Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

pulling in two different directions

We have two sides pulling in two different directions.

• Kww edited the guideline so that all articles on elements require reliable independent secondary sources.
• Drilnoth edited the guideline so that any article on an element can escape the requirement of reliable independent secondary sources, so long as the element is central to understanding the work.

Both sides were reverted. If I had to speculate as to why they were reverted, it's because they were pulling away from the middle ground that we have now. What we have now is that *some* elements (recurring characters and episodes) can survive without reliable third-party sources. *Some* is smack dab in the middle between *all* and *none*.

Funny enough, we also have two separate threads, which argue for completely opposite outcomes:

• This thread - where Kww insists that this guideline will be obstructed if it ignores the requirement of reliable third-party sources.
• This thread - where Drilnoth argues that we should exempt all fictional elements from the requirement of reliable third-party sources, for consistency's sake.

I think both of them raise legitimate arguments. But I'm passed the point where I'm backing one horse over another. I now only care that both sides confront each other, civilly, and hash the issue out... and let the issue die when all is said and done.

Let's settle the second prong once and for all. Are reliable third-party sources are required by some, all, or no fictional articles? Randomran (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All. I think we have a lot of wiggle room in terms of degree and extent. I think there's a pretty widespread consensus that the "direct and detailed examination in multiple sources" is an excessively strong standard to apply to fictional articles. WP:V is policy, but the exact meaning of "relying" on third party sources has never been established, and it's pretty clear that articles that are constructed primarily around non-independent sources with a few independent references routinely survive AFD. I don't think there's a consensus that "none" is an acceptable level of coverage, though. BTW, I'm nearly happy. Sepiroth BCR and I have both tried to insert language pointing out that without independent sources, the article will likely survive initial AFDs but ultimately be merged, but those have been removed. There's a pretty solid pointer to WP:V and WP:RS, and I might be persuadable that it's sufficient.—Kww(talk) 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can wiggle in two ways - we can nudge the number/substantiveness of independent sources. But that's easy to game. Or we can nudge the notion of independence a bit - which also makes sense. The notion of independence was designed to deal with promotion. But things like the Grey's Anatomy Writer's Blog, or DVD commentaries aren't promotional. I am unconvinced that the writer of a TV show analyzing an episode or character of that show is not independent in the spirit that we wrote that rule. So to my mind, by requiring substantial real-world perspective, which must be sourced to non-primary sources, we are satisfying the same purpose that "independent" was supposed to satisfy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think independence is pretty close to a black-and-white issue, and there is no way to classify input from the writer of a show as "independent". Attempting to nudge it that way games the underlying concept of notability ... that it comes about from people not associated with a thing having noticed it. I've got no objection to using such material in an article, but not to fulfill requirements for independent sourcing.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that a major character of a television show watched by millions of people has gone unnoticed fails to pass the sniff test, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On a practical level, fictional elements that are not recurring characters need independent sourcing upfront to survive at AfD simply because it's easier to make arguments for main characters in a series. An example would be say Jutsu (Naruto) (shameless plug :D), which boasts both conception and reception and passes the GNG, let alone FICT. Take away the conception and reception sections though, and in an AfD, it's extremely difficult to argue for keeping it due to the seeming triviality of a very specific fictional element. Now, take Naruto Uzumaki and shave away the conception and reception sections, and in an AfD, it's much easier to argue that the titular character of the series gets an article due to his importance within the series. It's easy to see how characters are generally more important than other fictional elements. If a fictional element is that essential to a certain series, then it often comes out in the independent sourcing reviewing the series. Now, it's not to say that there aren't exceptions and certain fictional elements are more important than characters in some cases, but in the grand majority of series, the characters take prominence. As this applies to the second prong, I'd argue that the onus is on less-than-prominent fictional elements to show notability over important elements of the series (hence the note in the second prong that importance is usually quantified by external sourcing).

All that said though, while I don't have a problem with the way the prongs are set up, the need for independent sourcing at some point needs to be acknowledged. Let's face it. The main character of a series is arguably the most important fictional element within the series, but if all the real world context the article has is three lines of developer commentary, it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing WP:GAN (and beyond). The only reason to keep stuff that passes FICT with developer commentary is that we believe in the potential of the article to demonstrate independent sourcing down the road, as that's what is necessary to move up the assessment scale. I tried to add this, which I think is fairly lenient. It allows for the potential argument in the first AfD with developer commentary to fly, but in successive AfDs, the notion that the article is limited and simply can't be expanded because no independent sourcing is available to come up. At that point, it's merged because that's the better way to present the material (in a list, main series article, or otherwise). It also prevents the "OMG TTN-rampage" that people are so worried about here (although I don't really know why this is a problem, considering that using NOTE/NOT#PLOT/NOT#INFO is far stronger than the current version of FICT). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make this clear in discussing this but I believe that we have to treat this version of FICT as an intermediate stepping step to establish a baseline as to engage in further discussion of how to improve the coverage of fiction overall on WP without having inclusionists upset at TTN-type cleanups, while securing the confidence of deletionists that we're not going to explode into millions of new articles on fiction. We need to come back and readdress lists of non-notables (whether to include or not) and to reaffirm the best way that works of fiction and the elements therein should be addressed (WAF and other guidelines/policies). As long as we don't pretend that this guideline is written in stone and will last WP forever, and instead treat it as an affirmation of what happens at AFD, codified to point people to understand it is an agreed summary of AFD behavior and thus should be replicated as long as the status quo remains unchanged, then I think we should be able to accept some of this failings. The lack of requiring WP:RS or how we are defining the second prong to make sure we include enough but not too much can be seen as temporary "short term" (year+) bandaids in order to bring the various sides of the arguments on fiction coverage to the same table and work on getting a better larger picture. --MASEM 13:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, we can't ignore the requirements of WP:V: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. We can't plead for special treatment for fiction - that would be to create an editorial walled garden. What we need is a disclaimer along the lines I am proposing[1]. If anyone has an alternative suggestion, please make it known. But to ignore independent sourcing althogether won't get the compromise we are so close to. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, if we were to apply WP:V (alone) right now to fiction, we'd have a lot of angry inclusionists as we'd likely be wiping out 25% or more of fiction articles in one swoop. This is not to exempt fiction in the long term from being dealt with in the same fashion as any other field, but instead to help guide fiction towards that goal in the short term. Remember that consensus drives policy and guidelines, and that may mean that we may need to have WP:V altered if there is strong support down the road to change it. But that's very long term, I don't want to go there just yet; in the short term, we need to recognize that some fiction articles survive AFD without meeting WP:V's third-party requirement, but are kept based on the expectation they can; that's all this guideline attempts to reiterate is that meeting the three prongs is an indication the element has a good likelihood of being encyclopedic, and likely not a target for merging or deletion in the short term. Long term, we can't promise that protection. --MASEM 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree, as what goes on at WP:AFD is not controlled by WP:FICT, but by local consensus. Usually aricles on fiction that fail WP:N get deleted because they fail WP:NOT#PLOT. However I do agree with you that an article with significant real-world coverage is the way to go. If you don't like my propsoal for a disclaimer, what is your alternative suggestion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've already tinkered your disclaimer, and I believe that version both stands and deals with the issue - it does not attempt to offer any commentary on overriding another guideline - it simply notes that articles that pass the three pronged test are not generally deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've no problem with this saying "real-world", that itself is fine for what I consider to be an acceptable short-term guideline - we want to encourage getting to independent sources, however, that is a much more difficult barrier. From what I've seen, if there are dependent real-world sources (ala developers blogs) there's a good chance there is independent coverage, but the latter is much harder to find, generally requiring print literature searches. Requiring "real world" sources will still have some fiction elements merged or the like after sufficient application of this guideline, but nowhere near the number by requiring "independent" sources at this immediate time. --MASEM 16:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is the case that, on AfD, character articles survive more easily. I think this is also explainable rationally - characters, in narrative, tend to be the elements of the fiction that get things done - that interact with the world, advance the plot, etc. Aristotle, in the earliest systemic treatment of fiction, valued characters uniquely highly as fictional elements, and we continue in his tradition.

It is also the case, as far as I can see, that articles that have significant real-world perspective, and are about major elements (generally episodes or major characters) of extremely notable works of fiction do not get deleted. This also seems rational. "Non-notable" is an awfully hard adjective for most people to ascribe to something that is known by millions of people. So long as we can cover it from a real-world perspective, and thus it's a valid topic to begin with, such an article won't be deleted.

Part of this may be a misunderstanding of what this guideline is. It's not a guideline that was formed via the common ground of desired outcomes of AfDs. It's one that was formed by looking at what actually happens on AfD, and asking repeatedly "OK, but would an article like this actually be delete?" I am happy to agree to either Kww or Drilnoth's changes, but I need to see an argument based on community practice, not on their personal preferences. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your tinkering with my wording actually removed the disclaimer[2]. It seems to me that not making an explicit reference to independent sourcing is not going to get us any near compromise, as evasion is not honest way to deal with this issue. I suggest you reconsider my proposal again. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. OK, but in that case, I think we need to have a discussion we initially deferred about what constitutes independence. See new section below. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a really hard time understanding how anyone can deny that it's common for an article to be given a chance to improve its sourcing on the first couple of AFDs, but eventually be deleted in later AFDs when those sources have never been located. That's a pattern that is common across all topics.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue, for me, is that I am unconvinced that an article that meets this guideline is going to be viewed as needing improvement to avoid deletion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You being convinced is not necessary to achieve compromise, Phil. You really need to learn how to let your personal objections go, and accept that others disagree with you, and that accommodating their changes makes things go faster. You are now at the point of arguing what other's views would be, even though you know that you have people talking to you in this very debate that would view an article lacking in independent sources as needing improvement to avoid deletion, know that we would raise such views in AFDs, and would nominate such articles on that basis. What more do you need to know?—Kww(talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is rich. You have no concept of how many of my personal objections I've let go here, clearly. "Now at the point of arguing what other's views would be?" Now? This entire proposal is about that! This entire proposal is about trying to get away from personal objections and deal with what actually happens on AfD. So when I say "I am unconvinced that an article that meets this guideline is going to be viewed as needing improvement to avoid deletion," what I mean is "I have looked at many AfDs of fiction articles, and haven't seen one where an article that satisfies this guideline is deleted, so I do not think the statement that they would be deleted is accurate." My opinion is not the warrant of the claim - the fact that I've actually bothered to look at the evidence is. Now, where is your evidence? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget AFD Phil, as we are trying to write inclusion criteria, not deletion criteria. We can't avoid discussing the requirement of WP:V about independent sourcing. The question is how do we forge a compromise by bringing it into this guideline (even if only as a disclaimer)? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget AfD... in a discussion about inclusion criteria? What? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have already made a lot of concessions about your concerns, which are address in the section WP:FICT#Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria. We can't reverse engineer WP:FICT to reflect what does or does not happen at WP:AFD - that would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. Regardless of how well sourced an article is (e.g. a content fork), it may still get deleted by consensus, so we can't use AFD as a precedent for inclusion criteria. Instead we have to take our precedent from existing policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. In which case we open the (basically undealt with) question of what "independent" means for fiction. Which there is already a section for. So let's discuss it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK then. Lets start with the statement "Articles on fictional elements that meet this guideline, but cannot be shown, through a long-term, good faith effort, to have independent sources, may be merged elsewhere to better present the material in the article. ". Could you compromise on this disclaimer? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Phil Sandifer is the least of your problems on this disclaimer. The question is if other inclusionists are going to let the second prong effectively become WP:N. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that articles may be merged elsewhere, but I see little evidence that independent sourcing is generally the test used to do it. It looks to me like one can get GA status with barely any of the independent sourcing Kww seems to want. Which makes me think that slightly less - that is none - is not really grounds for anything. At least, of that sort of independent sourcing. But I think the reason that's OK for those GAs is that they have lots of real-world perspective, interviews with creators, etc. Which makes me think that it's more likely that non-fictional and non-promotional sources are considered independent for fiction articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Independence

The notion of "independent" sources has a muddy history in Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell, it was intended to eliminate the use of advertising to prove notability, and to be a functional synonym for "secondary source."

What is therefore tricky is whether a DVD commentary, an interview, or something like the Grey's Anatomy Writer's Blog is independent of an element of a work of fiction. Certainly none of those sources are promotional in the traditional sense. So I'm not convinced they don't satisfy the spirit of "independence."

Looking at GA, the amount of independent sourcing needed beyond those is minimal. I can find GAs that use independent sources only for very brief reception sections. At a glance, Sasuke Uchiha seems to me to have no substantive use of independent sources that creators are not involved in.

Looking at the promotion of articles to GA, it seems to me that for the purposes of fictional articles, commentary by creators that was not made for explicitly promotional purposes constitutes an independent source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I realize you're upset, and everyone is trying to console you, but if you cannot accept that GAs need independent sources, then that's simply being dense. Sasuke Uchiha has independent mention (1, 2, 3, 4) and to characterize that as "no substantive use of independent sources that creators are not involved in" is silly beyond words. And in any case, Sasuke was one of my earliest character GAs, and quite a few reviews have popped up between now and then that can expand the article (1, 2, 3). Really, go read WP:GA. If there's an article on a fictional subject there without independent sourcing, I'll be nominating it for WP:GAR. The concept that independent sourcing is necessary in these articles is painfully obvious to anyone who has actually worked on them. It doesn't have to constitute a majority of the sources by any means, but if you can't write a decent section on reception/cultural impact/whatever, then you don't get a GA. Simple as that.

And apologies to Kww for replying to this split thread, but as he brought up one of my articles, I felt obligated to respond. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness of sectioning

I propose that everyone ignore this attempt to restart an argument under a new heading. It makes for a horrible debating style, and can be easily mistaken for an attempt to wear down one's opponents by simply restarting an argument over and over until one's opponents give up. Not that I would accuse Phil of such a thing, of course.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the substantial discussion of this question elsewhere. If there's a broad discussion about this topic already underway on this talk page, please, point me to it. I would, after all, hate to appear to be arguing in bad faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I guess its a way of avoiding being cornered. Also, talking about WP:AFD and WP:GAN is a way of avoiding the issue of how we can compromise on the wording of WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• If making sure that we're accurately describing the processes this guideline governs is avoidance, I suppose, you're right, but I don't see how that follows at all. And it has nothing to do with being cornered - when a point is introduced in the middle of a section with half a dozen indents in a discussion between Kevin and me, it does not seem to me to be a point that is presented for widespread views. When a point is introduced in a new section, it seems to me an attempt to get wider comment on the idea. Because, honestly, I want to hear from more than Kevin on this. And where the discussion was previously happening, I wasn't going to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on this page is extremely rapid, and poorly organized. It is not only understandable, but downright inevitable that discussion threads will be overlooked, and arguments will be rehashed. I believe the solution to this is to describe the arguments made, and the responses to the arguments made in a proper summary style, not unlike a quality Wikipedia article. I've tried to write such a summary before (User:Verdatum/FICT FAQ) but it is severely out of date. The discussion moves too quickly here, I've been forced to stop watching it due to the time sap it became. But if all sides can properly collaborate and self moderate a summary, the casual followers can stay up to date on the core of the various arguments without having to follow the back and forth discussion needed to render them. I believe a similar thing occured and manifested itself as pages on the various editing philosophies (deletionist, inclusionist, etc.) during the Deletion Wars; this is the same thing, only on a more microcosmic scale. -Verdatum (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Done

I am done here. The unfortunate arrival of multiple users who seem to have taken "make personal attacks against Phil and troll him" to be the optimal strategy for ignoring actual practice on AfD and retaining their Pure and Holy Right to WP:BATTLEGROUND an area of the encyclopedia they don't like.

The level of bad faith that has been displayed over the last few days is disgusting. The last straw, fwiw, was the insistence on derailing an attempt to look at the concept of "independence" and what it means for fiction with a thinly veiled personal attack. Never mind the fact that, to date, nobody has shown a single example of an article that satisfies this guideline but that would be deleted.

Fuck it, Proposal failed. It's tombstone should read "Killed by Kww and ThuranX." Good work, guys. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can simply just delete the proposal outright, given that so many have put forth their own effort into shaping it and would like to see it eventually made official.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. That was an overreaction to say the least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a 24-block to placed on Phil Sandifer with immediate effect. Deleting WP:FICT is completely out of order. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was. However, I have to say, I wonder where you were when ThuranX made this edit: [3] - one that is just as flagrant a violation of policy. Since then, it has been open season on me, with ThuranX and Kww engaged in a tag-team series of accusations of bad faith and outright personal attacks. The deletion was out of line. But for God's sake, it's not even close to the majority of the problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I fight my own battles against incivility as well[4], and so should you if you have not done so already. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for missing Sephiroth's totally inappropriate comment when it was made. My point remains - this proposal has been derailed by toxicity, where good faith efforts to explore points and find agreement are immediately blasted as bad faith. The proposal will not find consensus while ThuranX and Kww are engaging in the tactics that they are. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let it go. Move on. Get back to work. Randomran (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, though - I attempted to start a thread to look at what seems to be a major point of disagreement - what constitutes independence. I went and looked at GA to try to figure out what sorts of articles and reliance on independent sources are needed to make GA. For my trouble, I got "You're using bad faith debate tactics" from Kww. I'd love to get to work. But it's going to take the people who oppose this guideline - of which there are, so far as I can count, two - actually working instead of trolling to do it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kww has a valid point, we have covered this issue in depth several threads already - see WT:FICT#Independent sources for example. If only for a moment you could see things from his perspective, you would see he has been making valid points - e.g. That second prong. My understanding is that you don't accept this guideline should not have inclusion criteria that require the citiation of independent sourcing. So somehow we have to bridge the gap. I don't think that will be difficult, if we hammer it out in one thread, rather than starting the same discussion from scratch all over again. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just take this thing to some forum where broad comment can be received. I don't think it pays enough attention to independent sources, but it pays enough attention that people can't claim that the guideline obviates the need for them. So long as no one attempts to add language that implies that material provided by people involved with the creation of the work can be classed as independent, I won't push for stronger mention.

Phil, I recognize that I brushed up pretty damn near NPA there, but please take to heart that if frequently when you get involved in these debates your opponents wind up angry and foaming at the mouth, that's a problem, and not one that belongs solely with your opponents. I find discussion with you exhausting because of the constant restarts, and I'm not the only one that has commented on it.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone had a chance to blow off some steam. Try not to let it happen again. Assume good faith, and no personal attacks. If discussions get long and repetitive, it's only because it's hard to get to the core issue. Progress is slow. Randomran (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, if you weren't so obviosuly gaming the consensus and talk page expectations, people wouldn't get sick and tired of you. I'm proud to accept your resignation from this proposal, and happy to see it die in favor of the already stricter policies like NOTE and RS. Good luck editing articles in the future. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What did I miss? It must be lost somewhere in the dialogue that never ends. Deleted? O RLY? This is a heated issue and I'll not get bent out of shape by some rough comments or rash deletions; not condoning, either. The simple truth of it, is that there's really not a consensus here. Look to the root meaning of 'notability' - it requires that someone else have taken note. Any attempt to circumvent this will fail. Wikipedia should not be leading the charge to cover things; we cover what others have covered. Jack Merridew 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting Fresh

Ok, let's start this fresh and without dredging up old crap. First, let's all realize that any single person saying "I won't support this guideline because it says 'blah blah blah'" does not mean that this guideline doesn't have consensus, cannot achieve consensus, and/or is in otherwise bad shape. Everyone is entitlted to their opinion, but no one opinion decides anything. That being said, I would like to call for an informal straw poll (informal, as in it doesn't mean that the guideline will or won't get promoted, this is for our benefit) on who supports the general principle that this guideline is proposing (i.e. if you don't like a specific word, but like everything else then you support the guideline. If you like everything but the fact that the doesn't push for independent, third-party reliable sources as the primary means of establishing notability then you probably don't support this guideline). I say I'd like to see an informal straw poll because I feel like most of us are getting lost in needless arguments and we are losing track of how each of us actually stands with regard to this proposed guideline. All we need is a "Support"/"Oppose" and maybe a single sentence explaining the specific nature of your opinion (we don't need a paragraph explaining why you think aspect A sucks). I believe that from their we can start tackling each criticism one-at-a-time, instead of this free-for-all jabbering fest that has become this talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I am concerned about your recent disruption of wikipedia 1 hour 29 minutes before this poll, which may have effected the legitimacy of this poll.Ikip (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Bignole, who started the poll, was not concerned. I would bring the matter up with him - I'm merely here as a participant in the poll. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Gavin Collins (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. As said above, I favor pushing this thing out for public comment as it stands. As long as no one attempts to add text that attempts to redefine independence, I won't push for stronger mention of it.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Ched (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - I'm in favor of finding a way to get items "included" in Wikipedia, even if it is "Fiction"
4. Wholeheartedly. I want to also note that Kww's and Gavin's opposition has been (in the main) serious and substantive. Likewise, despite his recent outburst, Phil's defense of it (in the face of all ranges of opposition) has been honorable. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
5. I'm amazed. I never thought a reasonable compromise could be made on this. I would like to see a stronger mention for independence, but as long as what is currently in the article is not further watered down I can live with this. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support as a necessary means to begin further discussion of how to improve fiction coverage on WP. --MASEM 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
7. I support(ed) Nov2007's FICT, Masem's FICT proposal and Phil's FICT proposal. It's unlikely that any future minor changes will prompt me to switch to the oppose camp. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Broadly support; I think it needs work in the particulars, but a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. I have quibbles (particularly with regard to the "Independence" subsection), but I think it's time that the opinions of the broader community were sought on this. Deor (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - I think prong 1 would be sufficient simply with the work meeting WP:GNG, but on balance I think this is pretty good. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Probaby as good as it can get. Let's jump on this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. I think that this is a great proposal as-is and really don't think that it could improve much without drastically changing the entire proposal. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Unlikely to change if it hasn't done by now. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Looks pretty good to an uninvolved editor. Hal peridol (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
15. While I could find some quibbles, this compromise looks good enough to move on. Pagrashtak 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
16. per Karanacs. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
17. I'm genuinely a little worried about the second prong, which allows us to assume all episodes and recurring characters are important. But in combination with the other prongs (the work has to be important, and the character / recurring episode needs real-world coverage), this is precise enough to aviod WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I'm not sure we can swing one way or another without losing people. Randomran (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
18. I still take issues that the proposal seems to think characters are more inherently important that non-characters, but that's only a minor issue.じんない 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Although I still don't see why there are problems with this, I support the rest as it stands. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Not taken part in this, but as it is currently written and so long as "Alternatively, any element of a fictional work that meets the general notability guideline is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" stays in the nutshell then I am fine with this guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Although I dislike the well beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline quite strongly indeed , the rest of it looks good. I assume removing the "well" would probably open a can of worms. But given the history of this, I'm really impressed and feel I should support. Nice job folks.Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
22. Weak support as a base for improvements. We certainly need a guideline. Corrections can always be made. Guidelines must not contradict stronger polices like WP:V and WP:NOR but make them more explicit in the fiction area. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
23. Reyk _YO! 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
24. Nifboy (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
25. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
26. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
27. Sounds reasonable.  Sandstein  08:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
28. Perhaps a stronger line on independent coverage would be appropriate, but I mostly approve of this current revision. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
29. I lean towards supporting this proposal. I am personally in favour of not having such a firm independent sources requirement for fiction topics which, if I have read it correctly, this proposal provides. For example, comprehensive development and release information is commonly available directly from the producers of the content (something like a DVD commentary). I believe this proposal will help sort out the issue of presenting information that has plenty of reliable secondary sources, enough to build an article's worth of information, but fewer third party ones. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
30. Themfromspace (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
31. Weekly supporting it. I'm concerned that the proposed test of notability is apparently independent of the notability of the work in question; I feel strongly that the more notable a work is, the easier it should be to satisfy it. In the case of highly notable works, I feel we should be able to ignore the requirement of real-world information; if something is important to the understanding of a highly notable work, then we should cover it, whether or not there is any real-world information available to report. In the case of minor works, I feel the importance and volume of real-world coverage available would need to be higher. But, this provides a base to work from, and I am in general agreement with the rest of the proposal. JulesH (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
32. An admirable example of compromise and consensus building. Jfire (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
33. It's not what I'm good at, but it looks right, and I'm impressed with the breadth of support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
34. I've been passively following this. The independent sources issue is significant, but this potential guideline would be a step forward in handling these cases. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hooper (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - This proposal is well written and well done, however, I just don't see a true use for it other than to give members of the deletion-inclusion war one more peg to hang a hat on. We have guidelines already and this just seems to add to an already convoluted mass of policy. Well written, but unnecessary for the whole of wikipedia imo.
2. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Fails our core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
3. Ikip (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC) oppose this essay and oppose this strawpoll. I oppose this essay because of the consequences of this essay, hundreds of articles will be merged or deleted. Since I disagree with notability for several reasons, I disagree with this article too. The biggest reason i oppose this essay is the effect these rules have on new contributors. I oppose this strawpoll because only a handful of editors which are involved in this discussion in the first place are taking part. I hope editors will only use this strawpoll "for our benefit" only, not to use as an indication of "consensus" when opposing views arise. Kraftlos, this is absolutely is a tool which editors will use to delete articles, just like this straw poll is now being used and will be used as consensus
   "I added a link to the extant WP:CENT notice, I don't see anything wrong with coasting off the feedback solicited two weeks ago"
   This debate has its origins in the 2004-2005 television episode mass deletions. Where a group of editors decided to delete dozens of pages of editor's contributions.

   Other than the fact it is (not) an essay, I'd say that your concerns are how it currently occurs already, and that this "essay" would make it more likely and not less likely that certain articles will remain independent of possible merge targets. Further, as I understand it, the straw poll is merely to get an idea from the people who have been watching the page about whether this should move a step further toward becoming a guideline, or if there really are major sticking points rather than quibbles (no offense to any of the quibblers!) about wording. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   This isn't a tool so people can delete more articles; it's a guideline which will greatly clarify how to handle notability in the context of fiction. Keep in mind that there's lots of us that are following the discussion but not participating, its not just the voices of a few here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry I thought this was a poll, not a discussion where we can question each others rationals underneath each other, if that is the case, I will start commenting above too. Kraftlos, Izno please refactor out your comments to the above support section, not here. You can remove these comments of mine asking you to do this too. Ikip (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry that you thought it wasn't a discussion. Every talk page is. If you don't want to respond to questions and comments on your "vote", then don't. This isn't a formal debate where you will lose arguments you don't respond to. It's just a straw poll. If you want to comment, comment. If you don't, don't. Please don't make a big deal out of it. Protonk (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   But I never said I was in support of the proposal. Nor of the straw poll. My attempt was to convince you that your argument was irrational considering that it wasn't really applicable to this situation. I should have noted before that if you dislike notability as a principle, you should take it up where it will do the most good, which is certainly not here. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   "But I never said I was in support of the proposal. Nor of the straw poll." Your selective edits here, your user page, and your edit history says otherwise, so do you identifying with these editors below, "we're just looking for input".

   RE: "irrational" Interesting way to assume good faith of the current contributors...Ikip (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   You needed to look me up to debate with me? I'm sorry you thought you needed to do that, since you still haven't responded to the particular points I've presented you. *shrug* --Izno (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   This is the way this works on other polls, I don't need to refactor my comments. Sorry the whole page is a discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The "Real-world coverage" prong states that real-world coverage can include "the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work". That seems to go against the whole concept of reliable sources, and encourage future conflict of interest editing, not to mention that it is in opposition to the part of the General notability guideline which defines reliable sources as being secondary sources. (see here).
5. DHowell (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Subjective enough to drive a fictional truck through; supposedly attempts to codify existing practice, but existing practice is completely dysfunctional; demands "real-world" coverage but ignores the fact than an element can be notable solely based on significant plot-oriented commentary and analysis in reliable sources; ignores WP:V's requirement for at least some third-party sources. This guideline will simply be another tool which, due to its subjectivity, will be wikilawyered by many participants in debates to argue for their preferred outcome, which will be generally unchanged by the existence of this guideline. I find it odd that I, generally falling on the inclusionist side, am agreeing with some of the objections raised by those who would problaby be considered to follow an exclusionist persuasion, such as Kww's objection that there ought to be a requirement for some independent sourcing (though less than that generally thought to be required by WP:N), and Gavin's objection to basing this guideline on AfD outcomes which represent a local, not a general consensus. DHowell (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
6. The guideline's three prongs, which the guideline is premised upon, omit entirely the word 'independent', and the later section on it specifically excuses fiction articles from needing actual Independent Sources, instead changing the definition of INdependent to mean 'and dependent is independent too'. The language about how there's no danger of promotional influence or Profit motivation in Fictional subjects is naive at best, and deliberate obfuscation to lower the threshold of inclusion to zero. Cannot accept any version which doesn't require at least one truly independent notable Reliable Source. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Interesting way to ignore a previous and rather cogent discussion. And more interesting in that so many "supports" jumped on board so quickly. Of course, no one would ever consider this a method of vote stacking... or would they? Who was "notified" of this "fresh" poll.... and how? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   Interesting way to assume good faith of the current contributors... Currently, the only notifications I've seen about this particular poll have been on WP:CENT and WP:AN/I. At the moment, we're just looking for input from the people who have seen those two locations, as well as those who are watching the page in some form or another. Was there any particular reason to oppose how the proposal looks, or only on the belief that there's been vote-stacking?
   Further, I'd say that those who are supporting are doing so because they have been working together toward the common goal of putting together a guideline which helps to describe how the idea of fictional articles reacts with the idea of articles which are notable. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael is just Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade "To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is."

Disrupting wikipedia: Wikipedia:AN/I#Disruption_of_wikipedia_to_push_an_unpopular_policy. This poll is as legitimate as its predecessor, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, where a small group of editors in support of that policy, out wrote opposition. Ikip (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

1. hcobb I'd broadly support the concept if the middle prong was taken out back and shot like Old Yellow. Consider Play it again, Sam which does not appear anywhere in the work it is "sourced" from and yet has the cultural staying power to show up time and again. By the middle prong the concept does not exist and all of the references to it must be left dangling and unexplained. Is that a good thing? Hcobb (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I know this is just a straw poll, and we don't decide *anything* by vote. But I'm a little worried that the way it's set up, it will give more voice to the opposition than it will to the supporters. Many of the supporters -- Gavin Collins and Phil Sandifer most notably -- have made huge concessions to find common ground with each other. It would be a shame to ignore the fact that these people, too, have strong preferences. But they've been big enough to let their personal preference take the back seat. So if this straw poll ultimately gives us information (criticism) that helps us redesign the guideline, let that criticism come from supporters too. I don't want people voting strategically, with the belief that their opposition will let them shape this guideline more than their support. Because it won't. That's not how Wikipedia and consensus-building works. Randomran (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My thought process when I started it was to see where people currently were with the page. I'm glad to see such overwhelming support for the current version, but the second part of my thinking was to see what exactly people have against the guideline so that maybe we could tackle each issue one-at-a-time and that we not be drown into debates on countless subjects all happening at the same time (and thus we loose track of where we were going when we were trying to fix any issues). From what I can see from the opposers, it doesn't appear to be problems with aspects of this guideline, but merely them opposing the idea of even having this guideline. I would like this informal straw pole to maybe go until tomorrow, and if there appears to be nothing in the opposition that is fixable (i.e. We cannot address someone saying, "we don't need this guideline" with any magical edit to the wording), then I would argue that we should leave the page as it is (if that is the consensus) and move on to a formal process of getting this made official (i.e. going through all the necessary steps, and not simple changing the tag and hoping no one disagrees).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we already gone through those steps? Wikipedia:POLICY#Proposals says we should advertise for feedback, and then look for consensus. We got some feedback 2 weeks ago, we made some changes, and now we have the strawpoll. My main worry if we prolong this discussion is that we start getting drive-by votes that don't help us reach a consensus, and stealth-canvassing that leads to a skewed perspective. Randomran (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone by chance please post an example of say an ongoing discussion of a fictional character, list, etc. and whether or not it would or would not meet this current wording? I would be happy to either support or oppose, but I would like to see an example of something that would or would not and I mean something that would be say on the fence as obviously an article on Mario or Sonic would just as obviously a hoax would not, but say an article under discussion that is perhaps not the subject of dissertations, but does have out of universe coverage in multiple reliable secondary source reviews. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(To Randomran) Well, I'm not saying "Supporters don't leave your feedback as well", I'm just saying don't leave a whole paragraph detailing everything you don't like. My primary concern is getting an official guideline for fiction out and operation. Clarification and adjustments happen to guidelines and policies all the time, but they don't have to shut down the whole operation just to handle them because they never change the spirit of the guid/pol., they just clarify details. That is what I want to find out, is if there is consensus approval for the basic spirit of what this guideline lays out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that straw poll will help us figure that out, but it won't necessarily tell us how to gain more support. After all, responding to the opposition might lose us some supporters. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To "A Nobody". You are looking for the black swan. Part of what we see is a selection problem. We can't list as an example what was never nominated and vague notions like "importance to the work" and "significance of the work" lend a lot to an article never being nominated. I can think of a few (Naturally, I can also think of several counter-examples, but we will leave them out for now). Horus Heresy, which was not deleted effectively because we aped the aspects of this guideline in practice. Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship), which actually (eventually) found real sources, but most of the opposition to deletion came from importance grounds. Rogue Squadron hasn't been nominated for deletion (that I can see), but it certainly rides the ragged edge of the GNG (assuming that we discount "fictionalized encyclopedias" as non-independent, I know you don't, but bear with me). Wedge Antilles provides a good example of a character who may meet the GNG but was kept due to his central nature to the expanded universe (borrowing from EEMIV's rationale). Going back to Warhammer 40,000, we deleted dozens of Space Marine chapter articles while not nominating Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) or Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)--from my rather extensive research on WH:40K, I can't say that those would meet the GNG (in depth coverage was thin on the ground). Most of those articles I've listed easily meet this proposed guideline and have the benefit of being kept in contravention to the GNG (or not nominated in the first place. Does that help? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the rpely. What about something like now merged Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna, i.e. these have been nominated three times now. Would this guideline at least support the bold merge that just happened or outright keeping as separate articles? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, to be honest. My first impulse is to argue that settings are usually less 'important' than characters or elements in a serialized work. I don't actually know anything about the "creator commentary" as regards those settings (the third prong), but if there is a lot of it, I'm sure that they might make a good compromise case. As for supporting/condeming mergers, we really are hoping to avoid that issue here. The WP:N RfC showed that there is a lot of division regarding mergers, lists and "classes" of "safe" articles ("all major characters of all works are notable", etc.). I hope we can sidestep some of that debate. If those articles were kept at AfD and merged later on, I don't want to have this guideline interpreted as a necessary step to endorsing or condemning that merger. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be as vigorous defending those Warhammer articles at present as I did previously. I skip a lot of the fiction debates anymore that I don't seriously believe I can do much with so that when I do argue in any any more it means more, i.e. not just a simple "he argues to keep" everything, but rather "if he's arguing this determindly to keep, well, maybe he's on to something". So, to me something like those islands are notable because they appear in numerous successful games, movies, novels, and comics (and in the case of Isla Nublar was even recreated in the real world as one of the Islands of Adventure for people to visit and thus are referenced in reviews of games, novels, movies, comics, and amusement parks. They thus have to merit coverage in some manner or other. Characters of islands that only get one appearance in something, maybe not so much, but maybe at least worthy of a redirect. Now, lately I have seen (to my shock) articles concerning fictional characters from even works by Charles Dickens, which means even if the current states of the articles is not up to snuff, we are still talking about subjects that are have been adaptated into films (thus reasonable chance of being cited in film reviews) but are at least studied by students in high school and college literature courses and anaylzed in scholarly publications. Even seemingly minor characters in some authors' works have been written about in scholarly contexts and are legitimate search terms to high school and college students studying those texts. I have similarly scene some out of universe information on characters adapted from The Wizard of Oz played by mainstream actors/actresses on the proverbial chopping block even though they are discussed not simply in Entertainment Weekly, but by The New York Times and The Washington Post. I can concede one-off characters that are only referenced in the primary work or specialized publications in passing as deletable or better yet redirectable, but Dickens and Baum characters being nominated for deletion rather than improved as they can and should be or at least merged and redirect for the time being is another story. We should at least be able to agree on these and if this does support those, then I can support this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can fully answer that for you. Part of the problem (as I noted above...somewhere...) is that the topology of articles on wikipedia usually doesn't match the topology of coverage of the subjects. We tend to chunk fictional subjects into preset categories where the work itself may not support such a categorization. To wit, This Side of Paradise has a list of characters (And even supports Thomas Parke D'Invilliers as a sub-article) but we should really treat Princeton as a distinct subject within the book. For some Dickens novels, a separate article for a character may be appropriate, or it may not. We cannot unilaterally say that Estella Havisham deserves an article and Hiro Protagonist does not--the atomistic importance of those characters will vary between works. In some cases a summary of the character's life may be superfluous to plot summary and critical commentary on the work. In other instances, the characters themselves wholly comprise the work--see Encounters with the Archdruid for a good example, which while non-fiction, the entirety of the 'story' stems from the characters themselves. And again, cases where the characters themselves are analyzed by third party sources don't fit this guideline. They are kept by the GNG (though we can't force editors to scour all possible sources when either creating these articles or nominating them for deletion). Someone like Fitzgerald has works which are covered endlessly (see the 13th Annual F. Scott Fitzgerald Literary Conference as one example). Shylock has (at least) a full book written just about him. For all of those cases this guideline is mute and superceded. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is some real world information about design and impact from reliable sources... so in theory, it's notable. That said, this guideline tries to be silent on merges, to avoid upsetting either side of the inclusion/exclusion spectrum. Just as much as we can merge stuff that's not quite notable, we can also merge stuff that's just barely notable -- but that's always an editorial decision that can go in any direction depending on consensus. Randomran (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my reply above also sort of applies here to so, rather than copy and paste, please see above. I appreciate the reply as well (please don't think I'm ignoring your comment by just saying see above). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Those Dickens characters would surely meet this guideline, let alone the WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet somehow they still got nominated with at least one delete "vote." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are people on both sides of the spectrum who ignore our guidelines. They love to WP:IAR when it comes to their agenda, and it seems their reliance on WP:IAR just inflames the other side to do the same. It's a vicious cycle. Coming up with a new guideline can do a little bit to dampen that, although I think there will always be outliers. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have seen a few "arguments" in the discussions concerning the Baum and Dickens characters that really make me have to suspend disbelief, because in these cases we're talking about characters many of us had to study in high school and college and that have been written about for a hundred odd years, i.e. that at worst can and should be merged and redirected as if we don't cover characters studied in high schools and colleges then we are really moving away from the whole point of being a reference guide/encyclopedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pilot (The Sopranos) is in bad shape. Mind you, in its WP:IMPERFECT state, I'd still venture to say it meets the WP:GNG because it's such a huge series and there's bound to be coverage of it in some third-party source. But let's assume that it didn't, because CNN and BBC just didn't care at the time. It would still pass this version of WP:FICT. It passes the first prong because it's part of an important, critically and commercially successful series. It passes the second prong because there's presumed importance for episodes. And it passes the third prong because there is DVD commentary about the episode -- despite the fact that it hasn't been added to the article. But once again, this guideline allows for WP:IMPERFECTIONS (as do all guidelines), so long as there is reason to believe that those imperfections can be fixed and are not inherent to the topic. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the quietness on merges is often these merges direct to list pages, which this guideline is not qualifying at this time.じんない 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "the general principle that this guideline is proposing"? Or rather, what is the general principle that this proposal is proposing? The nutshell? The "Three-pronged test for notability"? I can't support or oppose the general principle if I don't know what we're talking about. Should there be an inclusion criteria or an exclusion criteria for fictional things? Sure. Should the current proposal be it? No. So do I oppose? --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can tell you my general feeling about the guideline. The basic idea is that the GNG gives us an inconsistent picture of fictional subjects. Some works of fiction may have very idiosyncratic coverage, resulting in a distribution of sub-articles which bears no resemblance to their importance within the fictional work. Because all articles on fictional elements are inherently subordinate to a notable fictional work, we should widen our coverage of them slightly to allow for a sensible portrayal of the work as a whole. Insofar as a fictional element has some verifiable facts connecting it to the outside world (some thematic connection, some outside impact, some technological change, the list goes on), is important to the portrayal of the work as a whole and is part of a significant (and notable) fictional work, we should have an article on it. That's it. Protonk (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an inclusion guideline - really, this is a guideline of what is the minimum requirement for a fiction element to have its own article. There is technically no fiction inclusion guideline - we are only limited by WP:IINFO and it's application in some projects (such as WP:VG's WP:GAMEGUIDE caution). Inclusion is not the same as having an article dedicated to that topic, however, and that's the point here - if the topic can meet the three prongs (important work, relevance in the work, and real-world information) then we should encourage an article on it as there's a good chance it can then be improved further to be a good quality article with more sources. If it can't, then the topic should still be covered elsewhere (but that's the other part of the equation we've not yet touched; one step at a time).--MASEM 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the general dislike for this guideline for the fact that we do not require independent sources, and yet the necessity to avoiding having a large fraction of articles on fiction to immediately fail should that be added and FICT made a proposal: I've stated before that all prongs in the test are not objective; the first is the most objective, the second a bit less, and the third the one that will likely be debated the most if AFD comes up, and unfortunately the one that is difficult to nail down. What we likely need to make sure that is stated is that independent sources on real-world information are weighted much more heavily in favor of evaluating the third prong than dependent sources, and that if the only real-world information is from a dependent source, we should expect such articles to be challenged. The one concession that this FICT then asks from those that want tighter requirements on fiction (specifically making sure we try to address WP:RS) is the fact that given the uncertainly of handling fiction over the last 2 years and that many of the 100,000s of fiction articles that have been around, we are only asking that the editors of these fiction articles are given the benefit of the doubt that with even a reasonable statement of real-world info from the developer that that's sufficient to retain the article at the present time, allowing both editors to find more information to expand the articles without any 7 day AFD rush, and to allow us to help craft overall better approaches to how fiction works should be organized to still cover all the fictional element aspects without the large number of articles when they aren't really necessary (per editorial decisions). The three prongs will still mark a good number of fictional articles as not being standalone, but not an overwhelming number for editors interested in keeping to handle (per fait accompli) nor a difficult barrier to make sure it cleared in the 7-day AFD should it be brought there. We are still going to drive fiction coverage to strongly consider the use of reliable sources, but right here, right now, that is not the time to try to enforce it - we need a lot lot lot more work to develop the bigger picture of what that should be, and it will go much more smoothly with this FICT set to avoid any present uncertainty and hostility towards the guidelines and policies. --MASEM 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Is there a policy that states that descendant guidelines cannot make special exceptions? This has been bothering me a while because people keep citing other policies saying that this one would "violate" x policy. I think it clearly states that guidelines should be treated with "common sense and the occasional exception", so I don't see why what we decide here would be overridden by any existing policy if we decide that certain things can be notable that wouldn't meet WP:N. Doesn't a guideline/policy have that authority to make that occasional exception? Fiction seems like an exceptional case for the reasons described in the policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURO. :) Protonk (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLICY asks "does the proposed page contradict any existing guidelines or policies? If so, it should not be promoted to guideline or policy status. Consider leaving a note about the proposal on the talk page of any guideline or policy it contradicts." Randomran (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the language in FICT "violates" V is up for debate, of course. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - it depends heavily on precise interpretation of "rely," and "third party," to say nothing of the assumption that articles that do not currently rise to that standard are subject to deletion. So saying that it contradicts WP:V seems to me to... overstate the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:V says "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Not to say that this is conclusive, though. So far it looks like there's good support for the guideline even with the "independence" issue lingering. But if it looks to be a real sticking point, we might want to solicit some feedback from people at WP:V. I'm not convinced we need to as of yet, though. Randomran (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially since we have generally agreed upon language below that satisfies Kww's objections, at least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that was the case, but I didn't know where to go for the exact wording. It wouldn't make sense to have policies and guidelines contradict each other. I think prong three adequately meets WP:N. I don't read the sections after the three-pronged test as excusing articles that don't meet WP:N, it seems to me like its just restating what was said above and how that works in practice. The wording could use a little work, but we're on the right track. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A little restatement of V inside the prong section might be a good idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes suck

Votes suck.

Once upon a time, this guideline was about organizing fiction articles. Now, it's a battleground for which sliver of marginal articles to delete or not delete, and the reasoning for doing so completely lost in "Well, we have to enforce this!" or "We have to enforce that!" or "I oppose this other guideline so I'm making a hard line here!" Trying to simply mirror AFD's schizophrenic, election-like results isn't a good way to propose a method for improving the encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that we need to find a good way to organize our coverage... especially for fiction. But this guideline isn't about organization. It's about inclusion. I think in the long run, we'll need to have another discussion about when to use other organizational tools, such as lists, and merges. But I think it would be better to settle one issue than to fail at two issues simultaneously. Randomran (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion doesn't matter except insofar as it's part of organizing articles. Half of the opposition to deleting these articles is that they could be merged or reorganized, and this argument will swamp pretty much any attempt to delete as long as someone's paying attention. Until we have a plan for organization and level of detail, then no, nothing that would happen in an "inclusion" guideline is relevant or important. Bottom-up fixes aren't solving things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit we are kind of playing the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost. But this compromise is pretty reasonable and at least when people reflexively cite WP:FICT (They did even through the months where it was fully protected and marked clearly as an essay, and even before then when it was variously marked "historical", "failed" and "essay" and subject to constant edit warring) they will be pointing to a guideline with some community support. I wish we could be as good as WP:VGSCOPE (which does a damn good job of the organizational end of things), but this is all we've got. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an attempt at a compromise to build something from nothing before. Something we can agree upon is better than nothing we can agree upon and when you have at least some stability as the ultimate baseline, you can start to move forward getting more ideas about what to merge, how to format, etc. But when you have something as broad, as diverse and as subjective, so controversial as the whole of what this covers, you have to start small.じんない 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a discussion of anything relevant. It won't move us toward a system of organization, just delete or save from deletion some articles on the fringe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ya, Votes Suck — This talk page rolls along at 10 new pages a day and some people feel it has consensus? No way. I don't see concessions from the include-everything side, I see another take on fait accompli i.e. hundreds of thousands of non-notable articles exist and they must be defended against reason. Independent, reliable sources, commenting in a significant way, are required for any reasonable concept of 'notability' or you're just offering ILIKEIT in a new dress. Jack Merridew 07:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism is often called exclusionism, and for good reason. Not only are wikipedians who delete excluding ideas, they are excluding potential editors too. The majority of the pages deleted are by new editors. These are new editors who could contribute so much to wikipedia, but instead, they are told in a million ways, their contributions are worthless. Journalists have written countless articles about deletionist policies, and they are universally negative.

Editors who delete are not only exclusionist, they are conservative traditionalists too. I personally think the problem with editors who delete is that they have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. They remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same way. They think, every Pokeman character wasn't in encyclopedia "P" when I' was growing up, and it shouldn't be on Encyclopedia wikipedia either. They don't seem to grasp what the irrepreprible harm their deletions are causing to the image and the long term viability of wikipedia.

Editors who delete insist that other editors fix the problem, instead of fixing the problem themselves.

The Economist magazine quoted a 2007 study which shows that edits are decreasing, and blamed "self-promoted deletionist". This is much more than a battle over the second episode in the second season of Frasier, this is what the Economist called, "The Battle for Wikipedias Soul" and the battle over new editors contributing here. Ikip (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm a conservative??? Please see WP:NPA. Jack Merridew 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jack can always try his hand at writing an encyclopaedia at Britannica 2.0. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a funny guy Jack. Wikipedia lets anyone create an article on anything, over seven years ago Jimbo Wales agrees that there is no reason why there can't be an article for every Simpsons character because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, in September 2006 Radiant! rewrites N, and then you claim "fait accompli" when people create articles? If "notable" only meant "noted", as in, written down, you may be right. But it doesn't. I don't need "independent, reliable sources, commenting in a significant way" to know that dresses are notable. They're ubiquitous. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, Jack, Pixel, take your catfight elsewhere. No one here cares. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be what every AFD is going to look like if this is in any way ambiguous, BTW. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Visibility proposal

After reading Ikip (talk · contribs)'s mention above about editors who are really involved in the articles not nesseccarily voicing their opinion, do you think that we should leave a message at WikiProject talk pages whose articles are likely to be affected by this? Just a thought for more input. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to Ikip. --Izno (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Drinloth, I'm sure that people would be happy if you composed a neutrally worded message and left it on talk pages for fiction-related wikiprojects (anime, star wars, VG, DnD, and so forth). WP:CANVASS allows for that. The more people we get here who have never seen this talk page before, the better. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• Hi! There is currently a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). Since this proposal may influence some of the articles covered by this project, any input there would be helpful to help build a consensus regarding the proposal. Thank you. ~~~~

-Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Might want to intro what the poll is for. Also, this would be a good start to it. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not do any canvassing whatsoever. There's a real risk of votestacking (which is a form of WP:CANVASSING) if we only solicit feedback from people who are passionate about fiction. It's probably best to stick with the visibility we already have. Randomran (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. CANVASS allows for a neutrally worded message to be posted to wikiproject noticeboards (aside from some ones like WikiProject:Deletion and WP:ARS). Besides, AMiB and "A Nobody" are both equally likely to read WT:VG. We are going to get partisans posting here either way (not to imply that either of the two previously mentioned editors are especially partisan). Protonk (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Izno, it should make clear that all we want is some confirmation that we are basically on the right track, not final approval. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to go to other forums, then, for the sake of getting people with no opinion on the actual content, but on the guideline itself. WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:N all play a central role in this guideline, and it would be valuable to get input from editors who frequent those pages. (I wouldn't go so far as to get feedback from WP:CORP or WP:NPOV, which play a lesser role.) WP:CENT would be a decent forum too. But really, I think we've already gotten enough visibility. There's a chance we may need more feedback in the future, and we don't want to wear out our welcome. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd want to keep this off CENT for now (because given the ~6-10 words we get to explain things on the template, we may not be able to give the impression that this poll is just a preliminary snapshot. But I think that going to WT:V/N/NOT/NOR would be fine, too. Once we get the wording down, we just copy/pasta. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live it so long as we get both kinds of audiences (from both policy-oriented and content-oriented forums). Although, like I said... I'm not sure advertising a straw poll is helpful, considering the straw poll is already of questionable validity. It's supposed to facilitate discussion, and we risk losing the benefits if it degenerates into drive-by voting. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for more intermediate polling. We are so close to being at the line where any change hits a hot button where one side or the other absolutely will not give, more mini-polls and the like will just lead to more frustration and flaring tempers. Temporarily freeze it, and take it to as final of a consensus-measuring place as you can. If it passes, it passes.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at those who have weighed in, I'm seeing a good number of comments from people who haven't been that involved in the discussion, and a good number more comments already, in a few hours, than many guideline straw polls get. I'm inclined to think we're doing just fine on input levels as it is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Phil Sandifer. Further feedback would need a wide, wide net in order to avoid introducing biases here. I don't see anything wrong with coasting off the feedback solicited two weeks ago. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I added a link to the extant WP:CENT notice. I hope no one minds. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of wikipedia to push an unpopular policy

I also posted a modified version of this on ANI.

Great way to advertise the proposal you worked the most on Phil, (51 edits main page, 300+ edits talk page).

Lets look at the most recent timeline:

1. Phil Sandifer "boldly" tags the page as a guideline, despite objections.[5]
2. Kww reverts Phil.[6]
3. 16:32, 23 January 2009, Phil deletes the page, with a personal attack: "Proposal was killed by trolling and personal attacks by Kww and ThuranX"[7]
4. 16:36, 23 January 2009 supporter of policy, User:EEMIV reports Phil to AfD
5. 16:42, 23 January 2009 User:Gavin.collins, a strong support of Phil writes a Straw man argument: "I propose an immediate 24-hour block for Phil Sandifer who deleted WP:FICT on the grounds that his unnecessary action has set an unfortunate precedent."
6. 16:46, 23 January 2009, Long time supporter Sgeureka undeletes the page.[8]
7. 16:49, 23 January 2009, Long time supporter Sgeureka here: "Restored. Tempers have been running high at FICT for over a year, but deletion was unnecessary and was likely just the result of a moment's overreaction on Phil's part."
8. 18:01, 23 January 2009, Strong supporter Bignole starts a straw poll, stating "informal, as in it doesn't mean that the guideline will or won't get promoted, this is for our benefit" Bignole is not the first person to comment on the straw poll:
9. 18:02, 23 January 2009 Phil Sander is the first person to support the straw poll
10. 18:05, 23 January 2009 Galvin Collins, who 1 hour and 17 minutes before was calling for Galvin to be blocked, is the next person to vote support, along with the other editors above.
11. 23:41, 23 January 2009 Despite Bignole's statement, that this is not an official poll, Protonk, posts a WP:CENT notice "Notability proposal for fictional subjects"
12. 18:30, 23 January 2009

As politics teaches us, there is nothing like a crisis (in this example a page deletion) to stir up opinion and unite a group of people, forcing them to decide, notice how the "troll" KWW fell in line and voted for the proposal?

I notice that Phil was the very first person to comment on the straw poll, one minute after supporter BIGNOLE posted it and one hour 29 minutes after Phil blanked the page.

I notice that EEMIV reported Phil, a supporter of this policy, and that Gavin.collins, a strong supporter of this policy added a Straw man argument.

I notice that Protonk's (another supporter #4) then advertised/canvased the proposal on ANI.

I will not be responding to comments here, I made that same mistake recently. Ikip (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. I had a longer post but I won't bother. Protonk (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Link to AN/I discussion for reference: [9]. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not entirely sure on what this section is attempting to suggest. A vast conspiracy including me, Bignole, EEMIV, Gavin, Protonk, and Sgeureka? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remember Phil, you are sworn to secrecy - you should never reveal the existence of the Evil Inclusionist/Deletionist^® Cabal in case our consipiracy to achieve world domination is discovered! --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. I'm trying to imagine something that the six of us could actually agree to conspire about. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd caution against jokes regarding The Cabal et al. It has become a bit of a classic personal attack, paramount to accusing someone of wearing a tin-foil hat. I admit, I also do not understand the conclusion this post of Ikip's is attempting to draw forth. I do find it a bit sad that page deletion did have the effect of catalyzing action in some form of another (e.g. The deletion log showed up nice and loud on my watchlist, causing me to investigate the events leading up to it). Deleting a heated argument with the specific intent of sparking notice by other casual watchers would be grounds for a block of some sort, but I have no reason to believe that was the case here. Wikistress can overtake even the best of editors. The actions following the delete look pretty standard. Whatever admin caught the delete first would undoubtedly have undeleted it. A 24 hour break is prefectly appropriate for a reasonable and well-intending editor who experiences a moment of lost temper and irrational action. The straw poll was suggested long before the delete. And everyone is entitled to their opinion in a poll. The presence or absense of valid arguments on one, both, or neither side is the far more important thing to be discovered through straw polls. It's a method of enumerating issues that are yet to be resolved. I see no conclusive evidence of straw-man arguments. I feel that as long as one is voicing a genuine concern which has not yet been fully rebutted by a counterargument, even if it is a concern you do not personally share, it's welcome on the table. If instead he's making up a lousy argument that is easily countered, then it will be effectively ignored, and the floor will remain open for well-formed arguments. Doing anything less would be ad hominem or appeal to authority. -Verdatum (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources, again

I'm just bringing this up since the majority of "oppose" !votes in the straw poll appear to be regarding the lesser requirement for independant sources needed by this guideline. I am posting here to try and start further discussion on the topic so that a consensus on it may be better reached.

It is my understanding that WP:V and WP:REF were written with the real-world in mind. Certainly many aspects of the real world -science, mathematics, literature, you name it- must have reliable, independent sources to establish notability. However, there aren't usually such sources for elements of fiction. If there are discussions of character, locations, or anything else, it is typically just a paragraph or two in a more comprehensive review or article about the topic... an article on The Office (US TV series) will probably only have a paragraph or two, if any, on Michael Scott (The Office). I also doubt that anyone is going to write a full article or review about Michael's role in the show.

So, then, it would seem impossible for many articles about fiction to meet WP:V and its related policies. But many of them do deserve to have their own article, because they are important parts of a work which has received widespread attention... it is essential to understand Michael Scott to understand The Office. In this way, simply being an important part of the work might be enough. However, entirely in-universe articles aren't generally wanted, so having real-world commentary, even if it comes from primary sources, will make the article much better and better establish its notability. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a stronger requirement for independent sources than this guideline calls for, but it isn't actually in violation of WP:V or WP:RS. Not many argue that all sources need to be independent in any arena, including fiction. Some use of primary sources and related secondary sources, such as DVD commmentary, is acceptable, just as it is permissible to quote Albert Einstein in relationship to the Theory of Relativity. The question is only how much of an article can be based purely on such sources. Arguing from personal belief and interpretation, I believe that the majority of any article should be from independent sources, or they cannot be said to "rely on reliable, third-party, sources" as required from WP:V. However, I recognise that that view does not represent common practice or common interpretations. Many articles on Wikipedia that are considered "good" are a mix of independent and dependent sources, and the dependent sources frequently provide over half of the material. However, an article that does not contain any independent sourcing is unacceptable, as it is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:N. The prongs do not contain any language stating that such articles are acceptable, and the text under independence points readers at WP:RS and WP:V. It is my view that the guideline should be clear that articles that contain no independent sources can be granted only a temporary reprieve from deletion, and that such articles must ultimately be brought in accordance with WP:V or be deleted. Phil obviously disagrees quite strenuously with my position on that.—Kww(talk) 15:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that I can find good articles that have two lines sourced to independent sources, I'm inclined to think that at least for fiction the deletion threshold is going to be significantly lower. I am fine with noting that independent sources are necessary for an article to progress to good article status, and that articles that are simply unable to progress to that status after a serious and good-faith effort to improve them are often merged elsewhere. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd comment as someone totally uninvolved. WP:V requires that an article rely on third party sources. In practise, so long as there are some of these sources, an article is probably fine. For fiction - one would probably be fine. The current proposal, however, states that (emphasis mine) ".. an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion..." - there isn't really two ways about it; this is a contradiction to WP:V, and whatever the guideline says, when it contradicts a policy, such articles will almost certainly be deleted if they get pulled to WP:AFD. To help prevent this happening to new users, I'd suggest that line be changed. If and when this goes up for 'promotion' to an actual guideline, I would oppose on those grounds. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; I'd read that line as ".. an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion..." I hadn't thought of it with emphasis on the first part. Maybe a rewording to : "... an article without any independent sources will likely be deleted or merged..."? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that an article that otherwise satisfies this guideline will likely survive multiple passes at AFD based on the hope of finding sources, and may survive indefinitely. Any language inserted needs to accomodate this reality. Sepiroth BCR has tried and I have tried, but the language hasn't stuck.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But we get back to the "spinout" problem, which is (I've grown to learn) the basis for fictional article exceptionalism. Every fictional element could theoretically me summarized in the 'main' article for the notable work. What we are trying to say with this guideline is that the GNG is a poor tool to use in organizing the editorial decision of creating/merging spinout articles. We don't want an article on Cloud Strife's dog (Final Fantasy VII), but we may want an article on Cloud Strife. This guideline allows us to do that without demanding that the specific fictional element be the subject of detailed coverage in independent sources. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think an article would be acceptable for Cloud Strife but not Cloud Strife's dog? (if there is such a thing — I don't know, I've never played Final Fantasy VII). --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he had a dog, but his "girlfriend" was Aerith Gainsborough, a main character in her own right. His parents weren't mentioned and he didn't have children. So I just said "dog". I was just trying to pick some element of the game that would be maddeningly trivial to anyone (including fans) and where presentation of that element as a stand-alone article would not illuminate the reader's understanding of the work as a whole. If you'd like we can replace it with any trivial element of the work. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This gets to the entire crux of the problem and it is not an easy fix. If we strictly limit fiction coverage to exactly requiring third-party sources of the same nature as most other fields, the coverage of it is radically curtailed beyond the broad inclusion criteria that WP suggests (based on all other current guidelines, eg the spinout issue). At the same time, total disregard for any sources outside of the fiction's universe leads to a level of coverage that is simply too broad. Determining to what level fiction should be covered has not yet been readily accessed - you either have people coming from the point of policy, or the point of "everything should be included", and there's been no strong effort save for a few to establish what the middle point could be. This middle point may require us to restate policy, but policies and guidelines follow consensus, not the other way around. If, after lengthy discussion and agreement, we come to conclude that to cover fiction appropriately for WP's mission, we need to disregard what WP:V and WP:RS say about independent and third-party sources, then we'll need to figure out how to word those better.

The thing is, this discussion has not yet occurred, and when it does, it's not going to be two weeks to come to a decision. It is a several month effort as I see it, and during that time we're still going to have edit wars over fiction. FICT as it now stands is a temporary effort to establish a safe baseline, neither too strong or too weak on fiction, to get people to the table and talk about it further. Adherence at the present time to policy and guideline does not make sense as long as we are aware this is not a permanent version, only reflecting the "now" for the next 1 to 2 years while the larger picture is resolved. This is a growing pain, not any radical shift. --MASEM 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of articles without independent sources, such articles often survive AfD as well - Ponder Stibbons and Jesse Aarons are two that have survived in the last few months that I quickly found. Both, fwiw, would fail this guideline, but other articles do not seem to me likely to. Luke Skywalker lacks sources straight through, little yet independent ones, but is clearly not going to be deleted. Rincewind is similarly unlikely to face deletion. Any attempt to delete either would likely be speedy closed as querulous, in fact.

Meanwhile, on the episodes side of the ledger, Launch Party and An Khe (The West Wing) both have GA status with two sentences cited to independent sources. It would be very unusual for articles that have only slightly worse sourcing than a good article to be candidates for deletion.

I agree that independent sources are important. And I'm all for adding some clear endorsement of them to the proposal. However, I think we need to base any such endorsement on actual documentable practice. Which is, I think, a good deal weaker than "articles without independent sources will likely be deleted or merged."

I would suggest, looking at practice, that the following statement is true: "Independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status are often merged into other articles." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but not all articles are going to be tried to improve to GA-Class. I'm hesitant to imply that articles about fictional elements need to be GA-Class or better or they'll get merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I tried to phrase it so that the issue was that they resist efforts to improve them, as opposed to that they are not GA class - that is, that the test is not only that they are not GA class, but that someone tried to make them GA class and failed. I mean, I'm also hesitant about having an article be deleted that is GA class save for the need for two more sources, each of which will be used for one sentence. An article that is two sentences away from GA is not a deletion candidate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that for some of us, those two sentences were the only possible salvation for an article that we were willing to tolerate for a while in the hope that someone could fix it. I'd rather insert "Independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles", but I could live with your proposal.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with re-iterating that independent sources are a key part of those efforts. I'll put the language in the independence section of the proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is nonsense to assert that we can't get a higher standard because 'policy follows practice'. Those two 'GA" class articles are barely A quality, and certainly the Office article ought to be delisted. Its' a big plot article with almost zero real world material beyond what's taken off the production notes of the DVD. It's not even written well. Ponder Stibbons is another lousy, thoroughly unsourced article; that it survived AfD is proof, again, that we need a higher standard to point to. That higher standard is a NEED, not suggestion, for independent sourcing. It's out there for truly notable fiction. Hemingway, Steinbeck, Vonnegut, Dickens, Cervantes, King, Straub, Asimov, van Vogt... all of these authors of fiction and their works have real world notability and real world sources. Discworld isn't that notable, and clearly, neither is that character. I don't understand why so many people who claim to understand scholarly writing are thoroughly incapable of understanding the need for independent sources. It's truly mind-boggling. The only thing I can come up with is that Phil Sandifer wouldn't have a major or a potential degree if he couldn't synthesize whole cloth the perceived importance of his childhood memories into papers, which can't be done with an independent sources demand. (above, he said he doesn't use them when he writes his papers.) ThuranX (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Discworld isn't that notable?" Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(And I say that as someone who thinks that Ponder Stibbons is crap and fails this guideline spectacularly.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I see it being anything but another Xanth or Robert Aspirin series. It's comedic Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Our article certainly doesn't establish it as a major influential work in its' genre. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll teach you to trust Wikipedia then. Pratchett is one of the best-selling authors in the UK - I believe, prior to Harry Potter, he may have been the #1 author in fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you feel should be done (and I actually agree with you about deleting or at least merging some of these articles)... the fact remains that you're gonna have a hard time doing it, and so would I. It's not like the nominator didn't point to WP:N and say "hey! this article needs third-party sources." They did so, and most people came in and said that didn't matter. In practice, third-party sources aren't always necessary. Policy changes come from documenting actual good practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects them. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. I admire your faith in our guidelines, but if you think they can turn lead into gold, you're wrong. It's time to embrace the fact that there are some fictional articles can survive indefinitely without reliable third-party sources. This guideline just tries to figure out the where and when, so that AFDs don't degenerate into WP:ILIKEIT. (Which, they already have.) Randomran (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two main problems at those AfDs. The first, as you stated, are the fan runs, especially on more popular subjects. The second are that the closing admin does not ignore fan ILIKEITs that have no basis and demand actual substantial sourcing, but rather treat the AfDs as a vote. Legitimizing such will just make it harder to counter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if this proposed guideline reflected actual practice, the guideline would read "Wikipedia has no standards for the inclusion of coverage of fiction, and the core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR do not apply. It is a playground for enthusiastic punctuation-deprived fanboys, and a breeding ground for OR and editorialising. AfDs are a vote in which a single ILIKEIT statement can counter two or three well-reasoned arguments. The occasional fiction-related article may occasionally be deleted if it's really, really, really bad, but this depends on who happens to wander by the AfD. Anyone who systematically attempts to clean up the sewage is likely to provoke savage hostility, character assassinations and endless RfCs." Reyk _YO! 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true - if we were to exactly mirror AfD, the guideline would read "Roll a d6. If it is a 1, speedy the article. on 2-4, merge. On 5, keep, on 6, delete." However, it is possible to look at the articles that seem to swing borderline AfDs - i.e. the ones that seem to be persuasive enough to make a difference in amongst the madness. Which is basically what this guideline tries to do. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation for AFD voting does get pretty sad. Take a look at the answer to question 4 on my RFA, and look at Casliber's reaction to it. He actually opposed on the basis that I wouldn't count votes on AFDs. He was elected to arbcom two months later.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ears burning) well, yeah. There was more to it than that, mainly the fact that I highly resent content contributors being dictated to by solely non-content contributors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, was there anything wrong with Phil's addition? I'd be happy with it, and it would more or less alleviate my concerns over the independent sourcing issue. And to Drilnoth, we're not saying that all articles on fictional subjects need to be GAs or they're merged, but rather they have the potential to be GA, and thus we retain them. It's why something like Luke Skywalker has stuck around despite the article is pretty bad. GA is just a useful minimum bar to use, as generally, stuff on fictional elements that have independent sourcing can pass GA (unless it's barebones independent sourcing on a really, really trivial subject in which case it's merged, but that's the exception and not the norm), and it's much easier to argue for retaining a GA on a fictional subject than a crappy article on the same subject. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of those who opposed the straw poll earlier, to answer sephiroth bcr's question, Phil's proposed addition to the guideline would push me toward a support. I also think you (sephiroth bcr) summed up what notability (of any topic really) should be quite well: as long as the article has the potential to be a GA, it should be included. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We should leave FICT as it is for a while, so all the comments are on the same version. Then hopefully we'll know what to tweak. I'm cautiously optimistic about this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Peregrine; leave it as-is for awhile for input. Regarding the possible change, I think that it is essentially good. I'd rather see "necessary to reach good article status" changed to "necessary to create a quality article, including Good and Featured Articles," and "efforts to improve them to good article status" be changed to just "efforts to improve them," but those are mainly personal preferences. I just feel like the wording Phil added implies that a non-GA article about fiction is pretty much sure to be deleted/merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be a way forward (but I agree to let it sink in), but the only caution I would say if language like this is added is that is has to be clear that fiction element articles that lack independent sources but otherwise pass this guideline should be given time and good faith effort to improve. Asserting that independent sources are necessary to get articles to quality is fine but people may use that to come down hard on fiction that may be imperfect now but could be improved. --MASEM 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. It has to be clear that to write good articles such sources are needed, but not be put up for AfD without given proper time, including from those who propose it --and quick deletes based on the lack of such sources should generally not be allowed. I also think if that wording should emphasize we should merge relevant information rather than outright delete it.じんない 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with such a proviso - the issue is that if someone has actually gone looking for independent sources and failed, there is a problem. And I'm willing to accept that. As for stressing merging, would linking "merge" to WP:PRESERVE work? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because PRESERVE gives indications, although vague, what can sometimes be trivial, ie stuff that might normally fail the 2nd prong outright. As long as it does that and mentions that speedy deletion should almost never be done. I'd also go so far that even and AfD should only be placed some months after a tag, disucssion or perhaps merged if it fails at a GAN for lack of independance (after atleast some attempt to search by those who suggest it), noting what might in particular be wrong (a general {{notability}} tag is not always clear to new users).

My concern for such strong wording about when to delete/merge is simply that if it is not placed in, someone will randomly stumble across an article and tag it for deleteion is the fact that such practices have caused serious drop in the number of editors and these articles are often made by fans -- new users most of the time -- completely unfamiliar with how Wikipedia heirarchy of rules work, which they shouldn't have to be to just start typing an article about a game character they like. We should encourage new editors because a lot of them come to edit stuff like this, not railroad them.じんない 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the recent change. I thought I wasn't going to (as we had already extracted plenty of concessions from all sides), but I like it. I may make some minor (syntax and tone) changes, but as PG suggests, I will avoid making any substantive changes to it. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Above straw poll

Although editors have continued to state this straw poll is non-biding above. Thank you Lets all keep in mind this guideline:

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Even when a straw poll is stated to be non-binding, sometimes people decide afterwards that they should nevertheless do what the majority wants, in effect retroactively treating the straw poll result as binding. While it is reasonable to ask other editors to consider majority opinion during the course of the debate, no straw poll may ever be used to force minority opinion editors to accept a majority opinion.

Thank you :) Ikip (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone could seriously argue that there has been a paucity of discussion of this proposal, but thank you for the reminder. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We've confirmed admins with far less support. I agree polling is not a substitute for discussion. But I think it shows that many of the disagreements over this proposal are minor, and people can live with the lingering issues. Randomran (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Phil. There isn't really a shortage of discussion. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

breadth of viewpoints

I hate to get off topic and start discussing editors. But consider this the opposite of WP:NPA. I've heard people repeatedly offer that this proposal comes from a minority viewpoint. It's true that Phil Sandifer put together the starting point for this proposal. So let's start with him.

• Phil Sandifer lies squarely on the inclusion side of the spectrum, and has pushed hard to relax the notability requirement.
• Masem was a big champion of the old proposal, which was undone by opposition on both ends. Including opposition by Phil Sandifer.
• Protonk's views are complex, but I've found I agree with him the most out of anyone here (and even then, it's not all the time). He's had disagreements with Phil Sandifer too, on this very proposal.
• Gavin Collins has occasionally overstepped the line in "enforcing" WP:N. His (good faith) efforts to make this guideline as tight as WP:N have been rejected, but not due to a lack of trying.
• Kww is so hardcore into WP:N that he once proposed that SNGs can only make it *more* restrictive, and *never* more inclusive. (He also gracefully conceded this is a minority viewpoint.)
• I'm not sure where Sgeureka stands, but I think he's eager to just have an actual guideline so we can get on with it.
• Peregrine Fisher is an inclusionist who would rather have more articles.
• Drilnoth is a hardworking inclusionist, and I just wanted to point out his fantastic work with Peregrine Fisher on Drizzt Do'Urden.
• Me personally, I've butted heads with Phil Sandifer a number of times. I pride myself on being a precisionist, which means I try to delete/keep based on quality/potential, not my personal tastes. I've started several AFDs, and they almost always result in deletion/redirection -- and I withdraw when it appears I've made a mistake, and someone finds sources. I also try to improve articles on fictional elements when it's possible to fix problems that would otherwise be reason for deletion.

Every one of those people has come out in support of this guideline. If you weren't so "blessed" as to be called out on this thread, it's only because I think I've made my point: it's damn near a miracle that these people all came together and basically support the proposed version of WP:FICT.

How did that happen? Because we didn't just drive by and say "oppose". If we honestly believed that our opinion had more consensus than anything here, we had the courage to step into the ring, and prepare to defend it. It was a battle royal. Some ideas survived, some ideas got thrown over the top rope. The only ideas that survived were ones that were fair to all reasonable viewpoints. The other ideas, we had to be mature enough to drop them when people wouldn't accept them.

So when someone drives by and says "this proposal only represents a minority viewpoint", excuse me if I scoff. You obviously haven't tried to propose something that everyone can live with. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: pardon me if this thread digs up old wounds. But that's part of the point: we don't get along, we don't agree, but we can live with this guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice summary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww...I don't get an entry in the WP:FICT cabal :( But in all seriousness, good summary. Any notion that this isn't a compromise between people with widely different viewpoints is sadly mistaken. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel sad, not everyone is so popular. :pじんない 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys. :) Randomran (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Ikip listed me as part of the cabal, and I get no summary at all? ThuranX (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Summaries are for supporters only. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the belief that legitimate SNGs cannot expand notability isn't too small of a minority ... if you dig though the actual reasoning at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise(instead of the chart at the top), you will see that around 40% of Wikipedia believes that to be true, even though many believe in the concept of the SNG providing a temporary reprieve while sources are sought. The phrasing of that set of questions caused a lot of scattering. My truly hardcore act was proposing "article describes a single episode of a television show" as a CSD criterion.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But either way, it's kind of impressive when you include your name with some of the others, don't you think? Randomran (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well even so it's clearly a minority view.じんない 21:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We collectively compromised. :) Let's not dig into any debate about how much support our individual viewpoints have. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, over 1 out of 4 articles on Wikipedia fall under Category:Fiction. Wikipedia has over 150,000 editors who have made at least 1 edit in the last month. So if someone drives by and says this proposal only represents a minority viewpoint, I would understand. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i feel at this point the difference in terms of what denotes an "independent" source is better handled at WP:V and imo should be brought there due to the amount of articles on Wikipedia covered by Category:Fiction and its descendants.じんない 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)B

You missed the thrust of what I was saying. No doubt, ~150,000 > ~30. But those ~30 range from inclusionists to deletionists. You're going to have a hard time getting those different viewpoints to find some common ground they could agree upon. But they did, and this is the result. Most viewpoints were represented here. Naturally the viewpoints at either end of the spectrum weren't accommodated, but that would be impossible without disrupting the compromise. (Let alone disrupting other policies.) Randomran (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything left before this moves from proposal to actual policy?じんない 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To approach the various (fiction?) wikiprojects and say, "it's good to go. weigh in". --Izno (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We already did that, actually. The guideline appears to have stabilized since the notification a couple of weeks ago. Randomran (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd say the guideline was rather in flux since the last notification, and hasn't really had a chance to settle down until the last couple of days. One more time should do it, and if we don't see anyone more, than someone adds the guideline tag, and we settle into business. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pixel, that's besides the point. We have no idea what any of their views on this proposal would be. WP:CON recognizes that only a small fraction of editors participate in any discussion. Even large scale polls (like the one for ROLLBACK, Flagged Revisions, or arbcom elections) rarely get responses from more than a thousand editors. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Jinnai, the next step is the process is to seek some form of approval for WP:FICT by proposing an RFC. Ideally we would want a stable version of this proposed guideline to be put forward at this point, but I can't say when that will be achieved as this depends on the number of serious objections which some editors may have the current draft. My view is that if an editor does have a serious proposal for change, they will seek feedback for their proposed amendment on this talk page here. I don't approve of the goldfish style of editing, whereby this guideline is nibbled at and nobody can remember why the previous version needed to be changed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Section on "Secondary Sources"

Anyone know where this section originated from? (Can't easily figure out from the history). As per the attempts to condense and rewrite the guideline it seems this section may conflict with the three prongs (depending on if you believe developer commentary are secondary or not). If it is the intent that developer commentary, etc. are secondary (but not independent) sources, this may need to be cleared up. If this is not the case, we need to fix this section or at least address it to the points we discussed before, that it's ultimately necessary to have such types of sources to get a quality article but as article are imperfect, it is not necessary as long as some real world aspects are shown. Otherwise, this makes this guideline no different from the GNG and conflicts with the attempt the three prongs are trying to make. --MASEM 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think DVD commentaries are secondary sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Developer commentary, DVD commentaries, etc. are definitely secondary sources. I would hope this is obvious enough to not require explicit clarification, but if that needs to be made explicit, it should be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to frown on examples, but I think the three you just mentioned should could be mentioned on the project page. I had to click on the link to primary, secondary, and tertiary myself to make sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are satisfied that basically what we are doing is asserting that we are bounding ourselves to the GNG but simply clarifying that for fictional elements, devs are secondary sources (which, I will note, that at the WP:N RFC, the concept that SNGs can define what sources are good for demonstrating notability was an accepted concept), that would make this section clearer, emphasizing we are trying to stick to the GNG as closely as possible. --MASEM 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of getting pedantic... anything can be both a primary and secondary source. A speech by the President can be a primary source, as we use other secondary sources in the media to make analytic or synthetic claims about what the President's speech means. Vice versa, the media can be the primary source if we're talking about a major news personality and something they said, and the speech from the President can one of several secondary sources that criticize/analyze the media screwup. To get back to fiction, DVD commentary is a secondary source when they make analytic or synthetic claims about a work. But it's a primary source if the commentary is done by someone in-character (which is rare, but sometimes happens). Randomran (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for stability

Until the RFC is over, I would request that editors refrain from making amendments, both big and small, so that other editors can comment on the current version which was last edited by Phil Sandifer at 17:34, 24 January 2009[10]. I propose this on the ground that any amendments will tend to invalidate the comments made by contributors to the RFC, even if the amendments are well intended.
I realise that it is difficult enough to agree on the current version on the basis it can always be improved, but I feel we should hold back until all comments are in and then address the issues raised. If there is an administrator capable of freezing this version until the RFC has ended, I feel this would be of benefit. The last thing I would like to see is an edit war break out simply because everyone thinks that the gates are about to close, whereas the reality is that lots of amendments will be made after the RFC in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back. That particular set of material had consensus to be added before the RfC was brought forth, as I noted here. That said, I agree that no other changes (aside from non-controversial prose/grammar fixes) should be made in the meantime. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your approach. Since the amendments don't make any substantial change to the guideline, I can't see the benefit, as it never going to be final version in any case. My proposal still has merit, because all I am asking is to hold back for a short while as a matter of courtesy, as it is difficult for the participants to comment on a moving target. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the ammendments show how this porposal is not ready to be a guideline, and there is alot of different views which oppose the current verision as it stands. After all there is no deadline, this passionate discussion has been going on for 4 years now, it doesn't have to be resolved today. Ikip (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you came to this conclusion, as it seems to me there is a lot of support as well, which has the upper-hand in my view because it is supported by arguements from new contributors to this page that fit in with the discussions that have taken place over the last few weeks. I have reverted back to the version at 17:34, 24 January 2009 in order to facilitate comparison. Please feel free to revert back.
It seems to me that the changes to date are more or less cosmetic, which indicates to me that we are still on the right track, at least in principal. Clearly the "nutshell" needs to be amended, and this needs to be hammered out in a new section WT:FICT#In a nutshell.
Another issue seems to have arisen regarding the scope of this guideline regarding the difference between "works of fiction" and "elements of fiction" and I suggest we discuss this in a new section (WT:FICT#Works & Elements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I'm concerned about changing the guideline while it's under vote, but on the other hand, when people are clearly misunderstanding parts of it, clarifying those parts does not seem to me to be a problematic change at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is understandable, given that the discussion over the past few weeks has been so drawn out, and would take an age to read, let alone understand. However, it has been constructive, and if new contributors to this page ask for clarification, then we can always refer them to the appropriate section in the archive, whilst hoepfully at the same time giving a balanced view of what has been agreed/contested before.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on reverting. The changes were made in response to opposes and comments that the nutshell was unclear, wording was poor, et al; reverting back only hinders the development of the guideline. As none of the changes in the duration have changed the meaning of the guideline, but hopefully its clarity, I suggest we revert back to the last revision before Gavin; if we were seriously about not being a "moving target" we would have protected the guideline, but that's obviously not the intent of this exercise. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here. When I was watching the changes, they appeared to be about making sure the guideline was consistent from top to bottom (as we had failed to adjust the wording of other sections after WE altered the guideline). I don't recall any change to the guideline that altered any aspect of its meaning, merely a copyedit was performed (though, I could have slept through some major change that did...if so, please show us what that was). Other than that, I believe it needs to be reverted back as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are both coming from and you are perfectly justified to hold this view. However, whether the changes have made improvements is debateable, and whether any of these amendments will 'stick' is not a foregone conclusion. My own view is that change is unhelpful whilst the RFC is in progress, because it makes sense (in my mind at least) if the last contributor were to be commenting on the same version as the first contributor (as well as those in between). Comparing one version with another is like trying to compare apples, oranges and carrots. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) as the author of one of these copyediting changes, I admit that we are running a fine line. However, look at it this way. Lets say this guideline passes. Are we going to call for another RfC if we make some reasonable copyediting changes? No. We are going to discuss it on the talk page (assuming it isn't soem huge change) and implement it. The same procedure should be followed here. Lets make sure that changes don't disrupt the scope of the guideline and work to ensure that it is more clear. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this a change in fundamental meaning? Please explain. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to be rude, but your proposed change is quite contraversial. Although WP:FICT places a lot of emphasis on the test, the statement that "An element of a fictional work is presumed to be notable if it meets a three pronged test" is not true, because the test is silent on the need for independent sourcing. In fact a topic that passes the three pronged test does not even pass WP:V, which states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". That is not to say I am against the test, but we have to be honest, we can't create an editorial walled garden for fictional topics. Sorry if I did not make my views clear before I reverted your edit. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An observation on the RFC

There seems to be a bit of conversation in the RFC that discusses notability in general and how it should be [you pick: kept as GNG only/deleted entirely]. This really doesn't have anything to do with this specific guideline. With the amount of opposition to this guideline simply because it is a notability guideline, maybe another discussion should be started regarding notability and the deletion of content caused by it at WT:N, rather than having it here. Notability is one of Wikipedia's most controversial policies/guidelines; maybe a revaluation of the various guidelines is necessary. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support a reevaluation of WP:N, though I suspect that those who wish it didn't exist will be surprised at the response. What I don't like is a recapitulation of that debate on every possible forum. I hope that whoever closes this RfC will take into account the strategic opposition and separate it from the opposition to the guideline itself. Protonk (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that a reevaluation would probably provoke some powerful responses from both sides, but I think that it is worth looking into. I might take a look one of these days if nobody else does. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You've seen Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, right? Although it doesn't go to the core of the question it was quite a lot of feedback. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've looked at that, but it is really just an RFC on the interpretation of N, rather than on a redesign of N. What I'm wondering is if there is support to change the GNG or the way in which it is used, based upon the comments above. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's clear that notability is a guideline because, simply put, we're not going to stop excluding articles as non-notable. Notability has sufficient support that articles will be deleted as non-notable. So it's a guideline. Some people dislike this fact. Some days, I'm among them. However, I have trouble taking this opposition seriously as a grounds for opposing this guideline. To my mind, such opposition is a parallel track. Those who oppose any notability guideline whatsoever do not seem to me to meaningfully be a force against the implementation of specific notability guidelines. If they can garner consensus to whack all of them, fine. But opposition to the general case does not seem to me to be usable as opposition to specific cases. To be blunt, the first thing I'm inclined to do in gauging support for this guideline is remove from consideration all comments that are based on a fundamental opposition to the basic system of notability guidelines. Followed by comments that base their reasoning on things that the guideline doesn't say. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, every time I'm seeing someone saying that they're opposing this because they believe it will exclude articles, my reaction is *facepalm* Are these people really so blinded by their inclusion philosophy that they can't begin to fathom that without this guideline, people are merely going to delete articles with WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT? It defies explanation. Per Protonk, I hope the admin closing this takes into account all of the arguments presented and gives them appropriate weight (or lack thereof). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• It has been claimed that the draft guideline is based upon current practise. I'm not convinced of this but, if this were so, then the introduction of the guideline would not change matters much, since it represents the status quo. The threat that thousands of articles will be deleted without this guideline seems empty as attempts to delete articles en masse are not usually successful. Editors who are content with the current position are reasonably entitled to be suspicious of the guideline in that its effects may be unpredictable and so might, in fact, disturb the current balance. Those who have drafted it seem quite desperate to introduce it and this, in itself, may excite suspicion. Myself, I am quite unclear as to the likely outcome of the current draft because it has been drafted with so much subjective wording. For example, is Pokemon a work of cultural and historical significance? Would the guideline guarantee that we would have articles upon individual Pokemon characters back, as seems sensible, or would it just unleash an avalanche of wikilawyering about whether they are central to an understanding of the work or not? Gotta catch them all... Anyway, attempts to steamroller this by discounting the opinions of editors who oppose the current draft tend to destroy the building of consensus and so invalidate the RFC. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• What that indicates to me is my oppose rationale above was solid - the guideline as written is so overly complicated, the typical non-policy-wonk editor will not be able to make heads or tails of it. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do tell, then, what is overly complicated. Everyone lining up saying this is too complicated without quantifying why exactly isn't very helpful. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still Oppose, though respect the continued efforts. 3 prongs = more beauracracy. Prong 1 still requires notability beyond what guideline already expects or asks. Prong 3 still requires that an fictional element must have notability seperate from and then exceeding that of the fictional article in order to exist seperately. Current guideline already instructs that if a section covering an fictional element would be too large for the article, then it may have a seperate article. So I see prongs 1 and 3 acting toward the trimming and forcing of unneccessary merges to articles this guideline, if ratified, would then consider non-notable... thus affecting, hundreds, if not thousands of articles. Wiki has not run out of paper. Wiki has room for articles about elements just as guideline currently accepts and directs. There is no need to enact a surperfluous (sorry, but I feel it is) guideline that further consternates an already confusing set of guidelines. It is time for making things simpler, not more complicated. I myself hope a closing Admin recognizes that making guidelines that may be percieved to serve one factor (true or not) will cause further contention, and does not improve the project nor increase utility and accessibility to the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While this would seem to make sense, the RFC at WP:N on non-notable spinout articles is strongly against these types of articles (non-notable fictional elements); this proposed guideline is to try to get as close as we can for allowing fiction elements to having their articles without crossing that line. I believe there's a longer route to getting a better approach to fiction coverage so that line isn't a major issue, but that's a much larger battle. --MASEM 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Will all due respect (and being mindful of the fact that communication is a two way street, it is our fault for poorly explaining the guideline in the text), I think you continue to fundamentally misread the intent and text of the guideline. I can't imagine that prong one could be clarified or explained more but you still insist that it somehow raises the standard of notability for any article under the remit of this guideline. I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well... here's what I read in prong 1... "The importance of the work is shown by external sourcing for the work itself beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline." If I keep reading "beyond the threshold" and see it as requiring more and not less, what do you think new editors are going to red? If it's text allows it to be misinterpreted from its intention, well... then write the intention and scrap the misleading text. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • the intent is that elements of works which are marginally notable don't get a ticket to the party. Elements of works which are well beyond marginal notability can be covered under this guideline. So Ender Wiggin from the Ender's Game series might fall into this category, but Dr. Fluke Hawkins (MDK) from MDK (video game), might not. If you would like to propose some change to prong one that makes that unambiguous, let's work it out. For completeness, "To justify articles on individual elements, the overall work of fiction must be of particular cultural or historical significance. The importance of the work is shown by external sourcing for the work itself beyond the basic threshold of the general notability guideline. This is not a requirement for sourcing above and beyond the norm for the subject of the article, but rather for the work that the subject is a part of." is the full text of the prong. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It is meant to say that if the work itself isn't notable enough to get it's own article, then a related article shouldn't. If that is the only notable aspect of the work in that if you spun it out the main article would fail GNG, you would still talk about it in the context of the work itself.じんない 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A fair amount of the opposition is because notability has not for a long time been enforced on fictional subjects very rigorously. There are varying reasons why this is, and you can argue about whether it should be this way, but this is not an unreasonable or "facepalm" or whatever reason to oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the RfC only on the version of Fict as it was written when the RfC started or also the version(s) since the RfC started including the edits made subsequently as well as Gooraise's version? Which version do the various supports and opposes refer to? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that anyone will insist that the RfC relates to one specific revision of FICT. If we do that, we could immediately reduce it to each editor supporting the current revision at the moment they posted their support (or opposition). So long as the scope of the guideline doesn't change, I don't think there is a problem. As I said above, if this gets confirmed, we would not need an RfC to make minor changes to the guideline, so we shouldn't worry too much about it now. Also, we do have several editors acting to ensure that the guideline doesn't "walk" too far away from the intent at the moment of proposal. And...lastly...this guideline has been relatively stable over the last month (in comparison to changes across previous months). I don't think stability is a worry.
• As for the "Goodraise" version, I don't know. My assumption would be that anyone who says "support/oppose" without mentioning goodraise's draft specifically means they support/oppose the WP:FICT draft. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes - can we have discussion on specifics

...before we go and do broad-based editing? Many of you did some edits, small at a time, but over the course of this RfC have seriously altered the original intent of this proposed guideline which while were in good faith copyediting, I believe the amount and type of editing alters the scope of the project and promotes Systemic bias for certain types of fiction above others. This is a comparison to the changes made. My major points of contention are:

• Specifically the nutshell does not make it clear that works that fail the GNG cannot have elements that would pass this guideline as this has been a founding priciple of the guideline and should be made abundantly clear to anyone reading it
• The text itself also lends to that misinterpritation with pargraphs which can be construed to mean that the work itself need not be notable, just an element.

n all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Elements of a notable work of fiction are presumed to be notable if they meet a three-pronged test: the work should be significant, the fictional element itself should be important to an encyclopedic understanding of the work, and verifiable information must exist about the subject apart from a plot summary.

• That is specifically spells out a few types of notability guidelines (FE: books), but not others, that deal with fiction which is a directly conflicts with Wikipedia's goal of countering systemic bias

じんない 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • That's Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a wikiproject that has particular rules about what constitutes "bias", what effect it should or shouldn't have on editing, and what we should do about it. I am not a member of that wikiproject, nor are many editors here. their suggestions and opinions don't constitute some widespread consensus about how we present subjects or write guidelines. We've had this discussion before, and I will continue to come down on the side arguing that the guideline isn't here to sell the idea of systemic bias. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if we don't the article clearly favors that some notability guidelines for fiction by presenting them in the article's main text over others. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral and that applies to guidelines as well as articles.じんない 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objections. Can you explain exactly what you think was changed by the copyediting? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My first one is that it isn't made clear now, by the changes, that an element within a work is not deserving of an article if it's parent work is not. For example, for there to be an article on the primary protagonist, the main work must first pass the GNG. Even if the character could pass the GNG himself, for example all of the reviews and commentary talk about the character and refer to the work only as an incidental aside which is usually not enough to be considered a reliable source for the work then, he should be merged with the article.

My second point is that by linking to specific fictional guidelines in the body of the text we are biasing the slant of those guidelines as being more authoritative than other notability guidelines for fiction.じんない 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What fictional guidelines are we biased to by linking? There aren't any others, that's why we're here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEB also covers content for fictional content based solely on the web.じんない 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that a situation exists in practice or even really in theory where a character of a work that does not pass the GNG passes the GNG - but in this case, we ought not override the GNG. Notable is notable. We'll lose support if we try to override the GNG. The first prong was never meant to apply even to articles that pass the GNG, so this is not a change. What else do you think has changed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My other point was just on directing to guidelines other than the GNG without pointing to at least WP:WEB for stuff like webcomics to use. Fictional story ballads and the like could fall under WP:MUSIC as well.じんない 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Go ahead and add other guidelines you think appropriate. If the list gets overlong, we can recast as needed. I forgot about WEB covering webcomics, and didn't think about MUSIC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed MUSIC. I left WEB. If you want to re-add music, please make sure that the format of the list remains the same: music should just be "music" not "music for ballads" if the rest of the list is a single word per element. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the RfC

See, this is why I was cautious about this. As I look over the RfC, I'm seeing a ton of problems - people making "oppose" !votes that amount to a willful rejection of existing standards (i.e. people who are categorically opposed to notability guidelines or restricting fictional content at all), and numerous ~votes that are opposing for reasons that are transparently not true - claims that the third prong is equivalent with WP:N, or suggestions that the first prong is setting a higher standard for elements.

We are rapidly crossing over a signal to noise ratio that is getting unhelpful - a lot of these comments are drive-by and are clearly demonstrating a misunderstanding of the guideline. Many others are in a sort of twilight realm where they do not clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding, but with such widespread misunderstanding it is hard to take them entirely seriously either. On the whole, I feel like this RfC is giving us no useful data, and is instead leading to a complete mess of drama and avoidable controversy.

As it stands, I am gravely concerned that a poorly thought out attempt to drag in comments from people uninvolved and uninformed about the proposal is tainting the proposal in exactly the way that we were seeking to avoid. And now we're apparently seeking to drag in even more people from further outside the realm of this debate via a watchlist notice?

If we do not figure out a way to draw the line and restore some semblance of sanity to this discussion, I am going to have a hard time thinking that this proposal has not been irrevocably tainted such that any attempt to claim consensus for it is doomed simply because it has gotten sucked into the idiotic battleground that has consumed this issue for years. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the RFC, we will have a large number of editors continually contest this as not having consensus (there are a good number of wikilaywers on either side of the argument). And we should assume good faith, as well take in consideration, those "drive by" comments. Ok, there may be some "we should not need any notability guidelines" which don't help, but the others that have read the guideline and misinterpret it thus opposing it are good as that tells us we need to likely rewrite parts to make it clearer, while those that oppose on other grounds are points to consider if we have to readdress this issue. --MASEM 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there's such widespread misunderstanding is a sign that this is not very clearly written. If it's being misunderstood now, it'll be misunderstood at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To disagree does not automatically mean that one misunderstands, as many editors presuppose. It feels of an elitism that decries the core precepts instituted by founder Jimmy Wales. To linit any discussion denigrates all who have a stake in improving Wikipedia. It rails in the face of all that wiki was meant to be to "speak down" to anyone as if they were children. Wikipedia, as the "Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", must always be the place where ANYONE can be made welcome. Ikip (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled accusations of bad faith do not become you, nor do they serve this discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is wiki edited only by folks with Master's Degree? Wouldn't it be prudent step back from this fiction proposal and see if it can be written in a way that even an fresh editor might understand? Ikip's stronger statement does make some valid points, in that the continued and qrowing complications being built into the laws that govern who and how people may may contribute are acting to discourage new editors and new ideas. If a newcomer runs into confusing laguage that is obviously created by and directed at editors with far greater knowledge of the system then he or she might currently have, it could only act to discourage and send them to any one of the hundreds of other databases online. If its the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't it be more important to make it as easy as possible for the greatest number of people? Its time to simplify in the extreme..... not confuse with more and thicker layers of beaucracy... and yes "Wiki is not a beaucracy"... or at least it was not meant to be. To a newcomer wishing to contribute, the layers and levels of rules and regulations that confuse and do not clarify, will appear like a huge tome of corporate tax code. I accept the extreme good faith in which these efforts are being made, but its time to simplify... not complicate. I am not a 12-year-old. I am not a rank newbie. I have a college education.... and the way it is written confuses the heck out of me. Is any small wonder that there has apparently been discussion about this for 4 years? Maybe someone should go ask Jimmy if this is what he intended? And as a point of interest, Goodraise sent a gift below that is marvelous in its simplicity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree partially w/ AMiB. I'd really appreciate it if the two editors who noted so specifically the lack of clarity in the guideline could hop over to the project page and make some changes to improve clarity (or at least propose them here). I worry that the lack of clarity comes not from a lack of elocution but from a muddied stance due to compromise. By its very nature, a guideline like this will be less clear (As in less unambiguous) than something like WP:BLP, which is pretty clear cut due to some strong consensus and obvious planks. I also want to caution people that everything on wikipedia is a work in progress. Hop on over to WP:NOR or WP:V or WP:RS and tell me those are perfect examples of clarity. Tell me that they present unambiguous direction. They don't. They may never. Or they may. We shouldn't expect this guideline to be perfect at the date of adoption. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • I would not have noticed this comment, which seems to be in part directed at me, without the friendly notice of Ikip (talk · contribs). Here is my condensation/clarification/deobscuration/whateveryouwannacallit of the current proposal in this revision. (If I don't reply to comments directed at me within a day, I probably missed them. In those cases, please drop me a line on my talk page.) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Now THAT'S clarity. Support the Goodraise version. Absoutlely no need for an orchestra when one quick toot does it all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Except that misses the point. It considers the three prongs each as single criteria to pass the guideline (that is, meeting one prong is sufficient) which is not the intent of this guideline. It's the combination of the three prongs that this guideline outlines. Mind you, the terseness of the evaluation is fine, but we had that at one point and realized that we needed the addition explanation paragraphs to help balance concerns. --MASEM 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • No. My version lists 4 criteria, connected with two implicit and one explicit "and". It's not much text. Reading it slowly, in order to understand it, is not asked too much. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Ok, I missed the "and"; that absolutely needs to be bolded to imply that all criteria have to be met (see ikip's comment below that they believe that there are four unique conditions, not four combined conditions). However, I will point out there are only three criteria that we have defined here: the first one you list, about secondary sources, is not one of the ones the current proposed version gives, or more specificially, that's the part about meeting the GNG. This proposed guideline says an element of fiction is notable if (it meets the GNG) OR ((meets prong 1) AND (meets prong 2) AND (meets prong 3)). That only requires striking the first item in that list. --MASEM 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
              • With that comment you are proving the grounds on which I opposed. The proposed text only lists 3 prongs, but further down in the secondary sources section it says: "A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline." - It seems not even the regular editors of the proposal understand it any longer. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Hmmm, I need to see where that came in. (The difficulty being that I think implies that we're assuming developer commentary to be secondary, but that may or may not be true). --MASEM 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If people here want me to go in and clean it up, I can go have a crack at it. I certainly wouldn't want to go do it and then have people revert it because the verbage wouldn't fit the carefully demarcated peace that has been struck here. I could always redo it and put the changes elsewhere to look at. Or I could do nothing. Anyone else want to opine? SMSpivey (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, you already know that Wiki isn't a democracy, so we aren't simply counting opposes and supports and deciding the fate of the guideline on that. The arguments have be strong on both sides. If you're getting people that oppose simply because they oppose everything of that nature, and not because of something specific with the guideline itself, then that isn't as strong of an opposition as someone who can point out valid flaws in the system.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When an guideline is going to effect 1/4 of all pages, many profoundly, and hundreds of editors contributions, I would hope to get better than a WP:IMPERFECT argument. Ikip (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? those 1/4 of pages can be IMPERFECT. My point is that the opposes based on clarity are holding the guideline to a standard that would reject the current revisions of a good proportion of policy. If you want to get down to brass tacks, NOR is a mess. V/RS are muddied. Hell, the only policy page that I'm sure is clear is IAR, though there is a huge unwritten asterisk after it. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the idea come from that this page would affect 1/4 of all pages, i.e. some 700,000 pages? Now, I can imagine that we have 700,000 fiction related articles: however, this guideline is not about all these articles by far. All creators are excluded, just like all independent works of fiction are (books, TV series, comlic strips, ...). The actual figure of affected articles is in myopinion much lower, but a link to some actual calculations would be nice. Fram (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe if you do a page count of Category:Fiction, you can get that number (I believe Pixelface calculated it to be 23 or 26% of all pages). --MASEM 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Category:Fictional would be a better starting point, it's a better assumption that most things in that category are at least fictional. Category:Fiction includes authors and books, neither of which tend to be fictional. Anyone up to a page count there. Hiding T 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Category:Fiction is much, much broader than the scope of this proposed guideline. It contains authors, forms, magazines, concepts, images, ... To claim that this guideline would affect 25% of the pages is obviously incorrect, but I would like to know as well if it is about 1%, 5%, 10%, ... ? Fram (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• The truth is if people are opposing for uninformed reasons, we're partially to blame for doing a poor job of summing it up in the nutshell, and can make the guideline more clear in general. I think you've done a good job trying to tighten up the lead. But I think the nutshell has made a lateral move, and needs to sum up the three prongs succinctly. Randomran (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To Phil... with respects, I feel compelled to address several of your remarks above...

1. "...willful rejection of existing standards..." "...who are categorically opposed to notability guidelines..." I suggest you cannot know what goes through the mind of those who opine. The existing standards are confusing enough to newcomers. Its time to simplify, not obscurfate in the name of clarity, even with the most honorable of intentions. Yes, the old guard has been around long enough so some may be able to sort through the verbage... probably. But Wiki proudly boasts that it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Newcomers are encouraged to take part. Its gotta be simpler. Painfully simpler. We can't chase off the new blood.
2. "...crossing over a signal to noise ratio that is getting unhelpful..." Which would seem to indicate that the new guideline, even if intended to simplify and clarify, is acting in exactly the opposite manner... and this to editors who have been aboard for years. Newcomers see only a foreign tongue. That just ain't what ol' Jimmy Wales has in mind.
3. "...comments from people uninvolved... " Guidelines and proposed guidelines involve everyone, not only a few who believe their inate understanding or view is the only correct one, pro or con. Just as Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopdia anyone can edit, it is intended that anyone can opine.

Maybe its time to pull this one off the table and see how it can be streamilined and made user-friendly to ANYONE who might wish to edit wiki. There's a saying... the more you complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the sink. You may not see the proposal as complicated... but this entire discussion indicates that many others do. Perhaps time to pull it off the table and see how well it can be streamlined... or even if it is required at all when a few tweaks to current guideline might be the easier route. Hmmm? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I don't see a need to table this discussion if all we need to do is tweak the wording (without changing the scope). If the problems in clarity are within our capacity to solve quickly we should do it. Part of the purpose of the RfC is the fact that editors who aren't steeped in this guideline can look at it. For someone like me, the section on independence may make a good deal of sense--I see where a sentence was added or removed and connect it to the discussion on the talk page. for someone who isn't so shuttered up, the connections aren't so clear. IF we are failing to make the motivation, limits and execution of this guideline clear to a reader, then we want that feedback. We don't need to shut down this RfC and start it up again in a month to fix the problems noted. Protonk (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows with Rule creep and Bureaucracythat once a proposal becomes a guideline, it is very difficult to change. There have been 43 pages of archived discussion on this proposal, and still there is a proposal which everyone agrees has problems. Changing this page to a guideline is not going to magically change that. Ikip (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't looking to magically change that. We are just looking to hammer out a compromise that works for a sufficient number of editors. I'm not sure who "everyone" is that knows that guidelines become fixed in form once accepted by the community, but I'd love to meet them. "Everyone" doesn't "know" that this guideline is set to be applied in its current form instantly and forever once accepted. I find it much more reasonable to assume that changes will occur just as they do for every other guideline and policy. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was once a guideline, and look at it now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Eh. six in one hand, half dozen in the other. this is a random old revision. It was marked as a "criteria" then (not sure what that was). It basically said major characters may get an article if the section gets too long and minor characters get a list. That may be preferable for some people. Me, I think it is piss poor. A more recent revision is (if you can believe it) even less clear than the current incarnation. It is also more restrictive. It's been approximately 12 months since it was marked as "under discussion". I think consensus can change. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- the recent changes to the lead of the guideline make it much easier to understand. Kudos to you guys who are working on fixing things that have been causing misunderstandings here. SMSpivey (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Phil, I think the way Randomran has drawn up this RFC is not only positive, but necessary. We are getting lots of feedback (always a good thing) about the proposal, but so far no one has suggested an alternative draft, let alone sought support for an alternative, so we are definitely following the right track. I agree with Masem that we need this RFC to avoid the WP:FICT being contested by those who say it does not represent consensus.
  In my view, the debate about this guideline has traditionally been viewed as a battle between inclusionists and deletionists, but I think this new version of WP:FICT has brought about a paradigm shift; supporters of this version want to see encyclopedic coverage of fictional topics, whilst many opponents of the guideline might be characterised as opponents of WP:NOT#PLOT who think that fictional topics need only to be covered by plot summary. The old inclusionist/deletionist disagreements have not been resolved as yet, as evidenced by disagreements over independent sourcing, but a new battle has now begun between those who think fictional elements should be viewed from a real-world perspective, and those that still cling to a fantasy-world perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  While I wouldn't phrase it that way, certainly the emphasis on a real-world perspective over extensive plot summaries and character guides is something we do that nobody else really does. A year ago I would have sooner cited WP:WAF in AfD rather than any N-related page because WAF best answered the question, "What are we looking for in an article?" Nifboy (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm pretty sure that WAF is next on the hit list for fixing should this pass. Tackling lists of fictional elements for instance is one of the items that needs to be addressed, but having a stable version of FICT is paramount first. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 13:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Really? I've always been pretty pleased with WAF. Damn. And here I was hoping I could get away from fiction policy for a bit. But if you're all going after WAF, I'll have to join you. /sigh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Now THIS VERSION is elegant and eloquent in its simplicity. I applaud the author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, editor goodraise deserves a raise. I love how simple yet direct it is. Instead of three hurdles to inclusion, there are four different ways fiction can be included. Ikip (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have to read it again. There is an "and" at the end of the 3rd criteria. All 4 have to be met. I'll create a revised version in a second. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. Doesn't sound as good anymore, but the lack of "and"s seems to have confused too many editors. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job! I think there is a lot to be said for conciseness. That said, your proposal isn't particularly different from what we have now. Part of the motivation for having a longer guideline was so that people could read it and understand the rationale behind each requirement. In the longer run, once the guideline is approved, I don't think we'll need the justification so much, and we'll be able to shift towards a guideline more like what you've drafted. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What I drafted is not a proposal. It is not supposed to be different from the current proposal. It is supposed to mirror the current proposal, just in fewer words. You may have intended the proposal to be longer, so it could be better understood, but what that length did was only to confuse. And I, for one, can't support a confusing guideline. Especially, if it will influence AfD results. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job Goodraise, i could not approve or oppose the proposed version but i will back yours as there is much less room for homebrew interpretations and is much more useful for editors needing straight answers. --KrebMarkt 18:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a real value in explanation over bright line tests. I considerably prefer the current version to the excessively stripped down version Goodraise offers, which I, at least, would oppose. To my mind, those who are concerned about discussions that do not lead to straight answers are badly misguided in their goals for what can happen usefully on-wiki. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I stripped down the proposal to what it means. I'm in no way saying that everthing else needs to be removed. But, it should be placed in a separate section from the actual guideline text. And it should be made clear, that the text outside the "Notability guideline for fiction" section is purely explanatory and does not change the meaning of the guideline. We can have both, a concise guideline AND explanatory text. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please not another European Constitution Treaty ;)

I really don't want Afd turning into Wiki-theocracy discussion with WP:FICTION exegesis contest. The more text there is and the more interpretations can be found between the lines. --KrebMarkt 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise, if you can believe it... the original proposal was even longer. Me and a few other editors pushed to trim it down, but there is always a push back. Believe me that compromise is harder in practice than it is in theory. While your proposal would have my enthusiastic support, it would lose the support of people who appreciate the added explanation. I have an idea, though. Seeing as most people agree that you've managed to distill the guideline down to a few sentences without changing the core meaning, how would you feel about rewriting the nutshell to include your 1-2-3-4? I think yours is the best summary yet. (And in the long run, we can go through further copy-edits once the guideline is approved and official.) Randomran (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have another idea. How about incorporating the "helpful" proposal into my draft, as a non-binding "Further explanations" section? - Sorry, but my draft is not just a "summary". Everything said in the proposal, that isn't purely explanatory, redundant to another guideline/policy, or plain excessive wording, is also part of my draft. - As I said before, I don't object to long explanations, as long as they are in a separate section. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what that means, or what that would look like. But you definitely have my attention. Randomran (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll get back to drafting... BTW, could someone archive a few threads? The loading time is starting to get painful. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. In the long run, I'd like the guideline to look more like what you've put together. But I think there's been a lot of support for the explanatory stuff, at least in the interim as we try to explain how/why this is a compromise. Once we know we have a compromise that everyone can live with, the explanatory stuff is no longer necessary. But I'm not sure we can lose it right now. ... worst case, we can try something more like your approach if this guideline should fail. Randomran (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be cautious about this - the community is impermanent. People come and go. Documenting our reasoning instead of just having rules is an important part of having what takes place be consensus-forming and not rules-lawyering. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Goodraise's argument is that documenting our reasoning can lead to rules-lawyering, with people leveraging small details instead of the broadly agreed upon principles. I know this is a copout, but I think we're gonna need between your approach and his approach in the long run. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We're at it, given that my approach was the original version. Let's not forget the extreme amount of cutting - far more than I think wise - that has already happened. This proposal is 12.5k. It's the fourth shortest notability guideline we have. It's an extremely short policy page. At this point, complaints about its length are bordering on the ridiculous. Goodraise's version guts major portions of this policy. I oppose it, I oppose moving towards it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to say that I strongly support the guideline as written by Goodraise. It is clear, easily applied, and still leaves room for explanatory text at the end. If this were to go forward as the version to be implemented, I would certainly support it. SMSpivey (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like Goodraise's version looks a lot like the GNG, just worded differently. The slightly relaxed need for secondary sources is one of the only real differences between the current FICT and the GNG, which is needed since there isn't the same kind of coverage about elements of fiction as for most real-world things. The current FICT does say that reliable sources are needed, and that articles are likely to be merged or deleted without them, it just isn't given as much weight as the three-prong test. Also, the current FICT tells you to look at all of the prongs together but, at the same time, separately; an article may pass prongs 2 and 3 amazingly, but the work that it is a part of might be hardly notable. For such an article, this FICT would let it be kept as notable, but Goodraise's version would call for deletion/merging because it doesn't meet all of the criteria. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right in that the current proposal (as well as my rewording of that proposal) essentially differs from the GNG only in that the proposal does not demand independent sources. That is the deletionists side's concession in this compromise. The remaining criteria are the consessions of the inclusionists. But that meeting prongs 2 and 3 is enough for notability is yet another missunderstanding of the proposal's excessively obscure text. The proposal states that "there must be a reasonable belief that evidence exists for all three criteria." -- Goodraise (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A subsection on Goodraises's proposal

• I want to split the difference from the current revision of Goodraise's draft and the project space draft. There is a loss made in being too verbose but there is also a loss in being parsimonious. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to too. But a worry of mine is that we've already started the RFC, and gotten a certain amount of support. Are we going to have to start the RFC over, since the new draft will gain/lose support? After having a straw poll and another request for comment on several project spaces, with numerous revisions, I imagine people will get frustrated. Many people already are. That could even destroy any further revisions, as people just say "WP:FUCK it". Randomran (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So long as the scope doesn't change, I'm ok improving the clarity. We do need to make it more clear what the guideline covers and what it doesn't cover. We've got some known feedback above, and I don't think it is outside the purview of this RfC to tinker with the guideline. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Goodraise's draft is a significant enough alteration that we cannot begin integrating it without effectively restarting the process. I would switch to opposing the guideline if that kind of late-stage swap occurred. The guideline is what it is. We're at the "approve or disapprove" stage, not at the "let's rewrite the whole thing again" stage. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Really? I'm not saying that Goodraise's draft is naturally superior. I think that we have some misguided sense that less is more--that if we just present the guideline in staccato sentences rather than some more expository fashion it is "better". It isn't. But it is obvious from the above discussion that there are problems in the elocution of this guideline and that some of them can be clarified. I would rather make it abundantly clear that we: Don't over-ride the GNG and prong 1 doesn't demand all works have more sources than the GNG requires (I can go on). The possibility if we refuse to do so is that people will drop by, read the guideline and "vote" based on a misapprehension of the guideline or vote based solely on the confusion. I don't want that. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I see no significant or new problems. Frankly, anybody who looked at the guideline and viewed the first prong as requiring a higher standard of notability, or who thought that it applied to fictional works as a whole, or who think it overrides the GNG didn't read it. The guideline does not need to carefully protect against people who clearly didn't bother to read it, nor do I think such an outcome is possible. This is the problem I pointed out above - people who obviously gave the guideline the most cursory of glances are weighing in. The fact of the matter is, comments that clearly egregiously misread the guideline should be discarded, not pandered to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • If that is really what people here think, that the proposal is set in stone as it is because we are at such a late stage, then I will have to seriously oppose it. As written, it is going to cause a helluva lot of problems down at AfD. It leaves itself open to too much interpretation. SMSpivey (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Enjoy your opposition. I oppose the idea that interpretation, nuance, and debate are a bad thing far more vigorously. Unless you think that this guideline is a cancer that's choking Wikipedia. Then we're on about the same level of opposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't say the current draft is set in stone. Just that the RFC is already underway. I'm 100% positive that we can propose a rewording, and ask "does anyone object on the basis that this changes the meaning of the current draft?" But not now, while the RFC is underway. Randomran (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • And to be clear, I'm fine with wording changes, clarifications, etc. However Goodraise's idea is far, far more than wording changes, and I think it marks a major shift in purpose and goal of the guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I can't follow you. What is it you see as a "major shift"? Could you be more specific? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Sure. You're prioritizing the literal wording of the three prong test over its explanation. That's a large change. The proposal is not a test and exegesis of the test. The explanation is part of the decision-making on notability. Notability is not a series of checkboxes with a justification for their existence. It actually is a complex issue. Are aspects of it debatable for some articles? Will there be disagreement? Yes and yes. So be it. The idea of a guideline where all explanation is explicitly secondary to the guideline is a radical shift away from how we have ever done things before. It does change things. Because this isn't just about setting up a test - it's about setting up a clear understanding of what fiction articles are. The test follows from the explanations, not the other way around. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • That is not correct. I replaced a long text with short one that essentially says the same (including what is said in the explanations). I NEVER intended that shorter version to be interpreted literally. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • I disagree (with some specifics noted below) that your revision is essentially the same. It's roughly the same, but we lose too much in shrinking the guideline that much. I still think that the guideline can be streamlined , but I'm pretty sure that replacing the current text for your draft would result in too much change. I do want to thank you, though, for stepping up to the bat and actually drumming up a streamlined version. I'm glad you did. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What was lost? Please, name an example. "Your claim requires evidence. Bald assertions of differance are insufficient." :) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Just drop down to the bottom of the next section and you'll see some. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And I believe it is: "In God we trust, all others bring data" :) Protonk (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's because it's getting late in my timezone, but what I don't see down there is an example of where the two texts differ in meaning. I only see you pointing out, that my version does not point certain things out. (For example, my version does not point out (at least not in the non-explanatory part), that independent sources are not a requirement. But why should it? It lists a complete set of requirements. Independent sources are not among them.) -- Goodraise (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It should because a half dozen editors above have supported (or unofficially supported the straw poll) based largely on language added about independence that has been marked "explanatory" in your revision. Also, the two paragraphs that follow the three prongs in the current revision of the projectspace draft (the first about "subject, not article" and the second about NNC) are missing in the userpsace draft. They represent current practice and allow users to point (in AfDs or on talk pages) to the guideline as a means to protect new articles from deletion. We need to say that notability doesn't delimit content and that notability refers to the subject, not the article. Again, I'm not opposed to shortening the guideline somewhat or removing points where it meanders or comments about practice generally (here I diverge from Phil's position). I just don't think that the guideline as written is as bad as it is being made out to be. Can we come to some compromise that results from piecemeal edits to the existing guideline? Protonk (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We're closing in on the fundamental reason for my opposition. The proposal's text consists to 95% of words which do not change the meaning. They are placed there to convince various splinter groups, that their position has been considered. At the same time, they block sight onto what the proposal effectively means. If an editor reads the "Notability guideline for fiction" section of my version and opposes it because of what articles it would in-/exclude, then that editor should also oppose the current proposal, because they in-/exclude the same articles. I think, that the proposal is garnering support that may or may not really exist. To directly answer your question: We cannot "come to some compromise that results from piecemeal edits to the existing guideline" because the only difference between my version and the proposal is already "piecemeal". In fact, it's less than that. It's non-existent. - I fear, that this "lets get the guideline status back, no matter the cost"-attitude is causing the community to decieve itself. If I'm right about that, and I do hope that I'm not, then we'll be back here pretty quickly. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't know what to tell you. We're making sausage. the proposal contains text that convinces various groups (hardly "splinter", because there is not an orthodox view on WP:N) that their concerns are being met as well as text that meets their concerns and changes the guideline. Again, I'm closer to agreeing with you than others that less exposition is better. I don't think the community needs an explanation of why this guideline has been written. But some people do. I'm also not convinced (anymore) that your version is necessarily preferable. I think you are conflating clarity with parsimony. In some very obvious sense, our proposal (the projectspace draft) is/was unclear. A number of opposes above point to that. But we are (to be cliche) throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Let's take the "independence" section. That contains three paragraphs. The first explains why we can justify this relatively narrow exception to WP:V that we have carved out. the second points out exactly what we mean by an appropriate secondary source. The third notes that articles with no independent sources may not remain standalones indefinetly. Those three paragraphs indicate some background, nuance and limitation, because that is what this guideline needed. Marking it as "explanatory" eliminates its ability to function as a guideline and for no good reason. The "Secondary sources" section has two paragraphs which serve two important purposes. First, it points out what a secondary source is for the purpose of this guideline. We can say this is redundant to PSTS, but frankly it is clearer (PSTS is pretty muddy). Second, it makes clear that claims of centrality to the work (prong 2) cannot come from OR--we can't make an article on The color brown in Firefly simply using editor observation that Brown appears in the work multiple times. Some of the text is superfluous, I'll agree. Some of it is purely the product of compromise. But I will continue to dispute that there is no functional difference between the much shorter version and this one. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Also, Phil's main point is sound. This guideline is more than a series of check-boxes. The GNG can be that series because it is a bright line standard. This compromise can't be a bright line. We have to create a Balancing test. We are weighing elements against each other. How significant is the work? How central is the element? How much real-world connection is there? The nature of the debate on fictional subjects demands we augment the GNG with something that has more give. "Boiling down" the text itself so that it appears to be the GNG misses the intent of the guideline and will be "more honoured in the breach than in the observance". Protonk (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • "I will continue to dispute that there is no functional difference between the much shorter version and this one" you say. You could start by giving an example. Because, no, you have not done that. Nobody has. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Please work with me here. I thought I gave examples of where the current text of the guideline would be changed if it were transformed to your version. In the paragraph immediately preceding your claim I thought I gave an argument for how the fundamental purpose of the guideline would be changed if were turned it into your revision. I don't want to keep giving examples only to be told that I'm not giving examples. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • You gave examples of how "the current text of the guideline would be changed". But you have not given examples of such changes which would actually create a "functional difference". I'm not asking for the world. One single, tiny little "functional difference" is all I ever wanted. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                    • Ok. I'll start with the last example. Your proposal is a bright line test, like the GNG. The current proposal is a balancing test. No strict rule will apply under all cases. That's a non-trivial transformative change. Second, your proposal specifically relegates the "independent" and "secondary sources" sections to "explanatory notes" and disavows any force they will have as a guideline. Part of this guideline's function is meant to be a tool for discussion at AfD. We want to be able to say "this guideline says that I can use these sources for supporting notability of this fictional element". Saying explicitly that they have no force changes that function. Third, the two paragraphs now appended to the three prong test are removed in your draft. The first, noting explicitly that the guideline applies to subjects rather than articles is important to retain. The second, noting that this guideline doesn't force a particular organization is also important. Both provide appropriate description of best practices and belong in the guideline. So that's three examples. There are more, but we'll start from there. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                      • About your first example: You say, that the project space version is a "balancing test". I suppose with that you mean, that it is a "test [...] which [...] weigh[s] the importance of multiple factors". The project space proposal names four criteria:
                        1. "[T]he work of fiction [...] must be of particular cultural or historical significance".
                        2. "The element should be [...] central to understanding the fictional work".
                        3. "Significant, real-world information must exist on the element".
                        4. "A topic about which there are no significant secondary sources cannot pass this guideline."

                        Where does it say, that these criteria are factors to be weighed? With all good faith that I can muster, I can't see a balancing test.

                      • About your second example: With the project space proposal it is as follows: People don't know when elements of fiction are notable. -> People create WP:FICT to solve that problem. -> WP:FICT is so unclear that they don't understand it. -> At AfD they need tools for discussion. -> WP:FICT is expanded to include these tools. -> WP:FICT becomes even longer, more obscure, and even less understandable. -> [...]
                        My proposal doesn't have that problem to begin with. You yourself called it a "bright line test": A "clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." (It works differently, but the result is the same: No "functional difference".)
                      • About your third example: The first paragraph is redundant to Wikipedia:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. The second paragraph is redundant to Wikipedia:N#Notability of article content. Both already have guideline status. That means, whether the proposal contains them or not, it creates no "functional difference". They only obscure the view onto what is actually new in this proposal. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                        • You realize that you are quoting your distillation of the projectspace proposal in order to tell me that there isn't a distinction between the projectspace proposal and your draft, right? I accept that there will be some confusion in the application of this guideline. I submit that there will be less than exists right now. I also submit that the guideline is liable to improve over time. People will become less wedded to particular formulations over time and redundancies can be ironed out. I noted some of the same issues in an earlier discussion--since that posting, the guideline has improved tremendously. I don't know if we can agree, but I think we are talking at cross purposes. I think the guideline as written is meant to be a balancing test--prongs are deliberately fuzzy rather than razor sharp. That is a reason to support it, not a reason to change it. As such, the application will be more organic.
                        • As for elements redundant to other guidelines, I disagree that they serve no function. The elements linked there are important to discussions about notability for fictional elements. They get discussed a lot and should be included. We are building the web. Elements of this guideline point editors to other guidelines, letting people know that these come from somewhere and aren't just a dictum. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                          • I didn't notice, that I was quoting my draft. Please name the quote that came from my draft that isn't also in the project space version. You say "the guideline as written is meant to be a balancing test". If that is so, then I say my version "is meant to be a balancing test" as well. You said further up, that you "will continue to dispute that there is no functional difference between the much shorter version and this one." Is that still your position or is it not? That is the only reason I'm keeping this thread alive. You are claiming, that my attempt at producing a less verbose functional equivalent to the project space proposal has failed. I want you to prove that claim. It seems to me, that you can't. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                            • Then don't. I don't want to get into a discussion over who "wins". Protonk (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise's alternative proposal

Goodraise's idea is fine, except point #3...i believe it removes the idea that the primary protagonist(s), whom the story is told around, when there is only one or a small group, do not need such independent verification --though it certainly should still be sought. FE: Anyone who argues that the player character you control in an action-rpg is not central to the storyline needs to have their head examined. Beyond that, I think it's okay if it'll get WP:FICT to pass.じんない 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • If you read my wording carefully, you'll see, that verification of importance in commentary from reliable sources isn't even required for a recurring character. Why would it be for a main character? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahh...now I see...well I won't accept it until it goes through a good copy edit. I mean that line itself using 2 ors and no comma... Also, that point makes it sound like just being "an episode" automatically qualifies you.じんない 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • "[T]hat point makes it sound like just being "an episode" automatically qualifies you." That's what it might mean, if there were commas before the "or"s. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well in that case it sounds like your then still requiring major characters to be noted by others as being major, even if they are the primary protagonist who's story is told from the character's or characters' POV. I think that's a case of something that does not need to be verified by a WP:RS, but just the primary source itself. If a story is told from a character's POV, that character, by definition, must be central to the plot.じんない 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
          • If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're simply reading it wrong. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Obviously if I can read it wrong, so can someone else. Therefore, you've proven my point that it's not clear enough.じんない 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • If you have an idea, how to change the wording in a way that reduces ambiguity without increasing verbosity, then be my guest, edit my user space version. But I don't agree with the point you're trying to make here. There's a talk page, where the two of us are the top contributers. On that talk page, I explained to dozens of editors, one after another, the meaning of the WP:GNG. There will always be those, unwilling or incapable of applying basic grammar or common sense to what they read. If we attempt to write a guideline, that is impossible to misread by even the most bad-faithed and brainless editor imagineable, then we'll get something that looks like the current proposal... Still, I'll be adding a more detailed explanation. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Here, how is that? -- Goodraise (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • Okay, that's fine. I'm still not convinced we should adopt it since no other guideline has bright-lined tests and they deal with items far more easy to distinguish, but at least now I won't oppose it for lack of clarify.じんない 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove "significant", and I'll support (significant is subjective and is too similar to notability, i.e. it's like saying "notable coverage" and leaves room for too much divisive discord over what constitutes "significant"; out of universe coverage in reliable secondary from which we can write sections on development and reception is substantial; we don't want to get tied down on minutiae of what defines "significant"; if we have reliable secondary source and we can use them to put together an article, it's good enough). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose it. Flat out. I will fight it tooth and nail if any attempt is made to swap it for the current proposal. I think submitting a new proposal at this stage is either staggeringly stupid or staggeringly bad faith, and if an attempt is made to change proposals I will, first of all, remove the RFC as we have started a new policy formation and have to go back to scratch, and second of all, immediately refile the episodes and characters RFAr I implored the arbcom not to consider because it is clear that the community is invested in perpetually dragging their feet on fiction notability guidelines. This is an absolute deal-breaker, and will switch me to the most vehement and vigorous opponent of this effort that you have ever seen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks great. I would support this version if it were being proposed. FWIW, I don't agree with the 3 above comments:

• Primary protagonists should not automatically merit articles separate from the work—why not include them in the main article?
• Coverage in sources should be significant—this is a notability guideline. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.
• Process should not get in the way of improving this guideline. If we have to reboot the discussion, then let us do so.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is essentially a collection of trivia. Significant is way too subjective of a term. Is coverage in journal articles significant or must it be books? Are chapters in books but not the whole book significant? Too much room for subjective debate in AfDs that is unnecessary for the paperless encyclopedia anybody can edit. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, because getting it done is preferable to perfecting it. There is no perfect version. There never will be. Second of all, Goodraise's version is ridiculous. I know of no other policy page at all that designates all explanation secondary and trumped by hard and fast rules. It's a complete new frontier of Wikipedia policy, and one that I think is one of the most brain-searingly bad ideas I've ever seen. My opposition is thus twofold - first of all, Goodraise's proposal is a terrible idea that panders to the worst instincts of Wikipedians. Second of all, restarting a clearly popular proposal to pursue a new approach is an absolutely awful idea. We need a decision that works at all. Waiting around for the perfect one means we never get one. I am gobsmacked and appalled that anyone would even consider pulling the proposal in favor of a new one. Complete lunacy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no WP:DEADLINE for an inclusion of a proposal that is already being seen as flawed... a rushed inclusion that would itself result in even more dissention in arguments about inherent strengths and weaknesses. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're willing to suspend deletion and creation of fiction articles indefinitely while we work on it, then you're right, there's no deadline. Otherwise, every time one or the other happens, we slipped a deadline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to suspending deletion of fiction articles indefinitely while we work on it (i.e. hoaxes being an exception of course), but no need on creation. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I like concessions! As long as it's just you making the concessions, of course. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Refusals to work together with other editors do not become you, nor do they serve this discussion. Ikip (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's quite enough of that, thank you everyone. Hiding T 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of having this prior to all existing text on FICT following the KISS principle, but I do recommend changes:

• The first point about secondary sources, while (based on the above section) we agree includes developer commentary, is going to be contentious. There are other editors that completely disagree that developer commentary (Gavin, I believe, would answer to this) is secondary. Now, Gavin would not necessary be one to use it to issue a huge list of edicts, but we do have to worry about other editors that will be less mindful of what "secondary" means. Also, to some, this makes this guideline possibly even more restrictive than the GNG (since we have the GNG's statement and 3 other prongs to meet). The point is correct, but presenting it as such should be removed in favor of what the fourth point (about real-world) states.
• Third point needs to be flipped around: is central to understanding the work it is part of, such as an episode or recurring character or (if its significance is verified in commentary from reliable sources) an other essential element, and... People will use the reverse wording to target non-character and non-episode articles, and that's not the intent.
• I'm not sure about "significant" but replacing it with something like "non-trivial" would also be a problem. We want something more than "Mr. Creator said that Main Character's favorite color is Blue"., but how to qualify that is difficult. We want to make sure this is different from the significance implied by the GNG, which is generally taken as two or more sources, this is just about how... usable? that information is. Maybe real-world information that is significant about the element... ?? The clarification that follows gets the intent I'm looking for correctly down.

Again, nothing against trimming to the basics, but the current trim recasts this in a very different light. It just needs a touch here and there. --MASEM 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Significant (as I see it) modifies the information, not the character. If we continue to assert that the information must be non-trivial, it is the same thing as saying "significant". Protonk (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm rereading goodraise's proposal and rereading the text of the projectspace proposal. I am beginning to think that we don't need to radically change FICT in order to satisfy the main complaints (maybe I'm misreading the complaints). The basic thrust of the test remains the same. The deference to the GNG remains the same. The sentences are just shorted. For some prongs, such as the 2nd sentence in the 2nd prong, that was a specific compromise designed to bring over some editors who felt that the guideline needed some hedge against "well I think it is significant". For other portions (such as the two paragraphs following the three prongs, the guideline spells out its own limits very clearly. I will also note that the old fict (when it was a guideline) did much the same thing as is being done in those two paragraphs. As for the "Further explanations" sections, this is where I get off the train. The "Sources and notability" section (Which has been relegated to explanatory text in the proposed userspace draft) represents a big part of the compromise. We are asserting that non-independent sources can be used to tell us information about a character that would lead to the article being included. That's a big compromise and it needs to be laid out. We took pains to be specific and it doesn't make sense to write a draft that renders that section superfluous.
• So I can understand some paring down of the guideline, but I'm beginning to feel that a significant cut (a la goodraise) would make a transformation to the guideline that we don't want to see. Protonk (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't change horses midstream. Let the watchlist notice go a few days, and then we can see how or if we should rewrite it. We don't want to say the first 10 supports supported this version, and the next ten another (same with opposes). We can probably make this more concise and clear, but now isn't the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Goodraise's proposal. I would accept having additional explanatory text on the page, but the actual guideline itself should be short and to-the-point. cmadler (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that statement. There's too much text on the current proposal, this guideline needs to be easy to reference and accessible to everyone language-wise. I also agree with Goodraise's contention that his summarization hasn't resulted in any functional difference. Even if we don't go with his version, any move to make this guideline more succinct would be a great benefit to everyone. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)