Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 3

Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters

I request a clarification of what a notable fictional character is. WP:FICT as it currently exists is more of a how-to for managing articles on fiction rather than a precise list of notability criteria. This immensely complicates citations of this guideline, as the notability criteria have to be subjectively distilled out of the how-to.

I interpret notability of a fictional character as meeting all of the following conditions.

1. The character is a leading character of the work of fiction. (Internal justification)
2. The character is known outside the context of the work of fiction. That is to say, there are verifiable references to this character in reliable secondary sources intended for an audience not intimately familiar with the work of fiction. (External justification)
3. The character appears in unrelated works. For example, a character in a novel may be used in other novels. A game character may appear in other games (apart from sequels). (Popularity)

The text of WP:FICT seems to give a license to editors to create independent articles on fictional characters with no requirement to establish their individual notability, excepting perhaps purely internal justifications. The condition of there being enough content is often easily fulfilled with summaries of plots or "lore". It is my understanding that every article in the Wikipedia must describe an independently notable entity. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Must meet all of those criteria? I think you'll find that hard to reach agreement on. #3 in particular is vague as currently worded, but you seem to be saying that the character must be referenced in some unrelated work of fiction... or are you saying that they must show up in more than one book/game/movie in a series? I'd possibly support the latter, though it would be difficult to justify not carving an exception for standalone works or major characters who only live/show up in one book (possibly as a plot device). I like the first two, though I've always wanted to see a better indication of what "leading" or "major" character entails. -- nae'blis 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps #3 is far too stringent. My interest is in trying to codify what makes a fictional character notable in real life, as opposed to the context of the fictional universe. This is considerably easier for written works as one can simply point to criticism. For unwritten works such as video game characters it seems to me that there must be some threshold of relevance outside the fandom for a character to be independently notable. On the topic of "leading" or "major", I have tried (so far unsuccessfully) to write down a possible definition or criteria, but I think these terms are inherently too fuzzy for precise treatment. I'm a mathematician, not a policy wonk, so I would appreciate suggestions from the community. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My experience in working on articles about fiction is that the second criterion, the stuff that provides encyclopedic context, is most important. The other thing is, while having good secondary sources is obviously desireable, a good number of primary sources — published interviews with creators, audio commentary, and the like — will often be used, particular in any sections describing character development, author influences, etc. Everything else seems to derive from having good sources for non-plot-summary information. It's this that helps to establish the character as a major/lead one (since the creators of the fiction and critics will spend more time talking about them).

The third criterion, I think, is sometimes helpful in a rough determination, but it's not the sole determining factor of notability. Even if a character doesn't appear elsewhere, it might have been a vehicle for a particularly poignant theme, been the subject of a notable casting issue, been received particularly well or poorly, been the subject of an intellectual property dispute, posed particular challenges for the scriptwriter, and so on. While this information be best contained in the article about the work itself, there's sometimes enough of these issues combined to warrant a separate article. Again, this would be found in good sources, so it comes back to the verifiability issue more than anything else. — TKD::Talk 04:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the claims of notability of a one-shot character can be substantiated with reliable secondary sources, I am willing to accept that criterion #3 is too strict. However, I still think that a suitably defined "popularity"—or perhaps "renown"—outside the original context the character appeared in is necessary for a proper encyclopedic treatment. I agree with everything else in your comment, though. As you appear to have a good bit of experience with fiction articles, can you try to draft a better list of criteria? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about something like:

A character or other fictional element is notable if:

1. it, or products based on it, is nontrivially and encyclopedically discussed in multiple reliable secondary or tertiary sources;
2. appears or is verifiably referred to in other notable works of fiction unrelated to the original; or
3. is the protagonist or antagonist of a storyline that spans multiple works notable enough to be discussed in individual articles.

Nontrivial encyclopedic discussion excludes:

1. plot summary that contains no annotations or analysis;
2. cast lists;
3. advertising materials or mere listings of merchandise (however, discussion of the popularity of such advertising/merchandise would qualify);
4. in-universe "biography" or backstory; and
5. instructional material, such as CliffsNotes or game guides.

A standalone article on a fictional element may benefit from plot summary or backstory to provide context, but the majority of the article should consist of verifiable, reliable out-of-universe information. If you spot an article with improper emphasis on in-universe discussion, please:

• tag it with {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}} ot {{plot}};
• condense the plot and backstory, and/or add sourced out-of-universe encyclopedic content; or,
• if the element is non-notable:
  • merge and redirect the article into the article about the fictional work or a list of minor fictional elements, if one exists; or
  • in cases where the element is so minor as to have no encyclopedic value at all, nominate the article for deletion.

I would prefer to give explicit benefit of the doubt at least to protagonists and antagonists (but not supporting characters) of major storylines. These characters almost definitely meet criterion #1, but, unfortunately, many articles on protagonists and antagonists fail to give any indication of this. But, at the same time, it'd be pretty draconian to merge, for example, Neo (The Matrix) into The Matrix series, or Master Chief (Halo) into Halo (video game series), claiming (correctly) that those articles don't give any secondary sources right now. — TKD::Talk 10:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. A substantial improvement over my initial suggestion, and I agree entirely with your closing comment. I have only minor comments at the moment: (1), Notability criterion #1 or #2 should include verifiable references in notable nonfictional tertiary sources (I am thinking here mainly of other encyclopedias). (2) Notability criterion #3 should include the possibility of multiple equally important protagonists or antagonists, so replace "the protagonist" with "a protagonist", or, if that is too semantically discordant, "a main character". (3) Exclusion criterion #1 should also exclude biographical summaries. (4) Exclusion criterion #3 should also exclude mentions in instructional material and guides authored by third parties such as Cliff's Notes or game guides. (5) Remedy #3.1 should also recommend merging with a list-of-characters if one exists for that work of fiction. (6) Remedy #3.2 should be made even more precise: "in cases where the element is so minor as to have no encyclopedic value, nominate the article for deletion." — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some revisions in light of feedback, but perhaps Dark Shikari's solution below might be a better starting point.... — TKD::Talk 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think requiring everything to meet these standards may be too harsh. Always give the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion. There is a fine line, but I don't think this is the way to delimit that line. One of the main issues is with 3), where people will insist that *notable* works have referenced a character, when 99.99% of the time, a work of fiction of any sort will NOT have its characters used outside of its own novels/TV series/movie/anime/manga/etc simply due to copyright reasons alone! In other words, fanfiction and the like would almost certainly be the *only* case in which 3) would be satisfied.

Summary: I think that the problem with these guidelines (2 and 3) is that they can and will be interpreted far too strictly due to Wikipedia's other related rules, and thus should no be requirements. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the exact wording, but I do like the idea. -- Ned Scott 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the protagonist/antagonist suggestion. Take Revolver Ocelot, for example, a character about which little can be said save for recapping the games in which he appears, but he's technically an antagonist in three different games. Likewise the villains of the Golden Sun games; there's so little that can be said about them, but this proposed wording suggests that they should have their own articles. Oftentimes a character will recur in a major role with regard to the work, but still have an extremely minor role in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point; thanks for coming up with counterexamples. I've struck that exception for the time being. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I like the concept, but I don't like the wording. I think we need to keep the article legnth designations for characters. Some of the important information on how this policy was developed is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. As was mentioned in two comments here: there is the potential for making seperate articles for main characters who really aren't notable and there is the potential for merging unsourced, but very long, articles on main characters back into their main articles. Finally, some series are full of "main characters" (i.e. sentai-based series.) I would also like to suggest that seperate articles for fictional characters not be created unless there is enough encyclopedic information to justify them. (i.e. don't create a stub for every character in a series major or minor, for the sake of filling out a navigation template. Then the question comes up: what do we do with the thousands of non-encyclopedic articles that exist in the wikipedia? Cleaning them up is an impossible task. --Kunzite 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not impossible at all. Get a solid set of policies and tools and get started changing the culture. There's no shortage of Wikiprojects who are sympathetic to cleaning up excessive plot summary, and you can get started on the cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  It will be VERY difficult. Scroll up and read the huge discussions that came about when some editors balked after some editors (including myself) suggested that not every character in in several anime series (i.e. Oh My Goddess!) should have a seperate article. --Kunzite 17:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  It gets easier after every time you succeed. All it takes is one editor who knows enough to do a rewrite, and a bunch of editors to back him or her up. The biggest problem with the Kiddy Grade/OMG mess was that there was nobody who stepped up and said "This needs a rewrite, and I'm going to do it." If we'd had that, the merge would have been much easier. The problem is finding someone who is interested in such-and-such fannish subject, but also realizes that detailed plot summary serves this project poorly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Fair point about the article length bit, but I guess the goal that we're trying to attain here is defining "major", "bnotable", etc. Without this, the guideline is a bit vague, and has been interpreted a bit too liberally for people's tastes. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think there's a much better and simpler way to make a guideline for this: if there is not enough encyclopedic information to write an article on a character, the character should not have its own article. Simple, concise, and accurate. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Excellent point. The only thing is to define "enough encyclopedic content". I think we're all heading toward this concept, but from different angles. See below. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

additional request

In addition to this request, I would suggest a rewording of WP:FICT #1 from

Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).

To

Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of a major character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.

— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems fairly uncontroversial, but I'd link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) behind "Encyclopedic treatment"; that page could only benefit from more eyes on it. :) -- nae'blis 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that it's already been added, but I also support this change. It makes it clearer that padding a character description with overly detailed plot summary is not ideal. — TKD::Talk 04:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A different approach

In light of the above discussion, let's try a different angle: Expaning the current WP:FICT points 1 and 2; this might be easier to evaluate than the above approaches. We currently have:

1. Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
2. Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

How about this:

1. Notable characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. Encyclopedic treatment may benefit from brief plot summary or backstory to provide context, but the majority of the article should consist of verifiable, reliable out-of-universe information. Appropriate secondary or tertiary sources that nontrivially and encyclopedically discuss the element should be cited. Although encyclopedic treatment may benefit from out-of-universe primary sources, such as audio commentary and creator interviews, secondary and tertiary sources are necessary to establish sufficient encyclopedic context of the fictional element outside those involved with the work. Nontrivial and encyclopedic discussion excludes:
   1. plot summary that contains no annotations or analysis;
   2. cast lists;
   3. advertising materials or mere listings of merchandise based on the fictional element (however, discussion of the popularity of such advertising/merchandise would qualify);
   4. in-universe "biography" or backstory; and
   5. instructional material, such as CliffsNotes or game guides.
2. Non-notable characters (and places, concepts, etc.) and in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles in accordance with point #1.

Here, I've ditched the distinction between notable major and non-notable minor characters, a deliniation that tends to be too blurry to be practical. Instead we have just notable and non-notable and the criteria for a separate article are spelled out,mostly from my above list. I've also modified point #2 slightly to emphasize that the criteria need to be met for separate articles and that descriptions should be short.

As for my advice on what to do with noncompliant articles, that would go under the "Being bold" section, but let's focus on this first. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a better draft than the current text of the guideline, but I think if a guideline called "Notability (fiction)" begins by assuming that notable character is already understood, then it begs the question. How much leeway is given to editors to interpret "notable character"? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My propsal admittedly currently doesn't make it clear, but I think what I was aiming for qwas to define "notable" somewhat it terms of what you can encyclopedically write about the subject. In a nutshell, the idea would be: Elements should be written about in the article on fiction as a first choice. If you have enough encyclopedic material for one of these to break out its own article, do so. If yuo don't, and the list(s) of fictional elements become(s) too long for the main article, break out the list(s), but don't break out individual elements unless there's a sustainable article. Is that clearer? — TKD::Talk 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer defining notability qua notabilty, rather than use the motivational device of article-writing to motivate it. In other words, notability should not emerge from the process of writing (or not writing) an article on a fictional element, but should be an intrinsic property on which the decision to write an article is based. This may be too fine a point for further discussion, as I would be more or less satisfied if you implemented your proposed change in this subsection. Certainly, a guideline should be first and foremost a guide to process. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We might be getting too detailed here. I think we should have two or three examples of what a notable character/element is, then say that examples other than that can be used if a reasonable argument is made for it, then maybe say what such an argument should be about (such as, does it aid the main article topic, etc). -- Ned Scott 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

err, well, reading some of these ideas aren't that bad.. really.. so maybe detailed is good. I donno, something to think about. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing is, this guideline had examples, but there was still some disagreement about how to handle some cases. — TKD::Talk 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the list, partially because it is a negative list (what not to include), but I still like the proposed change as a whole. Nifboy 06:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some positive examples (like those found in WP:WAF) might balance it out? — TKD::Talk 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with any example-based approach is that it makes notability discretionary instead of objective, greatly reducing the effectiveness of WP:FICT as a tool to clear cruft from Wikipedia. Needless to say, the current example-based approach taken in WP:FICT admits too wide a variety of interpretations. You can think of TKD's proposal from an alternative perspective as a list of trivial external sources for a character; in that sense it is a positive list, and the double negative present in exceptions to nontrivia is easily removed. The current examples in WP:FICT can probably be annotated with why their external sources are non-trivial. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left notes on WT:WAF, the Village Pump, and the talk pages of a few of the larger WikiProjects (CVG, comics, anime/manga) that deal with fictional characters in order to solicit wider feedback on these changes. If you know of any other place to spread word, please do so. This would be a major change to the guideline; we should have more people looking it over first. — TKD::Talk 10:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A Socratic discussion on why these changes are necessary

I like the changes propossed, as it would help make it more concise on how we deal with fictional places, characters. etc. The question I have though; when no secondary or even tertiary source can be derived, and the information which has been gathered come mostly from books, manuals etc. How do we go about verifying that information, as WP:OR is mostly what people will end up being accused of using. Also, not that many game characters have that much information, other then what is covered in the game, manual, primary website etc. I'm just concerned that a mess like the Warcraft vote will come up again because people don't read the article, or have any experience with said game, comic etc. This might be off topic, or even covered before, but I just want to hear it from you people who obviously have more knowledge of the policy then me. As soon as I know what is needed I'll start re-working the Warcraft articles atleast. Thank you for your time. Havok (T/C/c) 11:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's no secondary sources, why does that character have a standalone article at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Take ex. Illidan Stormrage, a major character, and the antagonist of the series is a major character. If you search for him on Google, you only get hits to Wikipedia, WoWWiki, Blizzard themselves, and some fan sites. Are these good enough sources to warrent his own article, or are more "notable" and "reputable" sources needed for his inclusion? The same goes for minor characters, but who are prominent in the Warcraft lore and even World of Warcraft, ex. Hakkar the Soulflayer. Where is the line drawn between who should be included. As you can see from both articles, they are well written, but sources are lacking. Havok (T/C/c) 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the entirety of the content in this article part of the plot summary of (I presume) Warcraft III? Why do we need a second article recapping WC3, in greater detail? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss why the article isn't a part of the WC3 plot summary. I asked how to keep his article from being nominated for deletion because it hasn't got secondary or tertiary sources, when the places where the information about him is derived comes from places which would be deemed either WP:OR or just not reputable enough. Havok (T/C/c) 11:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed wording would counsel that this article be merged into Warcraft III, as it should be. This is description of a bird based entirely on observation of a bird, and it's overdetailed plot summary bordering on novelization, all with no out-of-universe info whatsoever. It needs to be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad example then. And again, I'm not here to discuss if any articles are inn need of a clean up or not. Take your pick in any fictional character then and tell me what should be done if the only source for the information are books, the game themselves, manuals and the official site. Havok (T/C/c) 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the only sources for the information are books, the game themselves, manuals, and other official materials, the character isn't notable, per above, and should have the plot summary/backstory/setting info ruthlessly cut down and merged into the article for the book/game/comic/whatever (or, less ideally, a list subarticle). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the character is the antagonist or even protagonists of the series? And the people behind the lore themselves can't be used as a source? Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if the character is the antagonist or protagonist of the series. The series or game article should be handling the antagonists and protagonists in a comprehensive way. If it isn't, the series or game article is deficient and would benefit from the merge; if it is, the protagonist article is needless duplication if there's no significant discussion of the protagonist separate from the series as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Understandable enough. I will start the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Warcraft and get starting on sourcing, cutting out cruft/novelization from those articles. I'll make a category for this aswell so that we can easier deal with it. I would urge anyone to help out where possible. Thanks for clearing up my concerns A Man In Bl♟ck. Havok (T/C/c) 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've gotten a lot of experience explaining this line of reasoning, and it'll be nice to have a guideline page that codifies the reasoning and argument I've been making in a lot of places for a while. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And hopefully the quality of the Warcraft articles will increase aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comics-related question

I very much appreciate this attempt to narrow and focus the articles on fictional characters to rid Wikipedia of fancruft and such. However, I'm wondering about characters from comic books that appear in more than one series. If a character appears in 20 different series of comic books, but there's little discussion on the character in secondary or tertiary sources, should we just leave the character listed as a major or minor character in the separate articles related to the books, with or without reference to the character's other appearances, or should we create another article for the character knowing that little would be in the article outside of plot summary? I'm having difficulty coming up with examples, but I think there could be quite a few characters that qualify. --Newt ΨΦ 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on a character with only reference to primary source is original research. There's a very fine line between getting it right and getting it wrong. However, I'd be amazed to see someone name a comics character who has made so many appearances and has not been discussed in print somewhere. Hiding Talk 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is of use here

I've skimmed, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but the verifiability policy requires articles to use at least one independent reliable source on which to build an article:

Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. and If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

I hope that helps clarify some of the points this discussion is covering, specifically the suggestion that some form of notability criteria is required to note that articles need independent sources. Such requirements exist already, and articles which do not meet it should be challenged. Hiding Talk 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! There goes half of WP:COMIC. What tertiary sources are available for comic-book-related subjects, specifically characters? I tend toward grammatical edits and condensing, so I'm not all that familiar with sourcing/citing. --Newt ΨΦ 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Who said tertiary sources were required? Simply that independent, reliable sources are necessary. Chances are there's a discussion on any given character somewhere in print. The idea comes up a lot that a whole swathe of articles on foo will have to go because no-one covers them, but it is rarely the case. However, like I say above, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and articles using only primary source border on original research. Hiding Talk 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the above statement "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." as meaning that a third-party source is required. --Newt ΨΦ 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tertiary sources aren't the same as third-party sources, which can be secondary. — TKD::Talk 05:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, not all that familiar. Thanks for clearing that up. --Newt ΨΦ 12:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. Verifiability is a necessary condition for an article, but we're trying to determine sufficiency. Given that so many articles currently fail to provide a third-party reliable source, one might argue that, for fictional elements, the mere presence of third-party sources might be somewhat close to a reasonable threshhold for notability as well. It's as if we're saying that a character is notable if someone has bothered to write enough about it that it satisfies our verifiability policy.

Given the wide range of fiction genres and the wide range of third-party coverage compared to what we actually have articles for, it could be argued that a general guideline for notability wouldn't work except if it were defined in terms of verifiability. As AMIB pointed out, certain characters, even primary antagonists, are notable to the fiction itself, but have little hope of satisfying verifiability. — TKD::Talk 05:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

suggestion for character notability wording

Forgive me if this has been suggested or addressed before, as I have not thoroughly read through all of the discussion. I was thinking about this issue the other day, and something came to mind. Just say "describe characters only to the extent that is needed to aid in the article about the work they come from." or something like that. There's only a character because there's a story, and there's only a character section/article because there is a story article. In other words, character information exists to aid the story information.

This, of course, being for characters who are not notable outside of their work, so it would exclude characters such as Superman or Peter-Pan, who've been used in multiple works, etc.

Such a statement might not tell editors exactly how to do things, but should at least put the idea in their head of how they should approach what to include or not in fiction. This is suggested in what the guideline says, but it doesn't actually step out and say it. It's easy to just follow the "instructions" and forget the spirit of the guideline.

Even if this doesn't address the above concerns, I think it might be a good idea to add such a statement anyways since it is good, simple, non-complicated advice. -- Ned Scott 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're going with this, and I agree with the premise. The only thing is to ensure that it is clear that "story information" doesn't mean only the plot; it's a more general concept that can refer to information about the genesis and reception of the work, like actors' approaches, costuming, critical reception, character themes sourced from reliable analysis, etc. — TKD::Talk 05:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Maybe we could say something like, info on a character / element that is not notable on it's own should be written to contribute to a parent topic(s) / article(s)? -- Ned Scott 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh... still a bit vague. "... to contribute to verifiable out-of-universe topics relating to the work in which the character appears?" Although... thinking about it, I did write above: "Encyclopedic treatment may benefit from brief plot summary or backstory to provide context, but the majority of the article should consist of verifiable, reliable out-of-universe information." Implicit here for characters not notable outside their source work is that the out-of-universe information would pertain to the development, analysis, and reception of the work itself. Again, would pulling in some of the examples of these topics from WP:WAF#Out-of-universe perspective help to clarify this? — TKD::Talk 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CVG articles

I think I'm on board with the general spirit of these changes in consolidating minor character articles, but I hope the final wording won't be so strict as to essentially delete high quality and high level articles ex post facto that have already been deemed as keepable and worthy by the Wikipedia community. For reference, see the current list of CVG Good and Featured Articles.

For instance, Locations in Spira (GA) is a subarticle of Spira (Final Fantasy X) (GA) which of course is a subarticle of Final Fantasy X (FA). However, in terms of secondary sources and some of the more tight wording above, the subarticles would have been deleted or merged long before their current state with those kind of requirements. Mega Man weapons (GA) is another example. Note: obviously, I am not advocating the merge, deletion, or demotion of these articles when I bring these up.

And of course, though it's usually used in a mocking tone as it was written that way, there's always the Pokemon test. There are currently about a dozen individual pokemon that have made FA or GA. It seems to be that over time, the consensus was that all individual Pokemon deserve individual articles, even the most clearly insignificant one (I'm not that familiar with it, but that was gist I got from the essay). Similarly, would a minor Mario series character Lakitu (FA) and the pokemon Torchic (FA), arguably very minor characters in the real world, ever have made it as far as they did? It also seems that many minor character/location articles of other less popular (but still, in the real world, very popular) video game franchises are being deleted recently of similarly subjective, or questionable, notability.

Basically what I'm saying is, I would not like to see new guidelines that stifle the creation of stub articles that are comparable in notability to existing good work, nor guidelines that will endanger the existence of current good work (as determined already by the consensus of many Wikipedia editors). --SevereTireDamage 06:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. This is one of the reasons I suggested the above note of "to contribute to the parent topic" kind of thing. That way, if such articles / sections / etc are contributing to a parent topic / article, then they would have the same notability as the parent. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Taking the examples one-by-one, Locations in Spira is more or less a list permissible under #2. Ditto for Mega Man weapons. Spira (Final Fantasy X) is an article on an entire fictional universe, which, while not explicitly allowed, should probably be treated in the same manner as any other overview article in #2. Lakitu has appeared in many different fictional works, universes, and roles, though that article would need more extensive sourcing if it were to pass FAC anew today. Pokémon have had about a dozen games, a long-running anime series with a different storyline, and a trading card game. The again, with 400+ fictional species, Pokémon is almost a special case.

It seems that the crux of the problem are the poorly sourced articles on characters who appear in one universe, where their roles could be succinctly described in a broader article, and where the franchise itself is popular, but not that prolific in terms of separate releases. I'm aware of the problems with instruction creep, but I think it's woerth at least trying to document something more specific. Any ideas on how to handle the truly large fictional universes (like Pokémon) while preventing the proliferation of characters in popular series that yet only consist of 3–4 separate releases?

By the way, I've set up a draft version reflecting various changes discussed/proposed above in my userspace, at User:TKD/Notability (fiction). Edits are welcome. — TKD::Talk 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that there are CVG magazines. Do they not do stories on these topics? Can't those articles be used as sourced? --Kunzite 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability criteria for works of fiction

I think part of the problem with the criteria guideline isn't so much of when characters are notable but when the work itself is notable enough for inclusion. For the most part, the guideline remains silent on that issue except to note specific instances of what works of fiction are not notable.

So rather then debate about when a character is notable, perhaps we should better concentrate on what fiction is notable instead, and let the major and minor character articles take care of themselves under that.

So to spur a much larger debate, here is my draft of what is and is not notable. I tried my best to be as broad as possible to cover novels, films, television series, radio dramas, and to some degree, comics.

---

A work of fiction is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The work of fiction has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
   • This criterion excludes:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the work of fiction.
     • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report theater listings.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
2. The work of fiction has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organization.
3. The work of fiction has been listed on a best sellers list by a reliable publication.
4. The work of fiction has aired nation wide by a major broadcast, cable or satellite network.
5. The work of fiction has officially been adapted or translated into multiple languages.

A work of fiction may not be notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Any work of fiction that is self-published or published by vanity press.
2. Fiction not yet written may be considered speculation. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games, etc., unless there has already been substantial hype and press coverage about the to-be-released item.
3. Fan fiction may well be considered vanity. This includes anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press.
4. Information about a character in roleplaying or MMORPGs; and computer game mods or custom maps.

---

Thoughts, comments, questions? (not that I can acually answer any questions) --TheFarix (Talk) 14:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above criteria, I don't have problem with them, except that I'd like a bit softer wording for the fan fiction stuff, because some of it is in fact notable (we do have Category:Fan films, after all). It should be judged by the same standards as everything else, requiring independent coverage.

But I don't think that the unaddressed problem lies in works of fiction themselves. No one's going to reasonably argue that Warcraft or Metal Gear is non-notable. It's the minor characters in those universes that we've had some contention about recently. — TKD::Talk 19:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The fan fiction clause is almost exactly to what is already in the current guideline. But determining when a fanfic or a fanfilm becomes notable may be something to explore. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we need to tackle both issues and get some nice clear guidelines. i.e. InuYasha is notable and we should have an article on the subject. But having a separate article for every single character in the series? Not really. I think that we may also want to research the possibility of transwikification of some articles to Wikibooks as guides to fiction: I think some of the Harry Potter articles were transferred as a guide to the book.

At anyrate: with deference to instruction creep;

• 1§1.2.1: How is someone supposed to tell when a media source has reprinted a press release? I used to do layout for a newspaper: we did it to fill space all of the time.
• 1§1.2.2: I think the example narrows the rule too much. I can envision someone in an AFD saying: "The source says nothing about a theatre. It's valid."
• 1§5: I have a Swiss friend who loves to write fanfiction. She writes it in German and then translates it into English. Someone then translates it into French. It's an "official" translation. Webcomics are also the same. I think this may be abused.
• 2§3: What about adding doujin published by non-notable authors to this?

--Kunzite 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How is someone supposed to tell when a media source has reprinted a press release? I used to do layout for a newspaper

we did it to fill space all of the time.

Well I did copy the idea from other notability essays and guidelines. If there is a problem with identifying press releases, then this proposal will not be the only one affected.

I think the example narrows the rule too much. I can envision someone in an AFD saying

"The source says nothing about a theatre. It's valid."

The general idea is to prevent something like the newspaper printing the show times at a local theaters from being use to establish notability, even if it also falls afoul of the "trivial" clause.

I have a Swiss friend who loves to write fanfiction. She writes it in German and then translates it into English. Someone then translates it into French. It's an "official" translation. Webcomics are also the same. I think this may be abused.

Does it still not fall under vanity press or self-published work? Not that any notability guideline will be perfect, but how to you suggest fixing it?

What about adding doujin published by non-notable authors to this?

Again, do they not already fall under vanity press or self publishing? One could make a case that the vanity press and fanfic clauses could be combined into one, since fan fiction will almost always fall under the first.

Of course there are some areas that I noticed that my draft doesn't cover, such as plays. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the first line of the proposal says: "A work of fiction is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" I'm reading this as overriding "vanity" issue. Perhaps we should persue adding doujin to the main article. --Kunzite 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my thoughts. Firstly, with regards to Vanity Press, the article on them itself describes them as not being a bad thing in and of themselves. We need to be careful to make it clear that vanity uses of vanity press are a problem, rather than an establised author deciding to use vanity press publishing. Without a disclaimer like this, any established author who switches to vainity press (or rather, on demand printing, as is the case in this senario) could get delete votes on the grounds of their printing method alone. The problem here appears to be easily solved - the upper 'is notable' list appears to be 'definately accept', and the 'may not' is more of a 'otherwise consider not accepting if...'. Clarifying the 'otherwise' should help to encourage sensible AfD actions. Secondly, I can see some people trying to argue that a review of a work of fiction is trivial, as it is not an article. Whilst this sounds silly, preventing wikilawyering-by-grammar when it causes little harm and adds clarity tends to be a good idea. Apart from that, the above looks good. Before my closing remark, a clarification about what sources can be used for what purpose:

• Primary source - the work of fiction itself - can be used for (assuming WP:RS for the fiction itself):
  1. Existance of characters within the work of fiction
  2. Observed actions, traits and abilities of characters within the work
  3. Satements made by the characters or narative within the work of fiction
• Secondary source - articles or reviews about the fiction - can be used for:
  1. Describing the behavior of main characters in addition to any naritive statement within the work
  2. Analysis of the plotline
  3. Attempts to link fictional events to real world events (as in an author's childhood, a war, etc)
  4. Implied actions, traits and abilities of characters within the work

And so on. Although not directly associated with notability discussions, I saw this was being questioned above. Personally, I'm a big believer in reliable sources first and foremost, and the idea that notabiliy guidelines should aim to help ensure the existance of reliable sources. And finally - this won't protect us against an author who moves to the smallest country they can find which has a television or radio station willing to broadcast their work :P The idea of someone actually trying that amuses me :P LinaMishima 08:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional character stubs?

Is it me, or does the first criteria mean that none of the articles in Category:Fictional character stubs should exist and should instead be merged?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. I've made one of the sub-categories into my "todo" list. --Kunzite 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be wise for article growth. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck? No, it means they should be expanded. That's the entire point of stub tags... --SB | T 06:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the purpose of the first criteria of WP:FICT, not the stub tags. --TBCTaLk?!? 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper stubs should be expanded, but most fictional topic stubs are not proper stubs. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is policy, by the way) specifically states "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article" In other words, we should not expand on fictional summaries, recaps, write-ups about characters for the inclusion of that information alone, but only if that summary information serves an independently notable subject (usually the work of fiction itself). It is not Wikipedia's place to tell us the story, that's what the work of fiction is there for. We're only supposed to talk about the work of fiction. This is further enforced and suggested with the guidelines of WP:WAF as well. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Since I have to "discuss" this now, despite not being told what was actually wrong with the changes, what do you people think of this edit?--SB | T 06:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As no discussion appears to be forthcoming, I think you should reapply your changes. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit to no.1 is the troublesome one. It, in effect, says that the main article must be a "exceptionally short" (i.e. a stub) in order for the list NOT to be sent to a separate page. It has the potential lead to un-necessary page splittings of articles which have more than an "exceptionally short" amount of text. I think it grossly violates the spirit of the guideline: to split only when necessary.

We have a guideline that defines when we should split an article, and we should use that: WP:SIZE. (i.e. the Readability of the article is the determining factor, not the warning at the top of the page. Fictional articles tend be overly "listy" and contain things like theme songs, episodes, weapons guides, etc.. which, according to this guideline, should be also ignored when determining the page size.)

A minor quibble about the second is that it over-emphasizes plot line. One of the major problems with fictional articles as they currently stand is that they are full of plot-line, but contain little of anything else. --Kunzite 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists of characters shoved into articles are incredibly ugly and akward; most of the time a simple prose summary will suffice. If there already is a summary, then there is no reason not to create a new list.

Secondly, no, you're wrong. The plot of any work of fiction is the most important part of the article. Without it, the rest of the article is meaningless. Saying that plot summaries are only "sometimes informative" is blatantly incorrect.--SB | T 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And they're incredibly ugly and awkward outside of the main article as well. We really should be cleaning them up, not shunting them off to some sub-page.

I'm not incorrect about over emphasizing plot summaries. Critical receptions, influences on other works, critical reception, etc... are all very important and widely neglected elements of articles on fiction. The plot synopsis, while important, should not be overly emphasized. As I said, a minor quibble. --Kunzite 19:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I don't agree that the the plot is the most important part of the article. The discussion of the work is the most important part, and whilst that discussion necessitates a discussion of the plot, the plot is not the raison d'etre for the article, the discussion of the work is. Unless you are arguing that Wikipedia contain a plot summary of every work in existence? Hiding Talk 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think any blanket statement of importance or not of plot is going to be wrong. There are works such as Street Fighter where the plot is really the least important element of the work. On the other hand, there are works such as The Sixth Sense where the plot is a primary reason why the work is famous. I don't think it is important at all in a guideline to pronounce whether a plot is important or not; I recommend a neutral statement such as: "Include plot summaries in an article on a work of fiction" instead of "Plot summaries are essential in an article on a work of fiction." As this is a guideline, it should guide rather than render judgement. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeeeargh. I would have reverted the "list of characters" change. The "list" of characters should be in the article for the work itself, and, ideally, it won't be a list at all. I agree with Kunzite wholeheartedly on that point.

The second edit doesn't trouble me at all. Brief plot summaries are essential to comprehensiveness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An article which contained more-than-basic info on multiple characters probably should be called Characters of SOMETHING rather than List of SOMETHING characters, and definitely still include a list on the main article that is brief. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a need for the second article, that is :) -- Ned Scott 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources in Fiction

I have noticed that works of fiction are held acourding to the same sourcing rules that would be used for say, a mathematical research paper. This presents a problem, because most fictional works only have the actual work to go by. The fact that any "Reliable sources" would just be paraphasing the work, making the information from these sources second hand primary information, which is even less reliable should be noted as well. I think that a set of rules for sources from fictional settings is necessary. I would like to have some input here, bacause I can't set up a guideline myself, and I have a feeling that I am forgetting some things. (Justyn 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

A simpler solution is to not write articles about subjects which can only be sourced by observation of the work itself, which is rather the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Most fiction can only be sourced by actual observation. So are you saying that Wikipedia should no longer have articals on fictional works? If Wikipedia exists only to give information on events that occur in reality, then why are there guidelines about writing about fiction, I.E. not reality? Why should a comic book or T.V. show be held to the same burden of proof as Mathematics or the War of 1812? Still feel like I'm forgetting something. (Justyn 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Because Wikipedia is an article that replies on the authority of the sources it cites, rather than the interpretation of its authors. Limited reference to the work itself is okay, but if you're describing a subject that can only be referenced by observation of the subject itself, you've left the purview of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AS I said, most fiction can only be verified by looking at it, under your bizzare logic, we should delete ninty nine percent of the information partaining to fiction in Wikipedia: because it can only be referenced by itself. And one of the people who I asked to read this said he got the oppinion straight out that you believe that fiction should not be on Wikipedia, and from what I've read of your posts, I also believe this.

What I am trying to say is that fiction should have different requirements for reliable sources are do to the nature of what it is. (Justyn 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

This is not a view congruent with the aim of this project or the principle on which this guideline was written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And that is? (Justyn 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

That fictional subjects, as with all subjects on Wikipedia, should be described by referring to commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that means that we have to delete the fact that grass is green, and remove that picture. You can't argue with your own logic.

Grass has five independent references, all of which (I presume; I haven't checked them) state that healthy grass is green. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet apparently uses only itself as reference, under your logic, it needs to be deleted. (Justyn 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Hm. I don't doubt that useful references could be supplied, as it's rather a famous play. Don't mistake unverified for unverifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You just proved my case. Anyone that has seen it can attest to what it contains, and the Wikipedia article uses no sources, this is orignial research and guess what? The policy makes no distinction on how famous something is, the page uses original reseach, under the current policy, it has no place in Wikipedia. I'm using your logic here MIB. (Justyn 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

No, you are misunderstanding my argument. Romeo and Juliet is a subject about which there is a great deal of commentary in reliable sources in sources independent of the play itself. Not so for, say, attacks in One Piece. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the ones used are? You seem to forget that most contemperary fiction does not have sources independant of the fiction itself. Does this mean that information on Faerun should not be on Wikipedia because the only reference on the subject is from the people that make it? (Justyn 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

That seems like a good reason to clean up much of the crufty, unsourceable articles about various fictional people, places, and things on Wikipedia. It just so happens we have here a guideline explaining how to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One man's cruft is another's priceless tidbit. Use the term "cruft" sparingly. And the fact is, a massive number of pages will be deleted because sourses for fiction need to be the same as sources for non-fiction, and I think that someone else should give an oppinion besides one of us. (Justyn 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

One man's cruft is another's priceless tidbit.

That's why we rely on the presence or absence of commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. If there's commentary, it is likely important. If there isn't, it is likely unimportant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-publishing?

Hi.

I noticed this...

"Fanfiction, on the other hand, may well be considered vanity (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion. This includes anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press; information about a character in roleplaying or MMORPGs; and computer game mods or custom maps."

So what? Does this mean EVERY self-published item, even if it got really famous should not be put on WP or JUST self-published FANfiction? 74.38.32.128 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Not by default, but often so". If you write a story yourself, or want to talk about your World of Warcraft character, or make DBZ fanfic, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to place it or discuss it, in about 99.9% of the cases. I'm sure there are a few fanfics out there with some actual fame (just like Counterstrike started out as just another mod of Halflife), but in general, an encyclopedia does not write about self-published fiction. >Radiant< 08:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Another exaple of this are Bleedman's works:
King of Fighters Doujinshi
Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi
Grim Tales From Down Below
These are pretty famous, Bleedman's deviantART accounut has nearly eight million hits for instance. It all depends on circumstances. (Justyn 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Other examples of notable fan fiction include most of Category:Machinima productions, two of which are actually featured articles: Red vs. Blue and Diary of a Camper. However, both cite several independent sources. In contrast, there are a lot of non-notable productions that end up deleted. — TKD::Talk 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If those are "pretty famous", you have low standards. 8 million hits is rather pathetic for a website. The inclusion of Vinson Ngo's works fall under the "award" clause of WP:WEB (that's what's been argued in the past) the number of clicks on a website does not indicate that a website is notable. However, the validity of the award is in question because it's given out by a webcomic aggregation site. --Kunzite 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood, his deviantART account got eight million hits, in two years, that's a lot for deviantART. And if you google his works, then you find that his works are pretty notable. Unless you don't consider [twenty thousand] or [thirteen thousand] hits to be notable. And as I said, it depends on cercumstance. (Justyn 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

The number of clicks on a website or google hits still does not indicate that a website is notable. They are subjective criteria. --Kunzite 20:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Selfpublished items like blogs are deemed not to be reliable sources. That does not mean that they are un-notable. That means Fanfic can be notable depending on other criteria like outside reports about it. Then selfpublished sources can be used as reference for themselves (ilike a blog is ok to use as reference in the article about that blog) Agathoclea 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But, if the blog/fanfiction/self-published itself is the only source of information available for an article, then the blog/fanfiction/self-published itself is not notable and does not warrant an article. If there other multiple, reliable, and non-trivial sources that are independent from the item in question, then the article may be valid. Articles in three "blogs" by Mary-Jo, Billy-Jo, Anna-Mae don't make Mary-Sue's fanfiction notable. If Mary-Sue's fanfiction had three featured stories in Time, Newsweek, and L'Express, then it may be notable. If a link and a line of text about Mary-Sue's homepage was put into those three magazines, then it would not be notable because it's "trivial" coverage. If Mary-Sue was at a murder trial and the fanfiction was used as evidence, then the article on the fanfiction should be included in her biography page, unless the fanfiction was published and made it to #133 on the New York Times Bestseller list. (i.e. it won a notable award or otherwise gained wide recognition.) --Kunzite 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See Kirk/Spock for a good example of notable fan fiction, though the article is about a subgenre of fan fiction rather than about a specific work of fan fiction. Postdlf 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy on plot summaries

I've proposed a slight re-wording on WT:NOT#Plot summaries part 3 for our current policy concerning plot summaries (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7). Requesting comments, especially since I don't recall the original discussion regarding the wording being advertised much. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a recommendation of 500-1000 words on plot summaries, as that's what's recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot. --Elonka 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really a big fan of arbitrary numbers, but I'm undecided about this addition. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 400-1200 is a bit more flexible. — Deckiller 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support 400-1200. The problems that we're trying to address are where there are vastly differing opinions of what "brief" means. For example, see: Harley Cooper, Pauline Fowler. Perhaps instead of an absolute "number of words" metric, it might make more sense to list it as a relative percentage? For example, "Plot summaries should be used sparingly, and only in the company of real world context. If a plot summary is taking up more than half the article, it's too long." --Elonka 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like that does sound better. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support something along the lines of a proportional guideline. Basically, if the plot summary is there in the context of critical analysis, then that's fine. It's only when the plot summary goes on for 20 paragraphs with no discussion/analysis that it's a problem. I think that a hard and fast line in the sand is unnecessarily limiting.Chunky Rice 06:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wordcount doesn't solve anything. A percentage is better. Do we have a tag for "excessive plot summary" yet? >Radiant< 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainly I use: {{plot}}, {{in-universe}} and {{TV-in-universe}}. --Elonka 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A possible test-case for the guideline discussion is this article, Pauline Fowler. She was one of the longest-running characters on the British soap opera, EastEnders, but was killed off in December 2006, after a 22-year run. The "Storyline" section of her article was initially absurdly long, but has now been whittled down to about 2,500 characters, including real-world context. What do you think of the plot summary for this article? It's long, but there's a lot of story to tell (22 years) and the cultural impact was significant. Should it be pared down further, or does it seem appropriate as-is? --Elonka 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pauline looks good, although the organization needs work; for example, the reception and criticism section should be separate from the creation section, and should be at the bottom of the article so the reader has gotten the gist of the character before reading the reaction. — Deckiller 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Let me make sure we're all on the same page. A plot summary summarizes the work's plot. It does not go off on a reception and criticism tangent in the middle of the summary; that is left for a separate section entitled "reception and criticism", just like development and creation information should be separate. But if it's a character conceived for a long period (soap operas, serials, etc), like the ones mentioned above, then it's obvious that some sort of mix is required for logical flow. — Deckiller 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I think we need to clear the air with the whole "analysis" issue. Plot summaries should deliver the material how it is; creation and analysis are separate sections. For example, see Final Fantasy VIII; the plot summary is only one of three subsections in the "story/plot" heading. The other two deal with the setting and characters (the bulk of the creation information), with additional information on subpages. But again, I'm digressing by talking about whole works, not elements of a work (which is what this guideline addresses). Just something I've noticed people misinterpreting :) — Deckiller 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't think a determinate number (500-1000 as Elonka suggested) should be put on this; to use a cliché, it's about quality not quantity, and if there is 2000+ good quality words, I don't think they should all be cut down just because there is a word limit put on it. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think most plot summaries here are way too long. I was looking up some info on Shooter (2007 film) and the plot summary there (and pretty much on every movie article) goes through and describes everything that happened in the movie. (Wordcount was just over 3000). I dont think its an encyclopedia's place to offer a cliff's notes version of a movie/book and document every single trivial detail. I think a "plot summary" should at max be 1000 words, and I would personally prefer less than two paragraphs. Corpx 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Since every work is different and topics are covered (in theory) in proportion to their notability, a clear-cut length can never be established. As a general rule, though, I think 200-400 words for a TV episode, 500-750 for a movie, and 750-1000 for a 40+ hour RPG are decent. Anything over 1000 words is probably excessive, unless it's also providing information on setting and characters (sections that should normally have more real-world information than in-universe info anyway). 3,000 is ridiculous and borderline copyvio. — Deckiller 08:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think we should be "summarizing" a show/book in as much detail as going through it episode-by-ep or chapter-by-chapter. Describing a TV-show or book should offer a big picture overview of the happenings and not so much on everything that happened so sequentially. I wouldnt mind a one or two line summary per episode to illustrate guest appearances and such, but I think 100 leaves too much room to summarize. Corpx 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Applying WP:FICT to reality shows

With each new season of some reality shows (particularly but not just Survivor) we get a crop of articles for the contestants. Most of them end up deleted. I would like to suggest expanding WP:FICT to encompass contestants on reality shows. This would lead to the creation of a single List of ''Season number'' TV show contestants and would I hope prevent the sort of rancor that can develop when fans of the show clash with non-fans at AfDs. Otto4711 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable, but it might better be listed under WP:BIO. >Radiant< 16:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I looked at WP:BIO and thought that it fit here as well because in terms of reality shows the contestants are as much "fictional characters" as those from a sitcom. Otto4711 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters

I think we need to make it clear that characters appearing in one episode of a TV series shouldn't get any entry (although since they're important to that episode's plot, they should be discussed in the synopsis). That'll probably reduce the length of some character lists drastically. But it's also common sense: why have the same exact information in two places when it can be put into one without an issue? — Deckiller 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so nobody cares if I add something along those lines. Then again, I will be proposing a complete rewrite of this criterion within a couple of weeks. — Deckiller 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Notability?

This may seem like a silly question, but why should there be a notiability requirement for fiction at all? How exactly is contributing something that is not "notable" detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole? I can understand the argument for articles describing non-fiction subjects, but as long as everything is categorized correctly and the articles themselves within the other standards set forth by Wikipedia, why does a work of fiction have to be notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.157.201 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

• Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As an extreme example, if you write a story on fanfiction.net, put it there, not here. >Radiant< 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Main characters

It seems obvious, but main characters that don't need articles should be merged with character lists (or the main work if it's small enough), correct? I'm just asking this because someone is taking it too literally. Nemu 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The notability of EVERY "element of fiction" is only as notable as determined by the notability of the original work. If we have a cancelled series (just pilot) for instance, there isn't any notability for ANY of the elements of that series fiction. In general however, any series that ran for multiple years (say 4), is almost guaranteed to have notability for each of the main characters. Anything in between is debatable. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is because of a dispute I am involved with with TTN over the issue of the characters from Cars (film). He seems to think that the major characters of that film do not need articles and that the current state of the articles (such as Mater) justifies merging them into List of Cars characters. I believe that they do need articles and that the fact that they are not yet up to snuff is no reason to merge them. The list is already being tagged as too long, so I don't know why he's so gung ho to merge more information into it. Rhindle The Red 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then..." If most of those articles are just trivia and plot summary, then merge would make sense. If there's enough real-world information, then having split articles could then make sense. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to make it clear that, in addition to main characters, lists of items, minor characters, and whatnot are not acceptable if encyclopedic treatment can't be given. I've actually been getting flak for saying that Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series doesn't belong on Wikipedia in its current state. — Deckiller 07:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the requirement is that encyclopedic treatment exist at the time the article is created, only that if an encyclopedic treatment would make the original page too long, they should get their own articles. My point is that just because the pages are not complete *at the moment* there is no reason to remove them. That will only prevent the character from ever receiving a proper encyclopedic treatment. There *is* enough real world information, it's just not there yet. Most of these articles are just hitting one year old and are constantly being worked on. But TTN seems to feel that the solution is not to work to improve the articles, but simply to merge them. They will inevitably get re-created as the main page (or the list page in this case) gets expanded over time. I have told him the best solution is to tag the articles with what they need to reach encyclopedic treatment and move on, since he admits he knows little about the subject matter. Rhindle The Red 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though this is not the proper place to discuss this, the encyclopedic treatment of a character means actual encyclopedic treatment, not just a quick plot summary and some trivia. If that doesn't happen, you default to point two when the whole character section needs to be split.

You have not shown why they need pages. The only out of universe infomation shown by any of the characters is design info. That doesn't need more than a paragraph. All they have is that and a plot summary that only needs to be there if the page actually needs to exist. Tagging the articles would do nothing at this point. If after a year only three people edit those articles on a regular basis, and they're in a bad state like they are now, what exactly will placing tags accomplish? Nemu 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't the place to discuss it (since the question has a reach beyond Cars), where is? I actually want to understand what the guideline is meant to mean. You and I obviously differ on that, just as we differ on what constitutes "junk". But I'd like some clarification before you go on deleting pages without discussion. Rhindle The Red 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean the discussion regarding if the characters need articles or not. Nemu 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Notability

About a year ago we were discussion a more hard and fast rule regarding definition of notability that was popular on village pump but had some objections here. The idea was to provide guidance for AFD discussions on notability of fictional characters. What I had proposed was something like:

---

There are no hard and fast rules for notability for notability of a character. However the below can act as guidelines.

1. Literary figures who have their own entry in Benet's (ISBN 0713649852) are notable.
2. Magazine articles about the character (not the actor) would imply notability.
3. If the character has crossed genres (book to movie, game to movie...) this would imply notability.
4. Characters whose names are generally not known to fans are not notable unless the character is well known by another title.
5. Very minor characters are not notable even if they cross genres.

---

What are people's feelings jbolden1517^Talk 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The first two seem fine. What is three talking about? Just a single character making the jump (a cameo) or just a whole series being adapted to another form of media? Either way, a cameo doesn't automatically assert notability, and adaptations are all too common. Four is just saying if a character isn't notable, it isn't notable. If their names aren't known, it means that they have none or it's from some obscure source. There will be few exceptions, so it's not worth mentioning. TTN 14:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, are you agreeing with the general idea and we are now discussing the specific rules? If so that's great I think it will help AFD tremendously!

For the 3rd criteria, generally most lesser characters are dropped during cross overs. The fact that the character made it in the "cross over" process was (IMHO) a reliable source that the character was notable / important to the story and thus passed notability. That was the idea at least. 4 is obvious except during the actual discussions. So I'd argue its obvious but useful. jbolden1517^Talk 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any comment. Do we have broad agreement on the idea of this sort of paragraph? jbolden1517^Talk 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I dissent with point three, and would prefer to stick with the old split between "major" and "minor" characters without making further distinction for e.g. "very minor" or "extremely major" characters. In general the difference between the two is how much information is available about them. >Radiant< 12:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

1. = Disagree with concept.

2. = Disagree with wording.

I suggest merging these two into something like: "Characters that been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the actors portraying the character, authors, directors, or producers of a work. (Suggested sources include [[ISBN 0713649852|The Reader's Encyclopedia]], magazine articles about the character, etc..)

3. Totally disagree. This also totally ignores the marketing tie-ins that result in a number of cross genre characters. For example, this would make ever single anime character notable because most anime series are adapted from manga series or video games. There are MANY MANY minor characters cross genres which do not meet the above notability requirement.

4. Makes no sense at all. We're an encyclopedia, not a collector of fan trivia.

5. See #3.

I prefer keeping to the current guidelines -- but perhaps making them a bit stronger by including the above paragraph that I wrote, rather than the link to encyclopedic treatment. --Kunzite 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review on soap opera character

The Pauline Fowler character article is now undergoing a peer review process at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2, with an eye towards a later WP:FA nomination. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a soap opera character article is going through this process, so if successful, this article will be held up as the example that other such articles should follow. With that in mind, we would appreciate all comments and suggestions towards improving this article, at the peer review. Thanks, Elonka 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite being proposed within two weeks

I should have a sandbox set up with a reworking of this guideline within the next week or two. — Deckiller 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started the rewrite, and it's in very rough shape; it will require a lot of tweaking before I present it here for discussion/opinions. — Deckiller 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to link to it. :) Garrett^Talk 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to reveal it until it received a good copy-edit, but we can take care of that as we go. — Deckiller 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)