP as a whole, which we have no specific policy or guideline, only outlined in some parts of NOT. --MASEM 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, what proposal was being added

Here is what I was trying to add: Proposal B.7: SNGs and GNG describe the content that should be included in Wikipedia

Proposal: The goal of the GNG and SNGs is to describe Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines: what topics should be included in some form within Wikipedia as to meet its goal for being a general and specialized encyclopedia. A topic only has to meet one of the GNG or any SNG to be included. The depth of coverage and the organization of that content, however, is meet with our core policies, particularly WP:V, which are based on what sources are available for that topic. If a topic can only be sourced from primary sources, it should not be given the weight of a full article and instead merged to a grouping of similar topics or to a larger, better-sourced topic. (By default, an topic meeting the GNG can have a full article).

Rationale: This is a evolution of B.6 above, but considering additional comments made and approaching this from a positive stance - that is, we want to encourage the inclusion and development of articles that meet what one would expect to find in general and specialized encyclopedias. However, it is key that the choice of such elements via each SNG needs to go global consensus vetting to make sure that a walled-garden WikiProject does not liberally include topics; this may reduce the number of SNGs presently out there. Selection of criteria for such topics should consider all core policies; if we can't source a class of topics even from the primary source, or the content of such topics fails parts of NOT in general, then those criteria for topics shouldn't be included. The SNGs are still needed as to qualify this list for broad fields; what allows a person to be included is not the same as what may be needed for a geographic location. The GNG is general and default for any topic - if it meets the sourcing requirement, it is in.

Once we have determined a topic to be worthy for inclusion, where its put is a matter of how well we can write to it. Material with little or no third-party sourced should never have an article, but can be grouped into a larger, well-sourced target or into lists. This aspect needs to be taken into account in the determination of what criteria we use for inclusion, as such lists should always be in support of a larger topic. A key point to remember is that redirects are cheap: any topic that meets the GNG or SNG but does not have a full article should have a redirect to where it ends up in order to enhance WP's search capabilities.

One can consider this creation an "inclusion" guideline which allows topics that meet the GNG or any SNG to be included. The GNG is left to handle any general case, and through multiple uses, we may find additional areas of topics that need clarification in the SNGs (or more precisely, sub-inclusion guidelines).

Now I note this is a derivative from B.6 with the additional opposing comments from it. I'm not asking here for support or opposing of this proposal, but instead if it should be added as (to me) it represents a point that propagates through all the comments on both A and B and seems to be a direction to get input on. --MASEM 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not commenting on content changes, but that is much too verbose. Also, it tends to casually refer to "topics" and "content" and "articles" without distinguishing between them. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Protonk, and to be clear it spends too much time focusing on issues other than notability. It's basically "SNGs can do whatever they want", but just goes into more detail about other policies that an article has to meet -- which should go without saying. I'd also advise against another proposal in this spirit, since there is already a lot of opposition to letting SNGs completely override the GNG (as seen in discussion of proposal B5). Randomran (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me shorten this up (I believe this to be near the solution based on reading the comments on the RFC, it's wording to get it right).

Proposal B.7: The GNG and SNG together describe what topics should be covered in Wikipedia, in alignment with core policies

Proposal: The SNGs and the GNG provide complimentary inclusion guidelines for topics that should be covered in Wikipedia in some form; the level of detail such topics receive, including if the topic merits its own article or should be presented briefly as part of a larger list or table, is left to core policies including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT.

Rationale: Notability is generally seen as Wikipedia's inclusion guideline, but clearly restricting inclusion to only the GNG does not satisfy most editors and thus cause for continuous battles over notability. Instead, Wikipedia should seek to include topics that meet its goal to be a combination of a general and specific encyclopedia at the same time considering that Wikipedia also seeks to be a verifiable, unbiased reference work. The GNG, aka "notability", provides a clear inclusion guideline that automatically meets these goals, allowing topics that meet it to have their own articles. SNGs provide guidelines for what Wikipedia should cover, striving to promote topics that generally meet the GNG, but there are times where such SNG-determined topics will fail the GNG but can still meet all other core Wikipedia policies (including verification through primary or first-party sources); in such cases, these topics should not have their own articles but should still be covered through redirection and merging, allowing for brief discussion in a larger article or into a list or table of similar topics.

Again, my key point, I think, is that we are flipping this around; we want inclusion guidelines, notability is part of that and the GNG is an automatic winner, while SNGs provide other topics that may or may not be articles on their own. Unstated here is that the SNGs would need major vetting to ensure no-one's pet topic field gets expanded too far. --MASEM 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

I've added a new proposal based on list-form articles. There have been a number of comments that such a proposal would be amenable. I think it is usually acceptable to add proposals to an RFC. Hiding T 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am suprised you have not added a proposal to delete WP:NOT#PLOT as well, as I beleive you are a strong supporter of exempting lists of episodes from this policy.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me far more people on the deletionist side are in favor of exempting articles from this policy - particularly the statement that "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Concise, after all, means "Expressed in few words; brief and comprehensive in statement; not diffuse." The willingness of many to abandon the "comprehensive" portion of that in coverage of serialized fiction is unfortunate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the general concern is of making articles of any kind "untouchable" by WP:N and by extension nip in the bud any attempts to fold unsuitable lists back into the fold. Nifboy (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• That's a concern I share. We clearly need a system in place to handle the expansion of fictional topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The only thing needed to handle the expansion of fictional topics is further third party sources that cover these fictional topics more expansively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• You elsewhere suggest that the balance of primary/secondary material should be based on whether the plot section is at the level of "what is necessary to understand the secondary material." How do you reconcile that statement with this one? Put another way - what do you do with an extremely long work of fiction like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where a concise plot description to give a general sense of the show's content and history is still going to be well over article length? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Start the article/spinout with content derived from reputable third party sources. Reputable sources exclude blogs, forums and high school publications, for example. Supplement this content with plot/character information, sourced from the fiction itself, but only so far as the plot/character information is actually relevant to the information found in the third party sources. I don’t see conflict among my statements. The only problem I see is that many contributors want to add information based on the fiction itself, without reference to any third party commentary, which can only be either WP:OR or the creation of a derivative work (A Buffy compendium), which even if it is not quite a copyright infringement, it is not want we want to do. I see no problem with a plot description being long, as long as it is tied to a commentary that is sourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right - all I'm advocating is that that tying be allowed to happen over multiple articles, since, in practice, 60kb is a bit restrictive for adequate coverage of even mildly complex topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Funnily enough Gavin, what you believe I believe isn't actually what I believe unless I'm trying to believe six impossible things before breakfast. And I already ate. Better luck next time, eh pal? Hiding T 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I would have thought that since your last attempt to delete WP:NOT#PLOT that you would be keen not only to have your breakfast, but to have you cake and eat it too. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh Gavin, you really are too much. You always link to that and not the talk page which clarifies I was removing it to test whether it still had consensus. I didn't desire it removed, I desired consensus on whether it should stay or be removed, to end the pointless debate about whether it had consensus or not. I think that's where we differ; you would rather state something; I prefer to test it. Best, Hiding T 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you guys are going to snipe at each other, could it be on user talk pages or something? It's unproductive noise, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll gladly apologise here and try not to let it happen again. Hiding T 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Objections to RFC

Since a number of people seem to be objecting to the basic form of the RFC, it seems prudent to note here those who believe that the format of the RFC is sufficiently flawed as to preclude a viable consensus coming from it

1. As I have stated throughout the page, I believe that issue A is a farce, and issue B is sufficiently poorly phrased as to be an impediment to any meaningful progress. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Huh? There are multiple options under both A and B. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Sanity check: These issues should not be the subject of simultaneous and co-located attempts at resolution. And the vote format is divisive and polarizing (this is very clear from the apparent entrenchment of most of the !voters' views, and the near-complete lack of any attempt by one side to even understand the other instead of mischaracterize its views in red herring and straw man terms). All of these proposals have underlying points of merit (some many points, some only one or two), and all of them have wording and reasoning flaws. Instead of holding a poll to figure out which of the least of a large pile of evils the most editors will hate least, a nobody-wins scenario, it would be far more productive to discuss the general principles, and collaboratively draft something that represents all of them, synergistically. I would suggest that the issue of the proper role of SNGs has to be determined first, since how to deal with subarticles is going to be matter of interpretation of the meaning of "notability" in Wikipedia, and that meaning is currently clouded by radically divergent views of the purpose and "authority" or role of SNGs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   But no one does this. We have calls all the time to rewrite stuff from scratch but we still have to deal with the fact that we have (as you note) seriously entrenched editors on either side. we have editors who would enshrine WP:N as policy as written and strike the SNG's. We have editors who reject the notion of notability guidelines at all. Both sides are vocal and come from valid points of view (in other words, no one is really a crank). with a wide and dense spectrum of good faith editor opinion we are sort of stuck. We have hundreds of possible policy suggestions, each at various points along the scale. Rather than subject ourselves to a shouting match over possible solutions, this RFC seems to offer an acceptable route. We ask very specific questions and we find what the community accepts and rejects. On the next RFC, we can ask questions assuming that the community has rejected certain options or starting points (I suspect that "every spinout is notable" will be rejected, so we can assume that a following RFC would start with that assumption and tend to drill down to a solution). We may find that no consensus exists on the particular issues here. That may reflect the community and it may reflect the questions. But we shouldn't assume that the paralysis from lack of consensus wouldn't apply to a more free-form discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't say do it from scratch. I recognize most of what you are saying here, and I'm not pretending this will be easy. It is okay for things to be "paralyzed" for lack of consensus, as WP is self-evidently humming along despite all these disagreements. It is better for there to be no consensus for a change, and for things to work as they are working, even if not perfectly, than to move forward with a major change that doesn't actually have consensus. This is why several years ago (Nov. 2005 – Feb. 2006, I think, but I may be +/- 1 year) I had the gall to label WP:N with {{Disputedguideline}}, because at the time it had been railroaded into {{Guideline}} designation, and was still notably (no pun intended) subjective. I and others wrangled with those issues for months, in sometimes very tense disputes, but the effort and time were worth it: our now much simpler and more objective concept of WP notability has massive buy-in and serves its purpose surprisingly well. Yes, there are still people who think there should be no notability criterion at all, but the overall consensus is against that view, so that's not really a major issue (and I say that as a former staunch inclusionist). There are major issues, though, and I don't think a head-count will solve them. Anyway, my point isn't to bash you or anyone for trying to resolve them, I just don't think this was an effective way to approach it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   It is indeed humming along, but I would prefer not to have to engage in a dispute about the merits of the notability guideline on almost every AfD of a fictional subject. Part of the reason I want to move ahead with this is that any discussion of WP:N and possible daughter guideline is helpful in the trenches at AfD. One of the reasons we don't have a daughter guideline for fiction is that we don't have community answers to the specific questions raised above (since many fictional articles can be considered branches from the original work of fiction). If this RFc closes with community consensus for or against at least 2 of the seven points, I'll call this a success. From there (maybe) we can work with some sign of community input on a daughter guideline for fiction. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. There is related discussion ongoing on the talk page. Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary halt on fiction AfDs

I propose a temporary halt on fiction AfDs (ones that are hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios should still go ahead, but not ones when notability is the issue) until we work this compromise out. We should focus our efforts into ironing out our disagreements in one localized discussion. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, so there's no pressing need to also go back and forth in AfDs and in fact doing so probably just raises tensions. We should instead for the duration of this RfC focus on coming to some consensus here and then move from there. New fiction AfDs during the RfC just spread the discussion elsewhere and distracts us from doing the more important work of either improving the articles in question or settling our differences here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only way that this would work would be to have a temporary halt of creation of fiction articles. I'm willing to accept a halt of taking them to AFD if we make "fiction article created after date xxxx" a CSD category while the AFD ban is in effect.Kww (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we should have an RfC on AfDs as well as its clear from the AfD talk page that editors want that incredibly flawed aspect of Wikipedia reformed as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I think AFD is horribly broken, but I think an RFC on AFDs would be a good idea. But in the meantime, we stick with the policies we have now, not the policies that a few editors wish we had. Randomran (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should at the same token keep the articles we have and not delete those that a few editors don't think we should have, but in any event, I urge someone to conisder an RfC on AfDs. I would start one myself, but I have been dealing with some off-site matters that has made my editing sporadic and where at any time over the next few months I may abruptly stop where a request to vanish or username change becomes necessary (still discussing with friends off-wiki how best to proceed). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto, no! Current policies are current and must continue to be used until the community says (by consensus) otherwise. What happens if none of the proposals are accepted? We've stopped processing AfD's for no good reason. Nah! fr33kman (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, given this is about all notability not just fiction, then we would need to stop all article creation and all AFDs as well. --MASEM 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see no need to stop article creation as we're a paperless encyclopedia of articles, not an encyclopedia of deletion debates. Why people would rather be a compendium of AfDs than articles of debatable notability is beyond me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's say we announce a wiki-wide stop on all AFDs save for hoaxes and other guinuine false information. This means that we also have to block CSDs related to lack of importance for people, web, and businesses. This opens a flood door for people to create tons of articles that cannot be deleted quickly on sight, and even if the current status quo is restored after the RFC is over, it would take way too much time to sort through the mess. As long as article creation is allowed while AFDs are not based on presuming the results of this AFD before its closed and results determined, then we're maintaining the status quo before we work on upsetting the boat. --MASEM 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The disagreements over notability seem most focused on lists and fiction related articles. So, why not at least stick to not nominating the obviously ones likely to augment tensions, i.e. not renominate articles previously nominated at least for the time being or not nominate ones for which active merger discussions are ongoing? No reason we can't compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you call out one area, then other areas will ask for the same preferrental treatment. Fiction AFDs have been going without a guideline for a year and it seems to be much better with the ArbCom decision holding this in meantime. --MASEM 03:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that would be a bad thing as instead editors can focus on ironing out the larger issues here in one localized discussions and others could focus on improving articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that we're having a RfC here and if you look at the talk page of AfD suggests that there is no real consensus behind either notability or articles for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• No one wants a compendium of AFDs. Nothing would make me happier than if the people that create articles using ludicrous excuses for notability would just stop. A day that went by with no one creating an article about a TV episode, or an imaginary gun from a video game, or a speck on a map that no one even knows the population of or whether it really exists would be a great day. A month of those days in a row would make me ecstatic. People creating those articles are the ones responsible for the AFDs, and Wikipedia would be a much better place if they would just stop.Kww (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that so many editors create and work on these articles shows that the larger community wants Wikipedia to cover these articles. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but I don't believe in following a narrow minded vision of the ultimate encyclopedia when we can cover these articles. There's a tinge of elitism to saying what you think is important is not good enough, because a handful of us don't want us covering that stuff. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think this means that there is no consensus for CHANGING the current guidelines. Consensus for the current guidelines was already met! fr33kman (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• If that were so, we wouldn't be having an RfC. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think you may be confusing what I'm saying. This RFC is about changing the policies. The policies that are in place have already gone through this process, therefore, they have consensus. This RFC might be trying to get new consensus for new changes, but the old policies already have it. If we can't come up with consensus for change then that means the prior consensus has not been over-riden. fr33kman (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is an RfC because it has become apparent that current guidelines lack consensus at present. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think this is enforceable without getting excessively bureaucratic and disruptive. We should stick with the GNG and all the SNGs as they are currently written, until some discussion reveals otherwise. Randomran (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines and AfDs are already excessively bureacratic and disruptive. Imagine how much actual article sourcing we would get done if we spent more time doing that than expanding bureauracy and having AfD discussions! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that AFDs are themselves disruptive does not reflect the vast consensus at Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear-hear! fr33kman (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to the much more numerous number of editors who created and worked on the articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• A temporary halt to AfDs is unnecessary, as editors have the option to userfy any article they wish to at any time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

proposing to abolish WP:N is outside the scope of this RFC

Besides making a proposal that has been rejected (repeatedly!), I'm deeply concerned that Le Grand Roi is disrupting this RFC by changing its scope. I freely admit there are many more issues to consider with notability, but this is not the venue for that discussion. I would encourage Le Grand Roi to create another RFC on the separate issue, if only for the sake of organizational purposes and keeping this from turning into a flood of notability issues. Again, this isn't an issue of mere disagreement -- I doubt the proposal will gain anything close to a consensus of support. This is an issue of preventing this RFC from becoming completely unfocused and out of control. Randomran (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To accuse some one of "disrupting" the RfC by augmenting it scope, by thinking outside of the box, by laying all options on the table, etc. is astonishingly bad faith and inaccurate, especially when one my last edits before temporarily leaving the project due to still unresolved off-wiki harassment (not by any particular wikipedian; a different issue that I am concerned could spill on to Wikipedia and for which I am still considering a username change or right to vanish if things don't get resolved soon) was indeed to write on the notability and fictional notability pages that it was time to compromise. Yes, this is the venue for that discussion. We should consider everything and even if that idea has been rejected in the past, consensus can change. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate... part of organizing this RFC was parsing through the viewpoints to distill it down to two specific issues, and a few general spirits of compromise. Part of the problem with past discussions on notability is that they quickly become unfocused as they drag in a multitude of related issues: verifiability, redirects, AFDs, specific topics of discussion, and whether we need something totally other than notability altogether. Moving away from the two main issues (inherited notability, and the GNG-SNG relationship) would turn this into WT:N, which has been a mess for months. Randomran (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think all of that should be separate discussions, I would not oppose your creating separate localized RfCs on those issues as well, because as you even hint at above, the fact that these discussions wind up including these issues indicates that the issues are actually more complex than just being two-fold and that therefore we need to iron out additional matter. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been resolved by tackling EVERY issue related to notability at WT:N. We know where that path leads, and it's completely unproductive. This RFC is supposed to avoid the same old disagreements by focusing on two specific issues. Please avoid scope creep in this RFC, lest it become another WT:N. Randomran (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary analysis

Contrary to claims above, I see a lot of similar thinking in terms of how we see and use WP:N as a tool for editing. A.1 practically tells the whole story: Two unconditional supports, four conditional, and a host of opposes. Notability is the fuel on which AfD runs, and saying it no longer applies to spin-outs is viewed as essentially eliminating the ability to ever delete those articles. A.2 has similar "no exceptions" problems. A.3 is running aground on the word "inherit". A.4, although new, is also dealing with the same "untouchable article" arguments A.1 is opposed on, only to a smaller, less controversial class of articles.

On the B track, B.1 and B.4 are generally opposed, B.2 is supported, and B.3 is just plain confusing. As with A track, the most opposed proposal tells the story; B.4 is titled "SNGs are not needed", yet even the two "supports" basically said they're still useful for more than just trying to be another WP:N. Hence the support for a proposal that essentially says "SNGs can help," and the opposition to proposals that characterize SNGs as mere inclusion criteria. Nifboy (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment, unless anything changes (which it very well might). There's a general consensus that notability is not inherited wholesale, although it is unclear if there are exceptions. There's also a general consensus that we should have SNGs for exceptions, although it's not clear how far those exceptions can go, or how they might be reigned in. Randomran (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So the major accomplishment of the RFC seems to be to determine that notability is contentious? Well, that was certainly an accomplishment. I'm glad we stalled attempts to come up with real policy solutions for two months to put this RFC together to determine that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sarcasm is unproductive, and it also ignores the fact that this is a preliminary analysis. If you can't be WP:CIVIL, then don't participate at all. Randomran (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is it the part of the program where any hint of sarcasm is deemed uncivil? Believe me, you'd like the sincerity even less. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What an ugly comment. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This RFC is ugly. Whether by design or by accident, its effect has been to stagnate and stifle discussion for two months as it was worked on, and then to launch with proposals that are so far from the ones that gained any serious support in prior discussions that they are collapsing as the straw men they are. Concerns about this have been blown off, attempts to add new opinions to the RFC have been dismissed as "bloat." This RFC has been a destructive farce that strains the limits of good faith. Jumping on me for expressing my frustration about this seems to... miss something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was at least two months of discussion of the draft of this RFC before starting it and talked about on WT:N. I know some people that have commented are not WT:N regulars and thus their concerns should be consider, but those that are had plenty of time to express concerns and help rewrite it. --MASEM 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm REALLY straining to believe you, Phil. What RFC have you filed to help gauge community consensus on WP:N? Protonk (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:N have been unproductive enough without having to blame a future RFC for somehow stifling discussion. Okay, we get it, you don't think this RFC will accomplish anything, and you prefer your own proposal. You said your proposal wasn't ready. That's fine. Finish it and propose it later. I'm sure Wikipedians will judge it on its own merits. Randomran (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a gesture of good faith you could remove A1, which is something nobody has actually proposed in any discussion of WP:N, and which exists mostly as a straw man of comments and observations I have presented, not as an actual proposal that anybody has ever once advocated. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For one, if A1 is truly different from your proposal, then it shouldn't harm or help your proposal. For two, this proposal was actually requested by other editors, and has gained at least small support thus far (6 as of now), regardless of who it belongs to (and I never intended to attribute it to you in anyway). There's merit to putting it to the larger Wikipedia community. Randomran (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While Phil has a point about these proposals not being the best prose we have on Wikipedia, what I gather from A.1 is that you can't change WP:N's universality without compensating for the fact that WP:N is a tool being applied, well, universally. Nifboy (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd say it is observed in the main rather than the breach, but that there are specific breaches. So far the consensus as I read it is that breaches are on a "know it when you see it case" rather than anything people actively want to or even can define. Would that be fair to say? Hiding T 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me the best and fairest summary of where we stand now that I've seen. That said, I think there's a lot of difference in what we consider ourselves to know when we see. In particular there's this strange use of WP:UNDUE (which I think is the wrong policy to cite, but I take the basic meaning) that I don't think is well-understood at all. There's a lack of consensus about what the acceptable ranges for plot summary and character description in relation to the overall work are, and for what to do about topics that fall below that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not taking the WP:BAIT. A word of advice: sincere incivility is not in anyone's interest. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the complete lack of neutral comments on A2 ... people are either for it or against it, with no fence-sitting. I also wish there was a good way to indicate second choices. I may oppose B4 (eliminating SNGs), but if my only other choice is allowing SNGs to override the GNG, I'm all for eliminating them.Kww (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to support multiple proposals where possible, and perhaps indicating preference by the strength of my support/opposition. Also, this RFC is by no means an exhaustive list of options. It's to help calibrate which options are simply unacceptable, and hopefully turn out a proposal that has a consensus, if not something close enough to it that we can build on it in a smaller group or another RFC. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put! fr33kman (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree. I think there's a consensus that there exists a grey area between GNG applying across the board and WP:IAR, by which I mean exceptions do exist to the GNG, we just don't know how to delineate them. There's certainly an under-current that feels subject specific guidance has a part to play. I get the impression the best thing to come out of it may be that a wording that the GNG applies to all articles; with exceptions We'd have to note these exceptions are rare and decided by community consensus during afd debates; they typically include specific groupings in list format and articles on people or groups of people who have achieved a goal worthy of note whilst not generating much available third party coverage of their achievement. We could build a list of afd results and also a list of articles where we think these exceptions apply. Personally, I think we should have an article on every oscar winner and olympic gold medallist, even if that article is a redirect to a list. I'll put that on the table here and now. I'd be interested in why not doing so makes us a better reference work. My thinking on lists is this; take a list of olympic gold medallists; these are sports results and will be documented in third party sources. However, they will be trivial sources if judged by the GNG. That shouldn't prevent us building the list. The list allows us to cover the Olympics comprehensively. Hiding T 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This point has not been explicitly stated, but maybe this all points to "Lists of likely search terms, and redirects to point to that list from those terms, that may otherwise not have notability supported by the GNG are appropriate to keep on WP." Now this focuses on the phrase "likely search term" which moves how this is used out from WP's definition of notability in what needs to be consensus agreed information that is subject-specific. And then this is where the subguidelines can play their role. This would then qualify that every Oscar winner, every Olympic athlete, every episode of a notable TV show, every major character in a work of fiction, every geographical location (all what I would consider "likely search terms") has, at worst, a redirect or two to an appropriate list where some detail is present, and allows for future expansion if the term can later meet the GNG. Of course, we also have to make sure that such lists follow WP:NOT and any other policy; a list of hardware stores in Minnesota would of course fail this (WP is not a directory), for example. Or if going to character lists, avoiding too much OR/POV writing. This would shift the purpose of the SNGs - again, what is a "likely search term" is no longer a notability (defined by WP) issue but to the more fuzzy considerations such as "popularity" and "importance" that would likely include more search terms than we might now but without a significant penalty, as redirects are cheap.

This covers the general balance of acceptance of A.2/A.3, and also observes that B is favoring that SNGs are useful in the wide coverage that WP does. --MASEM 12:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I agree, in principle. I think maybe the next step in this rfc process is in framing SNG exemptions. For example;

• It is proposed that all Olympic medallists be included on Wikipedia; where sources are not available to meet the GNG, but trivial source document such achievements it is proposed redirects or a short disambiguating stub are created to direct to relevant list entries to allow comprehensive coverage of Olympic medallists.

I put the disambiguating perma-stub bit in because there may be people who won multiple events or events in multiple years. An example would be a stub "Joe Bloggs" won the Olympic gold medal in the javelin in the 1908 Summer Olympics and the 1912 Summer Olympics. See List of medallists 1908 and List of medallists 1912. So those could be next stage proposals. Likewise for characters of a serial work of fiction or episodes of a television series or season. Hiding T 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all olympians are covered in WP:ATHLETE by "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." That's a generous SNG. One thing I keep seeing in AfDs is local coverage not being considered as counting towards notability. For instance, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God some editors don't think the Anchorage Daily News counts towards notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that I presented is that the SNGs would be rewritten to focus on the cases for when topics should be covered in some form or another but not in its own article, at least until more sources per GNG are found. So olympic athletes with only a gold medal to their name should be listed somewhere as a valid search term. Just as we'd do with villages in Africa, state roads in Montana, main characters in Inuyasha, and soforth.

I will note we need to be careful with stubs. A rigorous definition of stubs needs to be used here, which, as I read it, is three to four sentences, max, about a topic, and should be verifiable but otherwise may not fully meet all of WP's policies due to its state. Beyond that it becomes a Start-class, and the article must start meeting all of WP's policies. Thing is, I've seen 2000 word "stubs" around. Given the examples above, if each of those were stubs, just guess which one would be the one most likely to grow huge while being called a "stub"? I'm not saying stubs are bad, but we should past experience to know when a specific topic will likely grow, or otherwise merged into a list form and deal with the stub in that way. If the merged topic does grow, great, we still have the stub history (since we created a redirect) and new material can be added. --MASEM 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with Masem's approach is that it requires so called "experts" to determine whether a specific topic may become notable, whereas GNG says that a subject is notable if it has received significant coverage. There are two flaws to this arguement, namely the reliance on expert opinion, and secondly reliance on future events that may or may not happen (i.e. that reliable secondary source will be found in the future). From an editorial perspective, this approach relieves us from the burden of proof of having to show that a topic is notable, and I can see why this is attractive proposition, becuase it would no longer be possible to delete or merge articles that do not cite reliable secondary sources if they have grown to a certain size. However, on the other hand, editors would be dependent on expert guidance to determine which topics are notable, or which articles have reached critical mass that would make them potentially notable. In my view, this is only one step removed from saying that only experts can determine what should and should not be included in Wikipedia, which is a proposal that has been tried before (see WP:EXPERT), but has not obtained widespread support because it goes against the more democratic principals of Wikipedia that any editore can edit an article about a notable topic, or delete or merge the content of topics which do not provide evidence of notability. Masem's approach also places undue weight on the size of articles, a trend which is already apparent in articles which are bloated with questionable sources, such as Characters of Kingdom Hearts, but which do not provide evidence of notability for the article's subject per se.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there is another aspect that is not called out specifically but does exist in the current responses to the RFC and that is the need for SNGs to not be developed in a vacuum and instead must seek wide consensus to be true SNG. If we left SNGs to be locally agreed to, we would have wikiprojects with their own definition of notability and cause exactly the problems you state. Global consensus on SNGs would be basically qualifying expert understanding of a topic to apply to WP standards. Issues of size and the like can be dealt with by other content guidelines and through MOSes which again should not be developed in a vacuum but instead seek global consensus. --MASEM 12:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is, who would be the expert to interpret "consensus"? It is a lot easier to determine which articles are notable by the fact they cite reliable secondary sources, rather than having to create an RFC every time there is a notability dispute. Unless someone can come up with a set of rules, inclusion criteria or some other mechnanism that can be applied across all subject areas that does not rely on expert opinion to replace GNG, then I think WP:N is likely to remain as Wikipedia's notabality guideline. I am agnostic when it comes to the question as to whether there exists such an alternative to GNG that does not require a panel of experts to make it work, but so far no one has prosed such an alternative. My view is that if such an alternative exists, it will have to be a set of rules that provides evidence that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources without the need for "experts" (or expert opinion dressed up as "consensus"). --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is talking about abolishing the GNG. I think the issue is in how to cover people and things which are of note but do not meet our standards. I tend to agree with Masem in approach. I don't think I understand your point about who will interpret "consensus". It's very easy to determine whether consensus exists on Wikipedia; you do something. People will either let it be done, or attempt to undo it. Eventually, one side gives up or accedes or a third way is found, and you have consensus. We already have an rfc everytime there is a notability dispute, you'll find them all listed at WP:AFD, so I'm not sure what your objection there is based on. I think myself and Masem are looking for the best way to delineate current practise, which is what our guidance is supposed to do. As to an alternative to a panel of experts, I am again unclear as to what you mean. That's the very model Wikipedia is based upon. It's an encyclopedia edited by self-selected experts. Our content is already decided by a panel of self-selected experts. What me and Masem are looking to sort out is how to best delineate that the GNG has primacy except when it can be ignored. I am tending to think the answer is to tell people it has primacy (but WP:IAR may apply in rare circumstances. Some of these circumstances are documented at Foo). It's working out how to provide a comprehensive information set. A lot of the issue here are dictated by format; if we were writing a book, we could simply create an index at a very fine level so that Some gold medallist has p.69 by it. But we can't index on Wikipedia. What do you suggest we do with people who we know have won a gold medal, but that's all we know? Are you happy they be listed in a list of gold medallists? Hiding T 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliance on third party sources

One thing that has come up in discussions of notability has been the statement at WP:V that articles should rely on third party sources. The exact meaning of this statement has been the subject of somewhat heated discussion

To try to clarify it, I looked at a few featured and good articles on fictional subjects, and removed all information on plot and characters to see what percentage of the article was made up of that. I did not cherry pick results favorable to my point, although I did commit selection bias and pick works I was familiar with. Here's what I found:

I looked at 13 featured articles, which had a range of being 8% to 32% plot and character information. The average was 17%. Three of the ten were 25% or more plot/character information. I also looked at nine good articles, which had a range of 13% to 42% plot and character information. The average here was 26%, with five at the 25%+ mark, and two at the 33%+ mark.

These, note, are featured and good articles - so they are articles that are already displaying our best practices. And yet 1/3 to nearly 1/2 plot and character information is acceptable here. Given that, and given that we obviously accept a host of levels of article below featured and good quality, I am hard pressed to read that line from WP:V as mandating deletion of much of anything - clearly, if 42% plot/character is good article quality, majority plot character is likely to be barely below good article status. Extending the long tail through what we tolerate would suggest that there are, in practice, very, very few articles that fail this aspect of WP:V to the point of deletion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says or said there was a problem here. Articles should not be mostly plot/character summary, consistent with the above. Articles should be based on third party sources - presumably the non-plot/character content is based on third party sources, and would I be correct in guessing that for the featured and good articles, that the amount of plot/character coverage was in line with the amount required to support an understanding of the non-plot/character coverage? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you just said, but I still think there's a strong relationship between WP:V, WP:N, and WP:PLOT for the most deletion-worthy articles. And while I don't want to get bogged down in fixed quantities, those percentages are helpful for the sake of this explanation. To focus on the main issue, something that's 90-100% plot will violate WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:V. It will fail WP:N and WP:V because it will be written entirely from non-third party sources: the work of fiction and its officially licenced guidebook. Both WP:N and WP:V say that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Also, something that's 90-100% plot probably violates WP:NOT#PLOT anyway.

Beyond that, the facts you pull from your reliable third-party sources have to result in significant coverage of the topic, not a trivial mention. A trivial mention leaves you with an article that's still 99% fancruft, with a 1% comment saying "CNN mentioned this minor character by saying they had an awesome costume." That's an article that definitely fails WP:N and WP:PLOT, and probably WP:GAMEs WP:V. So the policies and guidelines are definitely related for a specific class of deletion-worthy articles, although you're right that in many cases these policies have nothing to do with each other. Randomran (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Though, crucially, "can be found" and "have been found" are two different statements - it's important to have a concept of a presumption of notability. And WP:N carves a clear space for that - "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." So the distinction between failing WP:N and being deletion worthy is a big one.

The question of percentages and WP:NOT#PLOT is trickier, I think, since that page cuts both ways. Concise, as I've noted, is defined as ""Expressed in few words; brief and comprehensive in statement; not diffuse." So that page, while it demands concision and larger context, also demands comprehensiveness. It is, I think, our most subtle policy about this in that regard, and the hardest to read in terms of numbers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As a secondary point, I am not convinced that officially licensed guides are not third party sources. This is a tricky matter - the notion of party sources is really more the product of debates about contentious topics and viewpoints. There's not really a NPOV/viewpoint issue here, so porting the concept straight to fiction is tricky. Certainly, as a scholar in the area, the question of who or what is "first party" to a film or television series is tricky. This would be an area where more comments and viewpoints would be helpful - what is a party for a fictional work? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to pick up on a point here:

“ Both WP:N and WP:V say that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ”

This isn't true. If this was true, we wouldn't need WP:N, since WP:V is enough. WP:N goes further than this. It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Now, if you read WP:V, you'll note that when it refers to WP:RS it states Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. Now the problem is that people do not seem to realise or accept that WP:V has primacy over WP:N. To behonest, a far better proposal to have put forwards here is the replacing of the current GNG definition of notability with the one from WP:V: if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Because either they mean the same thing, or they don't, and if they don't WP:V has primacy. Hiding T 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything except "this isn't true". WP:V and WP:N both say that, but like you said -- WP:N goes further by talking about trivial coverage and due weight. WP:V also goes further, but focusing on the verifiability of individual facts rather than whether or not an article should exist. There is one important area where the two policies intersect, but they both cover other aspects of our content. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't say that everything that has been covered by reliable third party sources should have an article, if it did then most of WP:NOT (another policy) would conflict with it. Having a policy that defines a minimum standard for inclusion and then a more flexible guideline that works within that standard is not an inconsistency, it's a refinement. Guest9999 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree - this is a case of a policy setting a hard minimum line, and a guideline setting a softer line above the hard line. That is not problematic. What is tricky here is figuring out how to determine the impossibility of finding sources, and how to consider topics that span multiple articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really not a big issue when the problem is approached in the right order:

1. Find third-party sources
2. Summarize sources
3. Add what is necessary from primary sources to provide context and background to understand the above.

The problem occurs when people approach it as

1. Write about my favorite topic
2. Let other people find sources

There really should never be a problem with finding third-party sources to justify an article, because the article should never have been created without third-party sources in hand. To my mind, the simplest solution to this is to make "no third-party sources" a CSD criterion. As for your other issue, I don't see how you could view a licensed source as being independent from the subject. Even if you could justify calling them second- or third-party, they lose their independence once they are licensed.Kww (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"No third-party sources" should be an explicit reason for deletion, but that WP:CSD should not be broadened. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree - "no third-party sources likely to be found" should be an explicit reason for deletion. An unsourced article is not useless to reader or editor assuming sources can likely be found. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I could accept a speedy criteria on that principle, A7 causes enough issues as is, and we are supposed to be a work in progress. But I don't see why we can't revive the idea of blanking such pages. Hiding T 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it is clear that a proposal that unsourced articles are speedy candidates is one that will not meet community consensus. It is, in any case, clearly a change from existing policy. As it stands, we as a community accept articles that need sourcing when we think that sourcing can probably be provided. Until this consensus is altered, your description of "the problem" seems to me mostly immaterial.

As for the licensing issue, again, I think the question of independent from what, and third party from what is important here. Especially in an era of heavy media consolidation, very little becomes independent. CNN is owned by Time Warner - does that mean that any CNN coverage of anything published by any other division of Time Warner is not third party? I'm not coming down on the side of officially licensed material being third party - but I think that, for fictional works, we need to think carefully about the question of partyhood. But that is probably a matter for another discussion - for now, let's turn to the far more relevant question - given that there is no speedy criteria for unsourced articles, and that WP:N, as it stands, explicitly counsels against deletion for articles where sources could be found, and given the high percentage of primary source material that is allowed even for good and featured articles, I contend that, under current consensus, the bar is clearly lower than some are arguing for plot summary-based articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for curiousity's sake, how do the old Torchic and Bulbasaur articles hold up under the same methodology? Nifboy (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, is this directed at me? I've lost track of the threading, sorry.Hiding T 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just respond to anything interesting-seeming. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I only asked because I know I did some clean up on Bulbasaur at the turn of the year. Don't remember touching the other one. My feeling tends to be that if they have to stay as articles they should be the best they can be, hence the clean up. I like to hope they are in a better state than they were. They had some really tortured English in them back then, but there wasn't enough movement in the community to gain a consensus to merge. Hiding T 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Torchic is trickier, since it's not based in sections well. A quick estimate suggests that Torchic was, in its deleted version, 65% non-plot/character summary. That figure (as with all figures I've given) counts infobox stuff, templates, language links, etc as part of the article - so the percentage is low, but no lower than the others given. Bulbasaur, in the version you linked to, was an even 50% plot/character stuff. So those articles are not actually disproportionately far from what we allow at good article level. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I use Bulbasaur as an example of an absolute travesty of an article. It has only one third-party source that examines Bulbasaur, and that one only makes a lame joke about pesto. The history of that article has been long and checkered. It's got a huge pile of references, but when you actually examine them, they all prove to be really bad: passing mentions on a list, direct references to manga, direct references to anime, direct references to material published by Nintendo, and a handful of legitimate references that don't actually mention Bulbasaur at all, just Pokemon in general. It is an example of an article that exists only because there is a large enough group of fans that refuse to acknowledge policies and guidelines that it survives AFDs under the sheer weight of ILIKEIT votes.Kww (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I find myself concerned that out of universe material that was sourced and verifiable was lost from front facing article space when Torchic was merged. If that's happened across the Pokemon articles, then that makes us a slightly worse resource than we were before the mergers. Mergers should retain verifiable information per editing policy. Hiding T 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I notably didn't look at the sources - my simple concern was the amount of stuff that is based on primary source material where we would never even go for a secondary source - plot summary, etc. It was not an endorsement of either the Torchic or Bulbasaur articles (which are, as a whole, nowhere near GA quality), but rather a note that neither had a problematic balance of in-universe material that would only use primary sources and out of universe material that could use secondary sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur remains because nobody can rightly figure out what to do with it. It's right on the border of what Snowspinner is arguing for and what WP:N is arguing for; it's a core topic necessary to understanding the larger topic, but it's also completely non-notable in the way that WP:N uses the term. We cannot write a decent article on the subject, but we should try anyway. I don't know the solution to this dilemma, or I would have proposed it a long time ago.

I'd be interested in seeing how the argument that this was "65% non-plot/character summary". There's some glib analysis of the name, some vague claims about its conception and appeal, and a list of toys. That's four paragraphs, all with sketchy sources at best (when there are any at all). The remainder is plot or setting info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

aMiB brings up a great point in that there are times where "I know a keeper when I see it", and Bulbasaur is one of those articles. I'm sure there are some that will point out how technically the article fails at many points, but at the same time, it is written about as encyclopedic as it can be and at a level, barring significant coverage, of generally Good Articles. Is there a case for such in any structure? Does allowing such a case threaten to open a floodgate of other such cases? Or is Bulbasaur really a good application of WP:IAR? --MASEM 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Applications of IAR tend to become rules in their own right. I've always subscribed to the philosophy that IAR means that a really good argument is a rule in its own right, because all of Wikipedia's rules of all sorts are simply arguments that things should be such-and-such way. I wouldn't want Bulbasaur to become a precedent, but it's similar to list articles in that they are bad articles made to serve a necessary end. The solutions are tightening our belts considerably on fictional topics, something I'm not entirely happy with, or finding an alternative standard to notability, which would be fine if someone would propose something other than the "I know it when I see it" standard (which leads to VFD all over again, no thank you).

Bulbasaur is kept because there's grudging consensus that it is a core topic, and that it should be covered somewhere. Any effort to merge it fails because there's no good place to put it, as the Pokémon lists are a disaster. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had that flipped - mea culpa. It was 35% non-plot, 65% plot. It was also a crap article, fwiw. But that was, I think, unrelated to its plot/character balance. I took the lead as non-plot, and the "in other media" section, which seemed to be about the use of Torchic as a marketing device. That was, along with header, footer, references, etc, 35% of the article.

It's a crap article. The non-plot sections were poorly referenced, and probably contained OR. I wasn't endorsing their quality - merely noting their existence. The reasons to do things to that article were not inadequate plot/non-plot balance (at 65% plot, it's not that far away from some good articles), but because the content sucked. And that's a very, very important distinction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I think people talk about balance because they were using the AFD-esque thinking of considering the article as though all the badly- or unsourced nonsense were excised, which would completely remove the 35% you're referring to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Which I think is flawed thinking - badly sourced material is not inherently nonsense. Sometimes - in fact, most of the time - it's accurate material that's badly sourced. For deletion, to my mind, the relevant questions are "Is this a topic on which a good article could be written," and "is the article we have a useful start on the way to that good article." If the answer to either is no, delete. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims are not useless. Unsourcable claims are. Nearly all of the claims in Torchic (and, indeed, all of the former Pokémon articles) are the latter, and this is the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article in detail or at the sources, so I will take your word for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that AMiB is on to something here. As long as we accept the current framework, articles like Bulbasaur or Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) will be deleted but shouldn't be--they are critical to understand the larger concept. The answer to this is what I was trying to hash out until someone jumped the gun and proposed a WP:FICT that gave the farm away. Assuming we stick with the SNG/GNG split under the WP:N umbrella, we really are hurting for a functional fiction SNG. but like AMiB says, if I had the right answer to that question, I would have written it down by now. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a few important things to keep in mind - one is that WP:NOT#PLOT mandates a concise plot summary, and that we ought make sure we find a way, in covering fictional subjects, to include that somewhere in our overall coverage. To my mind, that makes episode articles often a higher priority than character articles, but episode articles are only really a priority in serialized fiction that has an ongoing plot. Episode articles are much more important for Buffy than for the Cosby Show, simply because Buffy has more plot going on. I am mostly willing to accept that character articles will fail a SNG, but have some hesitance simply because for an extremely long serialized work character articles seem to me to provide a useful ability to pick up particular threads over the work. In almost all cases, though, I'd rather see episodes than characters. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that WP:PLOT is really a content guideline and not an inclusion guideline. I mean, for articles that are purely plot summary we can manhandle it into becoming an inclusion guideline. But is is there to tell us how to write the encyclopedia, not how to organize it. We also have a wide range of good faith disagreements over that constitutes "sufficient" coverage for an episode or character. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The other problem is that we routinely have topics we cover over more than one article. I've just posted a proposal about this to the mailing list to try to get consensus - you can have a look at User:Phil Sandifer/Branching. There are still some large holes, but it's a start. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How does one quantify the difference between Buffy and the Cosby Show? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing plot - Buffy has a plot arc that starts with the first episode and proceeds onward, with, by the later seasons, every episode contributing to major plot arcs. The Cosby Show has little to no sense of continuity or overall plot. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the Cosby Show called back to previous episodes, and would occasionally have episodes (marriages, moving out, etc.) that affected the show as a whole. How much continuity or overall plot do you need before it's not "little to no"? I don't want to replace WP:N with an even more vague, even more subjective standard, especially one that is going to involve having many articles on every single episode/chapter/issue of a vaguely-defined group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support episode articles for the handful of "plot" episodes of The Cosby Show. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is an episode later called back to in a clips episode a "plot" article? What is a plot episode? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to delineate this. Is the distinction at least clear to you in theory, if not rigidly defined yet? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This was meant to be a reply to the above, not this section. I could move it there, if you like.

I understand the distinction you're attempting to make, but I don't think it's in any sense a meaningful threshold. There are lots of comedies built on referencing previous jokes; does this mean we need to cover every joke for fear of not being comprehensive for not having something that may be referenced later? (I understand this is the bulk of the argument for having Family Guy and Venture Bros. episode articles, BTW.) Mainstream American superhero comics are heavily self-referential, often calling back many years (or decades) to previous events. (WP:COMIC has given up readers' guide-style plot summaries for this very reason.) "Plot that may be needed for understanding of other works in the series" seems to be the standard you're setting, and I oppose it as unworkably broad, and in opposition to the experience of some of the most successful fiction projects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lets move it. I'll need to think about this - you make a very good point regarding the referentiality of superhero comics, for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's an acceptable threshold?

Given that the GA threshold for plot-level seems to be at least 42% (that is, it is not impossible for an article that is 42% plot to be a good article), what is the threshold at which the level of plot is a serious problem?

For me, if FA is around 1/3 and GA is, let's say, under 50%, the active problem threshold comes somewhere at 2/3 to 75%. That, for me, is the threshold where the article clearly has a problem and needs either more third-party info or less plot. And somewhere in the 80-90 range, for me, is where an article is actively bad because of the balance, and where heavy tagging, merging, deletion, or other decisive actions that say "this article is crap" are needed. (Whereas at the 2/3-75% level, for me, action should be taken, but it doesn't necessarily need to be tagged as problematic.) Thoughts? Your own reads on thresholds for this? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the random stuff I'm seeing in this category from {{in-universe}} is at the 100% mark, while some works of fiction are tagged with {{plot}} in this category if the plot section is bigger than the rest of the article combined, or 50%. Nifboy (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. 50% is, I think, a bit steep for Template:Plot, but it's at least in the ballpark. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see why, the plot template is in the section and not the top of the article. Most of them are at near-100%, but most of those are also episode articles. Nifboy (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Basically, it depends what the other x% is. If the article is 80% plot but 20% real details about encyclopedic stuff functionally unique to that topic, then that's more than fine. If the article is 70% plot summary and 30% TV-Guide ish detail, that is a different kind of problem. The operative question becomes, what would we be left with if the plot summary were removed and does that remaining content represent a stand alone article? If the answer is no, then the article should probably be deleted (assuming it isn't sourced by independent sources, of course). If the answer is yes, then I wouldn't want to write a guideline that made that article disappear. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a serious mistake to view this in terms of "plot"/"not plot". If we decide that 49% plot is the upper limit, and 49% "character description from primary sources" is the upper limit, then you can wind up with an article that is 98% from primary sourcing. An article needs to stay under 50% from primary sourcing ... divvy it up however it makes sense.Kww (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was treating "plot" as covering plot and character. And, again - given that 42% can be good article status, I have trouble with the idea that somewhere in that 8 percent it goes from good article to unacceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that the 42% number which is being used might not be entirely representative, for example the good article Shego is made up of around 85%+ plot/character information with no reliable, third party sources used as references. Horcrux a former good article had a similar proportion of in-universe information before it was promoted. Guest9999 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't claiming it as representative. I was just claiming it as seemingly not outlandish. Shego is a good example at the extreme end. Which further, I think, shows that the "rely on third-party sources" line in WP:V can't really be taken to establish some numerical threshold. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting out articles that focus entirely on a fictional person/place/thing often results in 100% plot information from the work of fiction, which usually means it's written almost entirely from fanguides or primary source. No significant third-party reliable coverage -- thus no notability. In other words, I wouldn't nominate anything for deletion unless it were at least 90% plot. Not that I'm measuring quantities, but that's how it works out in practice. The gray area is somewhere around 75% plot. That's probably not a good candidate for AFD: the 25% NOT#PLOT info is probably critical coverage from a reliable third-party source or two, and thus it's notable. So if there are any problems with a 75% plot article, notability isn't one of them. I think we've gotten off topic, even though the topic is definitely related. We're better off settling this notability issue first, and then figuring out what to do with WP:FICT. Randomran (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's also be honest with ourselves and note a good chunk of GA passed articles did not meet criteria/still do not meet criteria. It's the inherent nature of how GAN works. Thus, I suggest using FA articles only in this discussion as they are a more reliable barometer of plot/nonplot info (although I think the pre-2006 articles might have different plot balances than our more stringent FA's today.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A.1?

So what happened to A.1?

I assume it was withdrawn, which I'm reasonably happy about, as it was a proposal that nobody had ever actually advanced. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another editor hid it. I'm inclined to go unhide, because that struck me as being a pretty bold move, and the comments on it are still pretty indicative of peoples opinions on notability exclusions.Kww (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So we are without a record that the community has rejected that specific wording? I think that's a helpful finding for a snapshot in time. Protonk (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've unhid everything, including A.4. and the extra A comments. I'd prefer Wikipedia:Collapsible tables be used if the proposal is going to be taken off the table. Nifboy (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor who proposed A.1.2 interpreted A.1 as a mangling of his proposal, rather than a proposal of its own, with its own supporters. Unhiding the comments was a good idea. A few people legitimately hold this view, and it's important to try to find some kind of consensus on it. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not propose A.1.2. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter who proposed it, because I was focusing on why A.1 was hidden -- not who. I guess I should have qualified that with "probably", instead of making it sound like I knew as a fact. Either way, it's unhidden now, which was a smart idea. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aggregate notability

Hiding has asked me about the concept of 'aggregate notability' - the idea that a list or similar article could be shown to be notable in certain situtations where there was no significant coverage of the list itself, but in which there was non-trivial coverage of the elements of the list that was significant on aggregate; so while the individual sources were neither trivial nor significant, the total amount of coverage was significant. The coverage would still be held to the same standards of independence and real-worldiness as for other articles. The concept was present in some drafts of WP:FICT, but was never very well formulated; any discussion of it there tended to get swept away in one of the major rewrites.

This wouldn't be an 'exemption' from notability concerns for list articles; just a clarification that a specific reading of the existing notability guidelines was appropriate for list articles. Hopefully it would therefore please editors who wish to include the useful list articles that currently just fail to meet a strict reading of WP:N, but wouldn't raise the ire of editors who aren't willing to see a 'get out of AFD free' card given to any article with 'List of ' at the start of its name Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the term 'aggregate notability' is another way of saying than notability can inherited/presumed/acknowledged by a list in the absence of reliable secondary sources. The problem with this concept is that, to date, no one has formulated a set of rules that defines how notability can be inherited using objective evidence that does not rely on so called "expert" opinion (or expert opinion dressed up as "consensus"). My understanding of what you mean by "clarification" is an explicit statement of this so called "expert" opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a different term. A prime example (at least to me) is the case of the 50 State Quarters. Individually, each coin lacks GNG notability to be in WP (I know that one can use local sources to describe how each design came about, but local sources are not sufficient coverage). But, the entire program of quarters is notable via GNG. Is this to say each quarter itself is notable by inheritance? Of course not. But this is aggregate notability that I think Percy is describing. This is also different from "lists of" articles that simply group non-notable topics into a list that itself is non-notable, though there is a thin line between such articles and the aggregate notability argument, in that the right grouping of non-notable elements can usually move easily from the first to the desired second case with some good GNG sources. --MASEM 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't saying at all that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. What it's saying is that while for a single topic, reliable secondary sources only constitute significant coverage if they are each significant in their own right, for a list topic, reliable secondary sources could constitute significant coverage if they are each non-trivial and there is a significant total amount of reliable secondary sourced coverage. Is that clearer? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think it is kind of a misleading term. Phil is right, to a point, about our division of topics and sub-topics into articles being somewhat arbitrary. But most of the time, articles exist because they cover notionally different topics. Some reason, other than WP:SIZE, dictates the split of most articles. If that is the case and we stick to the term of art for our definition of notability, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to discuss aggregate notability. Take the 50 quarters example. The 50 state quarters minting was a program undertaken and publicized. Each quarter was just an element in that program. It is not as though the Maine quarter was somewhat notable (a term that is meaningless under the wikipedia definition of notable) and the California quarter was a little more notable, and so on, until the list of quarters was "very notable" by virtue of containing so many notable elements. Nor was it as though the concept of quarters was notable, so an element of their minting history became notable is the parent topic.
• We are left with the (agreed, somewhat arbitrary) outcome that these topics become notable when the topic itself is covered in depth by several independent sources. That gives us an odd distribution of desired coverage. It causes us to have 100 times more coverage of Second Life than businesses employing many thousands of people all over the world. It causes some fictional subjects which have broad coverage in external sources to be covered much more than others. This seems like an injustice to some people so we come up with concepts to right that wrong. "Inherited/Aggregate/etc" notability is a frame of thinking that tries to cover the gap in comprehensive coverage created by the existing notability guideline. I'm pretty ambivalent about that drive in general, because I still feel that WP:N is the best solution to a crappy problem and that the cure might be worse than the disease for most solutions. Certainly a term like this does that because it furthers the misunderstanding that "notability" is the same word as it is used in common parlance--a frustrating misconception that leads many AfD's astray. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Masem, 'aggregate notability' is indeed the same as saying that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources, and his example of 50 State Quarters bears this out. What he is asserting (by stating his "expert" opinion) is that all the quarters are notable because the whole minting program is notable. However, what is objective evidence is this based on? None. What is the cut off for 'aggregate notability'? None. If each of the 50 state quarters is notable, who is to say that the quarter in my pocket is notable or not? Expert opinion. Once we go down this road, we are basicially saying that we have to rely on experts for notability, some of whom will say the world is flat, and others that it is round. However, this arguement, and the example provided by Masem, can only be settled by citing reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia editors should assert their right to stand on the shoulders of giants, rather than be subservient to the so called "expert" opinions of quacks and charlatans, and reject the concepts such as 'aggregate notability' that rely on experts.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• So how do we determine what a reliable source is without reference to a panel of experts? Because it seems a panel of experts have ruled out using local newspapers as sources, even though they would seem to be as reliable as national newspapers; in some parts of the world the local newspapers are owned and published by companies which also publish national titles. Hiding T 08:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to Percy for the explanation. I think this is certainly along the same lines I was thinking, but I think it also suffers from the issues other proposals along this line have. Whilst it appears to reflect consensus, the wording isn't acceptable to some. For me we simply have to use IAR per process. But I would certainly sign up to supporting this. Hiding T 08:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Hiding, if we cite reliable secondary sources, then we don't need to back up assertions of notability with expert opinion. I don't think there is an issue with local newspapers as reliable secondary sources per se, rather there is a bigger issue involved about notability not being temporary, which is summed up in WP:NOT#NEWS. Some of the SNG's also follow this line, an example being WP:MOVIE and WP:BOOK prohibiting the use of routine press releases and announcements as reliable sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's just a panel of experts who have decided that we can't use routine press releases and announcements as reliable sources. And realistically I'm not talking about press releases, and I'm not talking about notability being temporary. I'm talking about ensuring our coverage is comprehensive. At what level do we make a distinction between verifiable, sourced pieces of information? Our policy calls on us to weigh sources against the claims made. I think the best thing here is to first work out what we agree on. I think it would be fair to say neither of us wants articles consisting solely of plot, nor articles which only rely on primary source. Is that fair to say, and would you agree those positions are generally consensually held? Hiding T 09:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think you are confusing the fact that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are indeed based on opinion, but the concept of notability is based on the citation of objective evidence. Wikipedia's coverage would indeed be comprehensive if it covered every notable topic.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not confusing anything. The concept of notability is based upon subjective evidence. For example, what is a reliable source? What is a topic? What does independent mean? Each editor has a different interpretation of what those terms mean, since they are adjectives and therefore subjective qualifiers. Therefore we have instilled a panel of experts who decide what those terms mean into the centre of our inclusion criteria. I certainly agree that Wikipedia's coverage would indeed be comprehensive if it covered every notable topic. Everyone agrees on that. No-one can agree on what notable means, because it is a subjective idea. The current formulation may be less subjective than "everything so and so likes", but it certainly allows one to game the system to achieve "everything so and so likes". You can't escape a panel of experts on Wikipedia. I get the impression we're coming closer to where we fundamentally disagree. I think you believe that WP:N is a statement you can point to and therefore decide what is in and out of Wikipedia. I believe it is a framework within which one can discuss whether something is in or out at a deletion debate. I believe in a consensus approach to content decisions, not a unilateral one. Wikipedia:Notability is a tool for deciding what the community will cover. It is not the rule for dictating what the community can cover. In my equation the community comes first, per the foundation principles. I believe in your equation the rule comes first. I apologise if I misrepresent you, and please correct me if I am wrong. Hiding T 10:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not saying that WP:N is 100% objective, as of course what is and is not a reliable secondary source is open to interpretation (which is why we have SNGs). However, GNG has one huge advantage as inclusion criteria in that by citing reliable secondary sources, individual editors can review the evidence that a topic is notable themsleves, whereas inclusion criteria based on "expert" opinion (or expert opinion dressed up as "consensus") are not as transparent, and for that reason can be potentially misguided. If I can provide evidence that every one of the 50 State Quarters are notable, that much more transparent (and democratic) than claiming they are notable because I am an expert and say so, or because the consensus of opinion is that they are notable. From this perspective, the concept of notability is consistent with scientific theory.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be rejecting peer review then, by ignoring consensus. Which doesn't fit with scientific theory. It also completely changes the purpose of Wikipedia, by making WP:N the central test rather than WP:NPOV, and by codifying a model which may not actually support the desired outcome. We aren't modelling the universe here at Wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia. The flaw with your approach is that you've ascribed a value to the term encyclopedia, therefore biasing your method. How can you be sure the value you've given to teh term encyclopedia is the right one? The only way to do that would be to construct competing encyclopedias. It appears to me you should therefore fork, because Wikipedia is not an experiment. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion. I support the guidance on notability as a framing device for discussion, but not as a rule, and I support a neutral point of view and not a scientific one. Science cannot answer everything. That is the most poetic fact in life, that it is each person's to understand alone. Hiding T 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not rejecting peer review. Reliable secondary sources are peer reviewed and are superior to "expert" opinion when it comes to judging whether a topic is notable per GNG.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are rejecting peer review. By stating you oppose the consensus opinion that something is notable, you reject the idea that a given editor's position on whether something meets WP:N is capable of being peer reviewed. Part of scientific theory is that an experiment be repeatable by others and return the same value, with a margin for error. Testing something against WP:N is an experiment. If others make the same test and get different results, which result is valid? Peer review decides, yes? Therefore consensus does decide what is notable, using WP:N as a framework. Hiding T 10:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are trying to prove here. I have already stated that WP:N is not 100% objective, as of course what is and is not a reliable secondary source is open to interpretation. By basing GNG on the citation of reliable secondary sources, individual editors can review the evidence that a topic is notable themsleves, whereas inclusion criteria based on "expert" opinion (or expert opinion dressed up as "consensus") are not as transparent, and for that reason can be potentially misguided. I oppose inclusion criteria which state that a subject is notable in the absence of reliable seconary sources, as this view is based on the assumption that notability can be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged becasue an expert says it can.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, let me try an example. Say we have article foo, which cites a, b and c. You say a, b and c are not reliable enough. I say they are. What happens next? Hiding T 11:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• We can review the sources and see how good they are compared to WP:RS. However, it there are no sources, there is no evidence of notability to review.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to have misread me. I asked you what happens if we both review the sources and see how good they are compared to WP:RS and reach different answers. What happens next. Hiding T 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• You would get some sources that do agree with WP:RS of course! Then there would be no arguement.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So if there's a disagreement, you win by default? Or are you advocating that exclusion be the default response to contention? Why? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I already have some, it's your opinion that's wrong. So I'm glad there's no argument. Hiding T 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In real life, there aren't very many borderline cases: when people evaluate sources, consensus on whether they are reliable isn't all the difficult to reach. Consensus on whether they are independent can be a little tougher, but again, usually not that difficult. The problem is that people usually don't even argue about this. No one can seriously argue that a Nintendo licensed game guide is independent of Bulbasaur: instead, what they argue is that because they can't find independent sources, they should be allowed to use it instead. This gets back to a fundamental problem we have in seeking consensus on these topics: such opinions should simply be disregarded at AFDs. If someone wants to go argue at a policy level that such sources are acceptable in some circumstances, that's one thing. Arguing in an AFD that policy should be ignored because it's inconvenient to follow them is another.Kww (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ducking the question, and implies the debate is loaded, which is unhelpful. And for the record, it can be hard to write about copyright characters without gaining some form of license, so the fact that a game guide is licensed shouldn't necessarily be used to disqualify a source's independence. I understand your point, Kww, but I think it is too unilateral a position, and doesn't take into account the decisions facing scholars and publishers; a lot of publishers would rather get a license from a copyright holder than take the risk of a lawsuit. But your position is again an example of what I am seeking to explore; where consensus fits into the equation. Hiding T 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

UNDENTATION: Borderline cases

Moreover: (e.g.) In articles related to older comics and comics creators there are very few sources available; very little coverage out there. Except in self-published sources. Fanzines. Company-produced pamphlets ("propaganda," "biased," expert opinion without peer review). Primary sources.

These will generally fail WP:RS; they can be exempted by get-out clauses entrenched in those guidelines precisely (presumably) for this reason; they can be exempted by expert judgement or common sense; they can be legitimised by being used as primary sources in a third party article/book. It's a paradox of ridiculous proportions that something adjudged on its own merits to fail WP:RS can be allowed when referred to by a "reliable" source as a reliable source. Fanzines are often the only source for primary interview material with long-deceased creators. Steranko's self-published History of Comics, for example, is the main source for information on many creators: particularly Bill Finger. This is a reliable source. It is a self-published source. Why is a Steranko-published, Steranko-conducted interview inherently more reliable as a source than an X-published, X-conducted interview? That seems to be precisely what WP:RS states. And if the X interview subject dies, and the X interview quotes are then the only/main source for certain facts, they may well be used in third-party publications/newspaper articles/obituaries. The publication, article or obituary is a reliable source.

The DC-produced Who's Who and Marvel-produced Official Handbooks are frowned on as sources, presumably for exactly the license-issues Hiding mentions above. But if anyone knows the history/abilities/facts about their characters, it is the licence-holder/creators. Furthermore, removing such Guides as reliable sources, that leaves primary sources for some facts. Which are frowned upon lightly. The reliability of reliable sources stems in large part from their availability to be reviewed by other individuals/editors. Forcing reliance from Guides to primary sources in these cases makes sources harder to be reviewed.

Hiding - your examples above are most enlightening and thought-provoking. Kww's comment about raising things at policy-level tends to presuppose that the editors/admins who make up the majority voice in all policy-debates can grasp the - sometimes theoretical or badly-explained - logic underlying raising some concerns. If the concerns are even noted and debated at all. ntnon (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, your arguments are along the line of what I said ... you are primarily arguing that you should be able to use sources that fail WP:N criteria because it's all that you have available, not that that your sources actually meet WP:N.

Second, your paradox isn't a paradox at all. If the New York Times uses facts from a self-published source, the NYT did fact-checking, and judged the information to be reliable. We don't do fact-checking. We rely on reliable sources to have done it for us.

Third, I don't question a Marvel Official Handbook as a source of information, I only question it as a source of notability. If they devote an entire chapter to a particular version of Tony Stark's armor, all of that information is available to be used in an article about Iron Man. It doesn't do anything at all towards justifying an independent article about that generation of armor, because it doesn't show that anyone independent of the creator ever noticed that armor, or considered it to be worth remarking on.Kww (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A concern

I just want to post a concern that is starting to bug me. Say we do eradicate all articles on "cruft". What's that going to mean for Wikipedia as a resource? How's that going to affect our readership and the way they use us? What's our purpose here, to be a perfect resource no-one uses or a useful tool with well-known flaws? This could be a decisive moment here; Let's not kid ourselves, many have jumped the wrong way before us. I can remember when Yahoo was the best search engine, Netscape the most popular browser and Usenet the best forum. All lost their popularity through keeping out of step with their target audience. So, what's the right direction. Keep marching just ahead of the readership, or a wholesale change of direction and see who follows? Hiding T 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are confusing the medium with the message. Like other media by which information is transmitted (such as carrier pidgeons and telex), they may become out dated, although I would have thought Yahoo was far from out dated. This may be due to user preferences, and it is possible that a Wiki based encyclopdia may be replaced by another medium in a few years time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yahoo is certainly no longer the best search engine by popularity. And I am not confusing the medium with the message. I am asking the community to consider its goal. Are we creating content which others can use to make money from, or are we creating content which should be freely distributed. And who is the better placed to oversee the distribution, the community or outsiders? This is our content here, and we're giving it away. No-one has yet found a better use for it than us, though that may change. Whose pockets, ultimately, do we want to line? The message is the medium, and the medium is the message. Hiding T 10:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Surely then there is the question of what we want to provide and who we want to provide to. Would the community prefer to provide a "cruft" resource that a large amount of people will seek out or a more "encyclopaedic" treatment that might appeal to a smaller but different group. Should the people who use Wikipedia to look up information on quantum mechanics and evolution expect the same treatment of information in articles about popular culture topics or do we shift the "target demographic" for those articles to the group who shows the most interest in those topics. Is Wikipedia meant to be a resource that provides a certain type of information to anyone who wants to use it or a resource that tailors what information it provides in order to attract more users? Can it do both? Guest9999 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I don;t have the answers. I just want to throw teh question out there. I think it's worth remembering that if we throw some of this stuff away, there are other wikis that will pick it up, some of which accept advertising and therefore decisions we make here will have impact down the line. Are we content creators, content managers, content providers or all three and more? If we're all three or more, we have to be very careful not to hand any advantage to competitors. Those that take advertising could develop the necessary funds to overwhelm Wikipedia eventually. I just want to put the idea out there so we explore all the ramifications at play. As to your last answer, I'd like to hope we can do both. Hiding T 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• If wikipedia was still concerned about quantity (number of articles and number of readers), you'd be spot on, and wikipedia should also cover all aspects of e.g. Yellow Pages, IMDb, or local news. But the measure has shifted to quality, and with all the collective experience we have now, it's getting time to throw out the content or detail that we know to never turn into something good by modern WP standards. Since fan wikis have stepped up to take over nearly all the "cruft" and beyond (I embrace Lostpedia myself), I am not concerned at all about these WP developments. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• But there's teh rub. WHat happens if Lostpedia decides it wants to fork Wikipedia? And wants to accept advertising? I appreciate this isn't an area that generates much discussion, but is the community prepared to cede control of content? Are we prepared not to be the number one information site? Do we have a strategy in place, or are will we one day be in the Brittannica position? I think these are questions worth exploring. Hiding T 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since the inclusion criteria by which Lostpedia are inferior to those Wikipedia, it would not be relied upon. Other Wikis may one day be bigger, but as long as GNG is the basis of Wikipedia criteria for article inclusion, readers will always come here. In the battle of the Wiki's, the requirement to cite reliable secondary sources gives Wikipedia the edge.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I use other sites for certain types of information, I use the bbc news website to get news updates, tv.com to find details of television episodes and imdb.com to find some specific information on films and actors. I don't see that Wikipedia has to contain all the information the world has to offer (a view reflected by WP:NOT and all the various other Wikimedia projects) and frankly some sites are just better suited to presenting certain types of information than Wikipedia. When Jimbo says "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." I interpret that as meaning Wikipedia will be part of that world, not all of it. (Incidentally I got that quote from Wikiquotes, not Wikipedia.) Essentially I think it would be better to try and do one thing well - be a reliably sourced, neutral encyclopaedia - than trying to be all things to all people. Guest9999 (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But there already exists a reliably sourced, neutral encyclopaedia; why would our one be better? I don;t disagree, but I think this is an issue that gets sept under the beds far too often. Are we replacing the stuffy academy with our own? Or are we aiming to be brighter and better? A lot of people like the quirkiness of Wikipedia. We need to find a way of retaining that as part of our offering. Maybe it is time to at least think about the vision of Wikipedia we all have. Over at the MOS you've got people who want a well presented encyclopedia. Over at WP:N you've got people who want an encyclopedia of limited scope. Over at WP:NPOV you've got people who want all sides heard. You've got people who want bios on everyone and people who want bios on the few, and you've got people who... you get the picture. We're all fighting to get our own vision implemented. Is that the best way forwards? I've been here long enough to be sick of a lot of the arguing, and especially a lot of the "my way or the highway" attitude, as if their voice is the sole arbiter. What's the vision, what's the gameplan? Is it to do what's best, what's right (because sometimes they aren't the same), what's popular or what's acceptable? We're supposed to be operating through consensus, but that only works if all participants are prepared to move on issues. Ah, I've ranted too far from what I'm supposed to be talking about. Forgive me. I think my main point is this: have people considered this? Are people aware of this? We won't always be number one. We maybe have five more years. What happens then, said the doom monger drunk on the cheap whiskey... maybe the best idea is to be one of those forks and rake in the money... Hiding T 09:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Hiding, if he can come up with a better set of inclusion criteria than WP:N, then he will have won the argument hands down, and I would predict that consensus will swing around to support him. In the absence of alternative inclusion criteria, it seems to me that you are arguing for either a relaxation of GNG or an exepmtion from GNG for certain topics, but you are not providing a set of inclusion criteria that would either replace or supplement GNG that would enable this to happen. In the absense of alternative or supplementry inclusion criteria, the current discussions are effectively limited, as GNG is the only) inclusion criteria that are currently available to us.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Gavin, I'm talking at a level above middle managing content. Hiding T 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but that isn't really a helpful level to have discussion. We need a working method to manage topics and content where there are limited secondary sources. This RFC is a step down that road. We can praise wikipedia for its quirkiness (which is mostly why we get mentioned in the outside world), and I do, but doing so doesn't result in a method for us to keep article standards neutral but also afford somewhat comprehensive coverage of subjects. WP:N isn't a "vision" guideline. WP:CON, WP:V, WP:NPOV and others are "the vision". WP:N, by comparison, is boring. If we write a good notability guideline, no one should ever complain about that topic limit conflicts with other content limits. It's plumbing. And plumbing usually means working with the dimensions of the house to come up with a low-profile solution. This is one of the better attempts I've seen to do that. And the fact that it has been bitterly contested and will probably see consensus on maybe 1 proposal should be a sign of how limited that success is. If we get caaught up in the grand scheme we will bork up all the details--and we all know what happens when you mess up the details of plumbing. Protonk (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it's a fundamentally important level at which to have the discussion, and I disagree that it will bork up the plumbing. This sort of thinking should inform every decision taken on Wikipedia, it's the very basis for IAR. I don't think any discussion should be censored, and I would hope every participant in a debate is mature enough to avoid de-railing any attempt at consensus. I also appear to disagree with your assessment of the RFC. I think it has actually been relatively peaceful and is producing a reasonable consensus. And I can't describe WP:N as anything other than "vision" guidance. It quite clearly enunciates a vision of Wikipedia. And having experience with plumbing, I know precisely what happens if you get it wrong. You get a little bit wet. I doubt anybody in this debate is scared of water. I'd also note the plumber goes to work after the architect has drawn up the plans. You don't design a house around the plumbing. Hiding T 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean to say that we shouldn't be mindful of the project goals. I just mean to say that for discussions like this, appeals to those goals can be so broad or without force as to either cloud the issue or to be meaningless (Not to say that your specific questions are). It can also raise hackles on issues that (i think) were assiduously avoided (assonance is awesome) in the forming of this RFC. I don't want to get into a debate about the place of trivia/fanstuff/pop culture/etc here because we are liable to have more widely divergent views on those things than we do about the matter at had. Insofar as this debate impacts the bigger issues, we should discuss them, but the very nature of issue specific compromise is to avoid talking about the big stuff (which produces heroic disagreement) while hammering out the small stuff. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I disagree again. Having just had very lengthy discussions with Gavin to reach an understanding that we actually agree, fundamentally, I think discussions of teh big tent would actually produce more agreement. It's when people stick to a line that it all gets lost. I think, and this is tentative, but I think there's a general consensus that we take an encyclopedic approach to writing about things, we summarise sources and to balance coverage of a topic we utilise independent sources over primary source, without excluding coverage of primary source, and that merging topics back to lists and parent articles is the way to treat unsourced material. Lists should generally cover an aspect of a topic one would expect to find for comprehensive coverage and their lead should discuss the topic, the formulation of the list and the reason why, for example, Liverpool FC is of note and therefore why a list of players improves the encyclopedia. I think there's agreement that simply chucking a list of whatever up is unhelpful; it doesn't place into context what the list is doing on Wikipedia. I think, after my long run in with Gavin, and taking Phil's discussion with Amib into account, that that is probably how this will turn out. And I think that's what WP:N is for and how we use it and how to take it forwards. WP:N speaks of an article topics notability. SNG's speak of specific areas which can increase the coverage of content to comprehensive in an encyclopedic manner. I don't think anyone is arguing that a List of Oscar Winners or a List of Olympic Medallists is a bad thing. And I don't get the impression that anyone is arguing that a List of Byker Grove Tiddlywink Champions is a good thing. I hope I have that all set out right and represented everyone fairly. Hiding T 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find, generally, that I can compromise more on details rather than on the big stuff. This is only the case if the big stuff gets tabled. If we still think about the big stuff, it is hard to seek agreement on the little stuff. Perhaps an example. I agree with the GNG as written almost completely. I think that the outcome of this (very spotty coverage) is a necessary evil for implementing a relatively objective and neutral (vis wikipedian opinion) guideline. I also realize that there is a good deal of good-faith opposition to this on the grounds that articles on fictional subjects take it in the proverbial shorts. I can recognize that disagreement but in a big picture discussion of WP:N I won't grant them an inch. On a smaller scale, I am prepared to entertain and even advocate a rule that weakens the GNG in a specific sense if the wording of that rule results in fewer notability proxy debates at AfD. This can only occur if both sides mentally table the big picture discussion. In other words, guys like me (although I really don't consider myself on the extreme end of opinion) have to put aside my philosophical stance that articles without third party sources are basically OR and guys like KmWeber (to pick on Kurt as an easy example) have to put aside their opposition to notability guidelines in general. We both have to realize that the basic idea of notability isn't going to be remade in this discussion and so we can then move ahead. People who oppose notability guidelines can work on this because this won't change the fact that wikipedia has notability guidelines and they aren't going away. People like me can work on it because of the same reason. The minute we inject our feelings about the greater philosophical issues, we either butt heads or (as David pointed out) do a lot of talking where nothing comes of it. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again I disagree. I think everyone has the same big picture definition of Wikipedia. They want it to be well written. They want it to be comprehensive. They want it to be reliable. The problems arise when people start coloring the debate with little niggles, like that isn't suitable. The thrust of the editing policy is that we make it suitable. So instead of selling notability as a reason to exclude, we should be selling it as a method of improving our writing. Because that is what it is. Too often people take the little picture approach and use WP:N as a tool to support WP:V. The big picture approach is that it supports WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as well, and that's what we need to sell. We all want a well written, reliable, comprehensive encyclopedia. But to attain those goals, we need to avoid original research, cite to reliable sources and write neutrally. The differences emerge at the next level down. Hiding T 09:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I may have mis-stepped when I wrote "merging topics back to lists and parent articles is the way to treat unsourced material". And maybe that's where the rub is. I guess we all know the sort of unsourced material we should remove outright, and I think there's a grey area of material we tend to leave a little latitude for. Eveything has to be sourced. But it's how we achieve that. Is every sentence to have a [1] after it? Hiding T 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think generally policy only asks that any included piece of information should be sourcable if it is questioned, as I'm sure you know WP:V spells it out pretty clearly "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Guest9999 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly my take on WP:V too, but I'm having run-ins with GA reviewers who seem to think everything needs an inline cite, so I no longer trust my own reading of WP:V. Apparently I was being obstructionist in asking for specifc statements which required sourcing. Hiding T 09:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, not that I don't think this discussion can't be productive, but I really don't think this is the place for it. We shouldn't be worrying about "what the wiki will become" and who our readers are, because if our traffic drops a bit in the next week, it won't really affect us, assuming our purpose is to write an encyclopedia. I'm just worried these whole "what about our readers" arguments are kinda pointless as most of us have no real idea what a reader is looking for, only what editors are looking for and edit (and the two don't necessarily correlate.) It's just a mudtrap which distracts us from the more important WP:N concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Hiding, if it's any consolation even Bill Gates got the whole "World Wide Web isn't going to be that big a deal" thing wrong, so don't fret too much. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

David, you're wrong. We know exactly what readers are interested in. There are tools out there that work it out. Ask around at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team project, they've used the stats as part of their inclusion criteria. They're quite informative. As to how it affects us, we rely on hand-outs. Will we still get hand-outs if our traffic hits the floor? Hiding T 09:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the time, but it's an interesting topic and I wrote a long response off-wiki. I think the ultimate future of WP is using the GNG as is, mostly. I like to think of List of 30 Rock episodes and other 30 Rock articles as the way of the future. A number of people including myself have worked on 30 Rock articles, but basically two editors by themselves have taken all the related articles to GA and FL. Up All Night (30 Rock) is one of the worse episode articles, for instance. They're bringing them back one by one afte TTN redirected them. Many things that are considered hopelessly non-notable are actually extremely notable by the GNG. There are a number of weekly soap opera magazines published. If their full text archives could be searched with google, even extremely minor soap opera characters could be sourced. Anime and Manga is covered in a wide variety of Japanese magazines (if you know Japanese and their text becomes searchable). So, the GNG would be fine, except we're waiting for a few very dedicated editors per TV show (like 30 Rock has) and lots of Bilingual editors to deal with foreign pop culture topics. Google is starting to digitize all old newspapers, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to turn every episode of The Cosby Show into a good article. I like to watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters and other AfD sorting pages. I think that process works pretty well. Some get deleted and some get improved, both things improve the encylopedia overall. Even when a notable topic gets deleted, It's just recreated later. The thing I don't like is when editors like TTN nominate themselves judge and jury and use redirection as a non-consensus version of deletion. I'm starting to think that may have been what's lead to so much improvement of episode articles, though. I think the graph over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who#Episode article overview may be a response to episode articles being redirected. They've got nine GAs according to it. I wonder if that number wouldn't increase faster if they were only allowed to have articles with notability established. I have no doubt they could do it to every one. Anyways, we have to walk the line between only showing the public GA class articles on pop culture articles, and and actually having the content they come to us for. Eventually we'll have GA articles up the wazoo, but what do we do until then? Lastly, it's silly that we can have 40 GAs about 30 Rock while struggling to create articles on the main characters. My proposal to fix that is to allow 10 trivial sources to establish notability for fictional characters. The one thing I'm taking away from this RfC is that notability isn't going away, but it's also subject of amendment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• A proposal to extend the GNG to include 10 trivial sources is not unreasonable, but would it would not work when applied to Biographies of living persons, as trivial sources are not fact checked.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Would that be an instance when the specific guidelines could delineate the differences? I'm still a little wary about ten trivial sources though. What is a trivial source? Hiding T 11:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• A trivial source could a Questionable source for example, and their use is similar to self-published sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• So for example, if a character has appeared in ten television episodes of a show, or ten comic books? Or ten bloggers discuss a webcomic? I'm not sure... I guess it is a good conversation starter. Hiding T 12:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• A trivial source would still need to be reliable and independant, it just wouldn't need to be non-trivial. Off hand, I would only apply it to fictional characters. With regards to TV characters, it would solve the problem where the media writes about TV on a per show/season/episode basis. They mention the characters in these articles, but they don't devote a lot of time to them. Stuff like "character X was based on Batman, a the author's favorite comic character as a child." Or "Character X plays a much larger role in season 2 than in season 1." You find enough of these an incorporate them, you can have a GA. It just gets around the fact that the actual articles were about the show or season, not the character themselves. Anyways, that's my idea for that. Some sort of similar criteria might be applicable to lists as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• But that's part of a problem. Most of those 'sources' don't fact check or pick that subject for the purposes of illustration. If Joe Blow is in seven episodes of Cop Drama, we can't say anything more than "they were in seven episodes of cop drama". Any further detail is (almost by definition) plot recapitulation or original research. This is even more relevant for characters, where absent the show there is no possibility for coverage. This is the big problem with these fiction articles (and I don't know how to solve it gracefully). The parts of the articles that meet WP:NOT fail WP:OR because there isn't another source even hinting at critical commentary or history. So a sub-topic (assuming we allow spinouts) without reliable sources discussing it can't really be anything but plot or OR. If it were, it would have reliable sources covering it. I mean...that's kind of tautological, but it is the bind we are in with fictional subjects and sourcing. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. A reliable, independant, trivial source would be, for instance, a New York Times review of a television show that discusses character X for less than 5 sentences. The article is really about the show, it's only trivially about character X. But it's still reliable and independant. Whether it's in-universe or out-of-universe would depend on the specific source. It might say "character X killed character Y" or it might say "character X is based on Batman." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm starting to get the drift. Are these currently dismissed as sources, because that would indicate a conflict between WP:V and WP:N. Hiding T 13:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dismissed as sources of notability, not as sources of information. There's nothing wrong with including information from passing mentions, but if all that can be found on something is passing mentions, without any direct and detailed examinations, it doesn't satisfy WP:N. For what it's worth, I wholly oppose Fisher's idea, going back to the basic concept that we don't try to be a leader: if no one esle thought that character X was worthy of a detailed discussion, we shouldn't have one either.Kww (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• So here we are back at the old problem of having information we can source and verify, but not agree on how to present. In this instance I'd make a stab at saying these items where "trivial sources", using Peregine's definition from above, would be enough to add a topic to a list? And then when a list entry grows through appropriate sourcing, it can be split per WP:N? As an aside, getting back to Bulbasaur, where are we on that? Would we view a position where Bulbasaur represented the worst class of article on Wikipedia as a triumph or a failure? Not a goal, not a finish point, not the end, but a staging post. Do we reach that staging post with a grimace or a smile? Hiding T 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• So far as Bulbasaur goes, I think it is below minimum standards today. Any article in that bad of shape or only a little better needs to be eliminated. As far as appropriate sourcing for taking things out of lists, it really only takes one detailed analysis to justify it. If there were 10 passing mentions in various sources plus a two-paragraph analysis in Newsweek, that's more than enough to justify an article.Kww (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@HidingT: No, I don't think we do know what average readers want or expect. Looking at page views doesn't tell us much; for example, the main page TFA always has a spike when it goes up, but that doesn't mean more people are interested in the topic. We can't get in the minds of the average reader because we're editors, and that causes a significant discrepancy. This argument of "what the readers want" was bandied about at WT:SPOILER often, and it just turned into a pointless argument which caused more heat than light. We can't presume to understand the "average" reader, in part because there is no average reader. Furthermore, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not designed to appease readers; we operate independently of them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you. A page spike due to being on the main page is a statistical anomaly which can be factored and disregarded; again for articles experiencing spikes due to news coverage. But like I say, what you and I think doesn't matter, page visits are already used on Wikipedia for statistical purposes and in editing decisions. The point I am making is that we already are responsive to our readers. Therefore I don't understand the suggestion that we operate independently of them. I suggest if that were true we'd actually be very very different. I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint that readers are people to be appeased, either. Hiding T 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The statistics are nothing more than numbers which tell us nothing. For all we know, people might be visiting one page because they were rickrolled via a duplicitous link. I've never been in a discussion where 'ordinary readers' have had any sort of impact on the discussion; editors decide and have decided our content guidelines. Say, for example, there's a bunch of Gundam fans who want to turn Wikipedia into their own Gundam encyclopedia, without regards to the GNG (surprise, it's already happened!) Just because there's a massive interest from a segment of the readership that wants this information does not mean we rewrite NOR, WAF and NOT so they can have their articles. This is what I mean by saying we operate on a different level from the general readership. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta: Is this RFC ready for a wider audience, now?

The request for watchlist notice has not gone through yet. Before I pester and nag someone to get on it, I want to make sure that we've fixed the worst problems with this RFC. (e.g.: are the parameters of the discussion clear, and are there a healthy range of alternatives -- even if you strongly disagree with certain proposals and/or Wikipedians?) I know that actually discussing WP:N is contentious, but at a meta-level, do people agree that this RFC is ready for a wider audience? If it wasn't already, I'd like to think that it is now. Randomran (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it has a wide audience already, so I think this is a reasonable proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with this being added to a centralized discussion notice. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ready or not, I can't imagine a path of restart or redo that would wind up better.Kww (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• The usual suspects have chimed in and I think molded the discussion to the proper framing; I'm fine with gathering broader input. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• If we're going for broader input, I'd like to see a few pragmatic, as opposed to principled questions - among them a general temperature on character and episode articles in the abstract. A lot of proposals are living or dying based on the degree to which they allow "cruft," and getting a practical temperature on the community's opinion on this would, I think, help us sort through opposition better. For instance, if there's a clear lack of consensus to delete episodes in the general case, opposition that a proposal would allow articles on every episode is a different issue than if there is general consensus to delete. I think knowing what the community considers an acceptable result is a key step in figuring out effective principles, as right now a lot of the deadlock is over the outcome, not the principle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The only problem with that is that that information is more specific to fiction, and we're trying to gain the general consensus for all topics. Fiction cannot be treated seperately though considerations of how fiction should be dealt with and thus translates to any other field should be given. --MASEM 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It is specific to fiction. But let's be honest here - the proposals we have, especially for issue A, all relate most primarily to fiction, and concerns about fiction for the bulk of opposition to many of them. If there are other specific areas where these effects need to be considered, let's consider them, but we ought not pretend this RFC is not, at its heart, about the fiction debate and its implications. Getting a sense of what acceptable outcomes would be - and I am open to other broad categories of articles that we should query - seems to me useful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I dont disagree that FICT is the main root for why this RFC is around, however, when bringing to a larger audience, we don't want to start it with "Ok, fiction editors want to have this and this, how can we adapt", as it will immediately bias the conversation. Instead, as ideas for how to deal with subarticles and SNGs are brought about, we can see if coverage of fiction is a round or square peg that fits that hole, and see if things can be adapted (my suggestions on B.6, for example, fully align with trying to do that). Asking the general question of what to do about episode articles is not as useful as asking the general questions about what notability really is on WP, and see if episode articles still fit the mold. --MASEM 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I'll just point out that the SNG controversy is very general, and FICT is not the main problem there: the winner there goes to the efforts to pass a geographic location guideline that exempts named settlements, named bridges, shopping malls, and roads that are drawn in bold on maps from WP:N.Kww (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • And before that, the issue of school deletion - which was finally solved with a goal-first approach when it was made clear that a general consensus existed to keep school articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Not to try to push what I think is the right solution, but I really do think that taking of an approach of deciding what content we want (and what we should not) cover, irregardless of sources (as long as they are at least reliable and third party), and then only considering how and what context they can be presented based on the quality of the sources, is the right way to take all this. It captures a lot of the views that I'm seeing, but it is very different from just GNG/SNG. And it can deal with FICT, geographic locations, and schools in the same manner. (See the proposed B.7 I'd like to add above on this page, based on B.6 already) --MASEM 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes. I mean, the root dispute here is a fundamental disagreement on outcome - statements of principle are being ruled out not on theoretical, principled grounds, but because they generate outcomes that are considered a priori unacceptable. Much as it seems, initially, like the approach should be to figure out the principles, in practice it seems like we need to sort out the results first. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That's probably a question better asked at WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE. Yes, there is support/opposition on that basis for people who have participated in discussions there. But there's also plenty of support/opposition that is more general, with much more to come. Let's sort out our general guideline, and figure out how to handle specific areas of content later. Randomran (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that as long as a significant contingent is making outcome-based judgments, it is necessary to evaluate outcome-based opinions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • We're already evaluating each other's opinions. That's what an RFC is for. But we're organizing opinions around tactile proposals, rather than repeating the failed "free for all" discussions seen at WT:N. Randomran (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I do not think a straight up or down request for comment on whether, generally speaking, episodes of TV shows and main characters from TV shows are to be included is a "free for all." Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Discussing WP:N in general is a free for all. Adding discussions on WP:NOT and WP:FICT is more than a free for all: it's a mess. If you want to get beyond these two issues, there's nothing stopping you from making another RFC. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

After avoiding it for a while, I finally read through the RfC and left my own comments. It was hard, because it's very easy to interpret the same section in a different way than another person who was listed in the same support/oppose section. Before bringing this to a wider audience I think maybe we need to work on the different sections, maybe even redefine and add some (or remove). Then again, despite who supported or opposed, I felt this RfC helped me to better understand how many other users felt. I even found myself agreeing with those who were in an opposite s/o section than I was. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW...

Spoo has been demoted from a Featured Article; I suggest people read through its latest review to understand that the closure was based on consensus but that there are several good issues relating to notability, the GNG, and sources that are argued there that directly influence this RFC. (Spoo has been used as an example WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a while, and tends to come up whenever editors suggest more restrictive FICT guidelines). --MASEM 13:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Another data point of consideration

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West is an AFD where a small Wikiproject has taken it upon themselves to create their own notability rules (SNG) to defend articles (specifically on what looks like coaches for college teams). Given that there's a great number of comments that point out that a WProject-limited notability guideline is not acceptable, I think this clearly shows that regardless of how we end up handling SNGs, they need to be globally reviewed first before the SNGs become guideline. --MASEM 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with goal directed guidelines. These guys have a strong desire to see coaches included. I don't have a strong desire to see coaches excluded, because I don't care at all about football. Once you break it down into individual topics, you wind up with strong "pro" feelings competing with apathy. That's why I prefer to keep the debate framed in terms of necessary sourcing, and try to avoid looking at individual topics. The reason I keep pounding on TV episodes in this discussion is because Phil has revealed in the past that he is goal directed, and the inclusion of TV episode articles is one of his goals. All of my comments are equally applicable to hamlets, garage rock bands, asteroids, high schools, shopping malls, and bridges.Kww (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's important to come up with the appropriate interaction between the GNG and SNGs. That will let us deal with SNGs that outright contradict the GNG, with no effort to reconcile the two, and no justification but WP:ILIKEIT. We can get a request for comment on WikiProject-specific guidelines, and tear down "walled gardens". But one step at a time. Randomran (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• This example may be an indication that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources, even if so called "expert" opinion says that it can.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where did expert opinion come in? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not say I'm goal directed, except inasmuch as my goal is to find a way to provide good, thorough coverage of everything - which is to say, my goal is to write an encyclopedia. I am, personally, more inclined to work from first principles than not. But it's clear that many people are working from an outcome-based view - that is, they see particular outcomes as a priori bad, and are going to vote up or down proposals based on whether they advance or prevent specific outcomes. To this end, I think a goal-based discussion is an important one to have in parallel to a principles discussion.

In practice, of course, I can't remember the last actual principles discussion we had on Wikipedia. We always do goal-based discussions. Sometimes they masquerade as principles discussions. Usually not. Right now, looking at the RFC, we're really not having a principles discussion or a goal discussion - we're having a posturing discussion where we shoot down principles based on goals. Which is fairly useless. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For consideration

I know the RFC is still going, but it's pretty clear where consensus is sitting at date. As such, I think I see a way forwards that considers both issues and the various pros and cons of each proposal, which I have formulated as a starting point at User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline. I'm not saying this is a final proposal from all this, but I am wondering if others see this as catching the spirit that the results of the RFC are generating. --MASEM 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that you know where "the RFC is going, and its pretty clear where consensus is sitting to date" is frankly a delusion of grandeur.--Gavin Collins (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How so? The rough consensus (or at least relative proportions sup/opp each section) have remained relatively static. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• This proposal is not new, and basically boils down to Masem's proposal to make the article inclusion criteria of the General notability guideline (GNG) less restrictive for certain subject areas such as fiction [5]. How this is actually achieved would presumably depend on the subject area, but in fact can only be one of two ways, namely to exempt certain subject areas from WP:N, or to assume that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. Both of these paths face the same problem, in that if you bypass evidence based criteria for inclusion (i.e. GNG), then the only alternative to evidence of notability is "expert opinion" to determine the rules by which articles should be included or excluded.
  Overall, I think Masem is presumptious to assume that he alone knows where "the RFC is going, and its pretty clear where consensus is sitting to date". I would say that his is only one of many viewpoints, and that I oppose his proposal to effectively create "editorial wall gardens" based on "expert opinion" which would enable special interest topics to sidestep Wikipedia wide policies and guidelines that currently cover all subject areas (see also User talk:Masem/Inclusion Guideline#Criticism). --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reading all the comments, both on the RFC itself and asides, here is what I see consensus sits:
  • The GNG is here to stay, as it is a good measure of notability/inclusion
  • Specific criteria SNG are not in addition to GNG requirements; they are their own separate requirements (though if an article meets both, hey, great.) That is, the correct wording in WP:N is that articles need to meet the GNG or the SNGs.
  • SNGs are necessary as due to the broad coverage of WP, the GNG is not sufficient for every field.
  • Unrestricted use of spinout articles that lack notability is completely inappropriate. However, there are well-thought-out uses of spinouts that may be necessary at times for appropriate coverage.
  • Sourcing and adherance to other policies is a very high concern and any solution on the SNGs and spinouts needs to include how they interact with policies.
• I'm not saying every respondent to the RFC is saying things things, or even that being the viewpoint of a single respondent, but it does capture the average of their replies and that gives the starting point for where my inclusion guideline essay. I know there are points that people disagree with, but the entire point of this RFC was to get where the wind was blowing with respect to notability, and to figure out where to go from there, and I believe my proposed essay capture that, even if there are those that completely disagree with every point; unfortunately, they have to be taken as outlier points of data from the rest of the data set. --MASEM 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I could "get behind" the 5 points you list. The hard part is the details, assuredly : ) - perhaps a new poll? jc37 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to largely capture the sentiment as I see it, though I'm not sure it provides meaningfully useful guidance. In particular, #5 is very tricky, because we have very, very schizoid views on sourcing that tend to be founded on shifting sands. But I could go on about this problem for hours (and have in the past). Suffice it to say, I think the statement "sourcing is a very high concern" has many layers of unintended truth in it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The way I'm reading sourcing from the RFC (and additional comments elsewhere) is that it is sourcing that first and foremost avoids OR and POV statements, and the concern of how much content vs number of sources. That said, I think if we consider that the sources (whether primary, secondary, tertiary, or first- or third-party) are what should guide how much (and to some extent, article organization) we talk about a topic without venturing to OR/POV, while notability or inclusion or whatever guides us as to what we should be talking about (with the GNG bridging the gap, but not also perfect for every area), we have something to work from. We still want, ideally, secondary third-party as sources, but when we're limited to primary first-party only or other situations, we need to recognize that write what we reasonably can from that and not any more. But key here: content vs sources is a separate issue from inclusion. I think this is a key step forward if we recognize this. --MASEM 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a useful essay to summarize all the factors that go into "does this topic meet our standards?" But is this supposed to replace WP:N? Because it doesn't really clarify anything. The scope creep actually leads to less clarity. "This topic doesn't meet User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline". "Oh yeah, which one?" "Ummm, the notability one." Randomran (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The clarity that is coming here is that the inclusion guideline is strictly talking about what content we include - either it is a topic we consider as part of WP's broad scope to be covered, or it meets the GNG. Then, with that established, as a separate consideration, we talk about how such content is covered with respect to the sources they provide, articles for topics that can be well-backed by reliable sources, sections of other articles for topics that can't. This doesn't replace N, but N has to modified to help make this work, with the focus being on what "significant coverage" should be.

As to your second point, it is adding another guideline, but I think it's one that is aching to be added based on this RFC and recent comments at WP:N; it's creep, but necessary to resolve the issues. We can still point editors to the specific guidelines ("does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC"). This issue (how we point editors to the right place), I'm not too worried about, it is one I expect to see natural resolve if we go this direction. --MASEM 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In that sense, I think this is a good essay. It might even be a good "summary guideline". It probably needs a copy-edit, and I happen to think that less information is more clarity. But I would even support making it an official guideline once we hammer out the last of the details. Randomran (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• In response to Masem's earlier points, I can only see conflict between WP:N and the SNGs if they diverge on such issues as spinouts. On the one hand he says that "Unrestricted use of spinout articles that lack notability is completely inappropriate" and on the other that "there are well-thought-out uses of spinouts that may be necessary at times for appropriate coverage". I can understand why Masem would like to have his cake and eat it, but in practise this too vague. Either WP:N should apply to all articles, or an alternative set of inclusion criteria should be proposed. I see this as the Achilles heal in his essay and the earlier proposal of Phil Sandifer for spinout articles: they want to make WP:N less restrictive, but they have not proposed any specific inclusion criteria that would either supplement or replace GNG to make it happen. As far as I can see, Masem's essay is an Inclusion Guideline that does not contain any inclusion criteria, other than vague references such as "GNG is here to stay, as it is a good measure of notability/inclusion". With only vague references to GNG but with no references to alternatives, this essay is analogous to a trying to sell us an airplane without engine - it just won't fly, like the previous proposal Wikipedia:Article inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am proposing that an alternate set of inclusion criteria be propsed, which right now are our SNGs, but they would have to be reworked to make them read as inclusion guidelines and checked again at the global level for consensus; but the key is the framework for what these inclusion subguidlines would look like exists already. So these aren't vague by any means.
• To be more precise, this proposed essay provided a two level guideline to determine two things about any possible topic: should it be covered in Wikipedia? and should its coverage in Wikipedia be given a full article? - eg separate issues of inclusion and presentation/organization. The method of answering both questions are more objective than subjective (the first moreso than the second). --MASEM 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you have answered my major concern: what if a SNG conflicts with WP:N by giving special treatment for specific topics? Because GNG is evidence based, WP:N will tend to take precedent over SNGs in AFD debates in the long run. I don't see how you can apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines consistently if SNGs conflict with them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The concern you describe is a non-issue, because this is a wiki and the rules are not set in stone but rather determined by organically evolving practices and community consensus. If the community at large is against an SNG, it never gains status as a guideline. If an SNG is initially deemed acceptable but its practical application turns out to be flawed by creating unforeseen problems, then it is modified or demoted to reflect that change in consensus. Simple, self-resolving, and what happens every day with our current policy pages. See WP:CCC. --erachima talk 08:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the potential for conflict between WP:N and the SNGs is the single biggest issue highlighted by the RFC, and is addressed at length in Masem's essay. The problem is that, at best, SNG's could be used to provide guidanance on the appllication of WP:N to their subject area, but at worst SNGs could provide complex exemptions from GNG for their favorite topics, such as trading cards. Although Masem's essay addresses this concern by saying that SNGs would be based on so called "consensus", the reality is that I have neither the knowledge or interest in topics such as trading cards, and any SNG regulating the notability of this subject would only be based on the consensus of editors interested in that topic. If Masems essay were to become a guideline, it would essentially be a charter to editorial "wall gardens" with their own article inclusion criteria based on so called "expert opinion", i.e. POV dressed up as "consensus". --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with "expert opinion" as long as it is agreed to by everyone involved; that's the basis of all of our policies and guidelines - people with experience suggesting things to be included and them proposing such changes to be implemented. For these inclusions guidelines, even if you don't know the field, you will be able to state your concerns if you feel that criteria would fail issues with WP:NOT. So you may not care or know much about trading cards, but even a casual read should tell you that if a criteria suggested that every printed trading card be a topic in WP, that's WP:IINFO and thus not a valid criteria. Furthermore, you are not the same as the entire body of editors - just because you don't know a field doesn't mean that the rest of the body doesn't; there's certainly likely people outside of yourself and the group that developed an inclusion subguideline that know the field as well and can comment further. Insisting that we have global consensus to validate inclusion subguidelines is the way to avoid walled gardens while still providing broad coverage and encyclopedic treatment. --MASEM 13:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is a problem with getting "expert opinion" to provide inclusion criteria, rather than applying a global set of inclusion criteria based on the citation of reliable secondary sources. For every single topic area, we would have to have an RFC and although there are only 10 SNGs at the moment, what happens when there are 100 SNGs or a 1,000 SNGs all seeking global consensus for their inclusion criteria? I oppose this approach, not just because it would lead to the creation of walled gardens, but also it is going to take a lot of effort to build all these walls of these gardens through the process of consensus. Having one set of inclusion criteria in WP:N seems to me a much easier way to run our policies and guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• But I point to the RFC that clearly shows agreement that SNGs are necessary due to the broad range of topics on WP that the GNG cannot fully account for. Now, I do agree we need to avoid any creep in subguidelines, which is why I stressed in the essay that the creation of a guideline should be avoided if the criteria can be included elsewhere; we need to have as few as possible and since each would have to pass the global consensus barrier, we can prevent that creep. There's also a point of making sure proposed guidelines are as generic as possible; we don't need different criteria for the inclusion of statesmen from the US as we do from Britain; instead, a criteria should be based on government officials in any country at a certain level. Global consideration of each subguideline as it passes through will help that there as well. --MASEM 15:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The trend has already started where by new SNGs are being proposed, and it is likely there will be many more SNGs in the future if everyone gets to write their own subject specific criteria (see above. This approach has been parodied at Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles). --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right, and we would be able to correct that trend. Unless the proposed guideline passed through a global consensus checkpoint, that criteria cannot be used to justify article inclusion. --MASEM 15:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)