Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 14

Understanding the anger

For those who don't understand the anger directed at the 'fiction deletionist' claims that they are 'the good guys defending Wikipedia from the excesses of fictionalists' it might be good to review the past: meta:Wiki is not paper.

Note that on that page people were (and indeed, still are) encouraged to create individual articles for each character. Told that they SHOULD have articles on every episode... and indeed links therein to sub-articles for reviews of each episode and trivia about it. A 100 page poker guide is described as a good thing entirely in keeping with Wikipedia's mission. Sub-articles were encouraged to organize the information logically and people were actively encouraged to assume there were NO limits on the level of detail they should pursue. Further, if you trace back, those statements were directly endorsed by Jimbo.

In short, the things which the deletionists are saying are 'bad' and against what Wikipedia stands for are, in fact, exactly what people were told to do. The claims that notability has always barred these things... that people have been mis-using Wikipedia and now are standing in the way of returning to what it was 'supposed to be'... these are revisionist history, pure and simple.

Episode guides, articles on each character, detailed trivia sections... people built these things because they were told that they should. At the highest levels. That is what Wikipedia WAS about. The claim that Wikipedia is NOT about these things is of newer vintage. And there is inevitable disagreement with the change. Especially when the revisionists claim over and over again that 'it has always been this way'. It hasn't. Stop treating the people who disagree with you as 'those who are mis-using Wikipedia'. They aren't. At least not by the standards it was founded and long run under. --CBD 10:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that statement has been around from the start, but as consensus can change as well as what changes that the Wikimedia Foundation may issue affect how WP has developed. Unfortunately, without a lot of effect, trying to track exactly when and where such changes occurred as to provide a clear idea of how these principles have come about to include on this or any other relevant pages is pretty much impossible (I know WP:NOTE was changed in May 07, and likely actions by TTN and other such editors started this ticking time bomb regarding fiction on WP, but even before the WP:NOTE change, it still suggests fictional works should not be covered as much as we give them without notability demonstrations). I think adding something that explains this change (in particular for fiction in WP:FICT) to the proposed guideline will help to allow editors to understand that WP's under constant change. If tomorrow, consensus was reached that fictional topics are unbound by WP:PLOT/WP:NOTE, we adopt.

And I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but we also need to make clear that other wikis are a perfect home for information that has existed for a long time on the site and make sure that those new homes are well stated so people can still find them. Given that we've had that option for a while, the deletion of long-standing pages without appropriate relocation is very disconcerting because while those articles may not be appropriate in WP per PLOT/NOTE, they have probably been perfected in all other aspects, and overzealousness wipes them out. Again why there's a strong emphasis that deletion should be the very last resort for non-notable articles in my present rewrite.

It is interesting to note that the part about having an article for every Simpsons episode and character is close to true. We do have that, and nearly all of them meet the notability/plot requirements. I know other media cannot get there, but that is unfortunately the nature of how those two policies interact and the relative popularity of such fictional works. Maybe we'll have a policy some day that you can only have an article that describes the published work, and any discussion of plot or characters or episodes or whatnot must be moved off WP (one article per work, effectively, to remove the "popularity" bias), but I very much doubt this will happen nor do I think it's appropriate. --MASEM 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The GNU may allow commercial use, but using ad supported wikis for content written for WP is far from perfect. If we had a sister project like wikibooks for fiction, no one would complain. This is a decision that needed to be made at the highest level, and they decided to create a for profit spin off. Regardless of intentions, they have an apparent confict of interest and we need to work out something free, like Ned and others have mentioned. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See this Villiage Pump discussion of recent. There's no clear answer, but it does sound like it's been brought up several times before and the consensus is that it is not a COI to take content from WP and put on Wikia despite what Jimbo Wales owns. But, however, there's no clear written out "why this is the case" decision page on that, and it might be a good thing to have (whether its a consensus or higher-up decision) I've been more careful to state transwiki to "other wikis" without implying Wikia, as long as the other wiki is GFDL. --MASEM 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

People should also bear in mind that it is policy that information contained on Wikipedia be preserved, unless it is misleading, unverifiable (not unverified), redundant or irrelevant. The issues a lot of people have with this guidance is that it declares the opposite. Notability was not introduced to combat articles at the level under discussion here. It was discussed to prevent articles on every concept ever conceived, and to prevent a bias towards self published sources as sole sources for an article. It was an outgrowth of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. It was never intended that notability guidance supersede them. If an article complies with our three policies, the default should be keep. That needs to be a lot clearer in notability. It's pretty clear in our deletion policy, but not so clear in these guidelines. Hiding T 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why we should deprecate this page and lrt the higher up poloicies and guidelines cover all articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It still bears out that there is also WP:NOT policy that, even if content can be written to meet all three other major policies, it is not appropriate for WP, which includes the issues with fiction but also includes real world topics too. I can write an article that tells one how to make a spice rack, citing woodwooking books and other craftsman for the instructions, but that is not appropriate info to be included. WP:NOTE is thus borne out of that to set some expected level of notability that can support verifibility, reliable sourcing, and no original research. But preservation is a key word here and that's why I do agree that the mentality of most deletionists (delete first, ask later) is not the right way to go and that's why its important to open up as many options both those editing and those wanting to clean up can explore before completely losing that information forever. --MASEM 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and All Ye blessed Folk in between, gather round and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friends, The Annex Hath Spoken (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a better idea would be to not use Special:Export. Instead, use this URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Export&pages=NAME_OF_ARTICLE&history=1&action=submit . This will export an entire copy of the article, and not just the last 100 versions. After doing this, use a text program's find/replace feature and find all "</username>" and replace it with "@en.wikipedia.org</username>". -- Ned Scott 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank Ye for That helpful Advice, good Sir. — The Annex Hath Spoken (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the document encoding might change things, at least it did on my mac running 10.5. Using some text encoding options for the file format would mess up Japanese characters for anime articles. Not sure the specifics on it. Have you had any problems like this? -- Ned Scott 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Once, I was about to save with the default ANSI Encoding, but a small Message popped up, warning Me that That might changeth the Code. Now, I saveth the Files in Unicode or UTF-8, and the Code is not altered. — the Annex Hath Spoken 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We probably want to make sure that the various COI issues with Annex/Wikia are resolved, but I strongly urge that these instructions be made into a page about transwiking (better than help:transwiki, with shortcuts of WP:ANNEX / WP:WIKIA. A big problem with the transwiki option is that the method is very mystical to many people and a good page of instructions would help. --MASEM 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the COI issues, as long as the editors themselves are not on anyone's payroll for Wikipedia or Wikia. It seems the Wikia Annex is doing some new things that will make this process even easier than our friend leads on, but the feature doesn't seem to be working yet: wikia:annex:Special:Import seems to be developing a fool-proof method of simply typing in the article, selecting Wikipedia, and poof, you're done. From that point, even if you use another Wikia wiki, you can cite the history on the Annex incase the Wikipedia copy is ever deleted. Even with that feature not yet working, it appears that non-admins are able to import articles to there, using the advice above (remember to do the find/replace for the usernames, to avoid possible username conflicts, cross-project). This is very exciting. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made some redlinks blue, Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki. The instructions itself should probably just go directly into the Wikipedia: namespace (not as a WikiProject sub-page) or the Help: namespace, this will give us a place to collaborate about many issues, like helping convert templates, noting differences in different wikis, and allowing us to be focused on all external wikis, not just Wikia. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

cross-posted from my talk page:

Wikia is a for-profit site for monetizing traffic and I do not care to support commercial enterprises in which I have no stake. If you care to drink that Kool-Aid, fine. I, however, view the onus for rescuing such "Refugees" as being on those who consider such content to actually have any value. Regards, Jack Merridew 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well, don’t take Responsibility for thine Actions. — the Annex Hath Spoken 00:56, 30 December

Absurd. It is editors who have 'created' unencyclopaedic content here who are trying to harness others to the task of off-loading their shite to fan-sites. FYI, I believe I have only once nominated an article for deletion (not deleted, not fiction-related). Ditto, {{Prod}}. --Jack Merridew 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A good project, but let this not divert us from the real work--improving the articles right here and now on wikipedia, defending the defensible ones 7 only the defensible ones when they are nominated for deleting, having a say at guideline pages to ensure that the few with a POV do not impose their will on the wider community, and rewording the parts of WP NOT and other policies that are used inappropriate. One comprehensive encyclopedia, is what WP is supposed to be, and we should hold to it.

If everyone who cared about this articles actually worked on one a day, and participated intelligently in a few AfDs even outside their main interest in an even-handed manner, and did not let policy changes take place by default, we can then use the Annex for the truly unimportant but interesting details--the important ones will be where they belong, on wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Annex can be used even if we keep an article on Wikipedia, simply if some editors wish to take the article in another direction. That's the great thing about the transwiki process, it can happen at any time, and for any reason. It doesn't just have to be about "saving" articles. Any wiki just wanting a kick-start with content can take advantage of what we have. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, nothing prevents the article from coming back to wikipedia, once improved, i.e trimmed and filled with the citations and sources that are so important here. Annex can serve as a good repository of content that is not polished up to Wikipedia standards. Renmiri (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's one of things we want to stress: while some do argue that deleted articles can be resurrected after deletion, this requires some administrator help to perform. Any action like merging, trimming, or transwiki'ing is a way of saving what's already written in a manner that can be retrieved via non-admin editors, so that if better sourcing can be provided later, content can be restored without a significant problem. --MASEM 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It requires specialist knowledge that most Wikipedians do not possess, whereas admins are easy to find. It makes little difference either way.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I plan to spend my next two days off formatting Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Use old draft as a starting point

I believe this version: FICT 04/25/06 is much better than what we currently have other than two issues:

• It needs a nutshell
• The "be bold" part may need a bit of work, but I think it is largely okay.

I'd suggest that this draft be used as a starting point. I think it's clear and well written other than the two issues listed above (and only the nutshell one is a big deal IMO). Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The sections on character lists are also out dated. Consensus has changed if you follow the past4-5 months of AFD's. It seems it was created for a few very notable works but quickly grew out of control. Ridernyc (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus on this is changing back in the last month. Minor characters should not have their own pages, but the more important D&D monsters are being kept as are major characters. Some lists (all operatives in KND) are going away (I suspect) but that one is a pretty extreme case. The general sense of AfD is that minor characters should be merged into an appropriate place (the main page if that article isn't too big, a "list of minor characters" if it is. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that parts of the April 2007 version aren't incorrect, but that they are much too specific, and furthermore, with the May 2007 change in notability to include significance in sources, this version would take a major rewrite to align with that. We want to present general suggestions on fictional notability that align with other policies and guidelines, provide a few examples, but leave enough descriptive information to allow per-page determinations as needed. --MASEM 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hobit, your AfD observations are right, but there are also merge discussions. Main characters of shortrunning shows and cartoons often get merged when reliable secondary sources are not demonstrated. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I think the "merge boldly" thing goes there nicely (if a bit too strong for my taste). But I do think consensus is moving and this policy should reflect that. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Warcraft Characters is an example of what the real consensus is. Characters got moved into the large list, but once the list was huge and still had no sources the list was deleted. Once all the individual articles are gone then people will start to go after lists. consensus is that even the lists need sources and real world context. Not to the same extent as individual articles, but it still needs to be there. Ridernyc (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific AfD links? If I recall correctly, a good amount of those lists were for every character under the sun, and not just a main set of characters, and were horrible. The point isn't if the information is in an article or in a list, it's that the information is excessive. It's normally a given that when you merge you trim, so the fact that people didn't trim really isn't something WP:FICT caused. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look see if I can dig it up, but the reason cited the second time it came up for AFD is that some trimming was done but no sources were added. For months every non-notable chacter was merged as a result of AFDs into the list and then the list was AFD. The list had nothing but a giant list of character bios, not even an introduction and 0 sources. My point is that simply making a list is not enough there still needs to be sourcing and real world context at least in introduction. Ridernyc (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First AFD [1], second AFD [2] Note that consensus in the second was unanimous delete. Ridernyc (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The old version of WP:FICT is way too many steps backwards. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue its a good step forward from the mess we have now. It's the last time there was real consensus I think. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What we have now is hardly a "mess". We have a few main points that most of the other points fall under for why the current guideline is disputed. One is the lack of support for summary style, which we started to amend a little while back, but appears to need more expanding. Another is the ability to use dependent sources for real-world information, which so far almost no one has disagreed with. Then we have people wanting WP:FICT to help improve how people handle situations with these articles (i.e. preventing mass AfDs, edit warring, etc). On top of that, now we're talking about taking things from WP:EPISODE and putting them here. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a mess. Certainly there is a tag on this policy indicating that there is a lack of consensus. I assume you mean "independent sources for real-world information". And I think I'd agree with that if it meant that reviews and the like were enough (which I think was the intent) but it isn't being used that way, nor do I think it is written that way. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that reviews qualify for that - so I am very curious to see what articles that include reviews are being deleted. Can you point to any examples. --MASEM 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is limited to solely reviews of fiction; substantial production information--when you don't have any reviews--can be enough to support a separate article. Many times a work of fiction might only have 1 or 2 reviews, or maybe a limited amount of production information about it. In the end, there may not be that much information to support a separate article on the topic, and the information available might be better suited under a larger topic. There seems to be a rush to create an article on every topic, no matter how minute it is on the grand scale of the main subject. That's where the "common sense application" part of this guideline--really part of every guideline on Wikipedia--is used. A topic might fit the bare minimum of notability requirements, and if there is a parent article for that topic then it may be more beneficial to it to be part of that larger page than on its own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted? Not really. Brought to AfD, and/or tagged with notability templates forever? Sure.

• Red Hand of Doom -- Nom clearly wants to bring it back up to AfD.
• Living_Greyhawk_Gazetteer
• Dwellers of the Forbidden City‎
• Return_to_the_Temple_of_Elemental_Evil

This is a fairly short list, certain folks have tagged perhaps 100s of articles in D&D using WP:FICT as a basis. Some have a point, others are debatable, and others are clearly bogus (as those above). But the lack of clarity and meaning of "real world" is a killer. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of some of those is that the sources need to be appropriate reliable sources. The RotToEE one does use Dragon magazine, so it's likely ok, and Dwellers is certainly appropriate (though needs cleanup), but the others are using (as best as I can tell) "unreliable" websites (mostly fansites, thus failing by being self-published). See reliable sources for more details.

But this points to Bignole's point that often even if notability of one item can be shown, common sense in this case suggests that you can make a much much better article by combining all these into a list of modules for D&D (likely a page for each of the major subuniverses like Ravenloft and Dragonlance). --MASEM 04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dragon is basically the same publisher as the publisher of the games so they are considered primary. There is some debate because at various points in Dragons history it was controlled by varying degrees by WotC and TSR. Ridernyc (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the article in question, Dragon magazine is acting as a secondary source: it is making analysis or synthetic claims even though it is the same publisher. It's the same as what we're saying is development and reception information coming from DVD commentaries. --MASEM 05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are we at this point?

I've haven't been around to keep up with this, so how are we doing right now as far as what's being discussed? Are we actually going over the relevant points of how to handle the bad articles and other minor points on wording, or are people still trying to loosen this up, so wikilawyering will be easy? TTN (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely civil there, TTN. Anyone not agreeing with you (or the current state of Notability (fiction)) is either haggling "over minor points on wording or trying to loosen this us so wikilawyering will be easy"? To be honest, if anyone wanted to undermine the principle behind this guideline, he couldn't do it better than you. Act like a dick by making derogatory remarks and talking down to those that do not agree with you ("your opinion does not matter" "if it does not get merged I'll AfD the article") and spice things up by rapidly doing "mergers" on a large scale. You do not even try to convince people, you just bitch-slap them with the law and taunt them afterwards - which makes it no wonder that the opposition to this guideline keeps growing. By mistreating editors like that you only make the issue emotional, and that means they'll do what their emotions tell them - "protect" article of the series they like - rather using their head and rationally think about the issue. Well done. CharonX/talk 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you stalking TTN? Ridernyc (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. CharonX/talk 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd tone it down a few steps, but I had a similar thought when reading TTN's comments. I do think yours (CharonX) comments are also needlessly rude. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize, but TTN's actions really got under my skin. It would have been so simple if he just had been nicer to people (or was transwikiing the stuff he redirects). But this way he needlessly antagonizes droves of people, which makes trying to resolve this issue so much more difficult. CharonX/talk 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there is no reason to assume that anyone {besides a very small amount of people) that opposes the spirit (i.e. the core of the guideline rather than the few points such as the AfD focus) of this guideline wants anything more than a overly long plot summaries and articles dedicated to at least "major" characters for no reason other than to have unnecessary details geared only towards fans. TTN (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly WP:WEIGHT is about balancing viewpoints in articles, not about balancing who uses information on wikipedia. Secondly, I don't want overly long plot summaries. what I want is to not spend hours arguing if a given book (say Red Hand of Doom or Living Greyhawk Gazetteer) is notable, or if a major character from a series (Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons)) is notable. Nor do I want to spend hours arguing what qualifies as a reasonable secondary source for these books or characters. I don't want long plot summaries, I think they are generally inappropriate. I do want encyclopedic information about books and fictional worlds that are well-sourced. Hobit (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the third paragraph describes the various ways that it is applied, including depth of coverage. You're probably are one of the exceptions to the rule (why to people always believe that I'm going to necessarily be describing them specifically?). I don't even know if you fit into what I'm describing. Do you believe that all major characters deserve coverage, regardless of encyclopedic content? TTN (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are badly misrepresenting WP:WEIGHT. It is about making sure different opinions and issues get covered fairly. Not if things get covered at all. And the reason I assume you include me is because you seem to include all but a small number of people. I'm willing to assume I fit in your majority. Finally, major characters in major series have encyclopedic content associated with them. The issue should be writing that clearly. And in-world material will be a large part of that content. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the third paragraph describes other uses. If you believe that all major characters automatically have encyclopedic potential, then you fall halfway between my description. Can you clarify what encyclopedic content means to you? If it just means a well written in-universe article, I guess that means that you fall within my description, minus the long plot summaries. TTN (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See, I knew you were talking about me :-). Seriously, well-written summaries of a character that are mainly plot driven are encyclopedic. What about them isn't? A real person or a fictional person both have a plot attached to them. I don't see a problem. Hobit (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense but when we are calling a biography of a real person a "plot" we are reaching the point so of your argument being totally absurd. Ridernyc (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "no offense" followed by "being totally absurd" is sorta passive-aggressive eh? In any case, my point is that the biography of a fictional and non-fictional person can be both notable and verifiable. Are they equal? Of course not. But each needs to be handled separately. I strongly suspect many many more people know who Vecna is than some random football player (say J.D._Hill). And it my opinion, that makes Vecna at least as notable as Mr. Hill. Hobit (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not the most knowledgeable around when it comes to Wikipedia and it's rules, but I do think that it's worth mentioning that TTN's constant deletionist attitude is possessed of a certain disregard for what was once, according to Jimbo Wales rule number one, and still appears to be. He constantly goes against consensus. Hobit's stance on the purpose of WP:WEIGHT, and by extension WP:FICT, seems to share the same spirit as Wikipedia's policies, and TTN's, simply, don't. 65.184.129.246 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean you can use it to include content that is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, including what Wikipedia is not. We want this guideline to be descriptive so that there are leeways with rules to be determined by editor consensus on a case-by-case basis, but ultimately we still need to build an encyclopedia here to meet the five pillars for Wikipedia.

Defining notability for fiction

Now, while WP:WEIGHT doesn't come out from WP:NOT, the Wikipedia is not just plot summaries section implies that you need to balance plot summary with real-world information, which leads to this guideline. It's not the exact spirit of WP:WEIGHT which is more about opposing viewpoints being equally covered to avoid bias, but it still means we balance information in an article.--MASEM 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree with that last statement (making allowances for subarticles dealing with aspects). Can we say then that

'The article or group of articles dealing with a work of fiction must include an appropriate amount of real-world content, and must be more than plot summary. Notability must be demonstrated from third party real-world sources. I agree this does not say very much, but it will be a great thing at this point if we can all agree on. something. DGG (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be third-party - that exceeds WP:N. Maybe something like "Fictional topics should include demonstration of real-world notability, such as development, critical analysis, and reception, through reliable secondary sources. Such notability should not be outweighed by in-universe descriptions.". --MASEM 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like this coversation is another reason we need to deprecate this page and rely on NOTE and the various policies. Here, we get extreme emotion and a small userbase for our "consensus." There, we would get a large group of people who edit other types of articles and can look at this issue dispassionately. Why don't we let editors from a higher plane deal with this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Peregrine Fisher comments are too general and we should methodically look at each section and discuss what should be kept or amended, section by section. I think that DGG comments neatly summarise this section (Defining notability for fiction and should be included at its begining, as it explains the topic in a nutshell. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I accept your change about third party. That gives us:

'The article or group of articles dealing with a work of fiction must include an appropriate amount of real-world content, and must be more than plot summary. Notability must be demonstrated from real-world sources. in other words, there has to be something about the fiction to show notability. The type of sources can be discussed as a detail. DGG (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) How about "balanced" for"outweighed" -- its the more usual term in guidelines.

• I think you could make this sentence shorter, more assertive and more prescriptive:

The article or group of articles dealing with a work of fiction must predominately be comprised of real-world content, and notability must be demonstrated from reliable secondary sources.'

The words appropriate amount are too vague, and leave the door open to long plot summaries and fancruft. I prefer the word predominately, as it would force editors to limit plot summaries to at least 50% of an articles content, which is a useful benchmark when it comes to ascertaining whether a plot summary is of the appropriate length. In my view the guidelines need to be more prescriptive, so that any exceptions have to be accompanied by reasonable justification. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note two things: the balance/undue weight issue is more a style issue: this belongs in WAF (which looks like it will be getting a rewrite too to work in harmony with what we end up with here). It needs to be mentioned, but we shouldn't be describing to what extent real-world and plot balance out. But given that we are bringing that up for now, while I feel there is some truth in having more real world info than plot, setting the requirement for 50% or more of content being real world will cause a lot of complaints and problems including wikilaywering, word smithing to add more to a real-world section to avoid reducing plot, and so forth, including chasing more people from the project. Fictional articles are usually one area where people first contribute, and we don't want to be smacking hands saying "you've unbalanced the article!" - that'll chase them away for sure. I think this was an issue talked about in December, but there is no hard set number to meet for the balance. It really should be determined on a case-by-case, individual article consensus basis.

I would state it something along these lines: Articles, including sub-articles, dealing with a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable secondary sources, and should provided a balanced treatment of both real-world and in-universe information. Articles on fiction that fail to demonstrate notability should be improved to demonstrate notability, trimmed and/or merged into a larger article, or moved to a GFDL-compatible wiki. (It is important that the nutshell state what to do with non-notable articles - and that it does NOT say "deletion"). Also note that this is still descriptive - again, we're setting ground rules that use WP:N's white line of secondary source coverage, but, as a guideline, there are always exceptional cases. Also I will note that reading through the policies and guidelines on sourcing, commentary and interviews of people involved with production are considered secondary, so this removed that special "primary source" case I have in the draft now. --MASEM 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strict guidelines with 'reasonable' exceptions is just the situation we have now, where Wikipedians' favourites like Doctor Who, Babylon 5 or Digimon have a licence for unlimited fancruft, whilst stuff lower on the pecking order is aggressively pulverised, along with any pretence at balance or fairness when it comes to covering fiction. WP:NPOV should be the starting point for this guideline, since it is where we are failing most miserably as encyclopedists.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All the examples you cite have significant measures of secondary sources that they can use to demonstrate notability of topics within that universe. The depth of coverage is proportional to what real-world information a fictional topic has. That is all necessary to meet WP:V and WP:OR. --MASEM 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the Babylon 5 and Digimon sub-articles in particular are almost completely devoid of sources or real-world information.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked and you're right - at least the few I spot checked are bad. Has anyone tried to AfD them, as I'm curious to know if it is admin bais or the like. (And I'm discounting Spoo now as JMS's comments are appropriate secondary sources - aka my 1.5 sources concept from way back). --MASEM 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue your raised by Nydas related to the policing and enforcement of the guidelines, which I think is important but may be be something we might want to build into this later. Returning to Masem's revised wording, I think the term "balanced treatment" is too vague and woolly to be enforeable, and could all to easily be used to defend overlong plot summaries. I think my wording with its requirement for article content to be predominately real-world may give rise to complaints about this being too little leeway, but at the moment my biggest complaint is that plot summaries and other padding such as info boxes and trivia sections are too long and are the norm rather than the exception. This is more than just a style issue; if real-world content of articles is not our core focus, then Wikipedia will be filled with prose rather than facts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Draft #7 (below) --MASEM 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I just hear that Digimon was given as an example of being kept because someone liked it? Well, that's news to me, because I've been working my butt off to import every last one of those articles to Digimon Wiki, so that many of them can be safely deleted from Wikipedia. Seriously, Nydas, where ever did you get the impression that Digimon was some how exempt from the guideline? The only reason people are not rushing to AfD these articles is because there are notices on every talk page of Digimon articles telling people about the transwiki work (and before that, a notice about a mass merge). Users are a lot more patient when they see real evidence of improvement. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If a South Korean MMORPG or a Brazilian soap opera had the same level of coverage as Digimon, I can't imagine it being treated with kid gloves, with the whole 'merge just as soon as you're ready' attitude. It would get pulverised in a heartbeat, regardless of anything on the talk page.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Most likely due to a lack of appropriate secondary sources in English. I very much doubt that with extra effort, the most popular Brazilian soap opera could not be shown to be notable; there are likely plenty of sources, just unfortunately in a foreign language, that can be used. Unfortunately, the fact that it would take a bit more work is part of the English language bias that WP has. --MASEM 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Digimon is Japanese. What's the difference?--Nydas^(Talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And (officially) translated to English, thus giving rise to reliable English sources talking about it. On the other hand, a show like PythagoraSwitch which has a following in English but only due to unofficial/questionable translations or means lacks English sources to describe its notability, though, as I understand it, the show is effectively Japan's version of Sesame Street and likely there are Japanese articles that talk more about the show. --MASEM 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are these reliable English sources you keep mentioning?--Nydas^(Talk) 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where exactly there are, but you get magazines like Newtype that cover anime/manga that help to provide the frame of reference for the English treatment of the works. --MASEM 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas, I think it's pretty absurd to say that Digimon gets some kind of special treatment. In less than a year a few hundred articles were merged into lists. Those lists were still "too much" and were all moved over to Digimon Wiki. Check out the import log, where all the individual articles were copied over. "merge just as soon as you're ready" yeah, I wish. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Under a year is loads of time, considering the fiction deletionists will re-nominate something on a monthly basis if they've taken a dislike to it.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft #7 - snippy snippy

Draft #7

This is a major trim of lots of extraneous text from the proposed version to address issues of it being too long. Note that I discount the last two sections on dealing with non-notable articles since that is a bit of procedural approach, but in terms of getting the point across per the convo above, the rest has been trimmed down. --MASEM 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it, I think the summary style section may need a little tweaking. It's going in the right direction but even I have trouble following what it says. I think anyone could interpret that section anyway they wanted. Ridernyc (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of this is that writing towards summary style will be moved to WAF in more detail; it is included here to say that summary style lists do not have to demontsrate notability. But again, feel free to take any editing stabs to improve the language. --MASEM 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough one because I think we all know what we want it to say but explaining it one paragraph is close to impossible. JUST want prevent situations like what we have with Bionicle where we have a basically a Bionicle wiki created, in which 51 articles need to be dealt with. Ridernyc (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pinging watchpages to see if there are any glaring issues with this. Unless there's more feedback, I think the next step is to get many many more eyes on this through WP:VPP and any WP with strong ties to fictional articles as to start the consensus process. --MASEM 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't care for the content too much, but the readability is way up. Here are a few suggestions:

• I prefer the original significant coverage over substantial. Is there a reason that word was changed?
• I think you are misusing WP:UNDUE in a rather significant way. That article is about (in fact in) WP:NPOV, not about balancing different components of an article. I don't know that that is important here, but it seems way out of context to use it the way you did.
• WP:SELFPUB Specifically allows self-published works when relevant to notability. Why should WP:FICT not do the same?
• "The notability of a fictional topic should be the primary focus of the article". This I disagree with. For something like a vorpal blade lightsaber or one ring it would be a poor article that spent the majority of it's time on notability. I'm fine with the thing needing to be notable, but requiring this be the focus of the article will lead to way too large of a popular culture listing (see vorpal blade). Rather, notability should need to be shown, but after that an in-universe description of the item/character is what I would assume readers would actually be looking for. (Is it more likely that they care that the lightsaber has 20 scholarly articles describing it as a phallic symbol or why different folks had different colors?)

I've a few other concerns, but those are the big ones.Hobit (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Significant" is probably better, not as prescriptive as "Substantial" and follows from WP:NOTE.

Third paragraph of WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. It is not just about NPOV. This also follows to some degree from WP:PLOT.

WP:SELFPUB's issue on notability is only when the subject of the article is self-publishing to demonstrate their notability; this pretty much only applies to persons, companies, and organizations. A fictional work or element cannot self-publish. (This definitely does not mean that a self-published work can be used to demonstrate notability for a different topic: this would suddenly mean tons of blogs and other works become valid sources which breaks WP:RS.)

"Primary focus" follows from WP:PLOT. This doesn't mean that more than 50% of the article has to be notability, but that the article should be structured (as suggested through WP:WAF) to address notability in clear terms in addition to plot info. --MASEM 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On WP:UNDUE as this is in WP:NPOV in context I don't think this can/should be used as you are using it.

On "Primary focus" I think that something like "This doesn't mean that more than 50% of the article has to be notability, but that the article should be structured (as suggested through WP:WAF) to address notability in clear terms in addition to plot info." should be included in the actual document. I'm certain people will argue otherwise if it isn't. (I'll fill in more later, but off to bed for me.)Hobit (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I know WP:UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV but it is commonly accepted that it applies to content as well. --MASEM 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think balance in content can be too tricky for any number of reasons. But most important is the undue part. In the WP:NPOV that's left to the editors. Here you are saying, as a guideline, that too much plot is an undue balance. Is too much history of a country an undue balance? WP:UNDUE doesn't speak to it. Hobit (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact discussion, but I can recall a bunch of us going "well, it's not WP:UNDUE, but calling it undue weight is a good way to think of it". It's one of those things where we're using the word itself, and not necessarily the guideline that shares its name (which can be confusing considering how many guidelines use common terms and phrases for their page name, but they are still terms and phrases). -- Ned Scott 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If we interpret fiction subarticles as articles that were removed from the main article to avoid one massive article, applying UNDUE in its current state accordingly would work. It becomes difficult when notability of fictional elements is not so clear prior to it being established, and the current dispute already shows that interested editors (i.e. fans) are not always the best to judge what's truly wiki-notable when articles are started. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• secondary sources: For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. In-universe content refers to descriptions of the work's plot, characters, location, objects, and other aspects of the fictional setting provided by the work of fiction." I don't think the "secondary sources' part belongs-- ,that distinction is very likely to disappear, or at least be limited--reliable sources is enough.

• limited plot summary this is not correct. Adequate plot summary would be better, or at least "limited buyt adequate" we are providing positive guidelines, not just negative ones.

• summary style "Very rarely should such sub-articles be about a singular topic; either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing sub-articles." I disagree with the "very rarely, and would substitute "when appropriate". I see no reason it should be rare. It just has to be not inappropriate.

• The depth of coverage will also be a function of the length of the work The depth of coverage should be a function of the importance of the work, not the length. Possibly, length and importance, but I'm not sure I would even accept that-=I do not see why a long and unimportant work that is just barely notable is appropriate for extensive coverage. In fact, those articles on episodes of the least important series are in my view a large part of the problem. DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by secondary sources distinction going away? But I can seeing more towards "reliable sources providing real world information". "Depth of coverage" is really tricky; "importance" is a bad measuring stick since that's a personal opinion. Maybe depth of coverage proportional to notability information and should be appropriate for both this and the length of the work. --MASEM 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For primary/secondary, see WT:OR, where the discussion for the last month has been most about whether the distinction should be removed altogether. "notability" is every bit as vague as "importance"--the only real distinction is notability being "suitability for wikipedia," and that is circular, for we are here trying to decide what is suitable for wikipedia. I continue to think that the length of the work is a separate and very minor factor indeed. DGG (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest changes to draft 7

• "Real-world notability should be the primary focus of the article"

• Absolutely not. This utterly kills this draft IMO. An article on Star wars should be about star wars not about star wars sales figures and reviews. Those will establish notability. Other than the one word change I'd suggested (edit-- and the spelling error), I strongly recommend that we go back to the start of draft 7. This is a huge difference. ( ]Hobit (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What "primary focus" in the nutshell is spelled out more in "depth of coverage": the article should be structured around its notability ("Plot" is a section, but there should also be "Development/History" "Critical reception", and so forth, as outlined in WP:WAF), but there's no exact ratio of how much in-universe to real-world material there can be. --MASEM 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Primary focus (now) appears there too. I'm not worried about the ratio of material, I'm worried about what the point of the article is. For a book the article should be about the book. In the case of non-fiction it should summarize the book and describe how it contributes and how it was received. For fiction it should be the same thing. This change is very significant and IMO a very bad one. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Something that is listed in WP:WAF as a good example is Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VIII. Notice that the role of the characters in the story is the primary focus.

Again, I'm saying that "primary focus" means that the structure and the tone of the article (not it's content) should be aimed at telling the reader why this is notable. Characters in FF8 is bounded front and back by notability information with a majority of the page being about the characters - and there is nothing wrong with this. The character plot info isn't the primary focus, it's the majority of the content, but the focus of the article is "why should the reader, that never played and never will play FF8, care about these characters", and the answer is given by notability - the game was popular in part due to the characters, they were influenced by certain things, they were merchandised, and were critically reviewed.

We're saying the same thing, just that you're interpreting "primary focus" as "majority of content" while I am saying that its more on article structure. --MASEM 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary focus will be interpreted as "majority of content, and in that sense, i think that primary focus should not be on the details of publication etc but on the work itself. What you are suggesting is that the lead paragraph should put the work into a real world context, not go straight out into the plot as if it were an historical event. In that case, I agree, but then the wording should say so.-- i becomes a minor point of arrangement, not a primary aspect of the article. DGG (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft #7a

diff from #7

• I have removed "secondary", but keeping reliable and stress that real-world data is needed from reliable sources for notability (the spirit of "secondary sources" pending it going away).
• I have rephrased "primary focus" to "the article should be structured around the notability aspects", so that DGG's point about misintepretation of that phrase is removed.
• I have replaced "limited" plot summarise with "concise".
• I have rephrased the part on singular items gaining their own sub-article to soften the language
• I have changed depth of coverage to state that the depth of coverage should be appropriate for the length of the work in addition to notability. The point here that I think needs to be said that a one-shot fictional work does not need pages and pages of fictional text; a long running TV series can, but only if the series has sufficient notability to support that. A kids cartoon with 100 episodes with maybe 5 or 6 lines of notable information should not get the same treatment as, say, The Simpsons or South Park. --MASEM 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is much better. I feel that there is still far too much emphasis on real-world information, and I agree with DGG's comments on how this should be structured.

I would like a footnote or something somewhere that says "This doesn't mean that more than 50% of the article has to be notability, but that the article should be structured (as suggested through WP:WAF) to address notability in clear terms in addition to plot info." or your quote about the FF character article or something similar. Not sure how to add it, but I think the quote I gave (your words I think) as a footnote would be perfect if it doesn't mess with the structure too much. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that in some situations we will actually have more text of plot summary than "real world information". Though, an article about Star Wars should be about reviews, sales, and production, as well as a reasonable summary (the reader should be able to understand what it was about, who the major characters were, the major conflicts, etc). Star Wars can be taken further, because other topics have been inspired/effected by the series, and by individual characters and elements, which will likely be explained in another article and not directly a Star Wars article, but that doesn't mean we just assume such things.

I don't see how this would even effect article structure, nor have I seen WP:FICT ever used in an argument about article structure. I don't think that's a major concern. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, but I see WP:PLOT used over and over again and it would be nice to clarify that here if possible/reasonable. Hobit (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with non-notable fictional topics

Returning to Draft #7 for a moment, I wish to bring up the issue raised by Nydas relating to the policing and enforcement of the guidelines. There is an aspect to the current deletion process which is attributable to the fact that the existing guideline is weak when it comes to practical implementation on a day to day basis because it is not sufficiently prescriptive enough when it comes to the duties of administrators to enforce the guidelines at AfD. Lots of articles which fail all known guidelines often survive the AfD process (only to be renominated) becuase the closing admin will not overturn a concensus. I beleive that for this guideline to be effective, there must be included a paragraph in the section Dealing with non-notable fictional topics stating that:

"Once the merits of the article have been debated, the administrator closing the debate should ensure that the decision to keep an article is based strictly on its ability to meet this guideline, rather than on a majority vote or a consensus of opinion. AfD discussions should be seen as a process of notability review, rather than a debate about the relative merits or applicability of the guideline to the topic in question. It is the duty of administrators to apply Wikipedia guidelines vigourously, rather than allow topics with notability issues to exist indefinetly."

This might seem rather harsh, but it is very easy to start an article (a moments copy and paste) without complying with the guidelines, but it is coming close to difficult to remedy the spamming of articles with notability issues. You should be aware of the extensive debate on my RFC regarding this issue, but my view is that this problem of non-enforcement of the guidelins applies to many categories of fiction-related articles, and its not just my pet peeve. In my experience, you can count on at least 6 editors to oppose an AfD regardless of the notability of the topic, particularly if they have contributed to the article, or it is related to their pet subject. However, this guideline will not have much impact unless it is given teeth; we need to give guidance to administors if it is to be effective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is something that we can address in this guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• But why? If this issue is not addressed, the guideline will have limited effectiveness, in which case we may as well stick with what we have already. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ridernyc - your suggested approach is first outside the scope of WP:FICT (since it deals with how the AfD process is performed), and more importantly, breaks how consensus works on WP. In the case than an article is up for AfD and the only people responding besides the AfD'er all favor keep with various of ILIKEIT, the admin should recognize that, and not give in to the majority. But if there are good arguments that suggest a non-notable argument be kept on good faith, (maybe someone is trying to get a translation of a secondary source and its taking a lot of time, or the like), the admin should not blindly follow WP:FICT to close. Now, of course, admins that close AfDs in favor of majorities without consensus should be taking to the AfD closing review process. But in any case, all these actions are well outside the bounds of WP:FICT.

What we do want to encourage is catching article creation before non-notable article spamming. We need to encourage projects on fiction to watch Speical:Newpages, patrol their own article bases to review how WP:FICT applies to them, and the like. I'd love it if, though concerted effort of many WP editors, that no fictional topic will ever head for AfD again due to notability due to people working together on demonstrating it, merging articles, or moving them to other wikis. It won't happen, but a ultimate goal of this rewrite is to reduce the volume of fictional topic pages heading to AfD due to lack of notability. --MASEM 15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. That would violate WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EP, WP:NOT and WP:DP. It's only policies which tend to be rated above a consensus in a deletion debate, not guidelines. Through a lot of discussion over the last month or so people have been pretty much agreed that it's the afd discussion and the consensus reached there which determines whether an article is deleted, not this guidance. Hiding T 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't have effective guidelines, how do you enforce policy?--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and related guidelines which explain why consensus is preferred to strict rules. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and strict rules aren't mutually exclusive. Being a bureaucracy is about the complexity of the process and being "by the book" which is different from giving something more authority. Think of it like exact instructions vs a general idea, but still strongly enforcing it. I'm not saying I want that for WP:FICT, I just thought I would point this out. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• If a discussion results in a consensus that contradicts a guideline, it is the guideline in error, not the consensus. Guidelines must reflect consensus, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think he's describing a conflict, but rather how much something can be enforced. If a discussion on a single talk page has a consensus, that doesn't mean it has more consensus than the guideline, which has it's own discussions and observations that form its consensus. But, as we've learned from the recent arbcom case, forcing the guideline isn't good either. Also, being a guideline, there are going to be situations that weren't anticipated, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The solution proposed here to patchy or selective enforcement won't work. For starters, there's no way that the admins will consent to having their autonomy curbed over something like this. Even if they did, who watches the watchers? Our fiction deletionists? My impression is that they're the mostly cut from the same cloth as the average Wikipedian; that is, sci-fi and fantasy are first and foremost in their mind and they see everything through a fan-prism. All it would do is intensify our slant.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept my proposal is probably not well thought out; the link provided by Colonel Warden mentions instruction creep, which seems to be exactly what I am proposing here. Please disregard what I have suggested and lets have any other proposals for amendment to Draft #7 that might be worthwhile.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea itself is good, but it's more likely something we'll have to deal with on another page, or as its own process. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand Gavin's thinking here, but even when you're right about such things, the result is a huge backlash by other editors. This is pretty much what happened with TTN. People simply freak out. Everyone is a lot more at ease when we have a little more time to look at things, and a little big more room for discussion. The guideline is only one part of how we handle such articles. What is likely needed is to further explore ideas like WP:TV-REVIEW, and make how we handle the issue its own thing. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• And once again I bang the drum for a Fictional topics noticeboard. Hiding T 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good & questions

This rewrite of WP:FICT looks good. A few questions: (1) Can someone point me to the point where it was decided that a rewrite was needed? (2) Can someone provide useful links to older versions of the policy (ie. versions that were substantially different and stable for a long time) - keeping a tidy record of the history is an important part of the process. (3) How much latitude is given to long-term efforts to evolve articles from a collection of stubs through merging into lists and (eventually) into something like the examples mentioned here ("World of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) were evolved from lists of terms, characters, events, and concepts into articles with both real-world content and an out-of-universe perspective.")? I ask because I'm working on one such area, and it would be discouraging if deletion debates were started while I (and others) were partway through the process. Obviously some progress has to be seen, but how little is too little? Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• 2) [3] is one in April 07 that Hobit provided, which is based on a previous deletion consensus that lists of characters are able to stand-alone.
• 1) The change from this April one was best as I can tell a result of the change in WP:N in May of 2007 (hence the April 07 revision) that specifically included notability demonstration through secondary sources, which clashed to some degree with the above link in addition to not match the format of other notability sub-guidelines.
• 3) The key that this guideline pushes is that deletion should be the last resort for any article on fiction (as there are places where the information can go or be used), and as long as people are making good faith efforts to demonstrate notability, nothing should be done to nanescent articles beyond helping them to improve. --MASEM 03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Masem's proposal is looking really good right now, and even if it's not perfect yet, we might be at a point to start requesting comments from the greater community? Or should we wait a little bit still? -- Ned Scott 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be like a few things still need forming up and reinforcing. Some more examples (maybe on a subpage) would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Masem. Unfortunately many of these articles are not nascent. I'm talking about clean-up efforts on old articles. The topic here is that covered by the articles that have been tagged and are being edited by Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. Some date back 4 or 5 years to near the beginning of Wikipedia, but clear-up didn't really start until a year or so ago. See Talk:Elros for an old debate from 2004, and a later debate at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. There are still several months work involved, some of which involves adding sources to demonstrate notability. I'm still deep in the merging stage, as can be seen here (others are working on other areas of this topic). The progress over the past year has been a reduction (mainly due to merging or removing the project tag from existing redirects) from 1403 articles to 948 articles. That's over 450 articles merged or redirected. A recent debate around these issues of allowing time for merging and adding of sources (for both notability and verification) can be seen here. What I'm hoping is that the bit here from the nutshell: "Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted." can be actually agreed upon in good-faith by all sides, and that time is given to complete long-term plans like this. One thing that may be a problem is that I can't quite see yet where that bit in the nutshell is made clear in the main part of the guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, more about avoiding deletion is described in the "How to deal with non-notable articles" - it is urged that all other actions be taken before using AfD. In the case of Middle Earth, the fact that you are talking about means there's good faith effort to improve, which means none of your articles should go to AfD. If we get consensus on this WP-wide and it becomes the guideline, then we'd make sure to approach the AfD process board and make sure the admins there are aware of this change, and if say someone takes a ME article to AfD without necessarily being aware of this, then make sure to argue that the new consensus version of WP:FICT states this is against WP:AGF. So hopefully, once the new WP:FICT is given for all to see, editors will see volunteer steps to improve notability/reduce in-universe content as good things and not to be touched. How we'll deal with someone who is more aggressive, we'll likely have to work at that when the time comes. --MASEM 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I had included some more specific guidance for depth of coverage in serialized works that no longer appears in the newest draft. I think, if consensus points to it, that there should be some specific guidance about individual episodes of television shows and individual issues of comic books. I know the proposal gives some general guidance, but I think the depth of coverage portion may need to be a little more clear. Ursasapien (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I took it out to streamline the text; the largest complaint was that the draft was too long. I think with the reduced version, we want to keep the first 4 sections (up to how to deal with non-notable works) streamlined so that someone doesn't assert "tl;dr" when they are told their article does not follow WP:FICT. A short sentence in Depth of Coverage, or possibly even a new section "Specific guidance" as is done in WP:BIO, can be added (and please go ahead to add this if you desire.) --MASEM 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this now follow PLOT and NOTE, or is it more restrictive?

I've read the new page, but I never know what it really means. Are multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources the real deciding factor, or do we still have those unwritten rules where reviews and synopsis of television episodes don't count towards notability? Or maybe they're written this time and I missed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews from reliable sources are perfectly acceptable to demonstrate notability. A plot synopsis, alone, however, is not (a blurb in TV guide is not sufficient for notability, since that's primary information - no analysis of the work is made) - though a synopsis as part of commentary or review is fine for notability. The use of reviews for notability is mentioned in this draft. (Articles dealing with a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should be able to readily demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable sources.) --MASEM 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, but it hasn't been the way TTN and others have been judging episode pages. No one is saying the little weekly blurbs count as one of the multiple sources. They're obviouslyy trivial, which doesn't pass NOTE. They are not the bone of contention. I believe this quideline is of little use if it doesn't spell out what type of sources make an episode article (character, whatever) notable, since I have frequently seen what NOTE and PLOT say rejected as insufficient. It's why I'll mention again that this page should be deprectated. There's an unwritten understanding behind this page that is used to delete/redirect articles that does not conform to NOTE and PLOT, like this page supposedly does. We need to follow those guidelines explicitly, or explicitly state how this page goes further. Leaving it murky is not helping anything. I will say that this version is better than most others in its conciseness. It just doesn't address any of the controversial uses of this guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide example AfDs that this is happening in so that we can identify 1) if there is a problem with the deletion call and 2) what needs to be added here that NOTE is too broad to include. --MASEM 06:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And just as a note, I've spot checked a few of TTN's edits in redirecting episodes claiming lack of NOTE and most are appropriate (there's no notability at all in these), plus at least TTN's trying to work somethign with the Futurama editors to decide which episodes are notable and non-notable.

Also partially as Ned mentions below, we want to make sure we spell out some types of resources for notability, and some resources that should not be used for it, but guidelines are not supposed to be prescriptive - we need room for interpretation article by article. --MASEM 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're including summary style in the guideline, I would think the draft would be seen as less restrictive than PLOT and NOTE alone.

Back to what seems to be your main question, things that add real world context might or might not be enough for an entire article, depending on who you ask, and depending upon the type of real world context. Which, like pointed out before, doesn't mean content, so it is possible to have an article that is more plot in terms of the number of words than the "real world" parts. However, I don't think reviews from something like TVbuddy would justify an article for an episode, even if we did consider it a reliable source. Those kinds of reviews.. they're just bad; poorly written, and lacking in insight. (which in my mind makes them trivial sources.) -- Ned Scott 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I could provide examples. It's not really constuctive since TTN redirected hundreds or thousands of articles that would pass this guideline as it reads, although not as its "understood." Ned was there for some of it, and gives the reasoning behind disregarding our higher G's and P's. So far, we just say "this is enough, it meets NOTE and PLOT." Which is rebutted with "it may meet NOTE and PLOT but it is not enough." Now, you could say this is just an editorial decision. That doesn't seem right to me when one editor makes the decision for thousands of articles against the opposition of numerous (hundreds) other editors. Then you could say, it's several editor's decision (TTN, Ned, Bignole, etc.), but again it doesn't seem right to me when maybe five editors make the decision against numerous editors spread out over many pages. Five editors is about the amount needed to control this page, so let's make them explicity state their case here, in one place, and get this hammered out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not providing examples. ;-) Ned mentioned Buddy TV. They are a reliable source that frequently reviews every episode of a large number of tv shows. They are a reliable source, their reviews are non-trivial, etc. Because they review so many episodes, and other reliable web sites do the same, we come to the issue that many episodes meet NOTE and PLOT. New, popular shows on the major networks can meet NOTE and PLOT with every single episode. This is (seemingly) unacceptable to some editors, so they have to argue without the backing on any G and P page that these articles don't belong. This is what needs to be addressed in this page. The number of reliable sources reviewing episodes is only going to increase, so we need to either allow NOTE and PLOT to do their work as they have, or create a special exemption for episode pages that creates arbitrary hurdles beyond these G and P pages. Let's make this page useful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things: the applicability of Buddy TV ( and subsequently any other such review site ) is something that needs to be decided by the TV project - WP:FICT really cannot provide the guidance there beyond the fact that the notability sources need to be reliable. (This also may be a question at WP:RS). We can add to WP:FICT that what constitutes a reliable source should be consensus of editors that heavily work in that project, but again, what actually are reliable sources stands outside of FICT's intent.

The other aspect is the significant coverage. Even if Buddy TV is considered reliable, if an episode only has that review as its demonstration of notability, then it is not "significant" as required by NOTE and subsequently here. Personally, I would like to see two "aspects" of notability (say, a reception and a development bit), but that makes this a stronger requirement than NOTE and thus I don't propose to include this. I don't know if this is something that can be spelled out in WP:FICT as well - what may be significant for a TV episode may not be sufficient or a movie, and so forth. FICT spells out that things like development, reviews, etc help to satisfy NOTE, but exactly what degree is really consensus in similar articles/projects.

I don't know if either of those helps: it sounds like there may be a bit more language to be added that individual WP should further define details , but FICT cannot specifically spell out those details. --MASEM 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Buddy TV is only one of multiple, significant, reliable sources as specified by NOTE. No one is saying that just one is enough. Well, I didn't expect this guideline to actually say that NOTE and PLOT should be followed when it would lead to an inclusionist perspective, so OK. But, this is the page that is cited for deletion/redirection, so that is a bit problematic. Basically, when PLOT and NOTE point towards deletion, this is the page that gets it done. When NOTE and PLOT don't, you're saying to now look below this guideline to find backup for deletions. This again says to me that this page should be deprecated. Basically, I think we should get rid of this page, or spell out for people why NOTE and PLOT are not applicable. I.E. "NOTE and PLOT are our guidelines, except, you should check the current consensus of our most prolific editors at WP:TV for episode notablity." We would then need to do this for all aspects of fiction. Who gets to control what would be quite interesting. This may sound a bit harsh, but when editors use this guideline to remove thousands of articles, I think it behooves us to say exactly where the power is coming from. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This guideline still provides more information for fiction that is not spelled out in PLOT and NOTE, and in further goes into, for fictional works, what are acceptable types of reliable sources, which that nor primary, secondary, tertiary sources (which is also going under rewrite) cover in enough depth to give the appropriate guidance for editors.

If people are citing this guideline (and remember, we're still using what's at WP:FICT which does indicate it is currently disputed, but that brings PLOT/NOTE as the working guideline.), and you feel that sources present are reliable and thus demonstrate notability, you need to assert that in the AfD and make sure that your sources are there and noted for being reliable. If you do so and such AfD's are being closed over that, you need to start a discussion likely both at the project of interest and with those editors putting AfDs up for these article to get those sources noted for being reliable. There, WP:FICT cannot help -- however if TTN or others are truly AfD'ing articles that have even a handful of questionable/as-yet-established reliable sources(*) but that are appropriate types of notable materials, then they are going against what the new WP:FICT rewrite suggests in that notability demonstration is something that editors in good faith need time to improve - maybe Buddy TV isn't the most reliable source but that would imply there may be better (as in "established for being reliable") sources to help with that. Once some reasonable degree of notability has been established even if not perfect, there should not be a mad rush to delete it. That aspect is covered in the rewrite and goes above what is spelled out in NOTE (which you'll note jumps to deletion pretty quickly as suggested routes)

(*) Such sites would obviously not beself-published like personal blogs, journals, web pages, or forums, but likely lack the reputation as EW.com.

That's why I asked for examples of articles TTN or others that are up for AfD where you've stated that there was notability demonstrated but still being AfD. I'm getting your side of the picture but I also need to see what such works are myself to be able to understand what degree this occurs as there are places that the rewrite can be made stronger if this is the case.--MASEM 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding that TTN is an issue again at AN/I due to recent "soft-deletes" of redirecting episode articles to an episode list page, though in the cases I spot-check, the articles themselves lack any notable information - it's more the approach TTN's taking that is at issue. --MASEM 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we should cling to a flimsy and counter-intuitive hodge-podge of WP:N and WP:PLOT. At the very least, it should contain a warning to be extra-careful with fiction that is pre-Internet or unlikely to be well-covered online. It should also encourage Wikipedians to avoid thinking that concepts like 'fans', 'fanbase', etc are generally applicable concepts.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as with any topic on Wikipedia, book references are just as acceptable. There is still a need to eventually find and provide such references. The fanbase thing applies more to currently popular fandoms - it will be interesting to see what Wikipedia does with fandoms that fade away in a few decades time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The concepts that fans are incapable of neutrality, civil discussion or productive work, on the other hand, seem to be remarkably self-fulfilling when those editors are treated as such from the start. We could use some basic advice on local social dynamics, particularily on how to work in this field without pissing a whole lot of people off. --Kizor 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I note there's no mention of "fan" or related works in the current revision, and given that everyone was saying it was too long to start, I do not believe adding more text that is not explicit to WP:FICT's goal is appropriate. Also, just because information is not available online does not give anything special treatment - contemporary culture is "lucky" that many sources are online but there are physical resources like your local library or such where information can be found for older works. (As a counter to this, nearly every printed work is reliable without question, but online sources need to demonstrate this much better). Doing the physical research is a time process and thus that's why it's important to assume good faith in what the editors are working on for an article, and that deletion should not be a "jump the gun" process. --MASEM 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a subpage be appropriate to help explain some things in greater detail, and to explore side issues? Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be open to a section or two at the bottom (once the guideline is spelled out) for more helpful advice, such as avoiding the word "fan", etc. But I don't want to weigh down anything up through "how to deal with non-notable articles" --MASEM 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)