User talk:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)

Fewer lists

I think we need to push people to redirect non-notable things into the work that they originated, not into more "list of" articles. Most things should be adequately covered in the plot sections of articles, and if length is an issue it's usually due to too much detail. For instance, I developed Pokémon crime syndicates (major rewrite, plus merging Team Galactic into there), but even that is just a rehash of the plot summary already covered in the game and anime articles. Ideally, I'd like to redirect Magma and Aqua into Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire and Galactic into Diamond/Pearl, but that would be too controversial. hbdragon88 17:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's technically what this is advocating, but in a way where it will won't sound like an essay (I.E. encyclopedic coverage means no lists per WAF). If there's potential for reliable out of universe info (to complete an encyclopedic coverage, which is just a way of saying "adhere to WP:WAF) of the pokemon crime syndicates, then it can be notable. If not, then it needs to be merged/transwikied/deleted per numbers 4 and 5 (and a bit of 2). Plus, most of these so-called "lists" aren't lists, but subarticles. If anything, this rewrite will stress a transwiki/merge/delete of those "list of" articles, since most have zero potential for encyclopedic coverage. — Deckill er 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental disagreement

I'm sorry, I don't think you are going to make many converts with these guidelines. I for one fundamentally disagree with two of your main arguments.

First, the majority of articles about fictional subjects do not contain substantial out-of-universe content. But I don't think that this makes them not notable. Take Frodo Baggins - chief protagonist of Lord of the Rings. I think as a character in a major work of fiction, he is highly notable. But does the current page have any out-of-universe content? No. Do I think it should be deleted? No. It is written in an out-of-universe style, which is sufficient, and it meets the current standards of WP:Notability (fiction), which I like as deliberately ambiguous.

Second, the concept that you must somehow "prove" notability is a very guilty until proven innocent approach. It is not only next to impossible to enforce, but it also goes (in my opinion) against the original spirit of wikipedia. But somewhere along the line wikipedia went from a "growing ecclectic but self-organisning mix of facts and human interest" to an elitist oligarchy who hold it up as some sort of holy grail of knowledge.

I actually like the passionate "fanboy" approach to starting, improving, and maintaining articles about things that they and others are actually interested in. Sure, they sometimes get out of hand, but that's why you need some sort of manual of style guidelines to say "this is too much" (e.g. 500 pages about Naruto).

I quietly follow the discussions on manual of style (fiction) page, but I must admit that the gestapo-like fervour of a few admins means that I no longer seriously contribute to any fictional pages; only non-fiction. I sometimes wonder how many other people like me have been similarly discouraged? And that just makes me shake my head in bewildered disappointment. Dr Aaron 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages are notable becuase they have potential to provide out-of-universe material. Out-of-universe material is taken from reliable sources, which is the core of Wikipedia:Notability. That's the idea. Everyone on the Fict talkpage has actually mentioned a disagreement with allowing articles with potential to develop, so I scaled that back. I'm somewhere in the middle: there's always a gray area, and that's what number two of "non-notable topics" addresses. The main Wikipedia:Notability guideline makes it clear that it's important to show that notability exists; fiction should not be made an exception. As for Frodo, there are plenty of interviews that explain how the character was played, and so on. There is an obvious potential there, so of course it can easily meet the notability guidelines (which makes it notable by default).

I was guilty of adding plenty of unsourced, purely in-universe material when I first started. Many of us are. The rewrite attempts to strike a balance: there can still be plenty of in-universe details with the out-of-universe information. Furthermore, articles not meeting this definition of notability are given time to develop; they are not merged or transwikied on sight. Editors are discouraged from creating such articles, but they won't be bitten. The guideline also stresses deletion be used as a last resort, hopefully not at all becuase I value edit history. The idea is to get most of the information that could never satisfy notability to another location (Wikia, etc.) so that nothing is lost. — Deckill er 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with the guideline as it is. Frodo can potentially have a decent ammount of out of universe information, development, reception, pre production drawigns and desings of the animated movie and hell even the process it takes to get the actor to look like a hobbit, being written in an OOU manner isn't enough. Unfortunately this is rarely taken under consideration when judging GACs, recently Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) failed GA review because it lacks any basic Out of U info. There is a ridiculous ammount of non notable fiction articles out there, in my opinion small time characters like Battle droids of Star wars have large unsourced and fancrufty pages as a way to calm fans of the series. A notability guideline about fiction is a must have and it will help in trimming half of the unencyclopedic cruft that we as a free encyclopedia tend to have. -凶 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too verbose

This page appears to be over twice as long as the present WP:FICT, and as such it's way too verbose. Also, putting this on an entirely new page makes it difficult to see what changes you're actually proposing. >Radiant< 08:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the wording (and probably a few points) could be chopped down, especially since a lot has been added as compromises have been made. However, it's much more in-depth than the curring WP:FICT guideline (which is merely cruft defense). As for putting it anywhere else, I don't see how that's possible; we can't obviously replace it with WP:FICT during the proposal process, and it would clutter the WT:FICT talkpage. — Deckill er 08:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. What I mean is that I would like a brief statement of what you wish changed about FICT. In my opinion, the problem with too-lengthy guideline pages is that this makes it less likely that people will actually read them. Soul of wit, and all that. >Radiant< 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The digest version is that WP:FICT will be more in line with the main notability guideline, with additional emphasis on satisfying WP:NOT. So, the notability guideline translates this as "Articles on topics within a fictional universe are notable if they provide sufficient real-world information in well organized units. Non-notable information should not be deleted, as there are several other, more productive, options." The idea is to compromise: a lot of the endless in-universe lists and scores of mini-articles don't belong in an encyclopedia, but there are better options than simple deletion (most of the verbosity comes from explaining this extention of the guideline, and how to deal with notable/non-notable topics). — Deckill er 09:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way that's worded seems to boil down to deleting just about every single article on fictional characters, items and places. Is that really the intent? Because I doubt you'd get much support for that. Note, by the way, that WP:FICT predates WP:N by about two years. >Radiant< 09:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6:30 in the morning (and I've yet to go to sleep), but I'll try to keep this coherent. Yes and no. Not deletion, but merge/transwiki (with deletion only as a last resort); in my experience, people are more upset with how they are treated (or how their work is mistreated by not given options). Not all of these articles will be touched, because there are plenty of ways to either reorganize topics or show a clear potential for notability. But that is fairly close to the mark, and I expect it to be a rather lengthy process. There is obviously a chance it will ultimately fail, but at least the concepts are being thrown out. So far, there seems to be more people supporting it than opposing it, but it hasn't been advertised to those hardcore pro-in-universe WikiProjects yet. I'm waiting to establish a good compromise before that. As for WP:FICT predating WP:N, that's why a rewrite is essensial, since WP:FICT is outdated with the other notability guidelines. — Deckill er 10:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]