Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 39

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some thoughts

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It makes for a good userspace essay. It's too long to be a guideline. The text, by my count, (including the nutshell, minus the hatnotes, the table of contents, the See also section) is 3,310 words. Keep it simple. Very simple. Could it be said in 500 words? Could it be said in fewer words in multiple guidelines? Fiction is a big topic. Category:Fiction contains over 28% of the articles on Wikipedia. There are already notability guidelines for books and films. Does fiction really need to be grouped all together? How would this proposed guideline be applied to actual articles? For example, the articles Edward Cullen (Twilight), Bella Swan, Jacob Black, and List of Twilight characters.

The survey I wrote, which you said was too long Phil, was 2,382 words (2,576 if you include the instructions) — and much of that text is just a repetition of a few phrases for clarity (since the questions would be appearing on subpages). I still think we should get input from the wider community and not just the same ten or twenty names. It's no surprise by now that the same names keep nominating articles relating to fiction for deletion and the same names keep arguing to keep the article or try to improve the articles within a five-day time frame. If you don't like that survey, trim it down, edit it until it's a survey you do like, anyone, please, this is a wiki afterall.

The GNG does *not* state "that an article on a topic should have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources." "Significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" is evidence of notability. That's all. Evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Radiant! wrote WP:N because the phrase "non-notable" was commonly used in AFDs. So he figured there seemed to be a certain level of notability that topics needed to have in order for the article to avoid being deleted. Writing WP:N was a bad idea. If the phrase "lame" was commonly used in AFDs, that doesn't mean there should be a guideline saying topics should be "cool", that there seemed to be a certain threshold of "coolness" topics need to meet. After N was written, Wikipedia:Fiction was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) after this proposal to rename at WT:N. Perhaps this guideline should be renamed back to Wikipedia:Fiction. Maybe it should remain named Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

In order to write a guideline about evidence of notability for fictional topics, we can have a survey to find out what the community considers evidence of notability for fictional works, fictional characters, etc. Mickey Mouse is not notable for having "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources." Mickey Mouse receives "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" because Mickey Mouse is notable. The notability comes before the coverage. People cover Mickey Mouse because they feel Mickey Mouse is worthy of notice, worthy of their attention. In that way, "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources" is evidence of notability. But why is Mickey Mouse notable? Maybe that's the wrong question. What is Mickey Mouse notable for?

Speaking of what happens at AFD, here are all the List of*episode AFDs I could find and also all the List of*character AFDs I could find (I looked two weeks ago so it is out of date):

/List of characters AFDs
/List of episodes AFDs

Perhaps everyone could answer "What is the purpose of this guideline?" and some common ground could be found. I think this guideline is here so people can learn what other people consider evidence of notability for fictional topics. And I think a survey is an obvious way to determine what constitutes that evidence. --Pixelface (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(More of a technical note: I suggest userspacing or subpage those lists - 30k onto this talk page starts weighing it down, but please link to them back here)

This guideline only deals with elements of fiction, not works thereof, thus it doesn't attempt to group movies, books, tv shows, etc, into a unifying guideline, only the characters, episodes, and other details of them. Now, you could argue is a movie character should be treated the same way as a tv show character, and you can come up with several different variations (as your fict survey had), but that's way too CREEPy to be effective - your same complaint about this being too long would be the same if we outlined how each type of character should be treated. There are general trends, and that's captured pretty damn well by while Phil wrote. It is not perfect - it is not something you can make a checklist again and quantify - but it does provide a better talking.

Also, while Phil wrote falls pretty well in line with the recent RFC at WP:N - every individual topic should strive to show it meets the GNG. The flexibility comes in what sources are appropriate to show that, or the expectation of that. Now, your last point on Mickey, that is "What is Mickey notable for?" is probably a very good point to include somewhere. This is a differentiator between trivial references and substantial aspects. If you can explain how a fictional character or other aspect has achieved notability through sources (including both creators and reception), then that should never prevent that element from having its own article. If it can't be shown, that doesn't mean we don't cover it, just that it is covered in the larger context of the work the element appears in or with out similar elements of the work that lack that aspect. Very few fictional characters and the like have information about what they are notable for, but when that is clearly shown from sources, it should be expanded on and thus never deleted. But here, we still need to be able to use good sources to state what an element is notable for, and for the specific concern of fandom, we need to avoid any self-pub or primary sources, which is why these aspects will come from secondary sources, still emphasizing that we are following the GNG to avoid editor's personal bias. Some statement on looking for "what a character is notable for?" would be ideal to add to one of the four points. --MASEM 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I put those AFD lists on subpages. Why does this guidelne only deal with elements of fiction? It was Wikipedia:Fiction and then it was renamed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's not named Wikipedia:Fictional like Category:Fictional. Ignoring the fact that any notability guideline is arguably "instruction creep", I wouldn't call evidence of notability like WP:BIO shows "instruction creep." The survey removes the question of "notability" altogether and gets to the most basic question: X is a topic. Should X have an:

A) article

B) list entry

C) redirect

D) a mention in another article

E) none of the above

People can answer however they want. The survey doesn't say the answers are how we should "treat" each character. Where's the evidence that what Phil wrote actually captures general trends? The survey I wrote asks people to identify AFD trends. The survey I wrote asks people why should X fictional character from Z fictional work have an article but not Y fictional character from the same fictional work? You are still wrong about the RFC at N. Topics don't have to "strive" to do anything. When you say "the flexibility comes in what sources are approproate to show that", you still don't understand. "Significant coverage in realiable secondary sources" is evidence of notability. But it is not the only evidence of notability. Win a Nobel prize? Evidence of notability. Win an Academy Award for Best Actor? Evidence of notability. Be the richest man on Earth? Evidence of notability. Be the first man to climb Mount Everest? Evidence of notability. Be the first man to set foot on the Moon? Evidence of notability. Naturally that evidence would not apply to fictional characters. So we ask people what evidence does qualify as evidence of notability for fictional characters. Mickey Mouse is not notable for having "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independend of the subject." Mickey Mouse is notable for something else. You said "we still need to be able to use good sources to state what an element is notable for." Do you now see how "notability" is subjective? You can't add "Superman is notable for being the coolest superhero ever" to the Superman article. It's an unsourced opinion. But whether to keep or delete an article on Wikipedia is an opinion. The question is not "Is the Batmobile notable?" The question is "Can Wikipedia have an article about the Batmobile?" The best place to discuss that is the talk page of the article. But as long as people are trying to bypass hundreds of thousands of talk pages with a guideline, and the guideline won't go away, we can ask:

1) An article for a fictional vehicle is acceptable if _____
2) A list entry for a fictional vehicle is more appropriate than an article when _____
3) A redirect for a fictional vehicle is more appropriate than an article when _____

If this guideline could talk I would guess its current answers would be:

1) if the fictional work it appears in is important, and if the vehicle is important within the fictional work, and if some production or reception information is available.
2) the fictional work it appears in is important, the vehicle is important within the fictional work, but no production or reception information is available.
3) the vehicle appears in a list and not a article.

Now let's get the wider community's input. If there's no general agreement, we can say there's no general agreement. If many people agree that something is evidence of notability, we can say some people consider it evidence of notability. If you don't like the survey Masem, please edit it and change anything you want, as much as you want. --Pixelface (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Real world

Latest comment: 15 years ago45 comments12 people in discussion

Why does an article on fiction need real world information, beyond the identification that it is in fact a fiction? I'm not referring to present wording of other guideline s or policies, but what ought to be the guideline. Personally, I thik the term ought to be used only to explain why we can not have article on fictional character, for example, which do not make it pain they are fictional chracters and discuss them as if they were real, unlike many fan wiki, which use the convention that the fictional world is described as if it ere the real world. DGG (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When I read the statement in the section Three-pronged test for notability that says "An element of fiction may qualify for a stand-alone article if there is significant verifiable information about its development and/or reception that demonstrates how the fictional element is an important aspect of an important work of fiction", it is not clear to me what the word "significant" means in this context. My understanding is that articles on fiction need to contain non-trivial real-world information about their subject matter to be encyclopedic (otherwise they may fail WP:NOT#PLOT), but also because articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. I think we have to make this explict, rather than beat around the bush by using words like "significant", which don't provide meaningful guidance. If you have alternative interpretation for "significant" other than "non-trivial real-world", do say. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- We want information about fiction elements to be discussing the element from an out-of-universe perspective; this does not necessarily mean an impact in the real world, though most often it is the element's reception that can be found. The out-of-universe perspective can be development or creation notes, or secondary/third-party sources that explain why the element was important to the work (probably something you'd find more for classical literature than for contemporary fiction). This is all to help avoid purely in-universe topic coverage, and from the purpose of being encyclopedic, to provide some more context for the causal reader to understand the element more than just reiterating plot. This part does not need to be the primary frame of reference either (the article should be written in the out-of-universe style, however), but it should not be overwhelmed by the primary source material. --MASEM 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement for real-world content. In the real world, we have encyclopedias such as The DC Comics Encylopedia which describe characters such as Batman. Their format is encyclopedic but tends to be in-universe and with small amounts of real-world references such as issue numbers. It seems apparent that many readers and editors are quite content with this form of presentation and I am among them. Attempts to construct contrary policies and guidelines in a deductive and prescriptive way are wikilawyering and so not wanted. What is needed to establish any such new guideline is evidence that the guideline is following established practise and that it improves our own encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The real-world perspective issue predates fiction notability by years and is well-established. I do not see any value in re-debating it here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Nifboy (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The page we are discussing says, inter alia, Note that a simple listing of the production team, release date, and a blurb about whether a given critic liked or disliked a work do not constitute adequate real-world perspective; that information is expected to be substantial and informative, providing a broader context for the subject. Depending on the subject, a good article generally has more real-world information than in-universe.. I find this statement to be quite unacceptable in that it neither describes our current practise nor serves to improve our encyclopedia. This entire section should be removed as there is no requirement for any particular amount of real world content to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to argue it there, at WT:WAF, as that is the appropriate place to dispute that guideline. The guidelines located here about real-world information are more or less trickle down from there. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles need real world information (or context) because WP:N is a means to WP:NOT. Discussing them like they were real is a style problem, not a content problem. Unless inclusion guidelines demand that some real world context be possible, we don't have a means to keep out article that will be 100% plot/guide/trivia. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Real-world information is a requirement because it's close to actual practice. We delete entire *lists* of fictional material all the time:

And in general, our standards for stand-alone articles are usually *higher* than that for lists. Now, I wouldn't support some radical deletionist notion that we delete all characters. But then, actual practice shows that "include everything" is just as much of a fringe viewpoint. I think Phil Sandifer has put together a solid compromise. It might be more loose than I personally like, but reflects actual practice, and gives us standard that's better than WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IHATEIT. And it's consistent with the spirit of what other policies say: for example, WP:PLOT says plot information is only acceptable in the context of wider discussion of reception and impact. No, not that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy where we're bound by the policies of the past. But ignoring existing policy consensus and the results of numerous AFDs verges on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Randomran (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the first of your examples, nothing was said about real world content (and I'm not reading the rest per WP:TLDR). My recent example is Aslan's How, which was kept. My experience of AFD is that it's all about the sources. The extent to which they focus upon the real world is quite unimportant. Only a few editors like Gavin Collins keep harping on about the real world and my strong impression is that they are greatly outnumbered and that's why they come to these policy pages to try to make them prescriptive. Again, please read WP:NOTLAW. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate area of disagreement. I think Aslan's How is more of an outlier than anything. I'm looking at literally dozens of fictional articles that have been deleted. But I freely admit I might be wrong. Still, I'm not going to let this guideline be eroded if I have anything to do with it. It will ultimately be your choice whether to embrace it, reject it, or build a consensus around an alternative. But I hope you'll consider a compromise. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If this aspect is discussed elsewhere then we don't need it here too. This page is about notability. Loading it up with duplication of other points made elsewhere is redundant. Talk of trickledown and such is irrelevant because, per WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO, our policies and guidelines should not be made in this way. And, as a matter of style, the more you bulk the page out, the less value it has per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But notability has always been a means-based guideline. The reason we have it is because if gives us a tool to gauge whether or not an article will fail NOT/NPOV/NOR. IF we remove the requirement that independent sources are necessary for every article, something has to be in there to ensure, in practice, that the inclusion criteria still meets the same goal. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "real world" requirement derives from a poor effort to encode the need to rely on third-party sourcing. Since those third-party sources tend to focus on real-world things, encoding that need would lead to articles relying on third-party sources. I think it's unnecessary. If you could scrape up a couple of truly independent sources that evaluated, say, the Pokemon evolutionary strategy as an allegory for man's struggle for self-improvement, it would quite reasonable to devote an article to comparing and contrasting the views of those two sources, even though it wouldn't be based in the real world at all. It's the fact that independent sources have taken note of something that leads to notability, not whether they took note of a "out-of-universe" aspect or an "in-universe" aspect.

It may have also derived from the notion of in-universe notability. Editors frequently try to call a particular episode of a series notable because something happened that had a strong effect on the characters in subsequent episode. That's only true to the extent that independent sources noticed that characteristic and commented on it. The comments made by in-universe characters about the events of that episode are irrelevant when judging notability.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

- The real-world requirement predates the notability fights about fiction by years, having been first codified in early 2006. It was not a sourcing issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  - So we are agreed then. The section Three-pronged test for notability needs to be amended to state:

"An element of fiction may qualify for a stand-alone article if there is ~~significant~~ non-trivial real-world information about its development and/or reception that demonstrates how the fictional element is an important aspect of an important work of fiction".

I have removed the word verifiable from the statement, as I think the need for verfiablity is already understood - we don't need to restate WP:V in every sentence of every guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not particularly agree with you, no. I do not think the long-established "out of universe style" rule is primarily a rule about sourcing, and I think in-universe sources have a role to play in determining importance, even though out-of-universe sources are strongly preferred. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How does Gavin's statement refute that? It's just saying that we require sources that discuss the subject in a nontrivial manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Phil, I don't think in-universe sources have a role to play in determining importance at all by virtue of the fact that you can't provide evidence of "importance" or "significance" about an element of fiction from a primary source because it is bit like saying the King of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) is "important" because he all kings are important, despite the fact he is not a real king. Fictional facts are by definition a fiction, and I would argue are trivial sources from the point of view of establishing importance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more thoroughly. My entire field of study is based in a large part on the use of fictional sources as sources about themselves. They are not trivial sources. It is a mistake to treat fiction, as the literary critic Gayatri Spivak put it, as gossip about imaginary people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I realized that the above might be unclear. Fiction is not a hermetically sealed other world that has no bearing on the real world. It is true that no flesh and blood person named Frodo Baggins ever took the One Ring to Mordor. But on the other hand, when one looks at, say, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Lost Girls - two things in my own field that I've done some work with - are not merely fictional stories, but also explicit references and commentaries on other works of fiction. In another example, when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine does the episode Trials and Tribble-ations, it is an explicit reworking of The Trouble With Tribbles that references it in more than just a plot-based way. And none of these observations are original research. I'm not talking about subtle, difficult to grasp allusions. I'm talking about big, honking, transparently obvious stuff. The concept of intertextuality is an important one here that needs to underpin how we think about fiction. More broadly, works of fiction are not gossip about imaginary people, they are products of cultural production that comment on that culture. And we can use that commentary.

Now I don't think this guideline can or should be an introduction to literary studies. But I do think we need to avoid enshrining standards of research and sourcing that go against the basic standards by which works of fiction are studied and understood by the experts. My concern here is that the sort of thing you're trying to rule out - "all kings are important" - is such a flagrantly stupid argument that I cannot imagine it ever being made or gaining traction. We cannot write a guideline that will pre-emptively legislate against all possible forms of stupidity. Attempts to do so will necessarily be over-broad and legislate against perfectly reasonable, useful writing. There comes a point where the decision making mechanism needs to stop being the letter of the guideline and start being debate on AfD. There are good arguments to be marshaled for notability using fictional sources. There are also bad ones. There comes a point, then, when we need to judge the individual arguments on AfD instead of trying to pre-empt them. And that's my issue here - the proposed limitation to exclusively out of universe sources cuts off legitimate arguments along with dumb ones. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phil about fiction not being trivial from an academic perspective, as writing about fictional characters in this way is an important field of study, and the basis of reliable secondary sources that establish notability. However, trying to establish importance through citation of primary sources would be a type of synthesis from a Wikipedia perspective, so we can't follow that route. Fore example, the King of Hearts acts as if he is very important in the context of his fictional kingdom, but it takes real-world information to establish his real-world importance as a fictional character. I think we have to seperate fact from fiction when writing encyclopedic articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But Trials and Tribble-ations is not a primary source on The Trouble with Tribbles, nor is Lost Girls a primary source on Peter Pan. And there are certainly perspectives - useful ones - in which one episode of a television series is not a primary source for another episode. I think what we need to differentiate between here is the use of fiction as a sort of cultural commentary and as documentation of the lives of imaginary people. One episode of Buffy is a primary source on another inasmuch as both are documentation of the life of Buffy Summers. But inasmuch as Chosen (Buffy episode) explicitly in one scene mirrors the staging of a scene from The Harvest (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode), it is providing a commentary on the premier that is not fiction as such. And that, I think, is something we need to allow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable secondary sources, we can't create a commentary about a ficitonal life using multiple primary sources without running foul of WP:SYNTH, even if in universe perspective is harmless. Such inferences would make interesting topics of research, but using primary sources to treat fictional characters in this way is not allowed on Wikipedia. I think the type of article you are proposing is usually described as Fancruft, which is why we need to focus on real-world information. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). I don't think you guys are actually that far apart. The three prong test already states that you need to satisfy all three factors, and that real world information is one of the factors. There's also an in-universe factor that basically suggests that primary sources can *contribute* to importance. (Gavin appears to be against the idea of demonstrating importance through primary sources alone, but it's not clear that he's against the idea that they contribute to importance.) We know how Gavin would prefer to word it. Phil, what do you think is a more appropriate wording here? Let's see how far apart you guys are. Randomran (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think primary sources can be acceptable to establish importance if they provide real-world content. For instance, most of the article Kender is derived from primary sources but contains annotations made by the authors about their own books, so these primary sources do provide real-world context about the characters that in universe content does not. I just think in universe content from primary or secondary sources cannot be used to infer importance as Phil suggests. However, I am open to an alternative phrasing if Phil has a counter proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For specific characters, plot elements, episodes, etc. I think it could be used. FE, Mario is the protagonist of Super Mario Bros. because the one plays him. You do not need an outside secondary source to come and state the obvious in such a case.じんない 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's not contentious. The statement that "in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock represents the mythical hero's logical side, while James T. Kirk represents the hero's passion and essential humanity" is inferred by researchers from the primary sources. But it is essential and integral to Wikipedia that this content cannot be allowed on the wiki unless a reliable secondary source says it, not an editor, even if it's evident to anyone who has watched Star Trek. Phil, you write "But I do think we need to avoid enshrining standards of research and sourcing that go against the basic standards by which works of fiction are studied and understood by the experts," - I think WP:SYNTH pretty much puts a nail in that coffin already, this guideline won't be adding any more. "My concern here is that the sort of thing you're trying to rule out - "all kings are important" - is such a flagrantly stupid argument that I cannot imagine it ever being made or gaining traction." Yes, but who is to say one editor's interpretation is more important than another's? This is why we have WP:V and WP:NOR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about any kind of heavy original research from primary sources. I think that we can infer importance from the primary source in a very common sense way. We're more likely to have articles on characters that have appeared in every episode, rather than guest appearances or cameos. Of course, nobody is saying that we should have an article for every recurring character. But it's a factor to weigh, in combination with real-world coverage, and the overall importance of the fictional work. That's why there are three factors, and not just three separate tests. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think part of this problem results from the unfortunate conflation of "primary" (meaning for us films, screenplays, games, books...) and "non-independent" (meaning non-fictional material produced by the companies). We can use the latter to support claims which would be inferred from the work in question. In other words, if the DVD commentary has Nicholas Meyer saying "we wanted khan and the genesis device to represent the folly of science taken to extremes" then that works for supporting the claim. We don't need a critic or academic to make the same point. We cannot make the same claim and source it to the primary work (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) without engaging in original research. This may be a frustrating outcome for some (as it reduces the possible copy we may write on many fictional subjects) but it is in line with the letter and spirit of OR and NOT. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We should also be able to make the claims of similarity based on primary sources, but maybe 7without drawing conclusions. FE, a scene comparison of 7 Samurai and The Magnificent Seven which have closely related scenes and plot is not WP:SYNTH as long as the in this case the primary source is linked. In that case where the evidence strong points to direct shot-by-shot, scene-by-scene copy then it is not so large of a leap to say that one influenced the other.じんない 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an area you have to be really close with. A lot of "in pop culture" or "referenced pop culture" sections across articles try to use this but fail (see this version) of No More Heroes (video game) for a bad use of such.) I'm not saying every allusion needs source when it is very very obvious from the primary, but "very very obvious" has to be part of this. --MASEM 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually well within the range of "interpretation" that we should steer clear of. For the magnificent seven, we don't need to do that strictly from primary sources (as secondary sources have done it). But for other works we need to get away from feeling like we are historians or catalogers of these facts and implications. We should remember that building an encyclopedia may mean leaving unstated similarities like that if they haven't been stated elsewhere. However, this is a content discussion (largely), not an inclusion discussion. For the purposes of inclusion, inferring "real world context" with only a primary source available should be completely avoided. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A scene-by-scene comparison is very sketchy justification for noting similarities; I would much prefer to see reliable sources for such content (and since the Magnificent 7 is a ripoff of 7 Samurai, such sources would not be hard to come by.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We're now talking about WP:OR. An original observation of similarity -- no matter how "obvious" -- is not really allowed by WP:SYN and WP:OR overall. Although if someone else were to note a similarity, you'd surely have a fact that helps to establish notability. We're probably drifting off topic now, so let's get back to notability. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I assume that we make the change to real-world on the basis that we are agreed that neither synthesis nor an in universe perspective are suitable methods of identifying a topic as significant or important? The section Three-pronged test for notability needs to be amended to state:

"An element of fiction may qualify for a stand-alone article if there is ~~significant~~ non-trivial real-world information about its development and/or reception that demonstrates how the fictional element is an important aspect of a work of fiction".

From my experience of eliminating fancruft in the article Kender, I think this is the way forward, in the sense that we are widening the criteria, but we are not letting go of the need to maintain article quality.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a couple serious problems here. First, we're conflating primary source with fictional source in a way that is not reasonable, which is the point I made above. Lost Girls is not a primary source on Peter Pan. Even within the specific context of a single television show, it is possible for one episode to serve as a secondary source on another - not in terms of fictional events, but, for instance, the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a scene that mirrors a scene from the premiere in a way that requires no non-obvious interpretation of the sources to observe. This is not use of a primary source. And it is more straightforward than the Magnificent 7/7 Samurai issue. The cloudiness that arises in doing a scene analysis to document those similarities is that the claim that the similarities is non-accidental is mildly strained. But when we're dealing with one TV series explicitly referencing an earlier episode in a non-plot based way (i.e. not "the character shows up again," but rather "the scene is blocked in the same way, and certain lines reappear") the issue of intentionality basically goes away.

The second issue is that we're comitting in-universe and out-of-universe confusion. Counter-intuitive as it may seem at first, fictional sources can still offer out-of-universe commentary. This is exactly what happens when, for instance, Alan Moore assembles characters from various works of fiction into his own work of fiction League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. A description of Moore's depiction of, say, The Invisible Man is not an in-universe source for the article The Invisible Man. So we have to distinguish here between use of fictional sources that treats them as documentation of the lives of made-up people, and use of fictional sources that treats them as cultural artifacts. And we have to be sure that we allow the latter.

Now, on top of that, I'm not entirely convinced of the problem with using fictional sources to gauge importance in an in-universe fashion. It seems to me a problem of degree. Yes, the "kings are important" argument that Gavin suggests is silly and bad. But on the other hand, "in popular culture" sections are a poor way of establishing notabiity, and they work exactly in the allusive way I describe above. And on the other hand, I have no problem with the argument that, for instance, Scorpion (Star Trek: Voyager) is important because it introduces the major character Seven of Nine. Which is an argument that I think would gain traction on an AfD, and hence one I am reluctant to shut down. The issue to me, in terms of both fiction as cultural commentary and in terms of "important to the plot" stuff, is that there are dumb arguments to make in both cases. Cutting off all use of fictional sources eliminates both types of dumb articles, but it throws a whole lot of baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps the easiest solution is to avoid the nutshell we're trying to provide in that section, and let the test speak for itself. The problem we're having, I think, is that the nutshell is collapsing what's actually a pretty carefully constructed and subtle test into a one-sentence version, and then that one-sentence version is producing bad results. We could recast the introduction of the test in a way that does not cause these problems. I've taken a crack at it, as well as re-moderating the intro a bit, as it had fallen a bit away from how I had originally framed it as, roughly, "all three factors to some extent, at least one factor substantially." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But we need one sentence tests. This is never going to fly as a basis for decision on dozens of AfDs per day if it can't be summed up (accurately and honestly) in 1-2 sentences. I think that we need to get away from the philosophical stance and work on the functional problems. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- If someone is incapable of dealing with six paragraphs of policy on deletion, they probably shouldn't be on AfD. It's not one-sentence simple, and we shouldn't pretend that it is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  - They shouldn't be, but they will be. And we'll make decisions based on their input. Hell, how long has WP:N been about "sources" and we still have people talking about "I think so and so is notable to me" who have been here long enough to know better? How many people (evidently this changed so YMMV) think csd-a7 is an "assertion of notability"? And those are from relatively concise and straightforward policies. When our advice for a balancing test can't be summarized properly it is a failure of the advice or a failure of the summary. Not some inherent defect in the reader. Protonk (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of what Phil said makes sense. We don't want "in universe importance" to become an excuse for original research, with people noting cool similarities or comparisons. But Phil is also correct that there is a common sense "in universe importance" that helps contribute to notability. "This character appeared in every single episode" carries some weight, IMO. So does Phil's example of "this is the episode that debuted the notable character X" (let alone episodes that kill major characters). Now, neither of these would be enough to establish notability by themselves. But they are one factor -- one of three to be exact. So yeah, I basically agree with what Phil is saying. The only thing I disagree with is removing the summary sentence. I think we can fix it. And we need to fix it, for the sake of clarity. Randomran (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we still have "This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of verifiable information." That remains a pretty good summary. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- My issue is that the summary doesn't fit into the three pronged test. The nutshell makes more sense than the guideline it is describing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Phil seems to think that we get a good summary by re-stating the headings: importance of the fictional work, importance of the element within the fictional work, and the availability of real-world (ed: was previously just "verifiable") information. Is there a problem with that? My worry is that it doesn't put the factors together in the context of what they're supposed to do. The purpose of a notability guideline is to establish (1) importance, and (2) the potential for the article to meet guidelines such as [[WP:PLOT] and WP:OR (which is really what verifiable real-world information is supposed to get us). Randomran (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive time

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've changed the archive time to 5 days (actually this time). As there is a little more interest in the guideline now (and some actual project page changes), threads are growing at a rate faster than the old archive timer would keep this talk page size down. Protonk (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It was set at 21 days. I've changed it to 14 days in relation to this thread (oldid) on your talk page. I think 5 days is way too short. I've also changed the archive page size from 80K to 200K. --Pixelface (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to choose 14 over 5. Though arguably were the situation reversed, there would be no reason to choose 5 over 14 (arbitrarily). I can see and have made the argument that the volume of comments on this page makes lowering the archive timing worthwhile. Perhaps someone else will chime in on that view or on the specific choice of days. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, it's all arbitrary. 30. 21. 14. 7. 1000. You went from 21 to 5. I can see a need to lower it from 21. So I chose a relative midpoint of 14. I would like more people to comment about the number of days. I can accept 10 days, but please let me reply in some threads before it's set to 10. If it's set to 10 days, the following threads will be archived in:

About 5 hours - 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - DGG's changes
About 7.5 hours - 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Derivative works
About 23 hours - 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Breaking out a subject from a list
About 23.5 hours - 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Preserving via merge
About 1 day 5 hours - 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Just a note
About 1 day 5 hours - 04:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - notability of a character list article?
About 1 day 7 hours - 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Some thoughts
About 1 day 13.5 hours - 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Recommendations for the proposal
About 1 day 13.5 hours - 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - A hard-line approach
About 1 day 22 hours - 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - proposing a split of this proposal
About 2 days 7 hours - 06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Plotcruft and Narrative Complexity
About 2 days 14.5 hours - 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - comments about non-wikipedia wikis to move information too
About 2 days 14.5 hours - 13:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - use of primary sources for citing production staff
About 2 days 18.5 hours - 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Shortening
About 3 days 15 hours - 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC) - Another reason to keep Fictional Elements articles...
About 4 days 5.5 hours - 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - Honest introduction to the guideline
About 4 days 20.5 hours - 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - A somewhat harder line, but closer to WP:N
About 4 days 20.5 hours - 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - Brainstorm: re-framing "complexity"

Here's a better question: Does anyone have anything further to add to any of those threads? --Pixelface (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it is arbitrary. That's why I put the second sentence (meaning that if I had chosen 14 and you had come in and said 5, the distinction between the two would have been made arbitrarily) in. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Split the difference? Let's try 10 for now? Randomran (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sound-bite-ish phrases

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

not every idea in the world can be summed up in 1-2 sentences unfortunately and trying shove something into that length that can't be is not the way it should be done. That isn't to say we shouldn't try to be as concise as possible, but Wikiepida isn't going to be improved by using sound-bite-ish phrases to base arguments on.じんない 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

....you do visit afd, right? :) I mean, no offense, but it isn't exactly the floor of the US Senate. People make short and (sometimes) sound-byte is comments all the time. It isn't dumbing down to say "this should be condensed to a reasonable size without loss of generality". Protonk (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should eliminate the detailed description. But a summary sentence is useful and necessary. Phil Sandifer has offered us a summary:

"This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of real-world information. All three must be addressed to some extent"

Does anyone have any problem with this? If so, what? Personally, I think it's good, but I also feel like it could be better. Randomran (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have visited on occasion. However, just because a member likes to make short sound-byte comments does not mean our policies and guidelines need to be dumbed-down to the point they lose context if you just read the simplified version. I am not saying we shouldn't try to be concise; that's always a good thing. But we should not sacrifice meaning for shortness. If a significant part of the meaning is lost or misconstrued to accommodate an arbitrary 1-2 sentence limit, we shouldn't use it.じんない 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, if the meaning of a guideline can't be condensed appropriately and conveyed unambiguously, we probably shouldn't be using to to make ~100 decisions a week on contentious issues. And more importantly, it won't gain consensus to become a guideline if it appears long winded, vague or ambiguous. Regardless of how we feel about "dumbing things down", that will make all this work for naught. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, because you're both making intelligent arguments. But you're wasting time debating theory. There *is* a summary in the current version of the proposal. I've taken the liberty of highlighting it. The question is if it's as good as it can possibly be? Randomran (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw it and am thinking about a response. It is not a summary of the test (which would probably require more than 2 sentences but should be possible in less than 6) but rather a restatement of the three prongs. Protonk (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is missing? Feel free to suggest something on the talk page. I'm confident we can whittle it down to something bite-sized, without losing clarity. Randomran (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm thinkin'! My brain works slowly. :) Let me ponder it a bit. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, a little over-eager. (Checking Wikipedia every 5 minutes is my way of procrastinating on a rather dull paper.) :) Randomran (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think overall the statement is fine, though i think a mention that some prongs may be more important than others.じんない 08:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Protonk's statement that if the "balancing test can't be summarized properly, it is a failure of the advice or a failure of the summary". We have to break this down into a nutshell at some point, as a guideline that is "long winded, vague or ambiguous" is going to be revised until it is. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, what do you think about the remaining summary? ("This alternative test is a balance of three factors: the importance of the fictional work, the importance of the element within that work, and the availability of real-world information. All three must be addressed to some extent.") Is there something you'd like to see in a good summary that isn't in this one? Randomran (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Another try on reviews and sourcing

Latest comment: 15 years ago43 comments7 people in discussion

I've taken another crack at the former "Semi-reliable sources" section. I think there is something important underlying this - that reviews from significant sources are things we include as part of NPOV, and fall under the standards of WP:QS, not the standards of the most highly reliable sources. And that, secondly, such reviews do provide evidence of notability.

But I'm sympathetic to the concerns that the old phrasing was letting too much junk through the filter. I've tried to tighten this significantly, with explicit language criticizing sources like wikis, and an explicit high hurdle to clear - notability is established if reviews exist that it would violate NPOV to exclude.

I think this is an important line to maintain. It's clearly the case that A) TWoP, being an arm of a major cable channel, is a significant viewpoint, and B) That TWoP's fact-checking procedures do not weigh meaningfully into A. But this is a bar we don't want to lower too far, and it's important to figure out how to get the basic issue (that fiction articles depend more heavily on sources covered by WP:QS than other areas) dealt with without opening the floodgates. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we don't need to legislate too far in this guideline, but clearly and explicitly state that other guidelines should be followed. For example, reviews from less-than-reliable sources have long been allowed in articles such as video games—as long as it is only used for a review, and the statement is not being used for anything other than the reviewer's opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure - all I'm saying is that those sources do establish notability. Which is where this guideline does come in. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like:

In general fictional works tend to rely more heavily upon the use of WP:QS because of the nature of fictional works themselves rarely being the subject of more academic reviews and analysis. While in other, more academic, areas of studies the use of such sources may be held to more rigid standards, for most fictional works such information will regrettably never have a way of showing such level of academic reviews or analysis. This does not mean though that such subjects are not notable as academic or scholarly review is only one measure of notability; not everything in the world that is notable gets such treatment. Therefore in the case of defining notability the use of questionable sources are fine if they are used for reviews and analysis and are themselves notable by the community's standards and unbiased.

じんない 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still rather vague. Television Without Pity is one of the few exceptions because it is owned and operated by a "major TV station" (Bravo). But, having a review on TWoP doesn't mean that the subject is notable. Notability is defined as "significant coverage". BuddyTV is independent. TV Squad is ultimately owned by AOL, which isn't a TV station, and really has not control over the actual website (i.e. they do not exert editorial oversight). Here is a random review from TV Squad. Read it, it reads like a fanboy wrote it. The level of professional writing is almost completely absent. The quality of our sources, whether we consider them questionable or not, should have something to do with the quality of writing. I'm not talking about general typos, as a lot of web-based articles get thrown up at the last minute (including ones at MSNBC and CNN) and often have typos because people didn't have a chance to proof them. I'm referring to sentence structure, word choice and other elements that explain "quality". I've not see a lot of editors try and use Wikis as review sources, but where exactly do we draw the line in this "questionable" bracket for sources for reviews? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hopelessly vague, and largely inaccurate. Ask any english, film or history department out there if academic sourcing doesn't exist on fictional subjects. Sure, we don't cover what happens in gundam like we do what happens in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that sources are absent or that some sort of fault in RS/V prevents us from properly covering fiction. Further, we are setting up this strawman by saying that sources on fiction won't meet academic standards as though that is what RS demands. It clearly doesn't. RS allows reviews from newspapers, magazines, books, television shows, etc. Finally, I really, really don't understand the continuing reference to QS. QS says sources that aren't RS but aren't complete crap get an exemption: they get to talk about themselves and only about material that isn't contentious. Here we seem to be referencing QS to say that questionable sources should help determine notability--which I would argue is a contentious claim. And those questionable sources aren't talking about themselves. They are talking about something else. So this rewrites QS to read "questionable sources may determine the notability of fictional subjects". Which, I'm going to guess, doesn't have consensus and doesn't reflect practice. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't lecture me on the sourcing available for fictional subjects. I work with it every day. If you want to implement the standards of an English or film department on fictional subjects, I'm happy to write that guideline. But believe me, it's nowhere near consensus, for better or for worse. Giant Bomb. Penny Arcade. Gamasutra. Television Without Pity. Zap2It. I can list more, but the issue here is that all of those are best used under the standards of QS in terms of actual use, and that all of them are genuinely useful for determining what we should cover. And I think that, in practice, each of those would have trouble flying as a reliable source, but would not have trouble flying on AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm not trying to implement academic sourcing guidelines. I'm trying to say that placing "...fictional subjects don't receive coverage in academic sources...therefore we need to use non-RS" implies a dichotomy where none exists. It also implies that our policies on RS are somehow damaging our ability to cover fiction. If you want to make that point, then you can go see about changing RS. I won't support it as a plank in this guideline. And just so we are clear...WP:QS reads, in its entirety: "Just because a source is not self-published does not automatically make it reliable. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below. Any contentious claims the source has made about third parties should not be repeated in Wikipedia, unless those claims have also been discussed by a reliable source. " What part of that says we should use these sources to make inclusion decisions about content? What part of that says it is common practice or policy to do so? And if we did use those sources under the "standards of QS", how would that allow us to cite PA on anything other than PA? Protonk (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    - To be clear - do you think that the views expressed by PA in the blog section of their site are appropriate for inclusion in an article on a video game? Do you think those views establish notability? If the answer to either question is no, why? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      - To the first question: I don't know. My guess is not in every case. To the second question: absolutely not. As for the example, I reject it generally. You know and I know that PA is a big webcomic and that the authors get a lot of consistent traffic to both the blog and the comic. For me to say "No PA can't be included in articles or determine inclusion of an article" invites the argument that I am either taking such a hardline stance on this that I would reject notable opinions like theirs or that I don't quite understand how notable their opinions are. I am avoiding that part of the question. My stance is: the RS/V policy as written tells us what sources are acceptable in articles. Insofar as this guideline matches those policies, it is doing its job. Insofar as it seeks to change them (and the "semi-reliable" sources is a change), it is not doing its job. Our goal here should be on making a functional guideline for inclusion of fictional subjects. Not to change what can and can't be used as a source in an article. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        I am unable to imagine a game talked about substantively on the blog of Penny Arcade that we would not have an article on. I mean, I am just flat-out unable to imagine a single practical instance where that would fail as a yardstick. So I confess, I'm floored by the vehemence of your opposition here, and I think you are just 100% wrong in saying that this adds anything new to policy. The blog of Penny Arcade is, under our policy, a usable source for talking about the reception of a video game. It is exactly the situation that WP:SPS and WP:QS were written to deal with. Exactly. Dead on. I know, because I helped write that section, and it was my observation that writing about fiction well necessitated using sources of that sort. The section was added for fiction, and the suggestion that those sources we carefully and deliberately allowed use of for fiction might help establish notability is in no way a radical alteration of that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        Well, for starters, we couldn't use it for a game, because that would have to meet the GNG. It isn't a fictional element. Let's take (for example), the "Lancer" from Gears of War as a fictional element. Penny Arcade mentions it. Twice. Yet we have no article on it. And if what you are saying is already in the policy, then we don't need this section. It's superfluous. We don't need some clause about "semi-reliable" sources because evidently SPS and QS already allow the kind of sourcing you are talking about. If that is the case, why is it in the guideline? Protonk (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        
        I'm sorry, but I'm getting this feeling that you want the guideline to basically say, "Well, since you cannot actually provide what is considered to be the normal requirement for reliable sources to assert the notability of a topic, just so you can have a page, we'll let you use any 'ol source you find...so long as it's not a Wiki source." I don't believe that we should dumb-down our requirements for notability just so they can "have a page on Wikipedia". I find that ridiculous. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        I am honestly at a loss for what in the proposed text or what I have said here would make you think that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your own words. You said that questionable sources should determine notability. They don't tend to determine it anywhere else, so why should we dumbdown our requirements so editors can use them to determine notability? I'm not saying dismiss them altogether, because a valid opinion is a valid opinion, but when you have sites dedicated to reviewing just about everything that comes out (whether it's game related, TV related, or film related) then you don't really have the same level of objectivity when it comes to saying something is "notable". The idea of notability is that something that is "worthy of notice". How do you objectively determine that if the sources you are providing "notice" everything in that field? That is why there needs to be more to determine notability for fiction related works than "questionable sources used as reviews". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not said that such sources should be able to provide notability for fictional subjects via the GNG - i.e. the "two sources and you're good" approach. I've said they can satisfy the real-world perspective prong of the three-pronged test. There's a difference, and I think it's a crucial one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They can all help, but the point is that when all you can find are these "questionable sources", then you need to rethink whether this topic merits its own article. These "questionable sources" are weak to start, and I don't believe that 10 weak sources makes up for 1 or 2 strong ones. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But again, there's a big gap between "all you can find" and "all that is found in the course of an AfD." AfD does not take place in an ideal world, and we often have to guess about the potential of an article. Questionable sources still give us useful information about the likelihood that an article is going to work out. When coupled with the other two prongs, they even give us good information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? This is an inclusion guideline. If you are asserting that "semi-reliable" sources can be used to meet this inclusion guideline then the basic point David is making is correct. The GNG is unrelated--if some subject meets the gng then we don't have to worry about it here. In Phil's defense, I don't think he is saying something as strong as David is asserting. I think he is saying that there are some notable significant voices writing about fiction which are not used to source claims in articles ATM. I think he (phil) has some basic idea of what these voices would be and that list is pretty short. What I am saying is that this guideline is not the vehicle to make that change. Bignole, Gavin, David, and myself have all expressed strong reservations about this portion of the guideline. It doesn't seem to be needed (name me a single AfD that would have closed differently if we could include sourcing from Penny Arcade's blog). It isn't reflected in practice (name an aricles with a substantive claim about the subject sourced to Penny Arcade's blog). And it is far, far, far to open to competing interpretations. It needs to go, Phil. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the major reason that a site like TWoP or Penny Arcade isn't used to source articles is that editors in those areas are lazy, as evidenced by the vast mounds of shitty articles they produce. Not that policy doesn't allow it. If there are actually editors who would remove reception sections sourced to PA or to TWoP, please, show them to me so I can start screaming at them. But on the other hand - do you really think an article that meets the third prong via, say, TWoP and TV Squad and also meets the other two prongs is going to be deleted? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair assessment, because I can easily argue (based on some AfD results), "Do you think an episode article on a popular TV show, whose fans congregate on Wikipedia, would actually be deleted?" It wouldn't, as I've seen them swarm AfDs, regardless of how the article fails to assert any real form of notability (i.e. no sources whatsoever), and yes, Admins do close AfDs through process of vote counting more often than they probably should. I think the real question is, "Do you think someone would propose an article for AfD if they had TWoP and TV Squad as sources?" If those are the only two, then I'd say yes (and I don't mean that as in "I would" but that I think someone else would, in good faith). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You scream at whoever you like. If you think that current policy supports the use of non-rs for claims in articles, then be my guest (BTW, you could probably go on RSN and get consensus to treat TV Squad, TWoP and Kotaku as RS. I know that is what happened w/ Gamasutra). We just don't need that particular interpretation placed in the notability guideline for fiction. I'm going to remove it. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use anything other than RSs. We just need to use all the RSs we have available. The problem is with whether or not sources that write in a fannish manner are reliable. Bignole and I have argued a bit about TV Squad before. It's part of AOL/Time Warner, it has an editorial staff, and it's writers are paid. If they commented on anything besides fiction, they'd be an RS no problem. Maybe their review says "I like when Clark and Lana kissed" and "this was the second best episode of the season". To some, this is juvenile criticism and shouldn't count towards notability. To me, a RS is a RS, and we don't get to decide based on subjective interpretations of writing style and ability. (Or if we do, maybe that should be added to FICT). Sites that review on an ep by ep basis, on individual comics, and other minor fictional subjects are being folded into giant media congonglomerates and the only reason I think people want to dissalow them is they look at the result is that a lot of fiction attaining notability, therefore the source must be dissallowed for notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC

Actually, it has nothing to do with who owns them and more to do with what they do. They're in the business of reviewing everything that comes out, which automatically makes whatever they review less "note worthy" from them, because there was not discriminating process used to say "We're going to review this fictional topic". Notice how USA Today doesn't review every TV episode, neither do the LA Times or the Pittsburgh Gazette. They pick and choose certain episodes based on what they deem to be some "important" standard worth noting in their online newspaper. TwoP and TV Squad (regardless of how poor the writing is) indiscriminately review just about everything (Not 100% of all shows, because they don't have enough staff for that), there's no rationale for explaining why this topic is "note worthy" based on JUST those sources. I didn't say they were not usable to some degree, I'm merely stating that using them as the sole indicator of notability isn't very reasonable. Also, we aren't deciding they are RSs because of their writing quality, but because of their lack of editorial oversight. Read above, and you'll see that the majority of people in this discussion have noted that TWoP and all those other sites fail WP:RS. The point of discussion was using them based on WP:QS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree they're not going to fair well when compared to the LA Times. I just did a quick search of the page for "TWoP" and it seems like Phil Sandifer and Protonk think TWoP is or would be a reliable source and you do not. I probably missed a couple of other opinions on it; it's a big page. Personally, it's part of Bravo, which is plenty for me. You kind of illustrate my point when you say they "indiscriminately review just about everything". It seems to me like your using the ends to justify the means. These sites, that in most ways would be considered reliable (not counting subjective assessments of writing style), can't be allowed as notability proving sources because that would lead to lots of episodes being notable. I think this is counter to our guidelines that say "let the sources decide." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they wouldn't be considered reliable in most cases, as they generally fail the criteria for reliable sources (typically that part of "history of . What I'm saying is that these sources that indiscriminately review everything should not be the sole determinant of notability, because they provide a skewed view of "note worthy" topics because they review all of them. Everything is not notable, but when you review everything you skew the perception of be "worthy of notice". This is why the GNG requires objective evidence to show notability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: Perhaps we're trying to shoot down too many birds out of the sky right now (ok, maybe that's a horrible analogy, but dammit I'm sticking to it.) My suggestion is to work top-down. Let's figure out what the prongs should say concisely (#Perhaps a more pragmatic approach?) and then lets drill down to sources, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. We should probably start a new section and then start dissecting the guideline from the top down, section by section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

Given the way the discussion was proceeding above, I've removed the "semi-reliable" sources section. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement was rather good one because project and task force pages are more likely to have a list of what is notable for their given sections then the average joe is to know offhand what is notable.Scrap that. Must mean it's getting late when i confuse what was added from what was removed.じんない 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's cool. I was just going to remove the whole section and then realized that the "wikiproject" and RS/N part was really sensible, so I moved it. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a compromise or improved wording could have been come to, and that this was a shitty thing to do, and that your conduct through this debate has been deplorable. I'm not going to revert it, because I'd rather the guideline pass, but I am, frankly, disgusted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deplorable. Lol. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what Phil, let's do one better. What, precisely do you deplore? Where in this conversation have I said things which "disgusted you". How, exactly was the removal of that section, followed by a post on the talk page, "shitty"? Because right now I feel like I've been pretty reasonable. I've taken time to defend your positions to Bignole, David and Gavin who felt they were unacceptable. I've tried to find common ground and I've tried to avoid inserting my voice into the guideline too much, deferring wherever possible to others. And now that we've gotten into a discussion where I'm not in agreement with you and I feel you might be misinterpreting things, I am suddenly "deplorable". I feel that is the substantive change, not any underlying incivility or inappropriate behavior. And I'm not going to stand for it. I don't like being bullied around like that. I don't like being called "shitty" (I know you are referring to my actions, but what a word to choose). I don't like having my conduct called "deplorable" or "disgusting" unless I'm actually being deplorable or disgusting. And I don't like working in a situation where I have to fear that you will throw your hands up and fulminate against me should we have some disagreements. You are an adult. I'm an adult. Why don't you treat me like one? Protonk (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's refocus on the problem and discuss. We need to write a guideline with broad support. I'm sympathetic to Protonk's idea that it's really unnecessary to restate what we already know from WP:QS/WP:SPS/WP:RS. But I'm also sympathetic to Phil Sandifer's idea that a less than 100% reliable source could still be used to assert notability. For example, Mod DB is a website that's not strictly reliable, because it doesn't have standards of editorial review. It covers literally *everything*. On the other hand, they do give out annual rewards, and you can't really give out these kinds of awards without some kind of editorial standards. I'm not saying we should consider Mod DB a reliable source. But if there's a consensus that its awards are valued by gamers, then I think the website should have some value in asserting notability. Randomran (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think paths like that can be found through existing means and that including that set of means in this guideline would make it much harder to gain wide consensus. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My worry is the opposite: unless we provide alternative means, the guideline won't pass. But that said, what do you think are the existing means? If it helps your explanation, feel free to use my example of Mod DB... Randomran (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll use Gamasutra or Kotaku, because those are two examples mentioned here but which I feel can be used under current policy (and therefore don't need to be encapsulated here). Gamasutra is owned by United Business Media LLC, which presumably is some legitimate enterprise, with lawyers, editors and so forth--And also runs GDC and prints Game Developer magazine. They hire writers (and provide short CVs for them), check facts and are cited within the industry. We speak about broadening the sources available yet Gamasutra is already a reliable source under our policies. Kotaku is more on the edge--they are owned by Gawker, hire writers, but are basically a group blog (although the pool of possible writers is limited). They are not directly connected to an organ as reliable as GDC/Game Developer Magazine, but Gawker has a reputation. The reliable sources noticeboard seems to be mixed but positive on the idea of using it as a source. One post (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#Kotaku), where I was one respondent, said "no". The more recent post (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#IO9.3F) was mixed (where I noted my previous activity and so didn't make a strong statement) but hedged toward speaking of it as more reliable. Those kinds of determinations and community discussions are what needs to happen, not writing a guideline which allows their use carte blanche. I don't know how to handle Mod DB specifically. My guess would be that if we don't know (roughly) how the website determines who gets what award, we can treat the award as legitimate (as in, not bought and paid for). If we know how significant the website is in the genre, we can treat the award as "notable" (in the sense that we talk about notable awards in WP:BIO). Niether of those determinations can be made by this guideline and neither has an impact on this guideline. I think we wade hip-deep into the morass if we take it upon ourselves to determine whether or not there is a consensus that such awards are valued by gamers beforehand. There are notable sites which don't give notable awards. There are notable sites which don't come close to providing some legitimate measure of importance. There are dozens of dozens of permutations. If we don't intend to at least nail down a majority of those with this guideline and instead kick back that decision to RS/N and Wikiprojects, what are we doing adding the caveat at all? Protonk (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Current practice for video game articles and as per WP:VG/S is that questionable sources such as Kotaku (Gamasutra is accepted) should meet WP:SPS; in other words, posts made by Brian Crecente definitely meet SPS, while other authors will have to be defended. Not to get too far off topic, but to clarify; Joystiq is generally under the same constraint. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you're open to accepting semi-reliable sources: something like Kotaku that isn't strictly reliable, but does have a reputation for fact checking and is respected among video game enthusiasts. Your only concern was avoiding too much of a restatement of WP:RS, let alone a blanket override of WP:RS. Correct? Randomran (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that exceptions to RS should be handled through discussion and through current policy (like David says) and that we don't need an exception written in to this guideline. Even worse, the appearance of expanding what sources can be used for fiction through this guideline would cause too many to oppose. So yeah, that's the basic idea. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great starting point for finding some common ground on this issue. I'd like to try to re-add a brief statement to WP:FICT about establishing "exceptions to RS through discussion and through current policy". But let's hear from Phil Sandifer first, because I don't want to be too presumptuous about how he sees it. Randomran (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine with me, too. Notice that I didn't remove the section entirely. The paragraph about consulting projects and RSN for sources on the fringe remains. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the proposed language for Randomran's addition, but I am cautiously optimistic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fictional elements as part of a larger topic (FEAPOALT)

Latest comment: 15 years ago44 comments10 people in discussion

In order to bring WP:FICT in line with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we should move to strike this section on the basis that it is unworkable and inconsistent with the rest Wikipedia:

The underlying problem with FEAPOALT is that it contains several assumptions which conflict with the overarching consensus at policy level, which has resulted in WP:FICT becoming an editorial walled garden that suggest that fictional topics should be treated differently from subject areas, such as people. For instance, if there is consensus that a living person is of unproven notability, then there is no evidence that the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BIO, then why should a fictional character be given a different treatment? Even if such a fictional element were to be included, there is a secondary issue that must be addressed: a topic that fails WP:N is also likely to fail other Wikipedia content policies as well, which leaves such a topic open to becoming potential deletion candidate at some point in the future.
The section Creating fictional element lists is also out of step with policy consensus. Firstly there is a mistaken assumption in this section that fictional elements which fail WP:N provide some sort of "encyclopedic coverage". However this goes against the principle that an article is encyclopedic if it notable and its content meets Wikipedia content policies as well. Secondly there is also a mistaken assumption that of individually non-notable elements can merit bing grouped together as a list, but this goes against WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
My estimate that 95% of all articles and lists about fictional elements (characters, locations, episodes, event and articifacts) fail WP:N, and that the content of those articles fail one or more content polices as well as WP:WAF. If the coverage of fiction is to be improved, then WP:FICT needs to give useful (as opposed to misleading) guidance.

To make WP:FICT as useful guideline once again, we need to jettison these sections, as they are not workable in practise, and do not fit into the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also because they are inclusion criteria for topics of unproven notabality that are less discriminating than other subject areas, and giving such a diverse and well sourced subject area such as fiction special treatment when it is not need is an error in judgement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the well-meaning behind the section, the issue is here: "If consensus on a fictional element is that it is of unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia." I understand that people don't want to sacrifice information, and in certain cases WP:IAR might allow such non-notable info to stay in the purpose of bettering the encyclopedia, but this line basically says that even if it's non-notable, people can stick it somewhere else, such as in a list. I think a more appropriate step is to try to find a way to work without the non-notable content; often, it takes some reorganization, but it's better than forced accommodation of topics. Each and every article 'saved' from the fire in this way should have a proper defense on why the info is being retained, even when non-notable. So, in short, frag the section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists of episodes and characters are common practice of articles at AFD, and in line with the general consensus (though still waiting for an absolute neutral review) WP:N RFC that certain expections to the GNG exist for lists of this nature. And again, we come back to the question: if a list of characters or episodes that is part of an article (ignoring size issues) is ok, then what sudden magic distinction does spliting off that list to a separate article make it not ok? There's a reason notability refers to topics, and not to articles; articles are arbitary bounds to make information easier to read on screen. This is not to make articles on single characters or the like without notability ok - those are problematic and should still be trimmed and merged. --MASEM 14:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists of characters are okay in the sense that it is expected that there's a certain amount of plot necessary for readers to understand the fiction. Same thing with setting; these aid introduction and (ideally) should help keep the actual plot less confusing and jargon-filled (ex. in Halo the setting explains the events leading up to the game, the important things you have to know: "THESE ARE HALOS. HALOS BAD" et al.) Spinning off lists of characters from single games is a 99.99% bad idea, as there is no real reason the characters cannot be discussed in the work. The trickiness comes in when you're trying to track characters over multiple works, such as multiple games, novels, et al. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course - We don't have lists of characters from a non-series movie, from a single video game, or other singular works - unless, as in the case of the various Final Fantasy lists, the characters or the grouping of characters has notability on its own. These are the exceptions. Again, I am pretty confident that we can write a set of bright-line rules on when lists of episodes and characters are appropriate and when they are not. --MASEM 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think we'd need two criteria to be filled: 1) The characters must be demonstrated notable as a whole via reliable secondary sources, and 2) the list significantly benefits navigation and style of multiple articles. Not exactly the most black and white criteria, but if we have #1 we eliminate barely notable articles which will never get to a high level of quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, the problem with grouping lists of characters from different stories or episodes is that it risks giving rise to synthesis of differing (or even disparate) sources being created, whilst those that don't have any sources at all are likely to be original research.
To avoid falling into this trap, the jumping off point for the creation of an article or a list should be notability, which is a good indicator of whether or not a topic is "suitable" for inclusion in Wikipedia. A "suitable" topic in this context means that there is sufficient real-world content, context, analysis or criticism from reliable secondary sources to write an article whose content meets Wikipedia content polices. If a topic fails WP:N, then it is highly likely that it will also fail one or more content policies, such as WP:NOT.
Without trying to belittle the efforts of Phil and Masem at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, they face an uphill struggle: a topic that fails WP:N does not have a lot going for it, and faces a difficult task of proving that it is not listcruft, or that it does not fail one of the content policies. A recent disussion about a fictional foxes illustrates this point: if a list is not supported by reliable secondary sources, how can you be sure that the list contents are categorised correctly? I would argue that it is very easy to find faults with lists that are synthesised or based on original research. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. You know as well as I do that the practical consensus on AfD for the sorts of deletions that you're suggesting simply does not exist. There's little uphill struggle in what I'm trying to do. Or at least, there shouldn't be - can you point to anything in my proposal that would support keeping an article that would be deleted via an AfD discussion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal fails both to find support in the recent RFC and with existing practise on Wikipedia. I readily agree that a revised and improved guideline is needed, and I've made a proposal to this effect a few sections up. But this amounts to another in a long list of attempts to ram through a view of notability that justifies controversial deletions that lack consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I should be so bold, but I think the consensus at the RFC that the concept of notability should not be disgarded, or that any exemption should be given to a particular subject area. My view is that if we have good rather than misleading guidelines, then contraversial deletions are less likely to occur. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the consensus at the RFC is that I was right, that policy should be changed to reflect my views, and that AFD practice should and will follow my lead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What view are they? (I am not familiar with them). --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I noticed a majority support in the #AMIB is right section, and a plurality (albeit not a majority) of support in the #Do the thing AMIB said section. ¬_¬ (Psssssst. Argue about what the RFC means on its talk page, don't let it leak out all over every related page.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus was that a middle path between applying the GNG strictly to every fiction article and treating fiction articles as sub-articles needs to be forged. Certainly, given the divisiveness of the RFC, I think it has to be taken as a call for a more moderate path than either extreme in some form. So I confess, I'm disheartened to see what amounts to another hard-line deletionist proposal, particularly from someone who did not see fit to offer any comment on my more moderate proposal above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

the idea that we somehow are creating a special case for fictional elements is ridiculous. Take a look at how many non-notable animals, plants, math theorems, buildings, and roads we have articles about - to compare the stringent requirements of BIO (which only exist because of legal responsibilities against libel) to the requirements practiced by the whole of wikipedia is a flawed argument. This isn't an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, this is a wake-up call that the whole of wikipedia does NOT operate on these boxed-in rules and that every single genera handles their notability requirements differently, so we should stop pretending that Fiction articles cannot. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it still is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, because your using crappy rules and articles in other areas to provide a justification for our crappy articles and rules. Just because it doesn't work out like it's supposed to doesn't mean the stuff shouldnt exist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, of course, that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is prima facia a bad argument. Clearly we apply standards beyond WP:N in some cases. The question is what the appropriate standards for a given area are. Strict adherence to WP:N is a position that has marginal consensus at best in the practical matter of AfD - there are clearly other forces at work. Which makes sense, as WP:N was a guideline that staggered into existence as a triangulation among two diametrically opposed camps.

My end point being that notability disputes are notoriously thorny, and that they do not readily resolve themselves in principled ways. We ought remember that we have a non-trivial contingent of editors who are, in fact, firm inclusionists. Such editors do not hold a majority, little yet a consensus position, but we ought remember that, unlike NPOV and V, this is not an area where the underlying principles enjoy universal assent. To my mind, OTHERCRAPEXISTS is, in the end, a wrongly dismissed line of argument that points out the underlying fact that our inclusion decisions do not operate along strict rules.

And if nothing else, I point out that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay with no policy weight, and that writing an essay dismissing arguments you don't like and getting it widely cited does not in fact invalidate any of the arguments. I would go so far as to say that one of the worst arguments in deletion debates is any citation to WP:ATA. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that of the articles you listed, several may in fact be notable, but proper sources have not been added. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That argument, of course, is easily extended to a lot of fiction articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case supporters of keeping the article at AfD should add the sources, so even if its a crap article it meets WP:N. As to the OCE argument, I consider it generally bad because due to the open nature of the wiki, something existing doesn't prove or invalidate a policy, guideline, or position. If I argue that Sir Bad Argument doesn't exist, but there's an article on him, that doesn't prove he exists or doesnt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources are by far the best way to show notability, I won't disagree. But they're not the only path. As for OCE, OCE is not prima facia valid. But it is still important - particularly when applied on a broad scale so as to show trends in inclusion as opposed to isolated incidents. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, the examples don't matter, the point of the argument is that elements of fiction are held to the same notability standards as BIO articles, under the premise that all of wikipedia operates this way - but it doesn't. Wikipedia, in practice, adopts special notability requirements for each general topic. The deletion/merge side has consistently said the inclusionary side is wanting "special consideration," creating a "walled garden" from notability for fictional elements - it's a silly argument because the inclusionary side is only asking equal consideration.

as to my examples, there are literally hundreds of more organisms i could have cited which have no more than a passing mention in any text, and i know for certain there's nothing really notable about Rt. 173, i live near it - but if i was being pointy and AFD'd it, i'm sure someone would put in a history section and what locals are planning for the future, which is really just equivocal of me saying, "Mareep was created in XXXX year with the releas of Pokemon Gold." Same kind of content, doesn't increase notability, but it takes more words so it looks nicer as an article :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Zappernapper, I think you may be mistaken that "Wikipedia adopts special notability requirements for each general topic in practice", when in fact I think what you are actually suggesting is that different notability guidelines interpret the presumption of notability in different ways. GNG can be applied consistently across all subject areas because it is an evidence based guideline, but the subject specific guidelines make different presumptions about when or how GNG is met which are based only on opinion.
The example which you give, which suggest that non-notable organisms are treated differently is not relevant, as such topics fail WP:NOT#DIR, which is why Wikispecies was created to accomodate them. Furthermore, the Lists of Pokémon like Mareep fail WP:NOT#GUIDE or WP:NOT#PLOT, and will probably be deleted over time unless real-world content can be added to them.
The idea that notability can be presumed is a controversial area, because it goes against the principle that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged. It is also impossible to write an article in the absence of non-trivial real-world content cited from reliable secondary sources, because such an article is likely to fail the content guidelines.
FEAPOALT is just another way of saying that notability can be inherited, but all the evidence is going the other way, which is why we need to jettison this section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am baffled how presumed notability, which is in WP:N and thus a guideline, would be controversial because an ill-conceived essay talks about inheriting notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was refering to presuming that a topic is notable without providing any evidence (i.e. reliable secondary sources are absent). --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As was I. And I quote from WP:N: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." That would be the establishment of a concept of presumption of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But the only way to prove that notability can be established is pony up some sources. Saying "it's probable that there's going to be information about Foo" is a worthless addition to a discussion and doesn't prove anything; if a hundred or a thousand people say it's probable, that still shouldn't make a difference. We should be operating on what can be determined; if someone says "based on its mentions in X and Y, I think it's likely there's more sources out there and will be," that's a different puppy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bull. It is often very straightforward to anticipate the existence of sources. Demanding that sources be produced in a five day window only increases presentism and online bias. Faster and worse is not a model for improving articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not straightforward at all. For instance, 95% of all articles on elements of fiction (characters, events, locations etc.) are of unproven notability and it is getting to the point where a presumption of notability for fictional elements is worthless. There is no evidence of notability until such point as reliable secondary sources are cited. However what is more important is it is just not possible to write encyclopedic article without reliable secondary sources. Saying that a topic is notable is no good if you have nothing suitable to write about it, and that is what the section FEAPOALT fails to take into account. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet AFD continues to be able to handle the articles and generally come to sane conclusions. The declaration that "there is no evidence of notability until such point as reliable secondary sources are cited" is untrue and ludicrous, and is small-minded and dogmatic thinking at its worst. I am incapable of believing that you are actually foolish enough to think it, and that it is not a case of simply setting the bar at such a height as to achieve a desired result. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself Phil, just because the world doesn't happen to agree with you doesn't mean we are dolts. Explain how it is "untrue and ludicrous" for us to ask that articles prove their notability with sources? It's perfectly in line with WP:N's nutshell "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It's objective, which is good. Saying "it's notable 'cause I say it is" is subjective. Not good for the purposes of applying a standard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no clue if you're dolts. You could be being willfully disingenuous. I'm open to either possibility. It remains the case, however, that the proposition that there is no way to gauge whether reliable sources can be found for a topic short of actually finding them is completely and utterly stupid. You will find nobody outside of the bizarre bubble that is the Wikipedia editing community who would actually accept the proposition that there is no way to tell whether sources are likely to exist for a topic short of actually finding them. It is a completely and utterly moronic claim. I do not know if you are making it sincerely or because it serves a pragmatic goal of yours, but in either case, it is a completely worthless argument that deserves no serious consideration, which is probably why it has never gained anything resembling traction as a methodology for deciding even remotely contentious AFDs. Do you have a serious proposal in this area? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Phil, whether or not a subject is notable is not the only issue, it is what is presented the reader that is more important. Since you can't write an encyclopedic article without real-world non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources, why to we have to should we presume that we can write an encyclopedic article about non-notable fictional elements any differently? Readers want to see context, analysis and criticism in articles about about fiction, so what is the point of giving special emphasis to listcruft that is not notable? You have failed to answer this question for a long time now. In most cases, topics that fail the inclusion criteria WP:N also fail content policies like WP:NOT, and really this is what this guideline should be all about, not trying to pretend the opposite is true. I think we should build Wikipedia by standing on the shoulders of giants, rather than relying on hearsay, rumour or opinion, not just for the sake of notability itself, but becuase an encyclopedic article can't be written without reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if I look up Mercutio I want to know what Shakespeare said about Mercutio in his play, first and foremost. What a critic said about Mercutio 400 years later might be interesting, but it isn't an essential part of the article. You can certainly write an encyclopedic article about Mercutio with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as your only source, and it's certainly fair to assume that Mercutio is a notable character before you find a book or article "proving" it to a deletionist's satisfaction. In the case of fictional characters it's usually sufficient to note only the primary source. The general Wikipedia rule about requiring secondary sources is because personal research is usually problematic to verify. In fiction, this isn't a problem because the primary source is something many people can look up and confirm. Yes, Shakespeare did have Mercutio say, "Ask me tomorrow, and you will find me a grave man." We don't need to cite Harold Bloom because we can look it up in the primary source directly. What the typical Wikipedia requirement of introducing secondary sources results in is defacing the article with unnecessary and ugly "in popular culture" lists, "critical reception" sections, and other things that the average reader did not look up the article to see. It's unaesthetic, largely perfunctory, distracting, and the furthest thing from "encyclopedic." It would be far more "encyclopedic" to require articles on fictional characters to stick to primary sources only; the result would be tidier and far more "factual" than the morass of random detritus we're so often subjected to. -- Poisonink (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(Re: to poisonink). I feel that the statement about primary vs. secondary works is a common misconception about fiction and critical commentary. While lots of academic critics frankly have their collective heads up their asses (~~to be frank~~ lol Protonk (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)), plenty of short and long for critics connect works of fiction to the world of the author or to some other element. If we source the Mercutio article from just Shakespeare we have only editor interpretation of the plot and wording to go on. That, we should agree, is at most as good as critical interpretation (As far as accuracy goes) and worse from Wikipedia's standpoint (because we can't rely on anonymous editors to provide interpretation of contentious details). To pick a better example, how should the Shylock article be written? Do we discuss how portrayals of the character have changed over the years (as our mores about anti-semitism in fiction have changed) like Ron Rosenbaum does? Or do we just make interpretation from the original text? For that matter, whose authority do we appeal to in determining which texts are apocryphal? I understand your frustration with the somewhat workmanlike layout of wikipedia fiction articles (plot, development, characters, reception, IPC). That is (IMO) a result of building thousands of articles on basically the same subject. Most good or featured articles will seek to better integrate the secondary sourcing in to the article so that it flows better. Also, I oppose on face the claim you make that we should just "know" which characters are notable (a term of art on wikipedia, not meaning "of note" as it does generally). Protonk (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I agree with you. The issue is that failing WP:NOT#PLOT is not grounds for deletion - especially given that WP:NOT#PLOT does not say no plot, it says more than just plot. That is, plot is still something we're supposed to have. We're just also supposed to have more. Deletion is a poor mechanism for expansion by any standards. I agree with you wholeheartedly - we have a lot of crap coverage of fictional subjects that needs serious attention. But deletion isn't the attention it needs, and the notability issue is fundamentally entwined with deletion.
You know full well that I've been an active and strong proponent of cleanup of fictional articles. I led the fight to get rid of spoiler tags, I've been a strong advocate of out-of-universe style, I've pushed hard to work better with other Wikis to off-load accurate but inappropriate content in a non-hostile way, I've written guidelines on writing better plot summaries. When it comes to fixing bad articles on fiction, you'll find no better ally than me, and you know it. But deletion is a bad way of fixing articles. The worst way. It's the thing we do when nothing else will fix the article.
I'd like nothing more than to be able to have spent the time I've spent fighting mass deletion of fiction articles for the past, what, six months? And that's just the latest flare-up? I'd like nothing more than to have that time back so I could spend it working towards mass improvement of articles. But as long as the biggest problem facing fiction articles is the prospect of deleting tons of content on topics that could prove notability, and where significant portions of the articles we have would still exist as part of good coverage on the topic, I don't see how I can, in good conscience, devote that time towards clean-up.
And this is what gobsmacks me, frankly. Two sections up, I've got a proposal that I think would work. It puts the bar at a meaningful place, it puts the bar at a place that is close to the practical consensus we get on AfD, and it lets us move on to other things. There's a solution to this problem two sections up, but we're ignoring it in favor of a piece of fucking dinner theater that's never going to garner consensus! You know there's not consensus for the "slash episodes and characters articles unless they fully demonstrate compliance with WP:N" view. You know it, because you've looked at AfD the same way I have, and you've seen that viewpoint fail to garner traction on tons of AfDs. But instead of making comments that move us toward a viewpoint that actually would get the nod from the various and sundry parties involved, you're pushing a doomed endeavor.
If we pushed the ball hard on getting the notability standards I proposed two sections up in place as a guideline, we'd have the bulk of this issue settled and we could move on to better projects. Please - I am begging you here - get behind a practical effort that has a shot at working, help me get this issue to bed, and let's move on to other tasks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

←I'm disengaging from this. You have little right to accuse me of ulterior motives or stupidity, Phil, when you cried like a baby over the fact your shitty article got defeatured over sourcing issues. I have based all my arguments on guidelines and policies; you have not. Yet as you refuse to consider any alternative view besides your own, this discussion has no more purpose. I'm done feeding the trolls. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was all I was asking for. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I have yet to hear a reason why FEAPOALT should remain, and I will request its removal, unless anyone has any objections. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who are interested, Spoo (the article impolitely derided above) is currently at WP:GAN, after several independent sources have been added. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I object, to Gavin.collins making any changes to this article due to his current dispute over article notability in wikiproject D&D. Until that is resolved in some fashion, it is extemely difficult to assume good faith about his edits. Kairos (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I note your objections, but I don't think WP:N is in question here: I think we are all agreed that a topic can have its own article if it meets the requirements of the General notability guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes, and since your edits seem to be making actual improvements to this article, I'll let it be.Kairos (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that the section "FEAPOLT" has now been replaced with WP:FICT#Specific_tendencies, which covers the same ground and makes the mistake that by giving undue weight to elements of a story by allowing lists of plot summaries focused on specific characters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a more pragmatic approach?

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

My main issue with the guideline as stands is the meat of it, the first section, reads like an academic paper on the subject. Perhaps if we were blunt about what the guideline is trying to do, it would be easier to debate and refine. As I figure, this is basically the page that provides the exceptions to WP:GNG, correct? So then why not say: "Generally articles should meet the general notability guideline. For articles on fictional topics which may not meet the GNG, the subject must meet the following tests: the work it is part of must be important, it is important to the work, and supplemented by real-world information." (eloquence doesn't spring from my rough drafts, so take it with some salt.) It seems to me this is a look easier to make short and punchy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the first section reads like an academic paper? I'm getting better, clearly. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs, we must boil this guideline down to bare essentials or see it eaten away by goldfish editors who remember nothing of the long discussions that lead to long winded guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I happen to think that section 1: Three-pronged test for notability has come a long way, and probably just needs minor cleanup. The lead probably needs the most work, IMO. Randomran (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the test per se, just the presentation; better to be succint and let the related policy/guideline pages tell the rest of the story (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS) than get bogged down here. Use footnotes, if necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So you think the first section is still poorly written? Is this a question of length and detail, or is this something that can be fixed with a few wording changes? Randomran (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about drafting my own copy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this?

Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the GNG. For these articles, three conditions should be met:

Importance of the fictional work: fictional universes which are considered more culturally or historically significant are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources, and may go into greater depth than a short-form critical review of the work. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work, it is a good sign that the work is important enough to merit deeper coverage than a simple plot summary or character introduction.
Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. Assessing importance involves researching topic commentary in reliable sources.
real world perspective: the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sources not independent of the subject, such as developer commentary, may be used in accordance with the policy on self-published sources to provide some of the above information. Articles are expected to conform to an out-of-universe perspective, according to WP:WAF.

If a subject meets the above criteria, it may qualify for a standalone article. Note that other wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS should be adhered to in these articles, and editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a larger topic instead of a standalone article.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks clear. I think that "importance within the fictional work" could be more prominent. I think that part of the guideline means to articulate the very real feeling among editors and afd participants that we shouldn't (necessarily) delete articles which would damage our overall coverage of the subject. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I like it overall, but I agree with Protonk. I think we've kept most of the clarity while improving conciseness, but this draft loses some clarity on #2: "importance within the fictional work". There are some elements of the current section that clarify how we measure importance within a fictional work, without engaging in WP:OR or WP:ILIKEIT. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well then why don't you add in the bits you think are necessary above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Here's a try. Although it kind of depends on how the discussion below goes, and probably could be tighter:
    * Importance within the fictional work: the topic should be important to coverage of the fictional work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") Randomran (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating your changes:

Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed notable for a standalone article if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable and independent sources. Some articles on fictional subjects, however, may not meet the GNG. For these articles, three conditions should be met:

Importance of the fictional work: fictional universes which are considered more culturally or historically significant are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources, and may go into greater depth than a short-form critical review of the work. If those sources present clear claims for the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work, it is a good sign that the work is important enough to merit deeper coverage than a simple plot summary or character introduction.
Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion.
real world information: the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sources not independent of the subject, such as developer commentary, may be used in accordance with the policy on self-published sources to provide some of the above information. Articles are expected to conform to an out-of-universe perspective, according to WP:WAF.

If a subject meets the above criteria, it may qualify for a standalone article. Note that other wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS should be adhered to in these articles, and editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a larger topic instead of a standalone article.

I just added a bit to strengthen the prong, in an effort to appease Gavin's issues with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I basically approve, other than a few copy-edits. Let's see what other people say. Randomran (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
seems good to me. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else? Otherwise I'll just paste it in and we can work from there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Two notes. (1) The meaning of "the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole" is not really apparent for a first-time reader. (2) Real-world perspective (name of the point) != real-world information (third sentence). Marty goes back to the future and [insert long rambling] happens and The film tells the story of Marty, who goes back to the future where [insert long rambling] happens say the same thing with different perspectives, but neither has non-trivial real-world information nor justification for long plot rambling. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- True that. I've gone ahead and pasted it in to the guideline, fixing #2. For #1, what do you propose we phrase it as? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Maybe something simple along the lines of "The subject should be important to understand the work as a whole". This is, I think, also the point where perceived fancruftyness begins. The DeLorean time machine is important to fully understand BTTF and therefore has a reasonable claim of importance for its own article, but the Flux capacitor (currently a redirect) is only important to understand the time machine and was merged to DeLorean time machine. (That's not to say that DLtm shouldn't be merged as well, or that FC will never be able to stand on its own, but the above sentence leaves enough freedom for editorial decisions.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    - I made the changes to the page. Does that look better? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary Sources - Gameplay

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I'm wondering if, for video games, gameplay mechanics could also use primary sources in similar manner.じんない 06:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable putting it in this guideline. We shouldn't say "you can say mega-man is a platformer just from primary sources" because that is a content decision (This is also why I don't like the last few lines of the primary source part of FICT). The right question for us to ask is: can we support the second plank (importance to the game) for a standalone article on a gameplay mechanic based on primary sources (or based partly on primary sources)? Protonk (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about genre's. That can be to some extent a subjective judgment. I'm talking more about game-mechanics themselves, ie detailing how Mega-man game is played. The mention of what game-type it was, would have to have a reliable secondary source.

And no, an article based only on primary sources would fail by GNG or the 3-prong test.じんない 08:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)~~Well, pick any example you like. I just want to make sure we are on the same page.~~ We are talking about having a separate article for the game mechanic based on this guideline, not just mentioning it in the article for the game. Ok. In that case then my response is the same. That is a content question, not an article inclusion question. We shouldn't look to answer it here. Protonk (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While my position on this is "absolutely yes," I do not see how it can affect inclusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine for gameplay mechanics. For example, see En passant. But what does this have to do with fiction? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I had found a few articles that only used them as sources a bit back. As plot was listed as a valid use i thought i'd ask because it should probably be listed then that for game mechanics that it's fine for WP:V for gameplay mechanics as well as plot, but do not denote WP:N

As for the articles, they were merged as a few were stubs and the other one only had primary sources.じんない 16:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is a "can I..." question, when in actuality I've never seen a video game FA that sources the game itself for mechanics (I suppose you can argue that unsourced paragraphs would be cited by default to the game, but that's more because FA standards were lax.) People do often cite the game manual for bits of gameplay that either secondary sources don't explain well or don't touch on, but are important to understanding the game, but that's different and much better than citing the game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's two different cases here. If we are talking about the gameplay mechanics of a specific game, a combination of primary and secondary sources is completely reasonable to make. However, if we are talking about a generic gameplay mechanic (eg boss fight), this needs to be much more strongly based on secondary sources, because its highly unlikely that every game or game manual will use the exact same terms to describe a similar mechanic and thus we should turn to secondary sources to make that leap of logic as to avoid WP:OR as well as to establish that it is a notable mechanic by itself. --MASEM 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well for a particular boss fight it probably might also violate WP:Fancruft. Although mention of a more general way of playing a game might not be.

So basically for mechanics part it would be fine for WP:V, but not WP:N is what i'm getting. My point here was that as we are discussing here what would be an acceptable use for works of fiction, that should be mentioned since not all fiction, even beyond video games, is passive.じんない 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like the whole primary sources section has gotten off topic. This is a notability guideline, not a guideline on verifiability. And everything you need to know about verifiability is in WP:V. We only need to talk about sources to the extent that fiction requires special treatment -- which itself is contentious. But we can afford to drastically cut this section back, and I disagree with adding information about how we write a section on plot or gameplay. We're here to focus on notability. Randomran (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The video game project guidelines say "Gameplay sections should be sourced. This can be sourced using the user's manual for the game, in addition to reviews for the game and other reliable sources." WT:VG is the more appropriate venue to be discussing this in anyway. Nifboy (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but it does need some kind of mention, even if it's only a sentence that primary sources for gameplay mechanics cannot denote notability, only verifiability. I edited the first pargraph to explain that for someone reading so they can understand that for non-plot use, primary sources cannot be used at all for notability.じんない 04:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This can be accomplished with a pretty general statement: "citing the work itself can be used to verify certain facts, but are not enough to prove notability." Let's not go through a ton of specific examples. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. Reyk _YO! 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode rework

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I rewrote the section to make it shorter and more applicable to a wider variety than just episodes.じんない 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1 of the 3 prongs and sourcing

Latest comment: 15 years ago40 comments5 people in discussion

Prong 1: "In practice, the best method to evaluate this is through a thorough examination of the sources covering the main fictional work. These sources may be present in the main article, though their absence there is not a sign that such coverage does not exist."

Should we address other methods? How about when we cannot find these sources? First, it says "the best method", which indicates there are others. Maybe the person using this guideline as a tool would like to know what others are available. What happens when they are no other sources, but the editor (who knows the fictional element well on their own terms) knows that it is "important"? Should we address the idea of an editor (or group of editors) that "know" something is important, but cannot back it up with any verifiable facts outside of their own opinion? This may seem stupid, but I'm merely trying to exhaust all possible issue that might arise. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote that sentence originally, it said "reliable sources". Meaning that the other option would be to look for sources not independent from the creator or look to sources which don't strictly meet RS. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, all sources must be reliable, regardless. All sources don't need to be independent of the subject to help gain an understanding of a fictional element's importance, but reliable is mandatory. Even self-published sources can be reliable, depending on who is doing the publishing. I just wonder if we need to be clear that some type of sourcing, that is reliable but not necessarily independent of the subject, needs to be used to assert that a fictional work is "important". It's not the best sourcing to have the director of an episode comment on his/her personal website that the episode they directed is important in the culture because of "....", but if they have examples to support their assertion (and aren't just making some bold statement to inflate their egos), then I think it's ok to say that that type of sourcing helps us say that this fictional work might just be important. I mean, if that's all you got, and you cannot satisfy prong 2 and 3 at all, then clearly you fail this guideline. On the other hand, if you have that, and you have real world content to go along with it, you got a much better shot of satisfying this guideline (not saying a perfect shot, but at least better than just having that self-published source). This is somewhat addressed in prong 2, but I feel like prong 1 is lacking in this type of clarification. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your opinion, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Use_of_sources and see how your view of sources (which I largely share) diverges from the suggestions in this guideline. This guideline is specifically saying that the bar for RS may be lowered in some cases for fictional sources. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a quick edit to that, adjusting "strict standards" to "strictest standards". My reasoning for that is, the basic standards of WP:RS are not strict, but if you were to look at what they consider to be the "best of the best" sources, those are some pretty tough standards. Overall, the "semi-independent sources" section seems to address some of what I had a concern with above, except that it does it there and not up in Prong 1. The "Self-published sources" could be tweaked, IMO. For instance, "Though sites such as Television Without Pity, Kotaku, or Gamasutra may fail to meet our standards for a reliable source.", I think this would be better stated as "the most reliable of sources for <fill in a subject of fiction that they would generally be dismissed of covering>, but..." I would also remove the word "notably" from there, because who gets to say that their work (if they are deemed to be generally unreliable for specific types of coverage) is "notable"? I made that change here, but we'll see what others think. I also think that if we're going to talk about the "weakest" sources that can be used, we need a section on the "best" sources to use (instead of simply pointing them to WP:RS), as "the best" sources for fiction aren't the best sources for the general community. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the second change and said that you mean it is because they are notable by Wiki standards. I can understand that, but that isn't what that sentence says based on the wording that is being used. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean that what you do is notable, it means that things you have done have made you notable. There is a semantical difference between that and what the section actually says. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IF I messed things up, I'm sorry. I didn't see the first edit. The intent of the guideline was to say that notable voices are able to tell us what might be important in fiction. If you want to modify the sentence to say that I won't stop you. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather get a better understanding of exactly what is being said before I do that, since clearly I interpreted what was there in a different manner than was intended. Am I right to say that the basic idea is that it's ok to use sources that have their own Wiki page? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The original intent was that if a source has a wiki page and we are giving their opinion on it (examples being TWoP or Kotaku) and leaving it as opinion, that could be used to help show one of the three prongs for notability. I'd prefer it just be cut out and we stick to RS, but I don't know how everyone feels about that. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my problem with that is the idea of using a source just because it has a wiki page. The Futon Critic had a page up until Feb. 2008. I will still use them as a source for certain types of information (reviews primarily). We cannot base sources off the idea of them having a Wiki page, because there is no guarantee that the page will stay there. That doesn't mean that The Futon Critic wasn't/isn't notable, as it was deleted for not showing that through sources. There needs to be a better way of addressing these "less than stellar" sources as possible means to show importance or notability of a fictional work. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I share that concern. I would like to remove the "semi-reliable" section from the guideline and replace the prong 1 summary language above with "reliable, independent" sources. What does everyone feel about that? Protonk (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia article is probably a poor test of usability for this. But no - moving to reliable, independent sources is not a good idea. A major point of this is that there is a significant body of sources that fall short of the strict standards of WP:N that are useful to us here. Furthermore, the semi-reliable section is a restatement of NPOV - less than reliable sources are still significant points of view, and indicators of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  - But it is an easy lightening rod for criticism. I mean, List of wikis all have blue links. Category:Video game websites all have blue links. Why add that for such a marginal gain and if it doesn't really represent practice? How many articles right now are sourced to TWoP? How many to Star Trek Gamers? Protonk (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    - As I said, I'm open to a better standard than "is it a bluelink," which is problematic both in terms of accepting things we shouldn't and rejecting things we shouldn't. That said, when I wrote that section, it was "is itself notable," not "itself has an article," which is a different standard. We could exclude wikis, as we usually do in almost all cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Phil, either a source is reliable or it isn't. All sources must be reliable. Now, there is a difference between citing it as a reliable source when they are reporting some scooper report, or something they got from a fansite, and another when using them to provide another opinion about a fictional topic. There aren't really degrees of reliability, but I would say more categories of reliability. As is noted on the page, there are self-published reliable sources (and there are self-published unreliable sources). I just don't like this idea of saying something is "semi-reliable", because it looks like we're trying to supercede both WP:NOTE and WP:RS, both of which have been around longer than this guideline (and it's newly proposed state). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      - First of all, no. It is not the case that all sources must be reliable. Please look at WP:RS, and particularly WP:SELFPUB and WP:QS. We have specific ways in which we use less reliable sources in more specific ways. I'm open to a better name for this than semi-reliable sources - weaker sources, perhaps. But the fact of the matter is, this proposal adds nothing to our sourcing guidelines that isn't already there. All it does is open the door to these lower tiers of sources being used for establishing notability. I do not believe that this contradicts a single line of WP:RS or WP:V. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        Ok. I'll be clear. I won't support this guideline if it has the semi-reliable section in it. I don't think there is anything in practice that supports this (questionable and SPS aside) and if there were, the change should be made at RS, not here. Protonk (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        
        I think that Phil makes an interesting point, that a source used for demonstrating notability could be completely unreliable for establishing facts. Notability is a measurement of being noticed not veracity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        Yeah...but if Memory Alpha notices something, is that a sign that it belongs in wikipedia? Where does it stop? Protonk (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        I think "semi-reliable" makes it seem like there is a gauge on reliability. If there was a gauge, then that would mean that determining reliability would be objective in nature, and it isn't. It's very subjective (hence why this proposal actually says "go check your WikiProject to determine what community consensus has stated is a reliable source". Maybe "Questionable Sources" is a better title, as it implies a subjective opinion on the reliable nature of said sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        I would be fine with that change. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        
        How the heck are you getting Memory Alpha here? I've already said you're right, wikis shouldn't be included. But for Christ's sake, our policy allows a whole swath of sources that are explicitly below the standards of reliability! If the semi-reliable sources section, at any point, says anything that contradicts WP:V or WP:RS, point it out and I'll change it. Because it shouldn't. So how do we limit it, in your view, to Questionable and SPS, which my sense is you're OK with? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        I'm getting it from reading the section in the guideline as written. You may have some specific sources in mind which are totally sensible. Not everyone else who interprets the guidelines will--that problem is one that crops up multiple times in this guideline. As for "RS already has several exceptions", I'm not inclined to A: use that as an excuse for further exceptions or B: take it at face value. The SPS exception is for recognized experts in a field posting in their area of expertise in s manner that doesn't have external editorial control. We presume that the information they present (since they are experts and would face some reputational cost for being wrong) is worth including. As for WP:QS the exception they are granted is as follows: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves as described below." In other words, a questionable source can be used just like a personal website of a BLP subject--only for information on the subject itself. Those are very narrow exceptions carved out very specifically. This "semi-reliable" section is a very broad exception and needs to be discussed and agreed upon at WP:RS or WP:V (where SPS and QS redirect to), not inserted in the fictional guideline. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        And the point of the section (which hews closer to questionable sources than to SPS) is that significant review sites can be used as sources for claims about what those sites thought about a given work of fiction, and that such claims do establish notability, even if those sites have no reputation for fact checking whatsoever. Which I don't think is out of left field at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        It's not out of left field necessarily but it has plenty of problems. One, it broadens RS. If we include those sites as signs of "notability" we are obviously including them for the purposes of sourcing claims about subjects. Two, it is vague. You and I can hold conflicting but still good faith and reasonable interpretations of the guideline. Three, it is not necessary. It's the least necessary part of the guideline, honestly. I can't think of a case where a quote from TWoP would have saved an article from deletion or would have allowed an article to exist where before it would not (though I'm sure we can think of some if we try) How many "significant" but not reliable review sites are there?. Fourth, it doesn't represent common practice. While I've seen plenty of people try and source stuff to fansites and then claim that WP:V is met==> the article should be kept, I have not seen people cite opinions of a fictional subject using a review site (that wasn't already RS) I can see people citing episode guides, but that isn't the "opinion of the author", it is some fact about the fictional subject claimed by the author. Lastly (and I know this is a bit of a litany), it isn't really too accurate. Does TWoP have a notable viewpoint? Do sites have opinions? Don't the authors of the piece have opinions? Who writes TWoP's episode guides? Who writes posts in Kotaku? This is an easily jetissoned sub-section whose removal will greatly improve the guideline. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        Does a post on a television review site run by Bravo and thus by NBC constitute a significant contribution to notability? I think that's a clear yes. I do not see how this adds anything to WP:RS. WP:RS would fully support the description of the views of TWoP on any television article by simple virtue of the fact that WP:NPOV already demands it - they are unquestionably a significant viewpoint that needs to be covered. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        That's an answer to one of the six serious problems presented there. And honestly it is more of a suggestion to ask WP:RSN if TWoP should be RS than to change RS to include other sites. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I completely oppose. You're basically throwing WP:NOTE out the window for fiction related works by saying that questionable sources, ones that we would otherwise not allow in any other article, are now allowable AND are enough to show notability? No no no no...I'd oppose any guideline that tried to allow shitty sources to be the determinant of notability. Anyone can write a review, and you're basically saying that because of that their view is so "important" that it proves notability of the fictional work. I'll compromise and say that it can help, but it should never be the sole factor (that includes using the same type of sourcing to cover each section of the 3 prong test) in deciding notability. If you cannot come up with legitimate, reliable sources of information for your topic, then you don't need an article on it. There are other ways to use that "questionable sourcing" info, and that's typically in a larger article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point isn't to allow "any" review. It's to allow reviews from sources that we would already have to consider as significant viewpoints under NPOV. Which there are definitely sites that qualify for that I have little sense would be treated as reliable sources in general. Television Without Pity is owned by Bravo and thus by NBC Universal. They're clearly a significant viewpoint. Our policy already allows and frankly mandates the inclusion of their views, inasmuch as we are required to include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and inasmuch as TWoP is, under our policy, considered a reliable source on its own views. I mean, the alternative to this formulation is nuts - it necessitates that "a reputation for fact checking" become the benchmark for which reviews become significant, despite the fact that fact checking is largely incidental to the process of reviews of television.

I mean, I confess, I'm really baffled here. This seems to me completely uncontroversial within our policy. Now I'm happy to figure out what the line to draw here is. But it seems clear to me that a site like TWoP or Zap2It is a viewpoint we should be reporting in television articles, and it seems clear to me that neither site falls straightforwardly under the description of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now I'm happy to debate how to draw the line here so that it excludes random fansites and wikis. But I see nothing at all in WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV that suggests anything other than that a site like TWoP is a site we need to consider and use in writing fiction articles, and that it is a site that is genuinely useful in determining notability.

I mean, surely you're not suggesting we limit our use of secondary sources to determine notability to sources that make their fact checking procedures public knowledge. It comes down to what a source is and is not appropriate for. TWoP is a perfectly appropriate source to turn to in order to provide critical perspective and reception of an episode of a television show. Gamasutra is a perfectly appropriate source to turn to in order to provide critical perspective and reception for a video game. Penny Arcade's blog has no reputation for fact checking and is self-published, but nobody involved with video games would say anything other than that Gabe and Tycho are in and of themselves notable viewpoints. None of them should be used for claims about production, or claims about living people, or things like that. But look, if a game gets non-trivial mention in both Penny Arcade and Gamastura, I guarantee you that game is notable.

The issue here is that the standards of reliability for providing a review of a work of fiction are not the same standards of reliability for other kinds of statements. A review amounts to a statement of a given person's opinion. And we have lower standards for documenting what someone's stated opinion is - as evinced by WP:SELFPUB and WP:QS. The only question becomes whether such reviews establish notability. I find it very, very hard to credibly argue that they don't. I think this follows organically from the GNG even. I quote: "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." So what matters is that the sources are used consistently with WP:RS. I do not think that WP:RS makes any effort to exclude, or is intended to exclude reviews. In fact - and I say this as the person who agitated for the SPS and QS sections of that page and WP:V - the use of such sources is exactly what those exceptions are meant to cover - how to deal with the fact that, in pop culture areas, there is important material that does not come out through a process of strict fact checking.

I mean, I'm open to rephrasing if the section isn't saying what it's supposed to. I'll take another crack at it. But reviews from major review sites are indicators of notability even if the review sites lack a reputation for fact checking, and our policies on the matter were deliberately written to make sure that their use was not only allowed but encouraged. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You should probably not keep citing WP:QS as a sign of how similar your suggestion is to WP:V and WP:RS. As I said above, QS just says: these sources are questionable and so should only be used to report non-contentious material about themselves. for an example: the citation of Encyclopedia Dramatica on its wikipedia page. And the selfpub exception. That's correct that this is an exception to RS, but I don't see the relevance. It doesn't justify different exceptions or somehow include within its penumbra the language we are trying to insert.

Also, I'm not sure where you have determined that NPOV demands we look for "significant views" about something in non-reliable sources. From a worldwide, encyclopedic standpoint, what views are to be considered significant that aren't published in or covered by reliable sources? Have our articles on fiction been violating NPOV this whole time by excluding these views?

As for RS and reviews: RS doesn't say "no reviews", despite numerous attempts by people ignorant of what media criticism is to change that (...sigh...numerous). As I read it, it says that a review published in by an organization which is a reliable source can be considered. That's not a terribly high bar. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm citing WP:QS because it was my arguing with people for the better part of a year over exactly this point that got WP:QS added in the first place. It was added in a large part for the needs of fiction articles - to allow sources to be used more sanely. Because previously we were in a situation where, for instance, Neil Gaiman writing about things on his blog wasn't considered a usable source, because it was a blog and blogs are unreliable. So we created a lower bar that let in stuff that was clearly relevant and important, but didn't come via top quality sources. I mean, believe me, I know what WP:QS is there for. I got it added there.

Which is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here. The fact that, within popular culture, major review sites exist that you'd be nuts to use for BLP claims, but you'd be equally nuts not to use for a reception section on a video game. This is a fairly narrow band of sources, but it's an important one to make sure we codify the role of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is (among the six raised above) that this change doesn't belong in this guideline, it is easily subject to multiple conflicting interpretations, doesn't really solve an extant problem and exposes us to needless "opposes" come the RfC to get this codified. Really, most of the sites you have noted above could just be "made" RS on the RS noticeboard. Kotako was (kind of). Gamasutra is. Terra Nova is. TWoP seems open and shut, assuming that their reviews are written by staff and not user submitted. How many more of these narrow sources do we need to include and is it worth the trouble? Protonk (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we're likely to manage an exhaustive list on our own. But honestly, given the latitude that was deliberately brought into RS for this exact reason via QS, this should be a non-issue. My problem with sending it to the RSN is that in a five day AfD, that's a significant time sink. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

...Are you sure we are reading the same QS? You have spoken about the broad latitude granted there and the example that shows. I read an exemption--arguably a hard fought exemption--to allow sources that don't meet RS to speak only about themselves and only on non-contentious claims. That is a very narrow rule and one which has little to no bearing on how this sub-section of FICT intends to treat sources. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I'll be honest, I didn't read all of your last response to me because it frankly too long. First, please stop using "significant" and "important" as if they were pieces of candy with regard to sources. Some random joe who reviews for TV Shows Without Pity is not a "significant view", so please stop saying that. It's a view. The idea of "significance" is subject, so you cannot just attribute it to whomever you please. Should notability be solely based on the more professional reviews, or just secondary sources, if it's possible then you're damn right it should. If you can only get a couple of secondary sources, but you got a couple of these less than professional reviews, then it certainly will help. But what you were/are (you made a change to the guideline that I haven't had a chance to look at yet) proposing is that editors can side step WP:NOTE by using just these types of sources, that NOTE would eat for breakfast, to establish notability. This guideline cannot contradict, or sidestep the GNG. The GNG is our primary notability guideline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I didn't read this because you couldn't be bothered to sign it and were being rudely dismissive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Then don't read it; my comment wasn't to insult you, it was actually made in consideration of you, by letting you know that if I missed something you said it was because I did not have the time to read 5kb of response. But, I'll be more frank with it. If this guideline attempts to subvert GNG by saying that shitty sources (and that's what they are) can be used to prove notability all on their own, then I will oppose it. If this guideline continues to try and assert that these sources (or any source for that matter) is a "significant viewpoint" then I will oppose it. Have you ever written an actual article and used the words "significant views"? I'd doubt it, because it would be challenged as a peacock term (Hell it's even one of the examples). Thus, we shouldn't be using such terms in a guideline either, it kind of sets bad examples. Right now, I think the basic idea of the guideline is good, and I support the idea. What I do not support are some of the specifics, and the overall wording of the guideline, as I feel that it is sidestepping the GNG. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Bignore, I share your views as well, but I feel a compromise is possible if an article about a fictional topic can be written as if it were sourced from reliable secondary sources. If we can cut out the fancruft and excessive plot summary and still keep broaden the inclusion criteria for fiction, then that will be a good thing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. What if it clarifies that the sources along those lines can be used to satisfy the three prong test, not the GNG? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I could compromise along those lines, but he devil is in the detail. I think we could safely say that would establish a reasonable presumtion of notability in the absense of reliable secondary sources if an element of fiction passes the "reality" test. I am not convinced that a test for "importance" has any value, as virtually every element of fiction is important in some way. I think a test for real world coverage is enough, but that coverage must provide more than just identification of the element of fiction as being part of a larger fictional work (which is sort of like your importance test idea).--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

sources section rewrite

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I've taken the liberty of rewriting the section on sourcing, based on a few discussions.

1. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Primary_Sources_-_Gameplay: From this discussion, there was a lot of instruction creep about how to use primary sources. Remember that this is a notability guideline. So I tried to rewrite this section to say how primary sources relate to notability (e.g.: they don't). For everything else, I tried to direct people towards other policies such as WP:V and WP:OR.

2. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Section_removed: From this discussion, there was a slight dispute about how we relax the requirement for reliable sources. I re-added the section about "almost reliable sources", in hopes of finding common ground between Protonk and Phil Sandifer. The idea is that a consensus of Wikipedians can discuss what is or isn't reliable at a number of locations. This is pretty much what already happens in practice.

Otherwise, I tried to clean it up to remove statements about content. That's really a topic for WP:NOT and WP:WAF. Let's leave those to the other guidelines. Don't let me strongarm the content of the guideline. This is really just an effort to clean-up, and you should feel free to make wording changes that does a better job of describing what you think is notable or not. Randomran (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My only caution about these cuts is that, for such a complex and long-thorny issue, I'm not sure that a guideline that is declarative rather than explanatory is necessarily helpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The three prong test offers an alternative to proving notability than reliable secondary sources, and we note that primary sources cannot be used for proving notability, unless they contribute to the third prong. What more explanation are you searching for? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant my comment more generally. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a real and legitimate concern. Don't get me wrong, I've been trying to remove the more "essay"-like aspects of this guideline. But the essay stuff was still helpful. Maybe we should have a supplementary section explaining the rationale for some of this stuff, which we could eventually remove or split into a supplementary guideline. Kind of like the way that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle supplements the WP:BOLD policy. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think phil has a good point here. One of the reasons I came back to this debate was because phil did such a complete reworking of it. The parts of that that describe why we got to the point as well as why we would have these guidelines can and should be pulled from the history and put into supporting essays. Then we can check to see if what we put there really 'belongs' in that essay or that it is better returned to the guideline. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think we'll be able to get a consensus without some kind of supporting "how we got here" and "why". Otherwise people will retreat to the same old inclusionism versus deletionism. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Like WP:IAR#See also, presumably? What I'm getting is that you're suggesting something like the "Explanatory essays" section. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are also other essays linked in the body of some polcies and guidelines, and the essay tag at the top of those pages says something to the effect of "this is just an essay...but it support XYZ policy". Protonk (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See Template:supplement. We ought to incorporate some of Phil's original explanation into that kind of essay. Randomran (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. On another subject. I rewrote the lede and the nutshell. I think the lede is now just a hair too short (someone should include a summary of the "sources" and "tendencies" section in the third paragraph) and the nutshell is too long. :) No idea on how to shorten that. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IMPERFECT in the lede

Latest comment: 15 years ago55 comments8 people in discussion

I don't want to say "this shouldn't be in there", but what is in the lede of the policy page should just be a summary of the policy. Do we want to include some mention of IMPERFECT in the bulk policy? Where should it go? I personally feel it is not necessary, but I'm easy. Protonk (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either, but I'd rather sweat the meat of the article and then revise the lead than the other way around. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Once the body of the article is established, the appropriate material to include in the lead will suggest itself. That's what I've found for articles anyway, and I doubt it'll be different for this guideline. Personally I think WP:IMPERFECT won't be necessary in the lead- this guideline is about notability after all, not content or style. Reyk _YO! 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles which are imperfect are usually those which have their notability contested - with the see also linking to Good Articles and Featured Articles as examples I am concerned that people may think an article has to be Good or Featured before it can be proved to be notable. I don't feel it is necessary to reiterate the imperfect policy in this page, but I feel it is important to link to it somewhere and to explicitly say that articles don't have to be perfect in order for their subject to be notable. --Malkinann (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We explicitly say it in the GNG. the sources don't even need to be in the article. This guideline says it by saying that information about the subject determines notability. We can't stop the fact that people are more likely to delete a malformed and error filled entry than a wikified and MOS compliant entry. The notability guideline isn't meant to change that bias one way or the other. I just feel that it is out of place. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a blonde moment, but I can't see where the GNG links to the imperfect policy? What about moving it from the lead into the tail end of the prongs section, just after "editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a larger topic instead of a standalone article."? --Malkinann (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not your fault. It doesn't link to imperfect, but it does say that all is required is significant coverage in sources. There is no comment there about requiring a certain quality in the articles. We could make the argument that this guideline imposes no deadline, but it would not be necessary to link to that. but if you can think of a place in the body where some discussion of IMPERFECT can occur organically, I won't stop you. I just want to make sure the lede summarizes the article and that the guidelines and essays we link are the right ones. Protonk (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, sorry, I made an edit before I saw this discussion. I think WP:POTENTIAL gets at the underlying idea more than WP:PERFECT. It's a basic idea that should be here, if only for clarity. It's kind of common sense, but if writing guidelines has taught me anything it's that there are a lot of people without common sense. Randomran (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd still prefer we find a home for that in the meat of the guideline if it is going to stay in the lede. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm okay with adding it to the main content of the guideline too. I'm sure we can figure out a good spot for it. Randomran (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think i found a good spot for WP:POTENTIAL. See lead paragraph for 3-prong test.じんない 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted; we shouldn't be linking to essays in a guideline. It's stated that an article can meet notability by the three pronged test; nowhere does it say "if it in this revision doesn't meet criteria, frag it on site", it's common sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is common sense that is all too often ignored. Much has been gutted from our inclusion policies because of a fear that it would be abused by inclusionists with no common sense. I think we can afford an explicit hedge against senseless exclusionists as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If David Fuchs is uncomfortable linking to the essay (and I'm sympathetic to his concern about elevating certain essays to guideline/policy status), we can still state the principle clearly. I agree with Phil Sandifer: there will be some people who abuse this as a hard-ass guideline, in face of common sense that an article can be improved. We could add a statement like "Notability should not depend exclusively on the article's current state, but on whether it is possible to find sources on the subject that would make it notable." Alternatively we could link to a policy/guideline that says roughly the same thing. I'd be shocked if we didn't mention that basic idea somewhere else. Randomran (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with mentioning a line like that. They way this guideline is written it could be interpreted to mean "if the article doesn't do these three things". But I do share David's qualms about linking to essays in the body that aren't written in direct support of the guideline. We are not all eventualists. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an advantage of IMPERFECT - it's a policy. It points out that WP articles can be crappy, and it points out that the editing process can make them better. --Malkinann (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's also a good point. I had forgotten about that. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh crap, so it is! I support re-adding it, if we can find a good wording and location. Randomran (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Break: new argument to consider

Clarity is going to be really important here. If we don't explain how an "imperfect" article can "potentially" meet WP:FICT, we're going to get a lot of suspect arguments. Take this one: "Having passed 2 of 3 of the three pronged test for fiction, then what more do you want to prove notability?" It would be like saying "well they wanted to kill a person, and planned to kill them... but we can't so much as find a dead body -- so let's just call it murder, since we hit 2 out of 3". Explaining how an WP:IMPERFECT article can potentially be notable is going to help this guideline from all sides. We need to explain that potential means "potential on all three prongs", and "2 out of 3 isn't enough to demonstrate potential for the third". Randomran (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. So good, in fact, that I've gone ahead and made it explicit in the paragraph directly after the prongs. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it was supposed to be clear, so I guess that makes it doubly so :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's quite clear enough. Of course the article has to meet all three. The issue is when people start to say "well, it's probably notable, just give me a bit more time" -- which is actually a pretty common argument that results in keeping an article. WP:IMPERFECT *is* policy. We want them to keep an article because there's a realistic hope of meeting all three prongs, not because they hit two prongs want a free pass on the third. Randomran (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Ok, ok, don't hit me :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Ohhh, you're in for it now, David! Protonk (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  - (EC)Well, I think that maybe we should think about adding a footnote on the "reasonable amount of time" option. I've seen articles lament for years because someone wanted "time", and when it came time to challenge the article again the same argument (just need time) kept it from being merged back into the parent article. It's the equivalent of applying for a new credit card to pay off the bill on the old credit card. Nothing is actually accomplished except circumventing the system. I'm not saying set an exact time date, but some frame of reference would be helpful on all fronts (like how WP:NOTE gives us a footnote better explaining "significant coverage"). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't think we are going to solve that. This (and the GNG) says that if the sources exist the article should stay. It allows articles like Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) to stick around even after multiple non-trivial secondary (and freely available) accounts are found in the AfD, but not added. True to my prediction, the people that so reviled me for suggesting that deletion might be an option haven't touched the article, but the GNG says that is fine. So long as it is sourceable, everything is ok. We can't change that with this guideline. What we can say is "you can't wait for the character to show up in a movie that doesn't come out for 2 years in order to meet prong 2 and 3". Protonk (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    - I worry that such a provision would lead to gaming. The decision to keep based on IMPERFECT should be based on the likelihood of sources being found, not an "I trust you" to a user. We can provide deleted articles in userspace for people who want us to trust them. There's no need to keep an article on nothing more than a promise in the first place. If an article is kept due to actual potential, there shouldn't be an expiration date unless it's determined that, actually, there isn't potential after all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      - Well unless we have a policy stating what a "reasonable amount of time is" i don't think we can be too clear. We can say that, FE a year might be too long and a week might be to short. But what about a month? 3 months? 6 months? Reasonable amount of time might also vary depending upon the subject as well. A new movie might take time to get some reviews, a more obscure subject might take time to research WP:RS that could constitute notability. Therefore defining "a reasonable time" beyond the most extreme elements might be asking too much for this guideline.じんない 04:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        Proving that reliable sources exist and not having been able to use them is one thing. Claiming that they exist and not having any actual proof is another. In addition, I've seen people show Google searches to suggest that the sources are there, but if you've ever gone through a Google search you know that a lot of what they list is unusable crap - yet people try and use it to "buy time". Google doesn't do anything but give you a list of sources where a search term was hit on their finder. They don't provide you with information to suggest if that hit contained substance information, or if it was a passing by mention that couldn't be used in the article. New movies don't have to have reviews to show notability, which is outlined in WP:NFF. But, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest an idea of what "reasonable amount" is. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'm going to generalize here from anecdotes (and I realize that, not data, is the proper plural... :) ), but I find that 3-4 years is the appropriate time or the average time we junk things if they have major problems like that and face multiple AfDs. It changes from item to item, but that seems to be what I see. I also think that this is outside the scope of the guideline. Sourcing should be available in the sense that WP:V means it--a link or a name, date and page number. enough that a determined editor could double check for it. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- It actually isn't that hard to define in a general sense. We know that, for most films, a "reasonable amount of time" is up until the movie is released. We know what is when the reviews will come out (if you haven't already shown notability through the note worthy production). If they aren't there (i.e. the film is so obscure ... which is usually what happens with low-grade, straight to DVD movies) then it probably isn't notable. For TV episode articles, it's generally when the episode airs. Rarely are there individual reviews of episodes weeks, months after they air - it just doesn't generally happen. For a character, I would say it would depend on how old the character is and how much media it appears in (the more media the less time, because it means its had more in-universe coverage allowing it more time to find OOU coverage). You can do this all around. There are always exceptions to every rule, that's why they're called "exceptions", and the time frame for those "exception" can be established on a case-by-case basis. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is that such items might very well exist, but they would not meet normal WP:RS standards, even for WP:SPS or WP:QS. If they are posted on blogs, forums or the like. This is usually not the case for popular items, but more obscure items. Because mainstream doesn't pick it up, there may be quite a following on those medium, more than enough to dismiss it as "unnotable" and yet finding a source in such a haystack that is from a reliable source that can do more than just verify information like name, production staff, etc might be all but impossible.じんない 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually now sure what your recent argument was for. If they don't have any source that can be used to show notability, then they don't need time. Some "obscure" item that is only covered in blogs might not get coverage for 10 years, because of that very reason. Since there is no deadline on when an article has to be created, having one to simply restate some basic plot information that can be handled on a larger page is completely unnecessary. Yes, there is no rush to perfect an article, but if we don't set some standard for "reasonable time", then there is nothing to stop someone from creating 100 articles and then saying "give me some time to prove all of these are notable". It's a huge loophole that needs a cap. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not in the way you have it done either. Your essentially arguing for speedy deletion or speedy merge in all such cases which is not how Wikipedia is run and yes you do have to give some time. If an article was created 2 days ago, you're saying it's okay to delete it because "it may be 10 years before you find something."じんない 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm arguing for no such thing. My argument was, if you don't set a definition for "reasonable time" then it's either all or nothing. If you say "no reasonable time" then it's either you meet the criteria or you don't and there is no leeway. That clearly isn't what we want, so it's a "well, we'll give you 'reasonable time'". If you don't define what that time is then it is easily abusable, like it already is because we don't have a single guideline or policy that steps up and tries to give some basic understanding of what "reasonable" is. Yes, it is easy to define when you start looking at the subjects this guideline covers. Those "exceptions" are too far and few between to try and use it as a basis for why we shouldn't define it to some degree. Movies, TV shows, fictional characters, it's all easy to define based on their particular mediums. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to avoid fighting battles that are bigger than WP:FICT. The question of "okay, how much time before we conclude there's no potential, and that the article inherently sucks?" is a hard one. But it's something we already deal with for WP:N or WP:V or WP:NOT or virtually anything else. The only question we need to answer here is what kind of potential are we looking for? Is it enough to show you've met 2 out of 3, or do you need to show potential on all 3? Randomran (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

2 out of the 3 within a given reasonable time, which we should let people know that "a reasonable time" which is not a license for speedy deletion/merge or indefinite postponement. Beyond that we should direct readers to go to related Wikiprojects or policy policy/guideline talk pages to figure out what "a reasonable time" for an article is. If "a reasonable time" has passed and it still does not show meeting all 3, it should be merged if possible or deleted.じんない 06:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wording

Here's an attempt at wording: "An article with WP:IMPERFECT evidence can still be notable based on the reasonable belief that adequate evidence of notability can be found. But there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists on all three factors." (Really, time runs out when it becomes unreasonable to insist sources are out there. And that depends on a combination of wasted time and effort that turns up nothing.) Randomran (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Evidence that an article meets the three prongs comes from sources, not the current state of the article. Specifically, if a reasonable, good faith belief can exist that evidence exists showing the article meets the three prongs, it should be kept." The trouble is, now I don't know where to put IMPERFECT.Protonk (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What about "A topic which is the subject of an imperfect article can still be notable."? --Malkinann (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about:"Deletion discussions of an article should revolve around the available sources on the subject, not the sources presented in the current revision of the article, which is not a final draft. If a reasonable, good faith belief can exist that verifiable evidence shows the article meets the three prongs, it should be kept." Protonk (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That last sentence makes it sound like the 3-prongs must already exist in the article's draft. Something more like this is better: Deletion discussions of an article should revolve around the available sources on the subject, not just the sources presented in the current revision of the article which is not a final draft. If a reasonable, good faith belief can be shown that verifiable evidence likely exist, or will exist in the near future, and the article otherwise meets the three-prongs, it should be kept.じんない 07:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The evidence has to exist. It doesn't have to be in the article. The first sentence spells that out. To say "evidence can exist in the future" is counter to the premise of the guideline. The GNG (and this) and other notability guidelines depend on available sourcing, not article content. Protonk (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The risk with saying "evidence will exist in the near future" is that it leads to WP:CRYSTAL ball predictions of future notability. See WP:N#TEMP. Randomran (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not nessasarily. An article about a movie that has not been released may still meet 2 of the 3 prongs, but because it hasn't been released may not have the 3rd. Wikipedia often has articles of this nature.じんない 08:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A future film would not fall under the auspices of this guideline. It would have to meet the GNG. In that case present sources cover this future film. Fictional elements in the film should not be given articles on the assumption that the film will present sufficient grist for coverage in reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be noted somewhere that this only covers works already produced, not future works because if not, there will definably be people using this as a guideline for future works.じんない 08:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. It doesn't cover films, regardless of when they are produced. It also doesn't cover games or books. There is no mention about date of release. All this guideline covers are wholly subordinate fictional elements or serialized/episodic works (tv episodes, comic book series, etc.). Protonk (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

All of which someone can use to start creating future works articles on future characters, such as a future protagonist to a future film if not explicitly stated otherwise.じんない 08:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And if sources don't exist for that future character now, it should be deleted or merged. There is no need to explicitly state that or the converse. Protonk (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Randomran's wording. First, we cannot say that passing the three prong test "may qualify you for an article" and then say, "if you don't pass them, but you can show reasonably that you could, then you should keep the article". You're basically contradicting yourself in the guideline. Secondly, nothing is definite, so we shouldn't have definites. Also, we cannot contradict WP:NFF, which is clear that, unless the production itself if notable, then there should not be an article on a future film until it is released. I think we need to make it clear that "future" product don't really fall under the "reasonable" part of this guideline, because we cannot predict future notability. I see so many TV shows get articles and then their main characters get pages and the show is barely into its first season. It hasn't been around long enough to really garner coverage from anywhere. If the show ends at the end of the first season, there probably won't be any additional coverage (not all shows are Firefly). I think it needs to be clear that "reasonability" needs to be shown, and not predicted. As much as I hate the tactic, I would agree with a statement of something like, "A Google search can help show reasonable potential that sources exist to help the topic satisfy notability, but any editors taking part in a merge/deletion discussion must agree on a reasonable amount of time for which the article must utilize those potential sources." - This way, we can address the potential source issue and the reasonable time issue, with the latter falling on the hands of the discussing editors (allowing for a "case-by-case" basis). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This wording is fine to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added something close to my initial wording. Does anyone see anything inaccurate or unclear about it? Randomran (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked a hair. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. :) Randomran (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)