Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

An observation about tightening standards

Scrolling up through the discussion since I last checked in, there's a couple of pushes for "why don't we just use the GNG" or "this should be removed or tightened because there are people who will think anything passes it."

I wrote this guideline about the arguments that were proving persuasive to reasonable non-partisans in the inclusion debates. I did not write it to try to shut down radicals on either side of the debate. Part of this is that there's no way to do that. If what you want is a guideline that will get Pokemon fans to vote delete on Pokemon articles, the guideline is going to have to read "All Pokemon articles will be deleted, and dissent is not permitted." And even then, you'll have to block to enforce it.

I think the important question to ask, when looking at, say, the second prong is not "How will a rabid fan use this," because that's not a useful question - the rabid fans will vote keep. Period. They will ignore this guideline, so what it says doesn't matter for them. The question is whether a rabid fan who is insisting that Clefairy is crucial to the understanding of Pokemon is going to persuade someone who would otherwise have voted "delete."

And I have a hard time believing that's the case. I think this guideline does succeed at that ask - it documents well the arguments that are actually persuasive - the swing arguments. Which is all it can do. We cannot hope to stop the fanboys. They are a problematic chunk of editors who are going to ignore anything that tells them to stop.

What we can do is empower reasonable people. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This little statement makes this entire proposal seem like a Deletionist tool and really weakens a chance for many of us "swing votes" to accept it. This really just put me off. Hooper (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if you're actually looking for a reason to be put off. I think Phil is actually arguing that this guideline doesn't give deletionist a better tool, and doesn't allow fanatical editors who are biased in their opinions to be all willy-nilly with their article creation either. I think Phil was trying to say that this guideline is structured so that people who are normally on the fence will have a clearer idea of what constitutes a reason to have an article on an element of fiction - thus, hopefully, making those people on the fence actually have a clean side to take (instead of just voting with the crowd because they really are not sure because they don't know the topic that well).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I mean, I'm firmly on the inclusionist side. And I'm similarly pessimistic that this guideline will stop mass AfD nominations of articles that don't fall afoul of this policy. I don't think the extremeists on either side are going to be happy with a compromise proposal, and the most pathological of those extremists are going to ignore it. But we don't write policy for the pathological nutjobs. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that if this guideline fails, deletionists will still rely upon WP:N which hasn't been successfully changed, removed, or relaxed. Deltionists have no incentive to compromise, because our guidelines already reflect what they believe. Most non-notable fiction articles (at least within WP:VG, which is my area of focus) are being deleted, redirected, and merged generally in accordance with WP:N. Which is why there's no downside for pushing WP:FICT to become more like WP:N: either it's a guideline that echos WP:N, or it's a failed guideline that leaves WP:N in its place. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if this proposal fails, we'll remain in an anarchic state, the arbcom will take an episodes and characters case instead of deferring to the community which is making progress, and the status quo of inconsistent deletion dominated by fanboyism will remain. Which is distinct from WP:N. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's anything I'm learning from the stubborn people on either side, it's that maybe they like the anarchic state. It turns every article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, which gives them something to do. Randomran (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No lie. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that the inclusionists see this as a deletionist plot, when the weakening of notability, above, would instead allow any material at all to be proof of notability, even the creator's own assertion, so long as he publishes it. this policy guts WP:N. It would be enough, under this policy, for me to webpublish a poem, then go to a poetry forum and say 'this poem is really good and should be read', then come here, write a page about he poem and cite my own forum posting as legit. That's not notability, it's a web-wide walled garden effect. If anything, this weakening of standards opens the door to every character from every episode of every show to an article by virtue of having appeared at all. Man in blue hat and green jacket in background of scene 14, episode 14, season 8 of Law & Order: Special victims Unit would be 'notable' because someone was there. this is absurd. The Smallville article referenced by Bignole is a good example of the proper solution for so many fiction situations. One well written, nicely referenced article, about the entire cast of the show, with a few main characters getting independent articles. Why can't we strive toward that model on all shows? ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, it wouldn't be enough. Works of fiction are covered under the GNG or some accepted SNG. We don't cover works of fiction. Likewise it doesn't open the door to "every character ever". If anything, the third plank demands some comment from creators on the subject (or from sources in passing). And frankly I think we are just assuming that "fanboys" will run roughshod over planks 1 and 2. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, even if your poem inside a work, that would not be enough because all you've done is verify that your poem exists and we explicitly say verification is not enough.
  • There is only so much one can to stop those on the extremes. You can give advice and examples, but anyone determined to do something will always find a way to do it.じんない 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Though if it's unclear that this does not apply to works of fiction but fictional elements, that should be clarified... Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so, though, the same applies. We shouldn't have an article on an element of a fictional work because that work's creator pushes it. The work's creator has an interest in pushing his stuff, that's exactly why we don't accept sources that aren't independent like corporate press releases or autobiographies. Non-independent sources don't show notability, they just show marketing. It's independent and reliable sources that show notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources still show marketing - they show that it's profitable to publish on this - that the fans of this are the sorts of fans with disposable incomes and a willingness to buy more stuff. I mean, yes - it is theoretically possible that the writer of a work that well exceeds the bare minimum for notability would self-publish reams of real-world commentary on key aspects of the fictional work to game the system and cause the creation of articles on all of the characters of that fictional work. On the other hand, those articles would be well-referenced articles on significant elements of a major fictional work, with ample real-world commentary. I don't care if the system is gamed so long as we still win. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But we get into circular logic here. Notability is a means to an end of a factual, verifiable and neutral encyclopedia. And notability hasn't always meant "independent, reliable sources". More importantly, it we reject this guideline we just have to consign ourselves to more cases where articles get kept for basically meeting the standards laid out in FICT but we insist that the GNG is binding. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But the GNG is NOT binding, it's a guideline. And this seeks to be a conflicting guideline. It would be far better for all of wikipedia to make WP:N a policy, instead of a guideline. ThuranX (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that won't happen. It's a guideline and not a policy because it's at best only suggested what makes a source notable; too many exceptions to the rules exist. It would also get problems with people trying to wikilaywer WP:IGNORE to not be able to override it, which is already a problem in some cases.じんない 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we explicitly say that the GNG is not applicable at all to articles about fiction or fictional elements, I would support this. We would still need escape clauses in case something which looks absurdly minor for some reason was the subject of serious major discussion, but we should base what we include on what is important. Despite the statement at WP:N, I think the closest equivalent normal word to Notability is actually Importance. What I think would happen is not that we would have more or fewer articles, but that we would have articles with a greater degree of appropriateness and encyclopedic content. I am not interested in tightening or loosening standards, but in better content. DGG (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. I mean, if something is outright notable even though it fails prongs 1 or 2, we shouldn't delete it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll oppose without reservation a statement that the GNG should be ignored for classes of articles. This is a very measured attempt to expand our coverage beyond the GNG, and I'm happy with how it goes about doing it. Saying that fiction doesn't need to be under the GNG is too much. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Revoking the GNG is asinine. Without any community accepted form of control, we'll get a hundred thousand pieces of shit that cannot be AfD'd, because there's nothing to look to for a standard. There may be exceptions to the GNG, but as a whole, I don't think there really ought to be. As I've said before, collapse things which are just the wrong side of notable into a bigger article, like the Smallville link above, and delete the complete crap, and hew tightly to the GNG. I've yet to see a reason why we can't just push that to a policy. The only people interested in avoiding WP:N are people who are either fans or fanatics of their topic, and see it as 'if their dumb crap goes, mine will too', or who want to exploit it for POV shove, like the Fringe Science and self-marketing crowds. WP would be better off with WP:N as a policy. ThuranX (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in theory, but in practice that just continues an unpleasant war. I think the concept of carving out a limited exception to allow some kind of leeway for fiction articles is a good one. It does worry me that I can't get people to agree that at least one mention in an independent source is necessary. That puts me in the "oppose" column for this version of the guideline, which is a shame. I'm willing to compromise, but to not require any independent sourcing at all doesn't seem to be a compromise at all.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that those arguing for higher standards are the ones making most of the concessions and compromises. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And it seems to those arguing for inclusion that they're making most of the concessions. This seems to me evidence that we've hit a fairly equitable compromise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Kww, I think you're flat out wrong. the 'unpleasant war' is between people who know how to write for research papers and formal, non-fictional material, and those fans and enthusiasts of shows who want everyone to know about their favorite aspect. Only one of those viewpoints is correct. No one is arguing that all fiction must go, but we cannot maintain, at any level of quality 2500 pokemon articles, in addition to one for every yuhgiho, digimon, and so on card game/sales pitch cartoon character out there. Not every character in every book (see the macguffin example from discworld below), needs an article. Fans of that show forced a no consensus/default keep for an article about a character no one ever saw in the series! There's no real content there, and it's a damn macguffin, a deus ex situation, and they kept it? Any relaxation of high standards will result in a wider-open valve in the GIGO plumbing. This sort of thing is absurd. I LIKE fiction, the only GA I've ever taken credit for was fiction (I've contributed to others, but I don't keep track), but it needs to be well and solidly sourced. Much of the fiction content of WP cannot meet any reasonable burden of WP:N. The solution is NOT to lower the bar till it does, but to raise the quality of the project by merging and folding together articles into ones that establish a modicum of Real World notability. Don't gut the rules, enforce them more. It can be done. ThuranX (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Kww and ThuranX, I agree with you entirely, but I believe the test for "Real-world coverage" is such an important improvement in requirements of this guideline that it is worth compromising on other issues. Until recently, real-world coverage was considered to be a mere issue of style, and as a consequence, this guideline skirted around it. If we can agree on this issue alone, I feel we have made a major breakthrough, and I would ask you consider compromise on independent sourcing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, the two are inseparable. Real World Coverage must come from independent sources, otherwise it's essentially the same concept as a walled garden. A creator bombastically pumping up his work isn't a neutral source, nor is he 'real world', because hes' directly tied to the topic. ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• In abstract terms, I would agree with you. But having helped rewrite the article Kender which is not independently sourced, I had an ephiphany on the Road to Damascus (if that is the right phrase, or is it a mixed metaphor?), which I will share with you. In practical terms, if you are connected with a work of fiction (say you are the author, agent or publisher), the temptation is to provide coverage that is in universe and trivial, just in case you give your target market the impression that the work of fiction you are promoting requires above average intelligence to understand (e.g. it is high-brow, and my be considered boring by some). Press releases and flap copy therefore seldom provide any insight into works or fiction for this reason (thank heavens for WP:NOT#PLOT), because parties with an interest with a work of fiction don't want to provide any context, analysis, criticism or commentary about the work just in case they disuade consumers from buying their product. However, once an non-inedpendent source (like the author or developer) writes something significant and real-world about their creation, it almost forces them to be honest about their work. At least that is what happened with the creators of Kender - they wrote a significant real-world but honest commentary about their creation (how it was developed, for what reason they were created and the problems they encountered in doing so). In my view, once coverage is significant and real-world, I think we don't have to worry whether the source is independent or not. However, I may be naïve in my assessment, and I always think it is possible that I may be mistaken, but I think you too should consider this - can you think of an article that contains significant real-world coverage that is not encyclopedic? If so, does it matter whether the source is independent or not? I think you may be confusing the two concepts - perhaps you believe that only significant real-world coverage can come from an independent source. I no longer do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, Kender is a well-written, well sourced article (my compliments, all fiction articles should be so well composed) but one that fails to make solid arguments for notability. Few sources are independent of the company; one interview and one review of computer games. Surely there must be a few interviews with Hickman, Weis, Grubb, and others about them? My point, though, is that the majority of sources there are about making Kender look interesting, because that leads to more sales for TSR/WOTC. I know I seem draconian about this, but, and I hate to use this phrase, a bright line precludes the slippery slope which non-independent sources present to us. I admit that the Kender article is a GREAT report on them, in the style of a character study or book report; but it fails to assert a significant notability, and could easily be merged to one of the appropriate articles about D&D or Krynn or Dragonlance. I know the setting, I was a teenage Dragonlance dork. But I have to look at this as an editor and writer, and I still can't see the notability. Now to go find my old copy of Weasel's Luck. Ah, nostalgia. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Kender is an article that provides little, if any, evidence of notability, as it cites only one independent secondary source, and that citation is not substantial. However, the significant real-world coverage it contains does approximate the coverage from reliable secondary sources. This is why I can compromise on the issue of indepenedent sourcing if it means keeping Masem and Phil Sandifer on board: I think the requirement for substantial real-world coverage is an effective means of maintaining the quality of article content, and in terms of the quality of guidance this represents, I think this give this version of WP:FICT an advantage over earlier proposals.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you seem to be incapable of understanding my point. Allow me to emphasize here: THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT REAL WORLD COVERAGE IN KENDER. There is creator commentary, publication history stuff, and so on, but it's all sourced back to NON-Independent sources. It's got 'in the novel' material, and it has 'in the studio of the writer' material, but it's got no 'out in the marketplace of ideas' materials. Creator material fails as a substitute for a solidly established level of notability outside the garden. You have the creators waxing poetic about their own genius and how it can be seen that Kender was cleverly conceived, but SO what? Where in that article does anything demonstrate that Kender matter to people outside of Kender writers? We don't even have a set of critical reviews of the novels, pointing out some unique facet of the race, or even of specific members of the race. The closest we get is a line about being like hobbits, which is of course the point of the race. The article needs independent sources to bring us taht viewpoint that Kender matter. ThuranX (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't notable, but it would very easily survive AfD. Guidelines are suppposed to be descriptive, so if this one can preclude an AfD that isn't going anywhere, great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I beg to differ from ThuranX. The significant real-world coverage sourced from creator commentary is about the creation and development of a fictional character, which is what you would expect to find in an article about a fictional character (but is sadly missing from most such articles), even if it was independently sourced. I agree that there is no 'out in the marketplace of ideas' type coverage in this article, but I would not expect it anyway because that is usually a matter dealt with relation to works of fiction such as books or movies, which is the medium though which characters get such exposure.
  Although I agree that there is no independent sourcing to demonstrate the importance of the Kender as a ficitonal element, the commentary from the authors approximates what you would expect to find from an independent source on a similar topic. I think we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue: just because a source is not independent, it does not mean that coverage from that source is promotional per se. I admit the overall purpose of writing the commentary is promotional in the broadest sense, but since nobody does something for nothing, even independent commentary can be seen to a promotional in some way. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

General opinions

After a very quick skim, the only major issue I see is that the section dealing with non-notable topics is far too short and basic: it makes no mention of options such as merging and transwiki. Overall, this is a nice incarnation of the original proposal, and the format is much better than the outline-based approach we had to start with back in '07. I'll have to give it a closer read, remembering that I'm a relic who has had minimal contact with Wikipedia for more than a year. — Deckiller 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• What would you like to add to that section? I know we removed some of the merge/transwiki material in an attempt to avoid apparent bias on the subject. We didn't want to have the guideline say "merge!" or "transwiki!", we just wanted to say, "here are the limits of inclusion, editorial actions are not governed by notability". that being said, I would love to have some input on how we could illustrate the non-deletion options available. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think we purposely removed this because to keep this on task and to scope of determining notability for fiction elements. Describing what to do with non-notable elements is more process than notability accessment, so it's likely better on the WP:WAF page. Furthermore, since we've yet to have a clear conclusion on the usability of non-notable lists of fiction elements (pending the RFC on WP:N), it's best not to go into it here. --MASEM 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, merging does not necessarily imply creating Cruft Lists. Correct merging is a matter of combining material into a broader topic that could assert notability, whether it be a broad "setting" or "cast of characters" article or the main article itself. (Or simply redirecting to the main article for the sake of honoring the work of the users instead of just deleting it.) It's not really biased to mention those options, since there aren't really any other options. Aside from that, I guess the consensus has shifted regarding the focus of the guideline; I'll have to read WAF and see what's changed over there. — Deckiller 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It is not biased to mention the options, but it does weigh down the proposal (this was about 1/3rd of the previous FICT), and confuses matters. We want this to be read so users understand when they can create or justify a standalone article on a fiction topic - once you've made that determination for or against, there's plenty of other policy (but most importantly WAF) to describe the next steps to writing. It just simplified matters for discussion to get to the core of the matter and work from there. So it was a conscious choice here to avoid that discussion just for ease of getting to the core matter and getting that through. --MASEM 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It's indeed unfortunate that the Wikipedia community cannot handle a more complex guideline. But judging from our experience with the first rewrite back in 2007, you're right. — Deckiller 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• This page shouldn't mention transwiki, like you changed it to in August 2007. By the way, how's 'cratting and adminning over at the Wikia Annex workin' for ya? Any good articles sent your way lately? --Pixelface (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FICT in practise in the long run

Let's see if FICT has any merits in practise in the long run. Besides the three prongs, it says that "Editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a parent article or list instead of a standalone article, but notability guidelines do not delimit content. No part of this guideline is meant to preempt the editorial decision of content selection and presentation." So if an article passes prong 1 but (seemingly) fails prong 2 and 3, it will likely be merged into a list (or redirected if the list already summarizes the subarticle) if there is consensus or at least lack of opposition to do so. For episodes and characters, this is usually done for groups of articles.

But what happens after that merger? For example, after a long time (e.g. a year later), a group of editors comes together (in good faith or in bad faith) and nearly unanimously agrees that the merged set of articles should be unmerged, even though the restored articles would exhibit all the old wrongs (failing WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:RS, WP:OR, and the proposed FICT). None of the editors voting to unmerge shows any intention to fix these issues, and it's not entirely clear if the issues can be fixed in the first place. Based on numbers, the editorial decision thus points to an unmerge. Since the article issues remain, the articles are back to square one, and having the prongs accomplished nothing. So, do the prongs apply to merged articles as well? Does the number of editors make an editorial decision, or only if they make arguments that are in line with FICT? (This question came up in relation to Talk:Stargate_SG-1#Straw_poll:_Unmerge_the_stargate_episodes.) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This does not apply to lists (due to not wanting to take that on at this time), nor to main articles as those are assumed to already be GNG or SNG compliant. If not, then any spinoff articles should also fail. Therefore if an article was merged/deleted and later was recreated in (almost) the same fashion, the article would be remerged/deleted given precedence. Even if the element in the work became more central to the work as whole in that year (thus meeting prong 2 now as well), it would still fail prong 3.じんない 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And what happens when the legitimacy of precedence is disputed at well (in good faith or bad faith)? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then they have to show how the article meets the third prong (and possibly the 2nd), or alternatively how it can meet the GNG or another appropriate SNG.じんない 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps if we add some sort of warning, then the concerns of sgeureka might be addressed. For example, how about this paragraph, which mimics WP:BK:

It is general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of significant real-world coverage contained in an article. What this means for elements of fiction is that, while a book or television episode may be the subject of significant real-world coverage, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in a work of fiction, such that the coverage contains only trivial detail or information about the plot. Where there is insufficient significant real-world coverage for standalone article, it is advisable to merge the article into the overarching topic (such as the fictional work itself) or a related topic (such as the author), rather than creating a content fork that duplicates coverage of the fictional element in another article".

Is this the sort of guidance that would address this issue? --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria could be made to state that or something similar. Maybe it needs to be moved to a more prominent position?じんない 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on draft

Comments were requested, here are a few - based on this version of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):

• The "Three-pronged test for notability" is confusing, because the first applies only to the work as a whole, the second only to "in-universe" elements and the third to either the whole work or "in-universe" elements. Hence the whole work cannot satisfy the second criterion. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The three-pronged test for notability is used only for the in-universe elements. — Deckiller 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the same section, "the artistic or cultural importance of the fictional work" needs re-writing to avoid "high-brow" interpretations of "cultural". for example a "high-brow" would not consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer culturally important, but would be out-of-step with most of the world. So the phrase "artistic or cultural importance" just invites edit wars. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's unavoidable. I would argue that Buffy has a great deal of depth, as do many 'low brow' works. But I can just as convincingly argue that the GI Joe cartoons from the late 80s don't have the same level of depth. I can also point to depth by noting amount of scolarly coverage of the work (of which Buffy has a lot and 80s kids cartoons have less), nature of non-scholarly reviews, and creator commentary. some works are shallow, some are shakespeare. Shakespeare isn't more culturally important because it is highbrow, it is more culturally important because it rewards close reading and links the text to thematic elements. Works that don't do this honestly leave us with less to say about them (that doesn't fail NOTDIR and NOTPLOT). I prefer it remains in. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the 2nd criterion of the same section, "The subject should be a fictional element that is central to understanding the work" looks very debatable. for example a running gag may be a well-known and -loved feature of a series, and may have entered the language, but is not "central to understanding the work". To take another example (possibly a sub-type of running gag) Blizzard Entertainment's Warcraft and Starcraft games are well-known for the humorous responses that units make when clicked, especially if one clicks the same unit several times without giving it orders - but you can understand the games well enough without them. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• See all the discussions above about this. No policy/guideline can stop someone who is determined to be a fanatical inclusionist or deletionist.じんない 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like the the treatment of "Reliability" - "a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls. Wikipedians can determine whether a source meets our guideline on reliable sources through consensus." "These strict content controls" are often a fiction, for example video game reviews in big-name mags are notoriously written under very tight deadlines and there is evidence that they are subject to commercial pressure from advertisers. OTOH the best fansites and blogs know much more about their favourite than all the reviewers put together. I hope you can make ""a source may still be considered reliable ..." stick, although I am not optimistic. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• I like most of section "Independence" especially its emphasis on "avoids corporate promotion and adheres to a neutral point of view" and its acceptance that "self-published sources such as author or developer commentary" may be valuable(see my previous comment).
• However in the sentence "Some care, however, must be taken to ensure that the distribution of fictional articles avoids corporate promotion and adheres to a neutral point of view" the phrase "the distribution of fictional articles" mystifies me. --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that last part is refering to the fact anyone can come and make an article on wikipedia, even companies, and they could they try to wikilawyer that because the work is fictional and the information is from their commentary DVDs or whatnot, that means it's perfectly fine to have 50 articles about every minor element that is talked about.じんない 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm

Doesn't WP:PRESERVE trump this, since it's policy, while this is a guideline? Jtrainor (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't override that. This is meant to describe when fiction elements get articles. If they don't merit it, they can be covered elsewhere in the context of the work itself. --MASEM 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, all it means is that if the information article is deleted, it should be preserved unless it meets one of those exceptions. This can be done a number of ways.じんない 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If an article is deleted, its content is obviously not preserved. WP:PRESERVE is a policy which is routinely violated by failure to observe WP:BEFORE. Such action is blatant disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is also deficient. Suppose you ran across Phone directory for New York City, a list of phonebook entries for the city. This is a pretty clear-cut case of something that is not suitable for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #2. However, WP:PRESERVE tells me I should attempt to preserve this information instead of removing it. None of the "what to do instead of removal" part has a suitable remedy, and a phone directory doesn't appear to be covered in any of the exceptions. Pagrashtak 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It would fall under "irrelevancy" in the manner that Wikipedia is not a directory listing. That list merely helps clarify it.じんない 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Then WP:PRESERVE is basically meaningless. By definition, any article that is deleted has been deemed not suitable for Wikipedia, and could thus be called "irrelevant". Therefore, deleting an article does not violate PRESERVE by definition. PRESERVE boils down to "don't remove anything unless it needs to be removed", which should be painfully obvious. Pagrashtak 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One line should be removed

Near the end is the statement: "An article that features significant real-world coverage will rarely be deleted." I've seen enough AFDs to prove that statement wrong, specially with regards to fiction. Suggest rewording or simply not going there. It's a global statement that can come back and bite someone later. 23skidoo (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I know we're talking about deleted material here... but can you recall any examples? In my experience, real-world information goes a long way. Randomran (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would reword it as "An article that features significant real-world coverage will not be deleted." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That invalidates the first two prongs. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No article with significant real world coverage should be deleted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you to the extent that an article with real coverage in reliable third-party sources should never be deleted. But since this guideline is going to start accepting non-independent corporate promotions like developer blogs and DVD commentary for "real world coverage", we do need to have the other two prongs as a control -- just to avoid bias towards a corporation who has generous publicity on their fictional works. Randomran (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen articles with real world info deleted. They're ususally kept. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine and Randomran. I would be interested to see if 23skidoo can back up his assertion with some examples, otherwise I think he may be mistaken. My experience is that articles that are all plot summary get deleted or are written from an in universe perspective get deleted as these are the badges of fancruft. Significant real-world coverage is the badge of an encyclopedic article, and that is what Wikipedia is about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen articles about fan fiction that some eighth grader made up get deleted. It is common for them to have real-world information, such as the creator, the source of inspiration, plans for future works, etc. To suggest that they should not be deleted on these grounds is absurd. Pagrashtak 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"When articles successfully feature both notability and real-world coverage, they become very difficult to delete, because they have passed the major tests of inclusion." Why skimp on the facts, or on the outcomes? ThuranX (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

About the only time I could say it might be deleted or merged is if it has one review or the like. However, we've addressed that already as generally not being enough.じんない 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose a novel solution

I think the clear solution to the problems above, is instead of just having Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (AfD's) is having Wikipedia:Articles for Userfication (AfU's) also, if articles fail WP:Original Research, WP:Notability and/or WP:Verification, then the article is sent to Wikipedia:Articles for Userfication (AfU's). If the community decides that the article is not notable enough, it is moved to a userpage.

Only if the article has WP:BLP, copyright issues, or any other legal issues which may jeopardize the whole project, is the article put up for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (AfD's).

The userpage solution is what solved the template wars of 2005 and 2006 Wikipedia:Historic_debates#Meta_templates. I think if articles were userfied instead of deleted, there would be much more support for the notability guidelines, and contributions might just begin to rise again. travb (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Silly suggestion. Not every editor wants to keep a copy of a deleted page in their userpage, so it's unfeasible from a practical perspective. Next, any user that wants a userfied copy to work on already gets it with no questions asked so there are no problems there either. To top it all off, this is not the place for this type of discussion. Take your proposal to WP:VPP for the proper venue. 32.142.203.89 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Sephiroth BCR posting from his iPhone

There is a problem with the deletion process, which fiction elements suffer the worst under, but it is not limited to that, and that is the fact that 1) it is restricted for the intent for deletion despite the fact that a valid outcome is "merge with redirect" and 2) there is absolutely no requirement that an article have any warning before the AFD 5 day period starts to know it needs improvement. There are a lot of ways it could be improved that would help give editors more time and more notification before the 5 days countdown to help improve articles before they are deleted or merged. But the other thing is that we shouldn't be looking, as some do, as the deletion of the topic completely off WP - since AFDs can result in merges, coverage is still retained of these topics.

However, little of this has to do with this FICT - this FICT is not describing a process, but instead a rationale when full articles on elements of fiction are warranted. Note that this FICT does not say what topics should be included in any capacity (article on their own or part of a larger article), so we're not trying recommending any disclusion of any topic. --MASEM 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I know this proposal is off topic, but I think it's an important one. Deletion reform will make a lot of people happy and will solve the problem indirectly. I think AFD should become "Articles for Discussion" and we should put a lot more emphasis on other outcomes than deletion, such as merging, redirecting, and userfying. A lot of AFDs have already evolved that way. A large number of AFDs from all editors close as merges, as people try to find a compromise between inclusion and outright deletion. Randomran (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That seems like a good idea. Watchlist here we come. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Randomran's proposal, and MASEM's remarks about AfD(eletion). The current AfD(eletion) process generally ignores WP:DELETE's statement "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". The press comment cited above makes the reasonable point that newbies are the main victims and we are probably losing people this way. In addition I've seen AfD(eletion) used as harassment in the course of vendettas.

I will concede that a lot of the articles that pass through AfD(eletion) are rubbish and should be deleted, but I only know of one case where the option of improvement was taken seriously. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Another idea is to allow linking to wikias in the external link sections for information we deem to irrelevant to be in Wikipedia itself.じんない 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh lord, please no (this applies to all of the above suggestions). AfD already allows for outcomes other than deletion if that's how the discussion goes; further bureaucracy doesn't have any practical advantage to the encyclopedia, and the only strong supporters of any such proposals have historically been editors opposed to deletion in its entirety. And external links to useful sources are already permitted; links to wikias of absolutely no established credibility are disallowed for very good reason right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD do allow for other outputs, but the input is expected to be a want for deletion. Making the D into Discussion as to have the input to include merges, massive cleanup needs, and the like, would allow more visibility on these processes that are generally limited to editors that have a vested interested in the article and who are the least likely wanting to improve the article. --MASEM 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the conotation of AfD is the article needs to be deleted, not merged or redirected.じんない 00:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And it would be much less bitey to newbies. Deletion sounds permanent, but if the AfD page discussed options like userfication, they might not get so sad. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

... and it would be more consistent with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. There's a million reasons to do it. Randomran (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed before.[1][2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I read this one. It looks like the only major objection is that "discussion" would increase the volume of AFDs. I don't think it would in practice. And if it did, I think the consensus would be intelligent enough to deal with it. Randomran (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd have my support if you want to start a discussion there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And mine. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, my original proposal has actually not been proposed before, a cosmetic name change, "Articles for discussion" is not the same as creating a new way of handling articles, "Articles for userfication". Changing the name is not going to change the problem, editors are going to continue to delete articles which simply should be cleaned up. Again I propose:

1. If articles fail WP:Original Research, WP:Notability and/or WP:Verification, then the article is sent to Wikipedia:Articles for Userfication (AfU's). If the community decides that the article is not notable enough, it is moved to a userpage.
2. if the article has WP:BLP, copyright issues, or any other legal issues which may jeopardize the whole project, is the article put up for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion (AfD's).

I am going to post this suggestion on WP:Deletion policy, with Village pump links. travb (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for Userfication/Wikipedia:Articles for Discussion;

nah, might as well make a suggestion of delete a violation of CIVIL; a thoughtcrime. There is nothing wrong with deleting things, it happens every day and for good reasons. Sure, the project will continue to net-grow, but we should be focused on quality not quantity; the arc of growth (2.7 million articles) is surely at a stage where building up as opposed to out is often the best option. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Wikia

• Wikipedia:Articles for Wikia

While we're throwing redink about, there is a logical derivation of WP:TRANSWIKI above. The idea would be that extant articles (or blocks of articles) that do not meet inclusion criteria, and thus should not be here, should have a place to go per WP:PRESERVE. Implicit in this would be that whatever inappropriate content would be deleted here and the onus of performing the move would have have to fall upon editors with an interest in the material's preservation and who have bothered to learn there way about that fansite. This could be folded into Articles for Deletion; i.e. !votes of Delete to Wikia …reasoning. Other fan-wikis, too, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You people do realize that creating redundant processes when AfD already can result in userfication or transwikiing is a bit too much? And FWIW, "Articles for discussion" gives the impression that it's peer review rather than a deletion discussion. Sheesh, people have overblown sensibilities over the mere fact there's the word "delete" anywhere. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did say it could be folded into AfD. Also, see my comment above about attempts to criminalize the word 'delete' (thoughtcrime). The issue is simply that there is a lot of content that is more appropriate to a fan-wiki; if folks love it so much, they can preserve it there. Given that most users here have no knowledge of Wikia (or wherever), the 'Editors from Wikia' will have to come and get it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, there should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for comparing removing content or deleting stuff to 1984 practices (as much as I like that book). In any case, Pagrashtak nails the primary issue: WP:PRESERVE is basically deficient and never followed because it's impractical. There will always be information that simply doesn't get kept because we shouldn't cover it; this truism goes beyond fictional subjects. If people really followed PRESERVE in practice, then we would violate WP:WEIGHT in practically every instance. In any case, all of these discussions are going away from the point of this page — discuss FICT and its problems. Anyone seeking to undertake their noble crusade to change AfD can take it to WP:VPP and WP:DEL. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that demonizing deletion is inappropriate. Content by authors is routinely deleted by editors; it's what blue pencils are about (now there's a Redirect for Discussion; see [3]).

User:Inclusionist took it to;

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deletion wars: I propose a novel solution

For the Evil Deletionist^® Cabal, Jack Merridew 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, very good. FYI, make the image in the sig a one-time thing, as people will call you out for a WP:SIG violation if you continue using it (although I assume this was to enhance the "Evil Deletionist" measure :D). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No sig issue here; I used ~~~~~ (timestamp) after the text of my post which included a link to my user page and a {{click}}; Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that we do not have license compatibility with much of Wikia, and often cannot simply transplant content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive my ignorance, I don't have a lot of Wikia experience, but wikia:help:Help:Copying from Wikipedia says "Copying from Wikipedia to a Wikia wiki is permissible because both use the same license." Pagrashtak 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't know. If there are issues with proper licensing mebbe someone will care to sort them out; I'm fine with inappropriate content simply being deleted. It is also worth noting that a lot of fans will not think twice about doing the copypasta thing anyway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "importance within the fictional work"

Considering that this prong has caused some confusion, perhaps it should be renamed to more clearly represent what it is talking about. Something like "Importance to understanding the work as a whole"?じんない 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Renaming doesn't fix the problem, that 'importance' is left to editors to determine (functionally). Protonk (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, this needs more than a rename. It needs to become more objective. The test has been floating somewhere between vague and useless, and frankly I think it's gotten worse in the past week. Randomran (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to roll it back then. I was trying to meet some of Gavin's objections, and he still seems unhappy, so if people think it's gotten worse, undo the changes. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we need consensus for either a "white list" or a "black list". This is the prong where we should say "it must be X, Y, or Z" or "it cannot be A, B, or C". I think that's the only objective standard that's going to work, besides reliable secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That's unfortunate. We are stuck with a choice between an unworkably subjective statement and an inflexibly rigid standard. Part of the problem is that not all fiction is made the same. Most works of fiction fit poorly into wikipedia's mold of "intro/history/plot/reception/criticism" article structure and "List of Characters" sub-articles. Some characters are stand-ins, some are deep and nuanced, some work well outside the narrative and some are inexplicable outside of the work. We have no functional rubric to judge when a list is purely enumerative and when it enlivens the description of the whole work. But I can't say that importance should be tossed out, because then we just have the first plank (pretty much ILIKEIT) and the third plank. We might as well just do Kww's compromise at this point. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Aren't there some things we can say are *never* important... or that are so seldom important, that when they are they will probably meet the general notability guideline? Randomran (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Doesn't the list already descrbe some? Cameo appearances I believe was on the list at one time.じんない 07:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Someone removed it. But that's exactly the kind of "black list" I think we should have. (And it wouldn't be pure black: a cameo that has lots of coverage in reliable secondary sources would still meet WP:N.) Randomran (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, I can see where this is an issue. A silly, two-paragraph article could satisfy everything except this prong, and we all know it's better off in a larger, broader article. Generally speaking, the broader a topic, the most significant it is. I feel the only way to handle it without breaking compromise is to take it case by case. — Deckiller 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One way to apporach it would be to make a sub-paragpahs similar to Video game content guidelines. This would give a couple examples for each type, those we would deem worthy, those we wouldn't and those that would be taken on a case-by-case basis. We would have to look back on previous disccussions to see what clearly is in the first two categories or come to a consensus here.じんない 07:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a black list, a white list, and a gray list. Stuff we agree is usually unimportant (save WP:N), usually important, and those that can only be ascertained by consensus. Randomran (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is what is important to one editor will be unimportant to another, and the use of examples won't stop the prong "Role within the fictional work" being the source of disputes. In my view, if you can't define objectively which fictional elements are central to understanding a work of fiction in just a few simple sentences, then we have no alternative other than to drop or replace this prong. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• That seems like your trying to undermine the whole concept of this article. Not everything has objective measures to qualify it, even for those that use objective criteria, subjectiveness plays a role, else we would not have WP:IGNORE and WP:IMPERFECT. By creating a white list, black list and grey list removes the argument of the editor's perogative in most cases because it gives clear examples which others can refer back to should a dispute arise.じんない 13:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Apologoies, but I am not trying to undermine the process of discussion, I just think it is a dead end. Even with examples, I feel the concept of what is or is not "central to understanding the work" will be disputed endlessly. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that a white and black list is going to work. I think we're better off with a vague prong that will be the subject of debate than any attempt at a bright line test, which is going to lead to larger messes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why we might have a "narrow black list" or a "wide white list". The idea wouldn't be to set the bright line between unimportant and important, but to have a filter that gets rid of the plain and obviously trivial. (e.g.: If we'd argue about whether a 6/10 is important enough, then the white list would say "anything above 4 out of 10 is important"... or vice versa "anything below 3 out of 10 is unimportant". We don't try to be precise, but we try to have some kind of filter here.) Randomran (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The prong should still remain vague, but ought to give explicit examples (the black and whiteslists) where the line clearly can be drawn (but still allowing for exceptions). We've already mentioned episodes and main characters as likely passing, while one-time cameo characters extremely rarely do (if any?). Now, if this guideline doesn't gain acceptance because the second prong is considered too vague, the next step is to do something like what Pixelface has suggested, outlining exactly in more detail what specific elements meet or fail this prong. I don't like that approach if we have to do it as it going to bloat this guideline and people will game it much more than the current second prong, but it is the next obvious step to take. --MASEM 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Phil and Masem, a vague prong will not provide guidance that would help resolve eiditorial disputes. On the other hand, I think using lists of ficitonal elements as examples (whether narrow or broad) is not workable either, as making comparisions between, say, fictional characters in different works, or comparisosn of characters with fictional weapons would be like comparing chalk with cheese. Again, I call on the participants of this discussion to come to their senses, and recognise that this prong does not work. I can appreciate that accademics and commentators frequently identify characters or scenes in work of fiction as being "central to understanding the work", but they do so as a way of structuring their analysis or as a jumping off point for literary criticism or discussion. However using such personal judgements as a benchmark or filter won't work in an objective way that can be applied to this guideline. I have proposed that importance should be established by passing the three prong test, rather than being one of the tests itself, and I think this is the only way forward. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing this prong would be a disaster, because not everything with real coverage in a game developer blog is notable. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The white list, IMO, would be "non-cameo characters and episodes". Why not just apply this guideline to those two things? We automatically filter out inanimate objects, verbs/moves/attacks... The kinds of things you see in developer blogs that probably aren't important. It adds some much needed clarity to the prong. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather err on the side of risking excessive inclusion than setting up a hard line test that's going to be used to bully out articles. One thing that I've run into on other notability guidelines - even ones that explicitly say that WP:N is also a route to inclusion - is that failing the guideline is cited even when WP:N is satisfied. There was a very lengthy and contentious AfD on an athlete who failed WP:ATHLETE but passed WP:N, and many people stuck to "Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE" even though WP:ATHLETE says that it's an alternative to WP:N.

If we make a white list, by default anything not on the white list would be on a black list, and that black list would be cited as a reason to delete in all cases. It will get used as "Weapons are inherently non-notable per WP:FICT."

I asked, some time ago, if anyone could point to the sorts of problematic arguments they saw coming as a result of this prong. Nobody really gave any examples of arguments that might gain serious traction inappropriately. Is it possible that fears over the vagueness of this prong are unfounded? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We can be very specific that something that passes WP:N will pass WP:FICT regardless of whether it meets the three prongs. The entire reason we have notability guidelines is because virtually anyone who worked on an article will say it's important. Randomran (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's less clear to me that there's going to be widespread and problematic confusion on AfD between "I think it's important so ha" and "here is what this element contributes to the overall work, and why it is important." Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus says it's important, then it's important. That's a real problem when a lot of people come out of the woodwork and essentially say WP:ILIKEIT. It becomes enough to stonewall any cleanup, even so much as a merge. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phil's point that these prongs will be used to subvert WP:N. For example, at the recent AFD for Lying Bastard (a spaceship), I found some independent sources of literary criticism which had something to say about this ship. TTN dismissed these on the grounds that the sources were discussing the plot and so there was no real-world content. AFAIC, the real-world test is completely unacceptable for this reason. If we have good independent sources which discuss the plot, setting, characters, theme and other internals of a piece of fiction then the matter is notable, regardless of whether there is any real-world aspect to these details. Such commentary is quite normal for a piece of fiction since the most important thing about a piece of fiction is whether it works as fiction - telling an entertaining and engaging story. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

More generally on the issue of importance, it seems likely that this discussion is just recapitulating old arguments which were explored when WP:N was created. Surely the point of the construction of WP:N was to arrive at an objective test - the existence of independent notice of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And note that the word cameo does not mean unimportant - quite the contrary. It means that the portrait is a distinctive miniature and so is of greater standing than a minor part. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we have agreement that independent notice in reliable third-party sources is enough. We need to curtail abuse by both hardcore inclusionists and deletionists. In the latter case, this is just a matter of saying "alternatively, a element that passes the general notability guideline is notable, regardless of how it stands up to the test at WP:FICT." Randomran (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cameo apperance does not mean important enough for it's own article, unless that article can support itself per the GNG or SNG. For example, an author writing about a fictional fantasy world and having a minor character from the Harry Potter series appear for 1 brief scene does not constitute something that would pass the 2nd prong.

Also, we should be able to say "minor characters", "one-time characters" "incidental plot items" should be an easy black list that could help clarify some basic bottom line that doesn't meet notability by their very nature and on the other hand, principle protagonist or antagonist in a major work (one that was among are on the top sales lists worldwide) would be ones to include because of recognition factor, asumming the 3rd prong can be met. FE: It would be hard to say that Link is not a well recognized character around the world. And his real-world coverage by reliable sources is slim (those polls are not authorative or worse, not even reliable since FE the GameFAQs ones can be ballot-suffed). However, by sheer recogniztion factor alone and with the two remaining awards to meet the 3rd prong, plus the importance of the Zelda series impact to video games it, this is a kind of article that should easily pass.じんない 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy witht current draft of this prong. In order to establish that fictional element is "central to understanding the work", it is suggested that commentary from reliable sources on the topic is the best way to judge this. I think that this recomendation releases me from complaining that this test is subjective, now that some sort of evidence is required. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like where we were going here. But I'm starting to have second thoughts about the word "cameo". Maybe it's too technical, or maybe cameo refers to something more specific than any old minor character. But I do think we need to clarify this prong still. Even if there are aspects of the current prong that are good, it's buried in a lot of other fluff. Randomran (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources

Getting back to our earlier discussion about sourcing, I think the current sticking point is in the second prong, and the debate is whether the importance of a fictional element can be established through significant real-world coverage from reliable sources which are or are not independent - independent sourcing seems to be issue on which we need to get agreement. My understanding so far is that Masem and Phil Sandifer have conceded that that a fictional element is best judged as being central to understanding the work via commentary from reliable sources on the topic. ThuranX, Kww, and Jack Merridew are insisting not only should those sources be reliable, but also independent.
I have argued that as long as the sources provide significant real-world coverage, there is little difference between sources that are independent and those that are not, with the exception of inherently promotional material (which fails WP:SPAM in any case, and need not concern us). In my view, the key to inclusion is the provision of significant real-world coverage, because that is what encyclopedic articles are made of.
However, this view is disputed on the grounds that coverage that is not independent is not fit as a basis for inclusion, because it is self-referencing, and its reliability is questionable because it is promotional in nature, even if not inherently so.
Perhaps if I can come up with articles examples of significant real-world coverage that is not independent that would be acceptable, would that help break this impasse? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The example I had in mind is commentaries in editions of Shakespeare and also of Latin and Ancient Greek authors. For example if E.R Dodds says something about about a passage / scene / character / motif in his OUP edition of Euripides' Bacchae, that's plenty good enough. That kind of commentary is easily distinguished from blurbs and other WP:SPAM.

OTOH there are grey areas, e.g. I'd be interested to see what others think of Mike Resnick's intro to a special edition of some of James White's work (Mike Resnick (1996), "Introduction", The White Papers, NESFA Press, ISBN 0-915368-71-4, retrieved 2008-12-18) --Philcha (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just clarification, one more time: I am requesting that there be at least one mention of the topic in an independent source, not mandating that any significant coverage come from independent sources.—Kww(talk) 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So would you please clarify. Would you regard E.R Dodds's commentary in his OUP edition of Euripides' Bacchae as independent, and why? Would you regard Mike Resnick's intro as independent, and why? Are there any other types of case that need to be considered? --Philcha (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A notable academic that has been recruited to write a forward for the fiction that he is considered to be an expert on? I would be very surprised if you could find such a case where the item had never been discussed in an independent publication by that author. If you could, I would be more inclined to invoke IAR than to make the guideline support such an unusual case.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that answers my questions. Please clarify. --Philcha (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, "no", but please read the long answer to see the justification for that stance.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Kww, what is the point citing of "mention of the topic" if the third prong makes it clear that such trivial content is insufficient? I think Kww might consider dropping the requirement for independent sources, if all he is seeking is trivial or cosmetic evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• What I am seeking is a bright-line test that lets us quickly discard of articles when the supporters are playing games. I don't want AFDs to always get bogged down in subjective discussions of importance, and I don't want admins to have to close AFDs where all arguments have been subjective. Real-world discussion does not equal importance, and, as I've said earlier, isn't a big deal to me at all. Being noticed by the real world is key, and that's what an independent source validates.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words you want it to be easy to delete articles or content and hard to defend them? A straight answer this time, please. --Philcha (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't imply that I am evasive. I can be accused of numerous things, but rarely evasiveness. I want it to be easy to delete unsuitable articles, and hard to defend unsuitable articles. I view a complete lack of independent sources as proof of unsuitability.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that this moves the discussion from one of potential to one of actuality. I don't want to see rafts of articles deleted because they lack sources that could be found if people were looking. I mean, here's the problem from my perspective - let's take comics as an example. There's a dozen or so editors who work hard to improve coverage of superhero comics topics. But there are many more who write articles. Now, if I come to a superhero comics article - even a poorly written one - usually a large amount of what is there is usable, or the basis for a good article. Even if it's totally rewritten, having an old article there to revise is tremendously helpful. And so, as someone who wants to improve the coverage in this area, my ideal would be if every article that we could have a good article on exists in a usable, if not good form. Which is why I oppose a test on current form of the article, and prefer one on potential of the article - though harder to judge, it is by far the more important test. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD is last-chance time. The article shouldn't have been created without a source. It shouldn't have survived PROD without a source. If, during the 5-day period of an AFD, no one can find a source, the article should be deleted. If there's a real chance of finding a source in a reasonable amount of time, userfication is plausible. If you are writing from scratch and an old version of an article used to exist, you can always have that userfied as well.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a wholesale revision of our notability and deletion processes. They are explicitly supposed to be about potential. If you want to refocus them entirely on actual present content, you should be on a different page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of philosophical statements in the policies and guidelines that agree with you, I can't deny that. Looking at the actual outcomes of AFDs, the only place where that argument has consistently held sway is in geographic places, and even there they have at least a speck on a map or a line in a census to go on (equivalent to my request for "at least one mention"). In general, if articles are unsourcable, they tend to be deleted.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been my experience that a clear argument for why sources are likely to exist, especially when coupled with an explanation for why Google didn't find them, will usually result in an article's being kept. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if that's true (a point which I don't concede), why shouldn't people at least have to make a persuasive argument as to their probable existence during an AFD?—Kww(talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kww is looking at it from the wrong end. WP:DELETE explicitly says improvement is preferable to deletion. Hence the burden of proof lies on those who wish to delete an article. So for example I'd expect to see what they Googled for, i.e. Google link including search terms. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, and more to the point, because once one is arguing about the probable existence of sources, it seems much easier to argue about these prongs, which are, I think, more easily thought through, and lead to a similar set of results. I'm still curious of an article that meets these prongs but that you think should be deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will quote myself:

To address Phil's argument that that an objective test for the second prong isn't necessary, I submit that he is ignoring the role of the closing admin and the amount of discretion he feels comfortable exercising. When an admin is faced with clear-cut denial of an existing guideline (i.e. I don't care if the guideline says you need at least one mention in an independent source, I think that Grooming of Bert and Ernie's Eyebrows is critical to understanding Sesame Street ), an admin feels reasonably comfortable ignoring that !vote. The fewer objective standards a !vote violates, the less comfortable an admin is discounting it. When there are no objective standards, a large percentage of admins will fall back on simply counting !votes. That's inexcusable, and a clear violation of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, but we all know it's true.

I'm not highly concerned that articles that legitimately meet these prongs will be kept. I'm worried that the process, with its inherent bias towards inclusion, will be abused to keep bad articles because people argue that they meet these prongs. I want one simple objective test to prevent that. One that you have stated you think is "unnecessary", but have failed yourself to provide examples of articles that should be kept, even though that test could not be met.—Kww(talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

An "inherent bias towards inclusion" would be a pleasant change. AfD's currently have an inherent bias towards deletion, despite WP:DELETE. May I remind you that independent WP:RS consider deletionism harmful. --Philcha (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to recognize that the third prong will also be considered subjectively just as the other two prongs are, and its the relative weight of all three prongs that determines whether the topic should be an article or not. Having only a non-independent source weakens the third prong but doesn't necessarily fail to make FICT - one then has to look to the other two prongs. Take a non-independent source about a character (the only real-world source it has) that says the developer named the character after his own dog. If this character was the main (title character, even) of a 20+ yr prime time sitcom, thus strongly satisfying the first and second prongs, I'd expect the article would likely be kept with a weak third prong. But if the same source is for a minor character of a tv show that lasted all of 3 episodes before being canceled, thus a weak first and very weak second prong, the likelihood of that article being retained is very low. Basically, both independent and dependent sources meet the third prong, but independent sources strengthen it.

Remember that the goal of this FICT is not to determine what is a good fiction article - it is to help assert what aspects of a fiction element will likely go on to make a good fiction article as to not have the article merged back elsewhere with impunity. There's still potential editorial considerations that can come into play later after potential expansion has been tried and failed; in the case above of the character of the 20+yr show, if after working with sources for some time and finding nothing else to support it, I may still consider merging the article with other characters of the work to make it cohesive. FICT is only providing a first pass "should this be an article" based on the strength of what can be said about the element, and not so much what its ultimate quality can be. --MASEM 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide if I see a strong argument for the case that centrality to the fictional work requires independent sources. Put another way, if I am watching an episode of Buffy, and Joss Whedon says on a commentary track that he considers the Hellmouth to be thecentral metaphor of the series (which I don't think he has, but one could make an argument for it), does this satisfy criteria?

For me, it does. Why? Because Joss Whedon has nothing to gain by pushing the Hellmouth over the library, the Bronze, or anything else in the world. He is not independent of Buffy as a whole. But for the purposes of figuring out something's importance within Buffy, he is independent - he does not benefit meaningfully from the Hellmouth's importance relative to the Bronze or visa versa.

The current restriction on non-independent sources - that they be non-promotional - seems to me sufficient to address the concerns in this area. No? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because it would include DVD commentaries and developer blogs, which are absolutely not sufficient to establish notability.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're going in circles. Given the existence of real-world commentary, and the unambiguous notability of the work as a whole, what is problematic about using a DVD commentary for information on the notability of a specific aspect of the work? What does independence gain us in terms of the second prong? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity. An objective test that we can say "yes" or "no" about, and not argue in circles during an AFD. AFDs have an inherent bias towards inclusion, in that the article is kept if no consensus is reached. Combine that with a completely subjective test, and there is too high of a risk of bad articles being kept.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, but that's the thing - when it comes to importance *within* the work, it seems to me that the creator is objective. He has nothing to gain one way or another if Willow is more important than Xander. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see 'notability' as inherently being something that implies 'someone else'. A non-independent source is not taking note, it is touting. They are fine for details, but not for meeting inclusion criteria. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But again, this notion of independence was designed for corporations and self-promotion. I really do not see how Joss Whedon talking about elements of his work is a comparable situation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I know nothing of 'Joss' save stumbling onto him yesterday. He's the creator/head writer: he gets checks if this stuff does well. COI. In an ideal guideline, I'd be looking for sources independent of the genre; i.e. NYTimes, and the like. I don't think I'm ask much. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your view of Hollywood accounting is a bit naive - creators often get jack if their show sells on DVD. Second of all, yes, he has some benefit if Buffy as a whole does well. But I don't see how, in terms of the second prong, which is what I'm talking about here, he benefits by pushing the importance of individual elements of the work. That's what I'm asking here - how is independence an issue for the second prong? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They get a boost in reputation, it gets them in the door for the next gig. It's not just who you know, it's who knows you. Or of you. You're asking that a person 'inside' gets to assert what's important. It is in their interest to cast that net wide. Your whole second prong is skewed towards television episodes and characters (both words in there, as I write this); most fiction isn't episodic at all; they're one-off works (except, of course, the mass-produced commercial pop-culture prolefeed;). Kevin offered 'objectivity' — non-independent sources lack this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how saying thing X in this work is a central metaphor boosts the reputation of the creator. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With a biased source, you never are sure what the motive is. If the next money-making move is to release the "Amy's Mom" brand of cheerleader trophies, complete with moving eyeballs to enhance your next cheer-camp award ceremony, who knows what might show up in the DVD commentary for that episode of Buffy? With non-independent sources, you have to assume every statement is tainted by greed.—Kww(talk) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Kww, if you are seeking a bright line test that will avoid getting bogged down in subjective discussions of importance, trivial coverage is not the way to go, even if it is independent. I have seen many AFD arguments made along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT supported by trivial citations; for example Colonel Warden rolls out this argument all the time[4]. In my view, substantial real-world coverage from any source (with the exception of spam) is superior to trivial content, even if it does not come from an independent source. Again, I recomend you agree to compromise on this issue of independence, and I offer this example.
In my experience, 95% of articles on fictional elements fail WP:N and contain little in the way of substantial real-world coverage. For instance, few of the characters from such well-known works such as Lord of the Rings or Star Wars cite reliable secondary sources, except perhaps Gandalf) and the featured article Jabba the Hutt. Most of the substantial real-world coverage about Jabba the Hutt actually comes from sources which are not independent, as you will see from the section on character Concept and creation. My view is that when it comes to substantial real-world coverage about fictional elements, it is less likely that independent sources can be found, as sources close to their creation and development are not, by definition, independent. Looking at the rest of the article, I think quite a lot of independent sourcing is actually trivial, and has little to do with the character itself.
In conclusion, I think the insistence that independent sources makes sense for works of fiction, but for elements of fiction, this requirement is very onerous. My view is that substantial real-world coverage provides is a bright line than clearly disguishes topics that are notable (or at least could be) from those that are not notable, and will never be. I would ask ThuranX, Kww, and Jack Merridew to reconsider their position. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My ears are burning. Regarding the search of mine which Gavin cites - for the Buffy episode discussed above - what I saw there showed me that, as a practical matter, it would be a snap to defend such an article at AFD and it would be quite feasible to bring the article up to FA status. Since our guidelines are supposed to reflect actual practise, then this guideline should recognise this reality. Moreover, please note that our policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE trump mere guidelines. If an article title gets numerous mentions, trivial or not, then this indicates that this title is a useful search term and so deletion is not appropriate since the article could be merged or redirected per WP:BEFORE. Deletion is usually harmful to the project since it tramples upon the contributions of good faith editors in an unhelpful way, spoiling both the contributions and the good will upon which Wikipedia depends. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELETE, WP:GD and WP:BEFORE? So how come the place is crawling with deletionists? --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are all that many deletionists. It's just that they are obviously concentrated at hotspots like AFD and this policy discussion. I looked at the Buffy project earlier and there were 50 or so editors signed up for that. I doubt that any of them would support deletion of the article in question and the same finding could presumably be multiplied by numerous other projects. Talk of consensus when such masses of editors have little to no representation here is absurd. The more puzzling thing is why the inclusionists are not better organised. I suppose that the best of them are too busy at places like DYK and GA/FA review, on top of the hard work of actually writing articles. And I suspect that most inclusionists have a sunny disposition which makes them disinclined to be embroiled in endless conflict. So, what we're dealing with here is the power of the dark side, you see... Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to cut out that talk about which side is the "dark side". Facetious or not, your pattern of accusing an entire part of the community of being "bad" is a complete failure to assume good faith and represents a breakdown in WP:CIVILITY. Most of all, you will make compromise impossible in a practical sense if you keep attacking people you disagree with. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Call it yin/yang or say horses for courses, if you prefer. The point is that deletion-related activity will obviously attract people with a deletionist disposition and so you have a systemic bias if you just canvas these. Another interesting attribute of editors that I've noticed is that mathematicians/computer scientists seem to be over-represented. My theory is that such types find the syntax of Wikipedia editing comfortable and that they have perfectionist tendencies which make them impatient with policies like WP:IMPERFECT. One see the results in that major topic areas such as women's fashion are dismissed or neglected while abstract mathematics is documented in infinitesimal detail. Fiction suffers from this bias, I fancy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we avoid divisive labels altogether? Colonel, are you calling WP:BEFORE a policy up above? As far as I can tell it's not even a guideline, let alone policy. If you want to bring up the subject of routinely violated policies, let's not forget WP:BURDEN. Pagrashtak 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on your view of the systemic bias, my only issue is WP:AOBF. You've gotta stop doing that. Randomran (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you a story, as Max Bygraves was wont to say. I recently expended some effort at Teletubbies say "Eh-oh!". Collectonian took it to AFD and KWW opined that the topic was too slight to be worthy but the consensus was otherwise and the article was kept. Having improved the article, I gave DYK a try for the first time and the article was duly featured on the main page. I then tried a GA review, again for the first time. It didn't quite pass but another push should do it. Now, here's the interesting thing. In the course of the GA review, a passel of other editors got involved and they have been busy discussing moving the article, which has now happened. What animated them was not the content of the article or the details which we need to make it a GA. No, what they really cared about was whether the title of the article should have quotation marks in or not! And I see the same sort of thing at Big Ben where editors fulminate about the title of the article rather than its content. My take on this form over function stuff is that Wikipedia is crack for pedants - the kind of people who obsess over the position of a comma. The discussions here have something of this quality and so more perspective seems needed. Ideally, we would get the consensus of thousands of readers and editors by a wide poll but I don't know if there are any mechanisms or precedents for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just to point out the facts: in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teletubbies_Say_Eh-Oh! I stated that the article met minimum standards for retention, but my personal inclination was to merge it. I will also point out that the GA review] was far from a close call. Don't be fooled by Colonel Warden's accusations of "personal attacks" contained in the AFD ... I had simply requested that he be blocked until he agreed to stop using deceptive edit summaries.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here: We should be biasing to include topics, dealing later with the issues of figuring out if an article for that topic is appropriate or not after passing an initial "sniff" test (as I believe this FICT offers). We can later applying editorial decisions to determine if a topic may be better covered in a larger article if that article barely passes FICT. --MASEM 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pagra, WP:DELETE is a policy, WP:GD is the guide that claims to cover AfD, both explicitly instruct editors to looks for ways to improve articles before moving to delete them, and there is hardly any sign on AfD that that happens.

I would not go so far as describing deletions in general as "the dark side", but I have seen AfD used for harassment. --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:ATD is another policy link which says much the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, you may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Secondary_proposal:_AFDiscussion, where WP:DELETE, WP:GD and WP:BEFORE are also relevant (thanks for WP:BEFORE) --Philcha (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• If there's no concession on the independent sources issue, then we're back to WP:N. A compromise is a two-way street. People on the deletion side concede that there are other ways to provide real-world information, and people on the inclusion side concede that research is essential to proving an article is encyclopedic. If one side insists that the other side has to make all the concessions, there will be no compromise, and there will be no guideline. All you can do is pat yourself on the back, knowing that you stuck to your "principled" position... but AFDs will continue to be a futile battleground where articles are kept and deleted based on who shows up.
• One important thing to keep in mind: real-world information is insufficient for notability by itself. Game developer blogs will go into a lot of detail about how they rebalanced the polygons for trees, or tweaked the hitpoints of a minor enemy repeatedly. This post from Soren Johnson would not justify an article on "Flags of Civilization 4" That's why we have the first and second prongs: the element has to be important too, in addition to having real-world information. Randomran (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Randomran, whilst I might agree that substantial real-world coverage is not sufficient on it own, remember that we also have a requirement provided by the second prong that some coverage must be cited from reliable sources. Since blogs are a form of self-publication, on their own they are not sufficient to pass the three pronged test. As it stands, I think making a requirement for substantial real-world coverage from reliable sources is actually quite stringent, and most articles on fictional elements don't even meet this requirement, which is why I am hoping ThuranX, Kww, and Jack Merridew will still consider compromise on the basis that this version of WP:FICT is resonably strong without the need for independent sourcing.
In answer to Colonel Warden, I would ask him to consider the fact that there is a real need to merge, if not delete content forks, and we need a reasonably stong guideline in order to do so. Where we have two or more articles covering more or less the same topic, we have duplication, and the potential to create POV forks from these duplicates. We have to have some mechanism to identify which article is a fork, and which is not. In these circumstances, a set of inclusion criteria that can be used to resolve content disuputes would be indispensible. Although this guideline is not about deletion per se, it does have to be stong enough to resolve such disputes, which I think even a hardline inclusionist should welcome.
The example I would give to illustrate this point is the Terminator multiple content fork, made up of The Terminator, Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept). Ignoring the fact that The Terminator is about a work of fiction, rather than element of fiction, each article provides a detailed exposition of the same fictional character, and between them more or less cover the same subject matter. The problem with identifying which is the "genuine article" is that all currently fail WP:N, so it is hard to identify which of them might be content forks. The benefit of this version of WP:FICT is that if one or more editors where to contribute substantial real-world coverage from at least one reliable source, then that would identify the which one meets the inclusion criteria for a standalone article.
The follow on point I wish to make is that if everyone can agree that this guideline provides a set of inclusion criteria that, at the very least, can address the problem of content forks, then I think we are all in a win-win situation if we can all consider supporting this version of WP:FICT. I admit this is a fall back position, but I think it is worth making a compromise for. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Terminator seems typical of modern fictional franchises which spawn huge amounts of material which are difficult to cover concisely. That franchise has yet to terminate and there could be a lot more to come - have they done a crossover with AvP yet? Anyway, it's like those articles we have on developing news stories such as Joe the Plumber which take some time to settle down. We should take a long perspective on such things, rather like the characters in Anathem which I'm reading currently. Wikipedia has centuries in which to work on this but it will never be finished. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Gavin Collins is optimistic about eliminating content forks, as content forkers (careful with pronunciation!) will soon learn to borrow from each other enough citations to establish WP:N without reducing their own POV. If you find 2 or more well-sourced content forks on much the same topic, it may not even be desirable to merge them, as they may validly present the subject from different perspectives, e.g. history books often have chapters "reign of X", "reign of Y", "rise of the bourgeoisie", "reign of Z". --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not correct to say without qualification that blogs are not reliable sources in many cases. it depends on the subject, and the blog. It has already been generally accepted that for science fiction in particular there are certain blogs that are in fact considered as RSs, and articles based on their use seem to survive AfD--and in other areas like politics, and computers, and the like, similarly. They've been used successfully in some academic fields also. I think they'd be accepted now in any field at all where the reliability of the blog could be shown--and I've seen it demonstrated successfully by people here asserting their knowledge of this. (OR isn't ok for an article, but it is for an argument about an article.) I think it may therefore prove easier than some people expect to find usable 3rd party independent sources for a great many fictional topics. DGG (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion derailed somewhere about 10,000 words ago. Back on topic, why aren't we just leaving Prong #2 up to case-by-case consensus? Though they'd help, a third-party opinion shouldn't be needed to verify that Gundams are an integral part of a Gundam series. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the test were to rely on "consensus" alone (which in actual fact boils down to the personal opinions of one or more editors), it would not be a test at all, as it is possible to argue that every fictional element "is central to understanding the work" if no evidence to support this assertion is required - see why it is impossible to fail the test of importance for an earlier discussion. The bottom line is that some form of evidence in the form of a citation needs to be provided to demonstrate that the requirement of Prong 2, otherwise this prong becomes a licence to spam articles that are not sourced. The current draft says that a citation from a reliable source is sufficent to establish whether an element of fiction "is central to understanding the work". The debate is whether that source should be independent as well. ThuranX, Kww, and Jack Merridew insist that an indendent source is required, but this narrows the inclusion criteria for a standalone article to the extent that we are back to the position where this guideline becomes almost the same as WP:N. Although this would not be a bad thing in my view, we cannot reach a compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide an opinion here, although I have not been involved in these conversations. My understanding is that this entire discussion is about notability criteria for what is included, and not ow sources are to be used, which is a different matter, one of NOR. The first prong seems to be to a be good criteria for determining notability, as long as "independent" is defined to mean "independent of the original production of the text in question," i.e. not the author or, in the case of film or video, director, producer, DP or editor etc. I do not understand "independent" to mean in a separate publication nor do I think that is a good idea; critical commentary on a Chekhov play that is physically bound in the same WW Norton edition of the same play remains independent commentary.

As to the second prong, it seems to me that if the author (director, etc) claim that a particular passage, character, or theme are notable elements of the work, then it is very likely that some independent (as I understand it) critic or commentator will have said the same. In this case I would consider it notable. But I would want confirmation by an independent source meaning someone not involved in the production of the text. My mom thinks I am a genius. Alas, an encyclopedia should not leave these things in the eyes of the producer! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to fiction though, importance within a work cannot be so easily determined independently. Such comments made by outsiders for most works not given to scholarly review would fall under, if used here, of WP:ILIKEIT. Someone notable says, "Yea I really liked the character X. I think they're memorable." Even though that character was only there for 1 scene in a lengthy work, that comment becomes more valuable than the critical evaluation an author gives.

Don't get me wrong, the author clearly can't distiquish that his book as a whole is worthy of inclusion and if it's not, then it's implausable to think that an element would be.じんない 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Character Pages, and Equipment Pages

I believe the current wikipedia policy is that if the main article is too long, then a side article should be created to hold that information. There are Character List pages attached to most series, as well as side articles for Episode List, and Manga Chapter list. What about equipment pages? Are the weapons and other equipment, in a series where it is key part of it, justified for having a page? Or should it be deleted outright? Does everyone agree we have a set policy on this, to avoid arguments on the AFD pages? In the case of Card Captor, the page dedicated to the many Clow Cards in the series and what they did, was deleted. In an active AFD discussion, the list of Gantz equipment, moved to a side page because it was deemed the main article was too long, is deemed unnecessary by some, while I believe it is key to understanding the series. Every bit of information listed for the suits, etc., helps people understand what this series is about, and different than other series where people run around fighting aliens or whatnot. Battlestar Galactica has articles dedicated to just the Battlestars themselves, their weapons, and other information about them. What is acceptable, and what is not? Dream Focus (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the fate of such articles is presently unclear. These would be the type of lists of non-notable fiction elements, and is a question we'll try to address after this as there's no clear way to go about it, but, generally (and this is by no means binding, just suggestive):

• "Universe of" or similar articles that describe any unique features of the fiction's setting, which can include special equipment or the like is generally allowable
• Detailed lists of the specific items in the series, however, once generally described, are often avoided.

The best example to compare what you seem to be asking about is the list of Pokemon monsters, where all but a handful are described only in that table, with the ones that meet this FICT guideline having a page. The other side to consider is if you're talking about about a video game, game guide-type material should not be included - again, talking about weapons and equipment in general is fine, but specialized lists are not good.

But again, there is nothing yet binding in WP policy or guideline regarding these at the present - we are working towards addressing that. Just because other pages exist of that format doesn't mean that for another fiction series the same type of pages will be ok, so if you do create these, realize they may still be deleted. --MASEM 12:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The equipment page I made is for the Manga only, since the game used something totally different. How long until a set policy can be voted on? Couldn't they have a general election, where all wikipedia users voted on a list of things, and those rules went into effect? Or as the years go by, and the same exact situations keep coming up, do people just keep on discussing it, without anything ever getting resolved? Dream Focus (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First, WP is not a democracy - we don't hold votes to decide content issues, we build consensus. Which relates to the second point - in the early days of WP, such an article would have probably been accepted no questions asked, but as the work matures, we are looking to try to improve articles while retaining as much content as possible, and, particularly with fiction, there are certain details that, while the general picture looks fuzzy, we have determined by consensus that aren't appropriate to cover in great detail. That said, when we're going to get around to deciding on these articles, I've no idea. We're focusing on the general fiction aspect to start to avoid muddying the issues. The only advise is that the more the article is in-universe and lacks real-world sources, the more likely that it will be considered for cleanup and ultimately removal if it can't go anywhere else, but there are exceptions to this rule of thumb. --MASEM 13:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus means a handful of people around at the time will decide everything, since the overwhelming majority of people will never get involved in any AFD discussion. Most articles nominated for deletion seem to be nominated and voted on by the same people, none of which were elected. If a different group were around that day, the consensus could shift the opposite way. You almost never have every single person agree on whether something should be deleted or allowed to remain, and they all have different reasons for trying to get rid of something, often based on their personal beliefs on what wikipedia should be, or their interpretation of the various incomplete and often changing policies. This is not a good way to have things done. We need a set of rules set down for things like this. Dream Focus (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an active debate on deletion issues at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Hopefully it will lead to an RfC ("Request for Comment"), i.e. community-wide debate, and hopefuly that will redress the balance. --Philcha (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

list of legitimate reference sites/publications

Shouldn't there be a list somewhere of exactly which media sources are considered to be legitimate for a reference for something? When the question of notability came up, this would make it a lot easier to determine, we able to simple search those specific sites. I suggest creating a list which people can add to and discuss for this purpose. This would be especially helpful in determining the notability of something not officially released in English yet, since many sources normally referenced for such things, do not review them until that happens. For example, I recently searched for a manga by its Japanese name, and the name of its author, on Google. I got plenty of results for it, but don't know how to narrow my search, since I don't know the names of any Japanese newspapers or other sources that might review manga, and be considered a valid reference, so I can't narrow my search down. Dream Focus (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First, this is probably a better question in Reliable Sources, but also, such a list would be way too long. Individual Wikiprojects may have advice on what are considered reliable sources for articles under their purview. --MASEM 13:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiction survey 2009

One of the things Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests is a survey. Back in mid-October, I wrote up this survey and 4 people at this talk page commented on it. Now I am bringing it up again. Please edit the questions, anyone, everyone. Blank the page if you want. Rewrite the whole thing if you want. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We may need to use something like this if we fail to gain consensus due to the second prong ("importance to the work") if it leaves it to vague for the majority. Something like this can then be used to be fully explicit about what types of fiction elements are considered "important", so that those can be treated here (I'd expect episodes and major characters), but that means all others immediately fail the second prong and can only be shown to be notable through the GNG (eg having significant coverage in secondary sources). This (explicitly writing what is important per the second prong) is not an ideal solution because of the fact it doesn't allow for borderline cases. Given where we are now, being close to getting consensus on this version, the survey would have to be next should that completely fail. --MASEM 14:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A survey, just to get more opinions, might be a good idea; maybe with a watchlist notice. This proposal has been active for well over three years, and some more input would probably help quite a bit in brining it closer to a resolution. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We've technically had two surveys "recently", the RFC to try to pass the old version of this FICT that failed (but showed that the solution was close to the middle given equal and offsetting dissents from both sides of the issue), and the RFC at WP:N that tried to gauge how strong WP:N was with respect to spinout articles and lists in response to trying to figure out fiction issues. Both led to this version of FICT now. --MASEM 14:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have trouble, giving Pixelface's past engagement with this proposal, taking this "You know what we need, a survey" suggestion seriously, particularly given that he last made it, if I recall, moments after the last RFC closed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No Phil, you recall incorrectly. And what RFC are you talking about? The RFC on FICT started by Masem on June 3, 53 minutes after I mentioned the rejected tag to him? Or the RFC on N started by Randomran that closed on October 23? I suggested a survey here on October 14, after Thebainer rejected your request for extension regarding TTN. Although I did mention it again in Novembet and December.

For those who don't know, in October, you made a request to extend the restrictions imposed upon TTN during E&C2. On October 9, arbitrator Stephen Bain rejected the request and said "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters." So on October 14, in my attempt to develop such a notability guideline, I wrote up a draft of the survey that I had suggested to Masem clear back on June 10, and started a thread about it here, which was dead at the time. David Fuchs, Masem, and Collectonian commented. Also on October 14, I added a note about the survey to {{fiction notice}}, Collectonian reverted. A week later, on October 21, I re-added a note about the survey to {{fiction notice}}, Collectonian reverted. I re-added, Collectonian reverted. I wanted people to be aware of the survey so they could offer their input and edit it before it went live, unlike when Randomran started the RFC on N. Also on October 21, I asked arbitrator Stephen Bain about the survey, and got no response. On October 22, I started a thread about the survey at the village pump, and two people did comment on the talk page of the survey.

On October 23, the RFC on N closed. Your request for extension was archived by Rlevse on October 24 after Stephen Bain and FloNight rejected the request and no other Arbcom members commented. On October 27 I asked you about the survey I wrote, on October 28 you said here that "I support a survey along these lines...That said, I think this survey is far too long, and far too demanding, and that it is not likely to work." 39 minutes later, you created User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal. On November 21, you used your admin tools and unprotected[5][6] WP:FICT and moved your proposal over and added a note to {{fiction notice}} — and your "pronge" proposal is what we are all discussing now. --Pixelface (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Given your past temper tantrum over the Valen article, it's really quite odd watching you create a proposal that would wipe that article out. --Pixelface (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Equal and offsetting dissents? The FICT in June was opposed by a majority of editors. And I wouldn't call the RFC on N a "survey", more of a horrible multiple choice test with no E) None of the above. And if you want to know what led to this version of FICT now, see my reply to Phil Sandifer. --Pixelface (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the survey will help. First, it's byzantine. The average editor won't participate, and we'll never agree on how to read the results. Second, it focuses on the type of content without talking about quality. I don't doubt there are a few weirdos who want to delete all fiction (and a few more who want to keep it all). But most people are in the middle, and don't have a strong opinion on *all* fiction. They just want articles to have reliable, independent secondary sources. Which brings me to the final point. The survey will attract people who have opinions on fiction, but you wouldn't get much participation from people who have strong opinions on WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:N. In all our policies and guidelines, there's a strong consensus to avoid articles based entirely on primary sources, let alone unreliable sources, or official press releases and advertisements and such. (Although, for the record, this guideline would relax the last one. A careful summary of arms-length self-promotion would be considered the least of all the evils.) Randomran (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Its not only byzantine in scale, its jesuitical in complexity as well. its one holy mother of a survey. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not have a survey. We are still trying to read the chicken bones from the WP:N RfC, which (although heavily disputed) was well put together. We don't need another. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Move to User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009 draft and ignore ;) Jack Merridew 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the survey and it's at User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009. I would appreciate any feedback on its talk page as well as any edits to the survey. --Pixelface (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Opportunity for compromise v Threat of Statemate

I feel that the chance for compromise is slippling away. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Phil Sandifer and Masem may be happy to endorse the current draft. If there are editors who feel that it is not acceptable in its current form, then I would ask them to prepare an alternative draft. It seems to me that a version of WP:FICT that the current sticking point is the requirement for an element of fiction to the subject of reliable and independent sources. If the current draft were to be changed to reflect this view, then I think it would have the same effect as making the incluison criteria the same as WP:GNG. Although I have argued that WP:GNG is a very good inclusion criteria for a long time, I am prepared to compromise on the basis that this guideline requires that articles on fictional elements have to contain substantial real-world coverage, which I think makes this proposed guideline quite strong and and give clear guideance. If we can't agree on this version then I fear we have reached stalemate, which I feel is disappointing, considering how much agreement we have obtained on the content (99% at least) on this version of WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise is one phrase away:

• * Role within the fictional work: The subject should be a fictional element that is central to understanding the work - for instance, an episode or a main character. This is best judged via commentary from reliable sources on the topic, but must be confirmed by being mentioned in at least one independent source. Focus on indisputable facts (e.g. "the character is one of the main characters for the entire series") to prove the importance of the subject, rather than personal opinion. Mere frequency of appearance or mention in the work does not satisfy this prong – it is necessary to show that understanding of the subject is essential to understanding the work, not just on the level of plot detail, but in terms of its artistic, cultural, or historical significance. Bald assertions of significance are insufficient.

I haven't seen anyone explain why requiring this confirmation would place a genuine obstacle in the path of any legitimate articles.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes the 2nd prong stronger than the 3rd, which, while not the GNG's "significant coverage", is still in the wrong direction. --MASEM 16:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support This wording, which maintains the importance of a neutral source demonstrating notability. ThuranX (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Jack Merridew 10:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• emend; throw 'significantly' and 'reliable' in there, too. Jack Merridew 10:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to this. The 'possible eventuality' that an element of fiction will be seen as notable by independent sources isnt' enough. ANYTHING has a possible eventuality of happening, even me shitting gold doubloons tomorrow. However, we don't do 'MAYBE' here, and we shouldn't. We should only accept that IF an element has real, independent coverage, it is notable. This 'compromise' is the same premise that gavin and others have operated under the entire time, just phrased in a slightly new way. I have yet to see one logical argument explaining why Fiction should be given a lower threshold than non-fiction, and why a threshold of ' anyone's written about it, even if their praise can make them money off the topic' is ok. Oppose this compromise. ThuranX (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, you've yet to really answer any of the questions about what independent sources add to the issue of the second prong. This becomes random very quickly - if all that is needed is a mention, one rapidly wonders how to work a citation to a passing mention into an article without it being artificial, poor writing to satisfy an arbitrary hurdle. Unless you see articles that would be excluded by this addition that would not be under this guideline, I continue to ask why you're adding a procedural hurdle for the sake of a procedural hurdle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not adding a procedural hurdle for the sake of a procedural hurdle. I'm compromising. I'm reducing the requirement for sourcing of fictional articles to accommodate the realities of commentary on fictional topics. I'm retaining one objective requirement for notability to avoid being bogged down in subjective arguments on every AFD that comes along for articles on trivial topics, because the best way to dismiss a topic as trivial is to demonstrate that no-one unassociated with the topic has ever noticed it. Releasing a new guideline is not going to usher in a golden age of quality fiction writing. Many articles on many topics, fictional and otherwise, are crap. We need to be able to delete crap expediently and with a minimum of fuss. Independent notice is required of all topics in Wikipedia, and has proven to be one of the simplest ways to sort out topics that are hoaxes or are of only parochial importance.

People seem to be debating this as if I'm trying to add a requirement. I'm not. I'm simply saying that while I can support reducing existing requirements, I cannot support the complete elimination of requiring independent sourcing for topics. People that are demanding complete elimination of the requirement are the ones that are failing to compromise. I can see a need for reduction, but people should stop demanding elimination and then accusing me of failing to compromise because I think they are going too far.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can answer some of the issues I raise in the section below, I think that would be helpful - I'm specifically wondering about the "mention" criterion as it stands - how that would work, whether it's a helpful addition to the policy. I'm not saying you're not compromising - I'm saying your proposed language has problems for me. If we can resolve those problems, that will be good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple alternatives

In the thread above, we've got a couple of concrete suggestions. I want to break those off (not to kill the thread above, but to start discussing particulars)

1. Kww's added language requiring an independent source.
2. My proposed language requiring that the element "would be expected by a reasonable reader to be mentioned by an overview of the work" (tinker wording as needed)
3. A proposal requiring more than a trivial mention in an independent source
4. Try the guideline out as is, and if we have an inclusion problem with the guideline of articles where the independent source requirement can't be fulfilled, deal with it then.
5. Form a better plan.

I'm OK with 2 or 4, personally. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CLOSE THIS NOW. STOP GAMING THE GOD DAMNED SYSTEM. EVERY FUCKING TIME WE TRY TO TALK ABOUT THIS, YOU RE-PRESENT THE ENTIRE NUT OF THE ARGUMENT AGAIN IN A NEW SECTION, FORCING US TO JUMP THROUGH THE FUCKING HOOPS AGAIN. CLOSE THIS SECTION NOW. ARCHIVE IT. DEAL WITHTHE FUCKING QUESTIONS ABOVE, AND STOP GAMING. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cruise control for cool, eh? Protonk (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• I figured the above section would be a good section for generating ideas, and this one would be a good section for figuring out which ideas work or can be combined - the above for a free-wheeling discussion of the issues, this one for the practical question of discussing proposals. I apologize if this idea has offended you, as it obviously has, but would suggest that perhaps your tone is less than helpful in seeking a compromise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the above, I've been gone for a while and it seems like we are working in circles around the notion of requiring an independent source. I agree w/ Gavin and Phil (!) that a trivial mention from a single independent source is worthless. But I also see where Kww/Gavin are coming from: subjectivity makes this guideline difficult to use and toothless. I don't have an answer. I can't think of one. I don't want to do "one non-trivial independent source" because that is basically what we have now (really, if we had one actual significant tract of a RS devoted to a subject, we keep it). Maybe that's better. But I don't know. It still doesn't jive with the outcome I want (reasonable, internally coherent coverage of fiction that doesn't piss off fans but doesn't make wikipedia into a fansite). I don't know how much I'm adding, but I'm stumped. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean, my goal here is this - I regularly use Wikipedia to check basic facts about works of fiction I'm mentioning in passing, or to figure out if something is sufficiently interesting or relevant to what I'm researching that I want to follow up on it and watch/read it. For that, basically, I need a plot description that summarizes the whole plot, but is concise enough to follow (some of our plots are too long to be useful - I get lost in details when what I want is the big picture), I need an account of major characters, and I need anything else that's a big major concept of the work.

I don't need coverage of weapons or cameo characters, I don't need exhaustive plot detail. For extremely lengthy serialization (basically TV and comics) there's some tricky bits in plot detail, but it comes down to how to adequately break the summary down to component parts. I have no particular attachment to individual episode articles except inasmuch as it's sometimes the best way to get the job done.

I am rather tired of my striving for this position being labeled as radically inclusionist, but so be it. It is, I think, a practical goal most of us can get behind. I'll take whatever policy accomplishes it. The question is which of these options does the job. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a radically inclusionist stance, but you've cast many nets for tuna that also come back with dolphins. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The real disservice we do to readers when we have 23452345 separate articles on fictional sub-subjects is not the proliferation (not paper and all) but the fact that any relevant facts are scattered and buried under plot summary and haphazardly duplicated and organized in no reasonable fashion. Quibbling over WP:N-style standards of "notability" still misses the main issue: separating FICTIONAL NOUN who are themselves their own topic from FICTIONAL NOUN who are inextricable from the work of fiction in which they appear, and curbing the proliferation of the latter without in any way impairing the former. Using the oooooooooooooooooooooold Wikipedia:Fancruft standard, allowing Superman while merging John Galt. But until attitudes change to look at FICTIONAL NOUN as a part of the fictional work in which it appears, to take emphasis off of IC presentation to focus on RL roles, and to look less at continuities and more at works of fiction, then this is all just rearranging chairs, you know?

BTW, less the caps I kind of agree with Thuran, we know where you stand, SS, no need to repeat it in its own new header. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you know where I stand, you're well ahead of me - I started the section in a large part to try to sort among the various options that were being batted around in the above thread and focus on the goal of picking a way forward instead of yet another discussion about principles. Which seems to have failed, instead making this a thread about my starting threads. I'll resist the temptation to try again with a new thread. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(eC)I agree that our current methods of how fiction is presented and organized is poor, and unfortunately an extension of the initial rapid growth of WP. We as a whole know better know of what we want fiction to be -- or at least , the bounding box is better. At the same time, I agree with Phil's position that there's no reason we cannot provide the higher level details of a piece of work, organized in a way to make sure the real-world aspects are not lost while still thoroughly and concisely covering the work for both those that have never read that work of fiction and those that are fanatic about it. These goals do not have to be counter to each other -- I have a rather grand vision of how this all can come together without sacrificing any of the mission or goals of WP and without putting fiction under the bus or on a pedestal.

This is just not going to happen with one fell swoop. There's too many longstanding principles that take a lot of time to wrap heads around to make sure it is comfortable change.

The point here is that this version of FICT represents a first step - or even a second or third considering the past. A clean point on this step is the results of the WP:N RFC that showed some consensus to the concept that the sourcing for notability can be defined by the SNGs, and that's pretty much what this FICT has, in addition to further requiring the element to be more than a background element. If we can agree with this FICT, the next step is to tackle lists and supporting articles (which is a whole other battle). Once we get that, we can start talking about modifying WAF a bit more to describe better how to organize all the elements under the umbrella of a fictional work to achieve a concise, but thorough, description of the work of fiction including its in universe elements that does not marginalize any work of fiction, but neither creates leeway for fiction to expand the same way it did as it was in the past. But these are steps - it will probably take a year+ to get through them all. Let's take it one step at a time, and establish a starting point between "zero sourcing" and "GNG-required sourcing". --MASEM 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's a clear statement of purpose that is not served by a subjective standard that appeals to a reasonable reader! That's a goal that is served by a standard that is "You must pass this bar or you're gone" for the absolute lowest-value articles. Your goal is served by a standard, any standard that obliterates only useless articles while saving possibly too many. That goal is why an inane standard like "at least one independent source" is useful. It dynamites the lowest-value articles (written by fans, based only on the interpretation of the subject or the authors' commentary) while retaining everything else.

If we're working on progressive new standards to slowly remove the lowest value articles, stop and reassess, remove again, reassess, and repeat until only articles of value remain, then airy standards that appeal to general readers and cast too wide a net will not serve our goals. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, if there weren't 100,000s of fiction articles that existed already, I'd be agreeable to a higher standard. But we have what was created in the past, and the fact that most of these likely aren't tended to by any editor means that if we apply the "independent source" metric to most of them now, we've be doing a lot of deleting. I'd rather see us take this step (which will still send articles to deletion for failing this, just not as many), and then work on how to better organize fiction one other aspects have been determined and put in place, than wiping a lot to start and forcing us to rebuild. --MASEM 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That won't happen. Any solution that differs too far from the status quo simply won't get enough support to be implemented. The risk is not that useful articles will be deleted in spades, but rather that the guideline will hit a wall of indifference and not actually see use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The status quo amounts to "if the show is sci-fi and has enough fans, all articles are permitted, but otherwise, no." Masem's description actually sounds reasonably close to this. :)

In seriousness, as soon as we get this passed, my next project is going to be to try to create a practical mechanism to get real improvement in an area of articles.

As for indifference, I'd argue that's what's happened to WP:N for fiction. But in that case - why don't we go with option four above - try this guideline as is, and if we're getting an excess of crap articles kept, tighten as needed to get the desired results? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because once it's approved, it can't get changed again without a large majority in favor of changing it. There's no way to shorten the leash once it's lengthened.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So we be creative - we agree that we're giving it a three month trial. If, after three months, there are concerns about what is being kept or deleted based on this guideline, we agree that we revisit the entire issue. I'm willing to agree to an explicit trial so that the leash-shortening, if needed, is not so difficult. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You know guys, if I'm understanding Kww correctly, the mere mention of something in an independent source isn't really that big of a requirement. Name drops occur all the time and this solves the second prong problem of subjectivity by creating an objective method of measuring importance. IMO, a simple name drop in an independent source is seen as often as the same in developer commentary, so it's not that big of an increase. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but in some ways that's my concern - if it's a mere mention, it doesn't really add any information to the article. So finding it becomes more a homework assignment than a real attempt to improve the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2 cent from a lurker: if an article "should meet three conditions" (all 3, at least to some level) and the 3rd condition ask explicitly for "Significant, real-world information must exist on the subject", an article that pass this (3), will have is subject also almost certainly "being mentioned in at least one independent source", so put this last condition in the 2nd IMO is redundant.--Yoggysot (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not redundant, as the "real world information" currently asked by the guideline can be developer commentary or another non-independent source.

@Phil: meh, fair enough. The majority of the time there's a name drop, it's plot summary of some sort, so I suppose there would be something that could be sourced in the article, but then again, such a source would probably be excised in the course of regular editing for being trivial. Quite the conundrum. I think a key issue here is that there's a natural limit as to how much you can actually write on a subject while staying within our guidelines, so stuff that we would consider trivial and not pass the second prong would be increasingly exposed as time goes on as an item of rather limited material. In that case, merging becomes appropriate, as it's the better way to present the material, regardless of its notability. A rather easy test is that if something doesn't have enough material to make GA (which has quite the low bar), then it's probably better off merged. I'm clueless how to quantify this in the second prong though. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I actually agree with Phil Sandifer that the "trivial mention in an independent source" doesn't prove anything. It has almost nothing to do with importance. Significant coverage in the form of a paragraph? Absolutely. But a review that says "there is something really satisfying about killing the final boss with a shotgun" does not validate an entire article about the shotgun from Resident Evil. Importance has barely anything to do with whether or not you get a trivial mention. Randomran (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

this false choice shit is absurd, and distracting from the main issue. #1 and #2 exist separately from each other and not in any form of opposition. #1 is about what kind of source is required by those Phil classifies as Deletionists, and #2 is about what Inclusionists would use to determine Notability. No false choices. Close this section, stop gaming the system, and sort this shit out. ThuranX (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're even talking about. Phil Sandifer (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do. "Option 1", which you attribute to Kww, is a question of should we require independent sources. #2 is should we assume the minds of others and include anything that a fan might want to see because a fan thinks it's important. #1 specifically addresses sourcing, #2 addresses what a standard for notability should be if we ignore sourcing of any sort and go to a fan-based model. they aren't compatible as either/or, because one is about a level of sourcing, the other's a world where sourcing is irrelevant. It's not a legit choice. Would you rather have soup or cook in the kitchen would be equivalent. They look related, both are about prepared foods, but it's not 'soup or salad'. Inclusionists just want soup brought to them. ThuranX (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Randomran the "trivial mention in an independent source" doesn't prove anything.. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"prong"

I know there are bigger disputes. But can we use a word other than "prong"? I think it's been a useful shorthand as we've been working on it. But for it to be a real guideline, we should use another word. "Three factor test?" "Three step test?" Randomran (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think I called it the Five Pointed Palm Exploding Heart Technique once to get Phil's goat. I'm ok with factor, less so with steps (As it isn't serial). But I can take it or leave it. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• *shuffles about, looks at floor* ...I kinda like prong, meself... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it can safely be said that no one's really that upset about the word prong, but we could go military and talk about platoons, or go from the prongs of a deer's antlers to the points of a buck, or the three cards in the monte... or, since it's their tenth anniversary, we could name them blossom, bubbles and buttercup, after the powerpuff girls. Or we could leave it and focus on the problem of whether or not the fan's judgment of notability is enough. ThuranX (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I always liked prong. It's a normal term in judicial decisions that create tests on deciding whether something is obscene or copyright infringing or whatever. It seemed the appropriate term for what we're doing here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, "prong" seems just fine to me. Would also circumvent any future confusion from folks who've only been peripherally following. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm alone on this one, I can let it go :) I just thought there might be a better term, that sounds less like WP:JARGON. Randomran (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Branch, possibly, or point. Otherwise, I think prong works suitably (I think it works beautifully, even!); I think you could probably add it to the glossary subpage, which is transcluded at the top of this page. --Izno (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Prong" is fine by me.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reducing archive time

Since the list of topics seems to be growing more than shrinking, i set the days to 7 (from 10). The 10-day was set before this was made as public as it is currently.じんない 08:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the bot archive time, which, for some unknown reason is different from the displayed archiving time. Fooled me the first time, too. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Trial period

Since this isn't an "everyone is happy" guideline, we are at an impass it seems, but the relative impass is only one 1 minor issue, not the argument of the guideline as a whole I, and some others, think a trial should be done. I think it needs to be stated that this trial should be conducted for at least 30 days, possibly longer (especially if we get statements in AfD like "well WP:FICT is only on a trial basis till day X..". This way we can extend it as well if those are the type of arugments that are being used to keep/delete content to better get a sense of what this article would do for long-term.じんない 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with trial guidelines is that guidelines aren't rules but instead arguments that doing it such-and-such way is better. "Well, it's a guideline, so you'd better follow it" just doesn't fly. This work isn't legislation; it's documentation or evangelism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true, but it is more than a mere suggestion, it's a suggestion you should be able to substantiate a sound reason why it should be ignored. The criteria isn't necessarily as strict as a policy, but ignoring it because you don't like it is not good enough reason. An essay on how to do something is closer to a general suggestion.じんない 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the trial is an empty gesture. If we have a trial, then we have a guideline. We're using it. How do you prove it's being used inappropriately? If it's being used to keep too many articles, or delete too many articles, either way there will be enough people who like it exactly the way it is to prevent it from going back in the box. Let's be honest: if we let it out of the box, there's no going back. Only small changes are possible. Randomran (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't mark a page a guideline as a "trial." You wait until there's consensus to mark a proposal a guideline, and then you mark it a guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Randomran. You can't really have a "trial" of a guideline the same way you can have a trial of FlaggedRevs because you're asking editors to adhere to a page that may-or-may-not-be a guideline; no one would be under any sort of duress (nor should they) to follow it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it was a suggestion since others had brought it up. If there seems to be a clear indication that it isn't a good idea, then I'll withdraw the proposal. It doesn't solve the problem though of a sticking point on the 1 tiny issue keeping this article in limbo.じんない 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see two tiny issues. But I think the two issues are from two opposing viewpoints. Meaning there's a good chance they cancel each other out. ... of course, then there's the possibility that the two opposing sides get together on shared opposition to this guideline. The way we prevent that from happening, of course, is asking them to explain why they oppose it. If an equal number of people say it's too strict as they say it's too loose, then that proves this is probably the best compromise we can get. Randomran (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And I'll add to that, I'm willing to take a "doesn't matter how the sausage gets made" approach here - if there are minimal objections to what articles would and wouldn't actually be kept, I think we're in pretty good shape. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go a step further. This is the way sausage gets made. Love it or leave it. Nobody's going to get their ideal proposal. The people who actually worked on this guideline didn't get their ideal guideline either. But forced to talk to each other and find common ground, this is the best we could do. Don't knock the sausage if you can't make something better. Randomran (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am, at this point, reasonably persuaded against a trial. I think we're all sensible and relatively on the same page about what this guideline should do. If we're seeing problems, I suspect we can come to a good consensus on fixing it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My issues with independence

Since this seems to be the major stumbling block right now, here are the issues I see with the independence clause that I need some reassurance on before I can support it.

1. It adds a restriction with no content - to date nobody has pointed to an article that would be kept under this guideline but deleted under the new one. That simply adds hoops to jump through instead of content. Procedural red tape does not improve policy. What does this requirement add, in a practical sense, to the guideline?
2. It encourages bad writing - if sources that merely have a trivial mention need to be cited, articles need to be restructured around citing a source that is irrelevant to the content of the article. How is an article improved by citing a source that merely mentions the subject of the article?
3. It excessively de-emphasizes potential in favor of actuality, creating an arbitrary hoop that articles must clear in the present. Our deletion and notability processes are actively centered on the potential of articles. Focusing them on present requirements makes inclusion a matter of fulfilling requirements on a deadline. It seems to me that this requirement would increase the vulnerability of fiction articles to mass deletion campagins that overwhelm the abilities of editors in that area to make improvements. This would result in the loss of numerous articles that could be kept with minor effort simply by spreading the attention of those who will make that effort too thin. If we go this route, there needs to be a clear protection in place against mass deletion campaigns.

If I can see some sort of addressing of these three issues, particularly the third, I might be able to support this change. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Phil that the point of this FICT is to try to keep articles that, given more time can have the potential to be of encyclopedic quality but lack it in the present. The issues of importance and stronger reliance on sourcing should be something addressed higher up the editing process, specifically recommending merges and the like to deal with topics that otherwise have very little information about that. --MASEM 16:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought the point of this FICT was to provide a compromise position that all parties of the fiction debate could agree on so that this constant fighting could cease.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm saying, OK, your proposed language - I can deal with it in theory, but there are some details that need to be worked out. Hence negotiations continue. I mean, I think it's a silly, arbitrary requirement. But honestly, if it's accompanied by something that prevents the biggest problem with it - that it is a license for mass deletion campaigns that will be exceedingly difficult to respond reasonably to - I could probably live with it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Phil that the requirement for independent source is arbitrary if the independent source is trivial. I don't understand why trivial content is so important to writing an encyclopedic article. On the other hand, WP:GNG does require independent sourcing, it is just that we are trying to widen the inclusion criteria just a little bit to reach a compromise position. If it does not work, we can can always discuss the issue of independent sourcing after we have tested this version of WP:FICT. That seems a positon we could all agree to. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First point: standards do not equal red tape. Providing an objective method of discarding bogus arguments is crucial to any effective guideline. WP:NSONGS standard that a song must chart, win an award, or be covered by multiple artists is wonderful: I can propose songs at AFD knowing that there is a 99% chance of deletion, or know not to bother with AFD because there is a 99% chance of retention.

Second point: a single citation rarely necessitates a restructuring of an article. Hell, it could go in a "See Also", if necessary.

"Potential sources" has always been a weak argument, and there is no particular reason to accommodate it explicitly in the guideline. If there is a truly substantial chance of an independent source existing that is somehow invisible to people looking for it at AFD, that argument can be brought forth in AFD discussion. If the person arguing that case is persuasive, then the AFD will either result in a deadlock or a keep. This isn't CSD land, where articles get deleted without any discussion. As for "overwhelming article creators", I'm not even asking that the source contain any particular kind of information. The tricky part in the current rules is that the information contained in independent sources can't be plot summary information, which requires a lot of sorting and combing to find a suitable source. If the topic of an article can't even be found in an independent plot summary, how important can it actually be?—Kww(talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand - you're looking for trivial mention in independent sources. If you wanted substantial mention, I'd object more, but trivial mention is at least sufficiently easy that I think it is merely not a change to what articles can and can't pass the guideline. But my issue is this - even if finding such sources is easy, when dozens of articles are being nominated a day for deletion, having such a hoop to jump through on all of them is a massive time sink - time that could be spent improving articles instead of jumping through hoops.

If the mass AfD problem can be solved, and if we can agree that these trivial mentions go on the talk page, not the article page, I think I'm OK with it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the sourcing only needs to be demonstrated to exist during the AFD discussion, I think. I wouldn't try to encode a talk-page exemption. A good objective standard goes a long way towards preventing AFD nominations. I don't waste my time nominating singles by The Cheetah Girls (recording artists) for the simple reason that they pass the objective criteria, so I know that my personal opinion that they are unimportant artists that have failed to produce any important works is irrelevant. The same would apply here: if the standard for including Drag Strip is to find an independent source that mentions him, I'd look for them before nominating. For all that everyone complains about WP:BEFORE, most people nominating things for AFD have taken the time to look for sources— the disagreement is over whether those sources are sufficient.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no - I'm saying "put mention of the source on the talk page." Not an exemption so much as a "please don't contort prose to cite trivial sources." And I think the problem of mass AfDs is, frankly, a reality. Let's be blunt here, in fact - fiction articles are the subject of a mass AfD campaign right now. I am concerned that a requirement for article content (as opposed to judgment on the subject) will overwhelm fiction editors who could otherwise actually be contributing content. One of the defenses against this, normally, is that articles are considered based on potential - so the often far faster process of explaining the subject's significance is sufficient. This is a useful defense against mass AfDs. If we eliminate that defense, given that mass AfDs are a real problem, we need some counterbalance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not proposed a requirement for article content, merely a requirement that the process of explaining the importance be confirmed by existence of an independent source. I'll agree that far on potentiality ... if the existence of a source can be demonstrated at AFD, actually working that source into the article can be deferred. —Kww(talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that this adequately solves the Mass AfD problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any AfD discussions in which Kww was involved, but I've seen AfDs where supporters of deletion made no attempt to improve the article, even when the sources were already known. --Philcha (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is shameful. This is the major problem here - we've tuned this guideline, in numerous places, to be hostile to fannish inclusionists. We have been less careful in tuning it against people who actually want to gut this area of content, despite the fact that they exist. That's fine - I think the guideline is strong enough in this area that I'm not worried. But this proposed addition throws off that balance. If we go the independence route, we have to counterbalance it to keep the larger balancing of this guideline intact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not any particular notability guideline, it's that AfDs systematically ignore WP:DELETE's statement that improvement is preferable to deletion and deletion should be the last resort. See the discussion / debate / fun at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. --Philcha (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

..."hostile to fannish inclusionists"? I have a hard time seeing that. It's nearly a complete concession to them.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The third prong prevents the creation of articles on topics that can only be described in-universe. --MASEM 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, real world content is already a major one. On top of that, we took serious pains to keep the second prong from being an inclusion-fest, and sanded off every line people thought could be abused. Frankly, the real-world requirement, as it is, is going to lead to a complete bloodbath of articles. But at least that's a substantive one, and one where everybody I know of who works seriously on fiction articles can at least support the idea behind it. The idea that trivial mentions are encyclopedically relevant in any fashion? I'd say it's a bit more obscure. If we're making that a requirement, we should at least make sure that it's not the grounds used for mass nominations.

What if we moved the focus from actual presentation of sources to something that makes it less about jumping through a hoop (and thus makes dealing with AfDs less than a tedious finding of obvious sources) to something substantive? For instance, if we used a test for the second prong along the lines of "would be mentioned in any overview of the work," continuing to whitelist episodes and main characters (as AfD clearly does)? Since the first prong requires more-than-bare minimum coverage in secondary sources, this ends up being synonymous with what you want without requiring what amounts to a third grade homework assignment every time someone nominates an article for deletion (which, let's face it, people routinely do without making the barest effort to see if nomination is appropriate).

Or we can start blocking people for bad AfD nominations. But until that is the case, I oppose the requirement of tedious busywork for keeping articles in the face of idiotic AfD nominations. (And yes, "find an independent source that has a mention of this episode or character" is tedious busy work. It's a scavenger hunt, not encyclopedia writing.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kww. this makes the bar so damn low, the only way to make it lower is to remove the 'independent sources', at which point AfD can shut down, and I can find a new hobby. If there's no measure against which to judge notability, wikipedia will simply fill up with third-rate articles that fanboys fill pages of WP:LAME fighting over. (Did the overworked korean studio accidentally paint one cell the wrong color, or do some transformers have a mostly unused ability to randomly flicker one limb to a new color, but do it without explanation? If the former, is it legitimate trivia to explain in which frame that color change happened? If the latter, is the tiny transformers board that talks about it a reliable enough source for WHY it happens?) Fuck it. If no one's talking about what you want to write about, then it ought to be deleted. Otherwise, we can all write articles about our cats, our carpets, our driveways and our neighbors' sweaty grunts during sex that can be heard from the street in summer when their window are open. Removing the IndepSou Clause revokes WP:NOT, NOTE, and RS. ThuranX (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I was trying to set the bar at the lowest threshold I could stomach. If that creates the problem that it can be met with trivial sources, that problem can be easily fixed. I would be happy to make sure that the mention in an independent source was fully encyclopedic by saying "the importance of the topic to the central work must be affirmed in at least one reliable source independent of the work itself". Still lower than WP:N by a long shot.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with "would be mentioned by an overview of the work?" It accomplishes the same thing, given the first prong, without the busywork requirement?

I'm trying here to come up with something that satisfies your concerns about objectivity without creating a pedantic requirement that amounts to busywork rather than substantive or productive requirement. I mean, what exactly is added by someone doing the leg work to find a trivial mention in an independent source? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a yawning chasm between an Encyclopedia Britannia overview and a Encyclopedia of the Star Wars Universe overview and different people have seen both as reasonable definitions of "encyclopedic overview" on Wikipedia. Licensed encyclopedia-like works (there's my biases in plain view, folks) will often go into greater detail, but that detail often is original fiction exclusive to that licensed work or a summary of other works, often works too minor to bear mention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this seems to me something that can be worked around via wording - "a reasonable reader would expect to see mentioned in an overview of the work aimed at people unfamiliar with it." Fannish completist sources are blocked out on that wording. Continue tinkering as you see fit - my goal here is that we get, basically, what a multi-page feature in a magazine on the show would be reasonably likely to mention. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone considers themselves a reasonable reader. The "different people who have seen both etc." above is a spectrum of more-or-less reasonable people. And when you say magazine...remember that both Time and Starlog are magazines, and I've seen both cited in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"this seems to me something that can be worked around via wording" There's as plain an admission to looking for a means to game whatever rule we come up with. I can't really take Phil as working in good faith anymore. Every day I read this, it reads like WP:FLAT more and more - I see new ways of forcing the same thing through. ThuranX (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Far from it. I think there's likely a standard MiB and I would both agree on here - that is, a sort of overview that we're both willing to grant that if a character were mentioned in, it would be sufficient for the second prong. The question is figuring out how to describe it so that someone else, not part of this discussion, understands what we're talking about. Which is a question of wording. For instance, I tend to think that the idea of an introductory overview of a work aimed at people unfamiliar with it is a concept that, while it probably doesn't have 100% agreement on what means, at least has about 80%. If we set the threshold at "would be mentioned in an introductory overview of a work aimed at people unfamilar with it," I would guess that 80% of people will agree on whether a given fictional element meets that threshold, and 20% will be crazy. That, to me, makes it a decent test. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It is NOT pedantic busywork. It is a requirement that proof is furnished that the desired topic is not just the mastubatory fodder of some fanboy inclusionist. What is gained is a bulwark against speedy deletion on grounds of spam, lack of notability, 'crapimadeupwhilestonedinmybasement' (I forget the link for that), and demonstration that a reasonable article can be written about the topic without simply reproducing the walled garden coverage provided by internal commentaries and 'official guides to...' . It's that simple. Proof that the topic really does matter. Most of the examples you've given so far aren't legitimate, by the way. Any show popular enough to be released on DVD has almost certainly already been reviewed, discussed, and so on in the entertainment rags, the newspapers and so on. Why is it such a problem to expect that those seeking to create an article do a little research first? Should articles really be written by people just writing from memory or their own Ideas? There goes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, right out the window with all the others we'd have to throw out under this "guideline". I would like to know, flat out and simple WHY this requirement constitutes an unbreachable wall against new articles, as you claim. ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If there were no articles on fiction out there right now, sure, asking for people to research before expanding would make sense. But we're not at that situation. There's probably in the order of 100,000's of articles relating to fiction created during WP's growth that lack the type of sourcing we'd like now that we're trying to figure out what to do with. This FICT should give us a quick thumbs up/down to tell us if these articles should stay by giving us a quick judge of the sources and the importance of the topic. An article that barely passes all three prongs should be kept, but only in the tentative sense - editorial sense should be used to judge if an article should be moved to a larger article pending the lack of any new information. (Side note: I wonder if it would be worthwhile to tag it with some type of editing cleanup recommendation tag to say that this might be better covered in a larger body of text, not quite as drastic as the current tags, but something that anyone interested in fiction cleanup can use to try to help with). --MASEM 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly. We have hundreds of thousands of articles. Some of them are useful starts for good articles. Some of them are crap. What we need is to effectively go through and sort them into the two piles. A standard that deletes articles on topics that could be good articles with the available sources today and that would be useful starts for a good article is a bad standard. No article that is both a useful start and on a topic that we would want an article on should be deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it useful to go find a newspaper article where a character has been mentioned in passing? What does finding such an article do to improve our coverage of the subject? Answer that and you may have something - at least, something more than incoherent screaming and swearing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a standard higher than nothing. It's a compromise between "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" and "If a topic is of sufficient importance in the fictional context, it is presumed to satisfy the etc. etc." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. If our inclusion guideline were just prong two, I'd oppose it too. What I don't see is how trivial coverage improves an article that otherwise meets all three prongs. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a separate new standard, it's a description of the bare minimum required to meet the third prong. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think independent sources are needed for the third prong, though. I mean, if I were doing an episode of Grey's Anatomy, I'd figure the Grey's Anatomy Writer's Blog is a more useful source for writing a section than any review of a TV episode I've ever read. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And the Grey's Anatomy Unofficial Fan Site might be useful as well. That's an entirely different project, though, and cramming it ill-fitting into this one is the contentious issue. (Again, my biases plain to see.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but when you're equating the blog of the writers of the show to an unofficial fansite, you're kind of off the reservation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are fansites bad sources for establishing importance? Because they are too close to and have too much of an interest in the subject. How are authors different? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

At least the writer's blog is a reliable source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Its authority is reliable, its objectivity is not. You're an academic, you understand the difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so is this proposal mention in some independent source, not necessarily a reliable one? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

More WP:FLAT techniques. restating the issue as if confused, to introduce a false choice, not between his misunderstanding of your point and his new understanding of your point, but between his way and his way. Now the source need be ONLY reliable OR independent. I'm sick of this fucking gaming. Stop playing games, Sandifer. You know full well what's being called for here. Independent, reliable sources. One at minimum, more if possible. YOU ARE NOT STUPID, STOP BEHAVING LIKE WE ARE. ThuranX (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am. I am also being blunt, which is the necessary antidote to Phil's Civil POV push behavior. Read WP:Flat and you'll see what I'm talking about. There's an awful lot of the techniques described being applied, and it makes me think FLAT is a BEANS problem. ThuranX (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being so ridiculously incivil and so ridiculously lacking in any assumption of good faith that it is not possible to carry on a useful discussion with you. Please come back to this page when you're done acting like a child. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm being as civil as one can be to a Polite POV pusher like yourself. You refuse to simply understand the CONCEPT of independent sourcing for Fiction articles. You continue, in what must be disingenuous behavior, since, judging by your published papers (linked on his userpage), you clearly can write and do research, to act completely mystified by the idea of demanding independent reliable sources for establishing the notability of a Fictional element, even going so far at one point here to ask 'do we want independent or reliable', implying that those of us asking for both must be confused. It's way past AGF, you are being an obstructionist. When backed into a corner, you simply restart the argument in a new section, phrase it slightly differently, and say 'I'm just trying to understand all this, it's Soooooo confusing'. You're not confused, you're laughing your head off at how you're keeping us running in circles. You can see full well here that there is not going to be any further concession from those demanding higher standards; you've gone from multiple in depth reliable independent sources discussing the topic to 'one independent reliable source Mentioning it'. If an inclusionist fiction-crufter can't find that, tough shit. But that's not enough for you. We've seen you move the goalposts further and further away form compromise. At one point, it was integral to the narrative based on creator-added content and other materials created by the producers of the work. gradually that was opened to anything the creator says anywhere matters to the story, and below, you move it to 'anything a fan would expect to see'. You keep pulling your side of the discussion further and further from the center, trying to see how much closer to your position we'll move, and you've found the limit and yet you continue to demand more. Bluntly, NO MORE. No more moving the bar. No more pushing back the goalposts. No more disingenuous playing at confusion and clarification, or restarting the debate when too many people make good arguments against your position. There is no further compromising, and I'm not the only one who is sick and tired of trying to make this work. It cannot work, and it's that simple. ThuranX (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I'm not as angry as Thuran is, but I'm really getting the feeling that my time is being wasted. A source with no authority isn't useful for anything. An unobjective source isn't useful to establish importance/notability/what-the-fuck-ever-term-we're-using-now because they have too much of an interest in the subject. The idea behind requiring at least one independent source is that if nobody has ever seen fit to publish an article or other work on the subject, Wikipedia should not be the first. This is older than WP:N; it goes all the way back to Uncle G's "On notability" essay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Such trivial independent sources would be deleted during the normal course of editing by most cases as being what they are, trivial, thus removing the fact that the use of such sources could even denote for kww that is had such independance because of their very nature of being trivial. So an editor removing a source for that legitimate reason of being trivial mention could easily get that same article moved into AfD because it didn't have a source of independance on the list now. Sure, someone could go and cite that and it might be saved, but that's wasted effort that helps no one, all because everyone would be following the guidelines as they see fit. And if it happens once, it's certain to happen more times, for other articles, if not the same one over and over, just because that need for 1 trivial independant source that could be a proffessional reviewer stating a personal opinion of "I thought that character was the most notable." and nothing more.じんない 08:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• In anwer to A Man In Black, I think you make a valid point that Wikipedia should not be the first to cover a topic that has not been cited elsewhere. However, for me this is a formality, on the basis that if the creators of an element have provided substantial real-world coverage as required by the third prong, then independent sources are highly likely to follow in the future. Substantial real-world coverage is likely to originate from the creators first, which is then used by independent commentators to build on subsequently. My analogy is the snowball effect: once the ball is rolling, the depth of coverage will increase. If we don't require independent sourcing as an inclusion criteria but insist on substantial real-world coverage instead, we broaden the number of topics that qualify for their own article, but without a reduction in content quality.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on people

Ok, I left these discussions awhile ago because I frankly got tired of hearing the same people rant about the same shit (pardon my French). I respect everyone's opinion, but there comes a time when you need to let it go and move on. That time is now. We've all heard each other more than a dozen times. As I read the guideline right now, it seems rather well put together. I'm not saying it is perfect, but it's better than the sum of its parts. I believe we need to go ahead and do our "mass mail-out" to get this thing over and done with. We're bickering over these details when we have no idea what the majority of the community are even going to think about them. Let's stop the bickering and start the presses. Go ahead and notify the village pumps, noticeboards, etc. It's time to get this guideline up and running, in one form or another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, and even assert that we should seek CENT to make sure no one else sees any red flags, and then apply this for three months, planning to come back and review what really did happen at AFD and elsewhere as a result of this new guideline, and decide then if editors do use all three prongs as envisioned, or if people are gaming the system (for example, stretching the intent of the 2nd prong) and requiring us to rewrite any of them with more prescriptive language. --MASEM 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that a trial with an explicit agreement that we will revisit the issue if people feel like the guideline has been used to keep inappropriate articles is a very good idea. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How will we measure that inappropriate articles have been kept? If it's been kept in accordance with the guideline, then by definition it's appropriate. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to treat that as personal opinion - if people think the guideline is being used to keep articles that ought not have been kept (in a general sense - i.e. that it was undesirable to create a policy that allowed keeping), we can look at them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any precedent for a trial guideline. I suspect that achieving widespread consensus to have a trial of a guideline would be as or more controversial than the guideline itself. What are we really saying? "We are going to pretend to agree for 90 days, and then go back to the previous version (which I don't think you will find broad consensus for), or "We'll pretend to agree for 90 days, and then leave the trial guideline in place while we argue over changes", which I would oppose tooth-and-nail as the equivalent of a high-school boy's promise to only put it in a little bit.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) there is no precedence, and even if there were, it is simply a way to ease the minds of those who are unsure. A "trial" is not a "trial", because once the proposal is removed it will never be a proposal again. The same editors above will say it has consensus, and that will be the end of it. This is simply a way to push the guideline forward, despite disagreement on its substance.

I think CENT is a wonderful idea, once editors hash out the issues above. Ikip (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no recent precedent - we did, quite a while ago, implement a procedure called quickpolls on a trial basis. But I'm perfectly willing to have a clear agreement among those of us working on implementing this guideline that we're implementing it on a three month trial, and that afterwards we'll look at any cases people have of articles that were kept or deleted that should not have been and, if there is not a consensus that those articles were appropriate or desirable results, we will rewrite the guideline as necessary to fix those problems. It's an unconventional move. But, well, we can rewrite the rulebook if we think it will be helpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can see that there remains clear, reasonable disagreement. What is unclear is whether or not this disagreement can be resolved through the authoring of any change to this guideline. In that event, one option may just be to create (and advertise) a straw poll asking people if the guideline as written should be adopted. I'm uninterested in putting the guideline through any sort of "trial" phase (for various reasons, chief among them that it would be confusing as hell). Protonk (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can make a trial work - I think you only need a few ground rules to have it be sane. A three month window, a page where anyone can log outcomes they think were undesirable outcomes, and an agreement among all or most of us that in three months we'll look at those cases, figure out which ones have a significant sense were bad outcomes (I'm thinking anything that has less than 2/3 support that the outcome was the right one), and make whatever changes are needed to the guideline to fix those problems.

I mean, not only do I think it's workable, I think it's necessary. We're dealing with thousands of articles at once, and dozens of editors who will be applying this guideline. There's no way to predict with great accuracy how things will work. What we need is field data to see if, for instance, the independence issue is one that actually affects things. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that at the end of the "trial" period, unless there's strong consensus to change it, this goes forward. That's exactly the same thing that would happen if the proposal was adopted, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. That said, I doubt you and I differ that much on the actual question of what articles should be deleted. In fact, I'm guessing that, all things being equal, you, me, Randomran, Gavin, Masem, and Protonk would all vote the same on fiction AfDs with about 90% consistency. So I'm guessing that there's not going to be, in three months, a lot of disagreement on what needs to be fixed. Indeed, I'll say that, for me at least, I think that if this guideline as written does lead to inappropriate keeps, it's going to need strengthening well beyond mention in an independent source (which I don't think excludes any character or episode of any TV show, for instance). Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I share concerns with both Kww and Ikip. Strangely enough, they're on opposite ends of the inclusion spectrum. But they both agree: once it's adopted on a trial basis, we're going to remove the "proposed" tag, and it's going to be hard to find a consensus to put it back. If we go ahead on a trial basis, we should be honest and admit that we're approving the guideline as is. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Kww, Ikip, randomran and anyone else who opposes this as a backdoor for establishing a new status quo on the sly. I also note: No one's pointed out: If we 'approve for a trial', then any fiction article created during this trial period would need to be reassessed at the end of the trial, whereupon i have NO doubt many, many wikipedians would cry foul if deleted, arguing that most new editors couldn't understand the trial period thing, and thus would be driven away/penalized unfairly, and inclusionists would argue to keep all the new articles on that very basis, defaulting us to a permanent state of accepting the 'no sources needed' variety of this proposal. ThuranX (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In which case we're stuck with either the current proposal or a modification. Clearly the "trivial mention" idea is a non-starter. Anyone else have an idea that addresses these concerns? I still suspect we could work out a usable test along the lines of "would be likely to be mentioned in an overview of the work aimed at someone unfamiliar with it" that has much of the same effect without requiring the finding of largely not-useful sources. Or we can go as is - to date, nobody has presented an article that would be kept under this guideline that they think should be deleted. If I had some idea of what sort of articles we were worried about, it would be a lot easier to find more ideas for how to deal with this problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I made an edit to the second prong based on what we talked about last week. As an olive branch to the deletionist side, we require commentary in reliable sources to establish the "role". But as an olive branch to the inclusionist side, there is a presumed "role" for episodes and recurring characters. Of course, the role isn't enough by itself, and the other two prongs need to be met too (e.g.: real world coverage). Randomran (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole "trial basis" has nothing to do with the actual tag of the guideline. The idea of the "trial" is to see what needs to be tweaked. It's clear that the consensus is that we need something here, the only disagreement we have is over the fine details of what is specifically being said in the guideline (which primarily is attributed to the second prong). What we need is a working guideline that may or may not need some fine tuning in 3 months. I highly doubt there is going to be anymore abuse with this guideline as it exists than there already is with no guideline in place (i.e. when people use NOTE as the basis for whether to keep, merge, or delete an article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. That is a good version of the second prong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that we understand that "trial for 3 months" is effectively promoting this to a guideline but with the understand we will revise the language as needed after 3 months - or even unpromote it if it just outright doesn't work - then there's a few things that would be good to track:

• A list of all fiction-related AFDs with their target results (placing any pages that get deleted to some userspace so we can review what they looked like when deleted)
• Article counts now and in 3 months (and if necessary/desired, every month) of the major fiction categories to get an idea how many articles are created/deleted

I'm sure there's some other "easy" stats to track but we should consider that for helping with the 3 month re-assessment. --MASEM 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To make sure I am clear about this, are people suggesting making this a full guideline before it is approved by the wider community?

Again, a "trial" is not a "trial", because once the proposal is removed it will never be a "proposal" again. The same small group of editors will say it has consensus, and that will be the end of it. A "trial" is simply a way to push the guideline forward, despite disagreement on its substance.

I suggest keeping it a "proposal", have a straw poll, for more views to be submitted, then a full CENT.

Wider community support is vital. Especially since many of the editors here are going to point to this guideline as a de facto license to delete and bury other editors contributions across wikipedia.

Like all policy page talk pages, this talk page tends to be an echo chamber, full of editors who support the policy. It is no secret that Masem, Phil Sandifer, Bignole, ThuranX, Protonk all have generally the same opinion about this proposal, and all have the same point of view about notability. Correct me if I am wrong (I haven't completed the study of the edit history of this page yet), these 5 editors have the most edits on this proposal and on this talk page. Like on other rule pages, this concentration of like minded editors runs the very credible risk of a false, echo room consensus.

Since I clearly have radically different views from these editors, I await the inevitable chorus of denials. Ikip (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of those editors have widely different opinions, if that matters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly nothing comes to mind when I try to think of a point of agreement between Phil Sandifer and ThuranX.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To Ikip's first comment. I don't believe any of us are saying we just make this a guideline and then see what happens. What we are saying is that we go through the formal processes and see if the guideline passes. If it does then we take it on as a "trial" basis (most likely because most general purpose editors don't frequent the pages that usually get notified of new proposed guidelines...they just stick to their articles), and we see how pages are handled for the next three months. In that time we chronicle all articles that are deleted, merged, and created and we re-assess all of them so see if the guideline wording needs tightening or loosening with regard to the practical use of it in the "daily life" of Wiki articles.

In response to the personal attack. First, I'd like to say that I have 7 people in front of me when it comes to edits to this talk page (and that goes all the way back to 2007), and the top 4 people editing this talk page are 400+ edits (I'm at 233...234 if you include this one). When it comes to the actual guideline page, I have a total of 16 edits. So, please keep your personal attacks to yourself (yes, I take it as such because you were attempting to slander my name by pigeon-holing me as some crazed deletionist...P.S. next time take a look at my editing history - I have created and developed many fiction-related articles, including episode articles for TV shows. I'm frankly already annoyed by the prejudgement attitude you've been giving me since the WP:EPISODE discussion...Yes, I did see your first comment to me when I started this section). How about we leave petty differences at the door and let's focus on the important things, like how to get this page operational and in agreement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I missed the top ten.[7] Masem, Gavin's gaining on you. What ever happened to Ned. Seeing those old names makes me wistful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I WHAT? I have the same ideas about notability with Phil Sandifer? I've edited that policy page almost the most? I don't think I have even TOUCHED the policy page, and Yes, I've been active here, but I highly doubt I'm the most active by far. You need to re-read this talk page, and think carefully before misrepresenting me here again. Further, your 'correct me if I'm wrong', followed by your blanket statement that our replies will be 'denials', makes your entire comment into a smear and personal attack against every single person you enumerated in your list. Get your facts straight. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the process of approval, as I have noted before, the process for elevating a page to guideline status has not generally been straw poll followed by centralized discussion followed by god knows what - usually someone decides to be bold and, based on the consensus on the talk page, tag the page as a guideline, and it stays that way. There is no precedent for a sort of massive sitewide poll on an inclusion guideline. And we've already done a centralized discussion on this, so I don't see another one being particularly productive. (As well as two very wide rounds of comment solicitation.) There's not much more to promote. Pretty much, we have what we have.

At the moment, by my rough counting (and I may be missing people) we have, on this page, four people opposed. Their proposed change - requiring mention in an independent source - currently seems a nonstarter among everyone else.

The question, frankly, is whether that's substantial enough opposition to mean that this doesn't have consensus. For me, right now, I'm hard-pressed to say it is. Part of that is the fact that I have increasing difficulty believing in the good faith of some of the editors objecting. Another part is that, to date, nobody has pointed to a single article they think this guideline would allow keeping that they do not think should be kept.

At this point, unless someone can point to an actual example of a page this would lead to the undesirable keeping of, I think we can tag it and move on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some examples. This guideline (pretty much, but in favor of deletion) accurately reflects actual AfDs and their outcomes. Examples from the other end are plentiful. I've been working on Drizzt Do'Urden, which wouldn't pass the GNG. It's about a character who has starred in about 15 NYT best sellers (and a ton of other stuff), but which there doesn't really exist two substantial independant non-trivial sources. It might borderline pass, depending on how one feels about author interviews. I can come up with much more borderline cases that could never be deleted, if that would help. I don't think examples, pre adoption of this guideline, are going to change any minds though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have increasing difficulty believing in the good faith of people who don't all agree with me. Let's leave the grandstanding at the door.

I don't want to handwave at a "silent majority," but guidelines are arguments. Arguments that convince everyone stick, arguments that fail to convince don't. Right now, we just don't have an argument to say "Well, WP:N's requirement of multiple independent sources shouldn't apply here, because..." We may have some attempts at that, but this just doesn't have what it needs to convince. So, yeah, we can say it passes here, but I'm opposed not only because I don't like it, but because it also won't fly.

I suspect that it will take a more elegant compromise than some quibbling over the number and sort of sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe in the good faith of numerous people who don't agree with me. I am more skeptical about people who shout and scream at me. In any case - what I really want to see, at this point, is any articles people are specifically concerned that this guideline wrongly keeps or deletes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are already wrong keeps. One, Drizzt Do'Urden, was brought up above. Very little sourcing, and I can't really find any, but it seems to stick around. Should be covered in the parent work(s). Ego the Living Planet is another example. A whole article "sourced" to comic books is...well, nothing I probably should say, but certainly unacceptable. I'm afraid that such a guideline would legitimize these. Another example is Bulbasaur, and indeed most Pokemon, since there's usually some type of commentary on these just because of the way people lap that up. Kakashi Hatake. Aang. Fire Nation. I could go on and on and on, give me most fictional works that haven't already gotten cleaned up. And I haven't even gotten past anime and comics to other types of shows, movies, or video games yet. What we need is notability. That's more than just verifiability. It's saying "Hey, several sources with a reputation for fact checking and writing quality material and who don't have an interest in pushing this stuff chose to write about it." In a very real sense, that's verification that something is notable—have those whose time and space is valuable, and must pick and choose what they turn their attention to, chosen to write a good deal about it? If yes, it's notable. If no, it's not. Doesn't get any simpler than that. That's why primary sources don't and shouldn't count. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Bulbasaur, Drizzt, and Ego, I see articles that need some cleanup, but I don't see articles that I think there's a consensus to delete. Even if this guideline were rejected and we were to stay with the status quo, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find consensus to delete those articles. Looking at Ego, for instance, I see that there was an AfD less than a year ago that overwhelmingly said to keep it. Kakashi Hatake is a good article. So I'm not that concerned about legitimizing those articles - in the eyes of the community, they appear to already be legitimate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Torchic used to be featured, and eventually got cleaned up. If we don't legitimize, cleanup can take place, even if there is fan involvement. If we do, it still eventually will as fan enthusiasm wanes, but it takes longer. You may not be worried about legitimizing those, but you asked for articles someone besides you is concerned about legitimizing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, the worst problem to clean up is massive chunks of in-universe information. Requiring out of universe information, as this guideline does, seems to me to be a huge help. Honestly, as it stands, Ego would have a hard time passing this - there's very little in-universe content in it. But also, I have trouble with the idea that articles that overwhelmingly survive AfD are a problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Drizzt, source two, the Allbusiness.com review from 2004, page two establishes notability to my satisfaction. The magazine specifically states, and i paraphrase here 'Drizzt is popular enough a character to push 9 books of a franchise to the top of the NY Times best seller lists'. That works for me as an independent source establishing notability, and I'd vote keep comfortably on any AfD for the character. ThuranX (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty impressed that even a small group of editors with widely different views on notability were able to work together on a guideline that they could all live with. It was initially put together by an inclusionist. It was edited by numerous people, some more in the middle, some even at the other end of the inclusion-deletion spectrum. I'm surprised Gavin Collins and Phil Sandifer can both basically live with the same proposed guideline. And I guess I can see why Phil Sandifer warned us about "drive-by voting". It's easy for any run of the mill inclusionist to say "oh my god I hate notability guidelines", just as it's easy for any run of the mill deletionist to say "there is no guideline that will be as great as WP:N". But if they actually forced themselves to incrementally collaborate and design a guideline using the WP:BRD process, it would probably look a lot like this. And that's how consensus is reached. Not by two sides bashing each other over the head with their ideal proposals. But by incrementally building a proposal up together using the WP:BRD process. Randomran (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Not judging Ego on this, but many times AfDs are smothered with biased opinions (whether to delete or to keep), based on the particular community of editors that see the AfD. If you were to take some element in The Simpsons universe and create an article that even you agree should not exist, you'll find that getting it deleted with the very active Simpsons Project editors would be...well, let's just say you'd have an easier time keeping a snow cone from melting in Hell. The same can be said for articles on obscure fiction (like some direct-to-dvd movie) where the article is in poor shape (e.g., would probably pass this guideline by the skin of its teeth, but it's so subjective that it could go either way), with only a few editors following it, and a group of deletion-happy editors see it and AfD the article with ease.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm well aware. Though that AfD was more overwhelming in its keepiness than normal. I'm not sure why, except perhaps that Ego is such a fantastically weird concept that he sticks out over similarly notable weird Marvel ideas. In any case, I think as it stands the article fails prong three, but that it would be not-hard to fix that. (I know that a recent issue of Marvel Adventures called "Ego the Loving Planet" got numerous favorable reviews, for instance.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is where context comes in. I've seen a lot of AfDs and Merge discussions that ended with "we have these sources (insert link to Google) that show it is notable". The catch is, do the sources actually talk about what the article is about. In your example, do the reviews cover Ego the Planet, or do they only just cover the comics that he appears in? If it's the former, great. If it's the latter, than you cannot legitimately extrapolate real world info from sources that actually talk about your subject matter in the degree that you require. This seems to be an issue with a lot of articles. Ironically, if you look at the AfD for Ego you'll see that a couple people did just that, showed links to the Google sources and said "we just need time". Here we are today and the article hasn't really changed. At what point do we say "time's up"? You cannot say never, because at some point the sources have to be provide to show that they are legitimate sources, and not misguided attempts to skate by. Regardless, this is something we need to see in practice. Right now we're doing nothing but hypothesizing what might happen, but we need to know what is happening. The only way to do that is get this guideline out in the field.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, at least, the comic was widely praised for its use of an unusual character in an inventive way, so we have a fair amount on Ego.

As for time's up, I'm working on a push for comics specifically (in part as a trial for a wider idea I have) to, essentially, hit bad summaries and sections with an "improve or die" challenge - not in the five day sense of AfD, but on a longer scale. We'll see how that works. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ego the Living Planet would be a delete base on this guideline. It's a good example of how this guideline is in the exclusionist side of actual AfDs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm banging a drum about "This isn't the way to do it", but "the comic was widely praised for its use of an unusual character in an inventive way" says to me that we need an article on the comic that was praised, not a character that was in the comic that was praised. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My point, I hope, is that your problem is not that this guidline would give that article a free pass, but that it was kept at all. We're trying to be mildy descriptive of AfD outcomes, and I don't see that one as using this guideline as free pass. If this guideline allows "the comic was widely praised for its use of an unusual character in an inventive way" as enough, then I guess it would be descriptive. I think this guideline is tighter than that, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can get multiple reviews of most issues of comic books in the last few years - it seems to me undesirable to write issues about all of them, though. This seems to me a case where editorial judgment serves usefully as a finger on the scale. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. Much as I would like it to, "Cover fictional things as part of the work and not subjects of their own" hasn't had enough traction to move general opinion in the way that "On Notability" did; hell, look at how hard it is to get people to cover fictional things as part of the real world and not a fictional universe. In my experience, successful compromises of policy or contention over principles are solved when someone steps forward and suggests or implements an idea so good that both sides accept it. "Everyone likes it" compromises work. This, however, is a "nobody likes it" compromise, one which is equally distateful to all. I don't see that getting enough support to go anywhere.

We're trying to make a guildeline that simulates AFD results without ever addressing why those AFD results turn out as they do (enthusiasts swamp everyone else). Unsurprisingly, it's not going terribly well! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not joking: do we say that entheusiasts shouldn't be counted? What do we do to bring our quidelines into line with practice? I like your reasoning, though. It kind of shows tha problems we have. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ego the Living Planet... Sometimes I scratch my head in wonderment as people go through abstract discussions, when we should actually be looking for sources. There's some small amounts of coverage on Ego here, where it talks about the character being created during an overall creative phase where Jack Kirby was infatuated with the universe. This book puts the character in the context of the counterculture and alternative press at the time. This resource points out the deadpan irony used by the band Monster Magnet in making references to the character. There's enough here to write a scant section on real-world development and impact. That signals that there must be coverage in print media... after all, it's a comic book character from 1966. I'm not even into comics and I could pull this up in about 2 minutes. Randomran (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We are in a vicious circle, that we're trying to build FICT based on AFD results that are presently decided in the absence of a working FICT. Which is why we need to see how a FICT is used practically at AFD to judge if it actually works or not. --MASEM 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding comics, I actually just propsed a 'minor list of $company characters in comics' page ,to absorb characters like Ego and Porcupine. ThuranX (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know myself and probably a good handful of others agree we need "list of" pages, we are going to wait to actually spell those out better once we've gotten FICT on the ground and that we review the RFC from WP:N to assure that such lists meet those concerns. --MASEM 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, as far as AfDs and relative consensus goes, most lists of "minor characters" tend to be deleted, as they fall into NOT#PLOT/NOT#INFO/WEIGHT issues much easier. Just as a random aside; I know we're not tackling lists here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. So in any case, we all seem to agree that as it stands Ego fails this guideline. Any other examples people want to discuss? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

... sigh. Articles are WP:IMPERFECT. I fixed it up with some research, even though I don't know a damn thing about the subject. Randomran (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. I was fairly sure Ego could pass. But I was also willing to say that in its current state it didn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some are, but unless there is more to this character than is presented, I would still say the current state could easily be merged into a "list of" article. First, the "History of Apperances" is virtually a listing of the prose information in "Fictional character biography" - so that's needless really. "Powers and abilites" should be covered in the "biography" section. Tighten up the prose in that section to be a little less wordy and you got a few sold paragraphs that would be perfect for a "List of" article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the information would be coverable by a merge, but I'm skeptical - I think there's room for expansion of the out-of-universe stuff as well. Certainly it is near a point where I think it passes this guideline in its current version. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Compliments to Randomran and Phil on the cleanup of Ego, The Living Planet. amazing what two guys on the side of the freeway can do for litter. and references. ThuranX (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I think something that's *almost* notable has something in common with something that is *barely* notable: it should be merged into a broader article. If there's a ton of research, you should be able to write at least one article, maybe even multiple articles. But in this case where the research is borderline, it's the kind of article that could be summarized down to 5-10kb. However, this FICT guideline is silent on merges exactly for that reason. Merging isn't just a compromise for something that's not notable, but sometimes an editorial decision for how to better organize our notable content. Randomran (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To kind of veer this back on track from the living planet, the question is whether or not to do a "trial". I think that it's too much of a "everyone be happy" admission. Either we push this through or not, but running trials isn't an effective way to actually observe the policy (I can see AfD's now: "FICT is just a trial right now, so it would be unfair to delete this and then 2 weeks later bring it back." or something similar). I of course agree that if people bring substantive evidence from AfD or elsewhere that editors are using this guideline in a way not intended, than we should reevaluate and tighten language where needed, but that should be once we've gotten the first stable and accepted guideline. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In which case, for me, the main outstanding issue is whether there's something visibly wrong with what this guideline would or wouldn't keep. Which, at the moment, it seems like is not the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It seem OK in its existing form, but I think any objections to the current draft can't be ignored, as they will be magnified at RFC, which I think must be the next step. I don't think we can push it out on a trial basis, as this guideline that needs strong support from day one. I think we are close to agreement.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to see is an informal straw poll. If this is going to get rejected, we need to know *why*. The poll should be simple, with four options: "Too strict, reject", "Somewhat strict, but accept", "Somewhat loose, but accept", "Too loose, reject". The worst thing that can happen is not that this guideline gets rejected, but that you have two different sides claiming it was rejected for two contradictory reasons. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Why don't we link to that poll at the top of FICT. It's viewed a few thousand times a month.[8] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• So many viewers! You are such a popular guy, Peregrine. It is probably your photo on your user page - women just can't resist a beard. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to see if efficiency trumps democracy, I'm going to attempt a shot at boldness and guideline tag the proposal, on the grounds that, to date, nobody seems to actually find any articles they think it comes to the wrong decision on, and see if it sticks.

Of course, if anybody sincerely thinks they can get a result more to their liking through other means, they should feel free to revert. But I suspect that, regardless of opinions of where the guideline is compared to our personal preferences, we do basically recognize it as what's going to happen. So let's see if it sticks the easy way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)