Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Those coming to review per request

A suggestion from one page was to list out the major diffs from the previous version of FICT to the proposed:

  • The definition of fictional notability has not changed, but defining it is a bit more streamlined
  • The concept of "depth of coverage" and balance/focus/undue weight are included
  • WP:Summary style sub-articles that are non-notable in themselves are spelled out better
  • Most importantly, the guideline deemphizes the rush to delete non-notable works, instead suggesting editor cooperation, trimming, merging, or moving to a different wiki before deletion should be considered. --MASEM 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I will note that this guideline rewrite was prompted due to the number of complaints received at this guideline when certain editors because to mass-merge/delete in-universe fictional articles as exampled in a recent ArbCom case. While changes were already being written before the case, the guideline does reflect the suggestion of more cooperation on editors when dealing with in-universe/notability issues. --MASEM 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion from another page

Eric (talk · contribs) over at WT:FILM has suggested that instead of the long description of dealing with articles of questionable notability that we simplify it to defer to appropriate WikiProjects to resolve the issues. I think we still want to have some basic description of steps, but this is probably a good idea. --MASEM 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that while there are some good fiction related projects (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy), the majority either have ownership issues, are very small/inactive, or they are just too wide to encompass everything. While we should definitely refer to them, they really cannot be trusted to handle the articles except for in the cases like my example project. TTN (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, if you want to maybe push the focus over to WAF, that may work. TTN (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this is where the above fictional notice board idea comes in? At worse, there, we can provide links to specific project guidelines and pages, and help shuffle requests to other projects if it is more appropriate. --MASEM 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a fine idea. It's good to make sure that this works along with the projects; it just shouldn't be left up to them and only them. TTN (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not? If someone doesn't know thing one about an article's topic, what validity is their opinion on the article's topic? Scumbag (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Because fans--which is usually who make up specific WikiProjects--are overly bias toward what they like, and tend to lack neutral eyes when it comes to "their" work. Just because you know the topic doesn't make you the be all end all in being able to determine whether or not it is notable. Fans are good for many things, like helping to make plot details accurate and helping to find useful, sourced information as they should probably know where to look better than anyone else...at least, one would think such a thing since they are "fans" and know the topic better than anyone else (as what I gather from your comments). So, if that's the case there shouldn't be an issue with finding sources to assert notability, if there is then it means that there is a chance their fanaticism over the topic might be over a topic that isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, the fans of something are never the ones who ask for things like notability. If they didn't think it was notable, they wouldnt waste their time asking for proof of notability. Scumbag (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And yet our fiction deletionists are also all fans, are possibly even more zealous and are certainly not better qualified.--Nydas(Talk) 10:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's a clue for everyone...NONE of you are better qualified than anyone else. This is why we discuss things, because no one person knows better than anyone else. I'm a huge fan of Smallville, but I know most of their episodes fail the notability guideline. I also know that most reviews that can be found are so worthless that they are barely worth the time to read, let alone use to establish notability. By that I mean that there is no encyclopedic content in the review beyond the "it just sucked, I hate that". Reviews should be critical (i.e. critique the episode) not just pass simplified judgement. Regardless of that, most shows are just not reviewed period. But back to the "people", are you even qualified to say who is more "zealous" than the other. No. Everyone has their biases, you'll never stop that, but you more likely to find neutral eyes passing judgement over articles if they aren't part of the fan community (which includes not being part of a specific WikiProject). When you start widdling groups of people down to smaller, specific groups in order to say "you guys govern what happens to so-n-so" (i.e. WikiProject Fiction --> WikiProject Television --> WikiProject Simpsons [who may or may not have an even smaller task force themselves]) you limit the neutrality of the team judging articles, and you also increase the unequal treatment of articles; two different teams of people may have two articles that are identical in content substance and lack of notability, and each team may choose to act differently in response to how to handle the article's fate. This is why we set a bar for everyone with the notability guidelines (including the subarticle guidelines), because if we leave it up to individual projects then you'll have some people who follow the guideline and some that ignore the guideline completely. Those that follow might get annoyed that there is no consequences to the articles of those projects that ignore the guideline completely, and thus they'll start ignoring the guideline completely. Next thing you know we have articles for dozens, hundreds, who knows how many topics that most likely did not deserve to have their own separate article about them. Wait, that's right...we already have that problem. Limiting control (there shouldn't be "control" anyway, it should always come down to group discussion) is a bad way of handling fictional articles' notability issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that your point is based primarilly on the fact that you hold Wikipedia polices - which you point out, most people ignore completely (and rightfully so) - over your appreciation of whatever article topic being mentioned. We'll sit here, and we'll argue, and because Wikipedia is an Internet Thing, most people will completely ignore that discussion, and do as they always do. Wikipedia is an Enclyopedia that anyone can edit. Now you know why real ones aren't that way. Scumbag (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your elaborate sociological explanation seems to suggest our fiction deletionists are more qualified. If only. The fiction deletionists aren't setting any sort of fair bar, they privilege their fiction and their point of view. There's a pecking order for fiction on Wikipedia, and the fiction deletionists play a large part in maintaining and extending it.--Nydas(Talk) 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If that's how you intrepret what I say, then that is your misconception. Sorry. I thought it was clear when I said "no one is more qualified", but maybe I put some hidden message in there and didn't realize it. So let's clarify. You, as a fan of whatever show you like, ARE NOT more qualified to judge its notability than anyone that doesn't watch/read/listen to that piece of fiction. Why, because you have a natural bias toward your favorite fiction. Now, those that do not know the fiction ARE NOT more qualified to judge its notability either. The key word is "more". You have just as much right, and qualifications to judge your article as much as someone that has never heard of your article. The big difference is, I would expect you, someone who knows the topic, to be able to find the right means of asserting that topic's notability, given that you know it better than the one that questions its notability. The questioning of notability should be based on failure to assert through sources (as it states at the notability page), and not through simply ignorance of that fiction's existence. If it happens in the latter, that sucks and hopefully it will be remedied by showing that the article clearly asserts notability through sources. But, by no means does the fact that someone doesn't know the topic negate their ability to read the page and quickly decide that it lacks sources that assert it's bid to have an article about it based on the requirements of notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that all fiction articles have a ready supply of editors to defend them. This is false; most fiction articles have zero defenders. Our demographics are so skewed that it may be years before an important character from a major soap opera has a decent article; if a fiction deletionist redirects it, it may be decades before any improvement is made, if ever. Also, don't assume that everyone is a fan of fiction, and that all fiction has fans. Most people aren't fans of fiction and a lot of important fiction has few or no fans.--Nydas(Talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean like Pauline?? What important fiction has "no fans"? I also didn't say that everything has tons of fans, I said that fans of the topic are not better qualified to judge its notability. If you have no fans, oh well. If you have 1 fan, that single fan isn't better qualified than any other schmo that comes in out of the cold. You're saying we should just leave fiction articles alone until one day (to use your words-->) "maybe decades" later someone will come along and improve the article? Um, that isn't how things work here. That's like saying "I'll provide a source for my material...one day." One day doesn't cut it. The burden is on the editors to show support for notability. If you cannot do that, then that's tough. I believe just about every fiction article falls into some WikiProject or another. If there is a dispute over its notability then relevant projects should be notified so that they can go search for sources to show that the subject is notable. We shouldn't just say "hey, lets leave the article alone and hope that one day it will meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion". Might as well create an article about myself, because "one day" I might be notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone, but there's a lot of bad shows out there that I stand up for on AfD, just as I would for a show that I liked. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What important fiction has no 'fans'? Start with the works of winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature. How many Orhan Pamuk or Harold Pinter 'fans' are there? Not many. Generally speaking, general fiction, crime fiction, historical fiction, romantic fiction and classic fiction have few or no 'fans' - that's most fiction. It's fiction which we are failing miserably to cover, and our fiction deletionists are working hard to compound that failure. You beleive that notability is a policy; I do not. This revisionist idea seems to have taken root most strongly in fiction; the staggeringly harsh standards are seldom employed against other topics.--Nydas(Talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it your general opinion? They may not be as mainstream, but it doesn't mean they have a limited fanbase. I actually think that BLP has some pretty strict standards. Fiction is a delicate subject, because Wikipedia is not here to provie a substitute for reading/watching/whathaveyou of your particular fiction. It isn't a plot summary, it's an encyclopedia and pages should reflect an encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia also cannot report on everything, because not everything is noteworthy in an encyclopedia. How does one determine noteworthiness? We have notability guidelines for them. This particular guideline is designed to bring attention specifically to the fiction aspect of topics, but if you fail the general notability guideline then it doesn't matter what this page says. Notability is based on "significant coverage", if you don't have it then you fail the requirements for article inclusion. That does not mean that you are not allowed to be mentioned and discussed on Wikipedia, it just means that there isn't enough coverage on the topic to warrant separation onto its own page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't prove the non-existence of something. The onus on you to show that 'fanbase' is universally applicable to popular/important fiction. For example, Danielle Steel has half a billion books in print, yet a Google search for the phrase "Danielle Steel fan" turns up only a tiny number of hits. Maybe they're just not online yet.--Nydas(Talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The onus isn't on me to claim that there is, it's on you to prove that there isn't because you are the one claiming definite "non" existence of something; I've merely stated that you've shown no proof that there is a lack of "fanbase" for these people or genres. If there is truly a lack of fanbase, then there's probably something that says that very thing. Google searching is not reliable. Even if you put in "Danielle Steele fan" and came up with 5 million hits, you'd have to go through all 5 million to determine if you weren't just getting hits on the same statement being present in multiple sources (granted, with 5 million hits, I doubt there would be a question of her fanbase). As you pointed out, she has half a billion books in print, which means she obviously has a fanbase if she's writing that many books---that, or she's so independently wealthy that she wastes money privately publishing 500,000,000 books for no reason. Regardless, this is straying slightly from the topic at hand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So you claim that popular/important fiction has 'fans' as surely as it has a creator, genre and medium. According to you, this is so obviously true that the onus is on me to disprove it. Well, I disagree. By the same logic, one could claim that a shoe company which did good business must necessarily have lots of 'fans' of its shoes. Of course it doesn't. It has a lot of shoe consumers, and possibly a tiny number of shoe fans.--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, "consumers" of shoes rarely, if ever, buy shoes that they don't like, thus they are "fans" of the shoe. I'm sure, depending on the shoe company, that it could be a cheaper shoe that is bought for necessity purposes instead of general admiration for the shoe (i.e. low on money, so you buy the $10 pair instead of your favorite $70 pair). But, people don't buy books out of necessity (short of textbooks for school, but even then you can sometimes do without them...little harder to do without shoes given the crap that ends up on the roads nowadays), they buy books because they "want" to, and the books you buy are generally the books you like whether by that author or by the genre. You can test buy books from genres or authors you don't know, but that's negligible in the grand scheme of book buying. I highly doubt that the half a billion copies of Danielle Steel's novels were from one time buyers of her books. Don't confuse the fact that just because you don't find some website ([http://www.daniellesteel.net/fan_sites.html like for Danielle Steel) devoted to the person that they are lacking a fanbase. People express their fanaticism in different ways, whether that is by buying a product, starting a convention, or simply acknowledging a person/person's work in a positive way. But this is off topic, because you were originally talking about who has better qualifications on Wikipedia with regard to notability--the answer is still, no one. I don't care if you are leading member of a fansite or not, without sources to back up an article's notability, saying its notable is irrelevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
According to you, someone who's seen the Spiderman films is automatically a fan, even if they never do anything else Spidey-related for as long as they live. That doesn't match any definition of fan (person), it requires more devotion that just consuming the fiction. You're projecting your lifestyle choice onto the world at large.--Nydas(Talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
See, here's the problem with your argument, you're saying that the smallest possible consumption of the fictional product doesn't necessarily mean you're a "fan" of said product, and thus that proves that simply consuming the product doesn't mean you have to like it. You're right in that regard, but if I tasted broccoli once and hated it, then you'd be right. But, if I tasted broccoli and liked it, and thus continued to consume it then it would be safe to say I was a "fan" of broccoli. But then again, you're using a general idea of "fanaticism" and the literal definition of "fanaticism" interchangably, and you shouldn't (first you said the fiction deletionists are fans themselves, but later state that most people aren't fans of fiction...so are you saying that the only fans of fiction are the ones that are deleting fiction related articles...I'm confused). If you go by the literal definition, most things don't have "fanbases" (kind of similar to your earlier argument about fiction not having "fans"). Very few fiction related topics would have fanbases, because you'd never be able to accurately measure "extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal", or "excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief". I'm sure you could with some things, but certainly not most of them; maybe with more specific people instead of groups as a whole. Thus, the whole idea of leaving it in "fan" hands it irrelevant, since we could hardly confirm most of the fiction related articles on Wikipedia have a "fanbase". So, if we cannot show true "fan" support, what difference does it make who decides whether the article asserts notability? Obviously, whether a topic has "fans" is irrelevant, since determining "fanaticism" is probably hard to do, at least to prove it to a degree that matches its definition; so what do you call the people that like fiction? They can't be called "fans" unless they meet the definition. So, all the people editors those fiction related articles aren't fans, they just like the topic enough to edit the page. What exactly was the point of this "fan" debate to begin with?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the fiction deletionists mix up importance and popularity with the size of the 'fanbase'. For example, sguerka said that Firefly was popular; it's not, both the series and the film were flops. If you approach fiction in this way, you are certain to make big mistakes, regardless of whether notability is followed.
You are still using an unorthodox definition of fan to universalise your lifestyle. Liking something is not enough to be a fan; check any dictionary and they will define a fan as an ardent enthusiast, supporter or devotee.--Nydas(Talk) 11:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I asked a question. I do believe I gave you the exact definition of "fan"--which you must have completely ignored in favor of grabbing random statements of mine--and stated that it would be almost impossible for us to accurately say that anyone that edits a fiction related article is a "fan", thus your statement about the deletionists being "fans" was confusing since you later acknowledged that there aren't many fans of fiction (though, I'm not sure if you meant by the literal definition of "fan" or by the general understanding by most people that someone that's a "fan" of something basically just likes it). Here's the problem, it doesn't matter how you define "fan", because "fans" have nothing to do with article notability at Wikipedia. Sources have to do with notability. I don't care if you have 5 billion fans or zero, unless you have sources discussing that fact then it is irrelevant. If you don't have any sources to assert notability, then you don't need a separate article. Simple as that. This "fan" debate was pointless from the beginning, because even if we had editors who were "fans", or simply just liked the topic, they are no better qualified than anyone else to make the decision on whether something is notable---and that decision should only be made based on whether the requirements of notability have been met (i.e. reliable third party sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fiction deletionists are fans because (a) they always use fan-orientated fiction when discussing fiction in general and (b) they use fan jargon. Even with the notability policy, you are bound to make mistakes if you see everything through a fan-prism. For example, dismissing certain sources but allowing others, or different clean-up time limits depending on the size of the fiction's fanbase.--Nydas(Talk) 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To Nydas, we don't write about fansites and e-mails because of WP:V and WP:NOR. Those are two of the "big mama" policies. I'd love to include that information for many areas, especially the fansub community for anime. There is a whole little world in there that I believe should be documented, and has a very big impact on the real world. But if I don't have reliable sources for the things I want to say, I'm violating policy, and my articles would be deleted. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -- Ned Scott 04:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What does the last part of this mean? ("In some cases, notability of a common group of fictional topics is better demonstrated than in individual articles for each topic.") If it means what I think it means (i.e. that a "Characters of [X]" article is often more appropriate than individual articles for each character in [X]), then it should be a little more explicit and not cite Characters of Final Fantasy VIII as a good example, as most some of the main characters in that list are covered in separate articles. A better example would perhaps be Characters of Carnivàle. Best regards, Steve T • C 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You have the intent right; FF8 characters only have two with separate article but the point is well taken (IIRC, the Carnivale characters just recently got to FA so that's also a good example). --MASEM 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good; I thought that was what it meant, but it took a couple of reads to properly discern the intent. Perhaps a slight tweak to the wording would therefore be appropriate ("In some cases, individual notability of a common group of fictional topics is better demonstrated in a grouped article than in individual articles for each topic." - followed by the example). Best regards, Steve T • C 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

External wiki list

Regardless of this rewrite or not, earlier discussion suggested that a list of wikis for topics may be an appropriate list to make. The format I'm thinking of would be exampled here: User:Masem/wikilist. --MASEM 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel dictating is evolving

I feel that this policy is evolving so that articles on fictional topics are restricted and sarcely allowed, I do not understand the problem that people have with fictional articles on wikipedia, and I have been feeling angry that editors have launched "deletion crusades" and using twinkle they have nominated hundreds of fictional articles for deletion claiming they are not notable beyond their fanbase, I see it is very unfair that an article should be deleted for this because if they have a fanbase they are notable. Blueanode (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above discussions - we know people are jumping the gun and sending articles to AfD before looking into ways of improving articles and moving content, but we still need to consider that notability as defined by Wikipedia is based on coverage in secondary sources and not what editors feel is important; this makes applicable to all topics including science and history topics, as well as to help to create an encyclopedia based on verifiable information that is appropriate to all readers. There is a balance that needs to be made between a complete fan guide and no fictional descriptions at all, which is what we're working to rewrite. --MASEM 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that fiction-related articles in particular have a tendency to be created in mass that fail our inclusion criteria guidelines. One of the reasons people are so passionate about this issue (not saying they are right or wrong) is because this is an issue that has grown to such a large size. There are few other areas of Wikipedia were we have to worry about such things. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ned, I know you said "few other areas" and you have acknowledged that there are other subject areas that have this issue. However, I think we (those of us working on fiction-related articles or those of us who feel that there are way too many fiction related articles) are too close to the issue. Fiction-related articles are not growing at a rate any higher than articles about bands, roads, schools, parks, etc. There simply isn't the passion (on either the delete or keep side) in these realms of articles. Secondly, many of these areas have already worked out a consensus. Two or more sources (be they trade magazines or local entertainment magazines or the local newspaper) are enough to keep an article about a band. I am optimistic that when we strike a balance, gain a large consensus, and write good guidelines, we will see far less strife in these articles. Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Bluenode, as I mentioned above, you need to read and comment on this page over a period of months if you want to have your opinion have an effect on our guidelines. I hope you stick around. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
He isn't saying anything I and others haven't said for months. Yet the deletionists are still running rampant while the others cower in fear. I even know why, deletionists are using bullying tactics that go way beyond wiki lawyering: They go after a person's whole body of work and set it up for deletion, to intimidate passionate editors into silence or compliance. Got that done to me, though their tactics didn't have the desired effect with me though. I won't shut up about this Renmiri (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if you put them all together, it's not your body of work. WP:OWN. Editors who are feeling personally upset at the loss of time relating to articles can relax: This is a collaborative effort. An editor who creates an article that is later merged made a contribution, even though the content was merged; an editor who spends their time getting rid of material that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, or merging content that should be merged, is also making a contribution. --Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
and once again, people really have a problem with WP:Plot, if you want to change policy go there. Ridernyc (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PLOT is not the only issue. We have WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:EPISODE. Add to that a few editors that feel a rabid need to enforce a narrow interpretation of these policies/guidelines by redirecting and AfD masses of articles and you get us to this point. What PF is getting at (I think) is that those that would truly like a change must make a commitment to engage in this discussion over the long haul. Ursasapien (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No mater what any guideline says as long as there is WP:PLOT and WP:RS things will still be moving into AFD in mass. All the guidelines are just red herrings. Ridernyc (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS is just a guideline too. WP:PLOT is being overused while the similar WP:BURO is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why we have AFD and plain and simple these articles do not survive AFD because consensus is they do not belong on wikipedia. Again I invite anyone to go to WP:NOT and try to change policy if you think WP:PLOT is unfair or uncalled for. If consensus really is that these articles should be allowed changing policy should not be an issue. Ridernyc (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Longevity and secondary literature

Is it possible for WP:FICT (or a subsidiary guideline) to address the following two questions?

  • (1) Longevity - some fictional works have more longevity than others (for example, they are still being published and talked about many years later), while some disappear into obscurity after a brief period of notability-due-to-popularity. Should this be taken into account at all? My feeling is that if something attains a certain level of notability at the time, then it should be documented on Wikipedia regardless of what happens next. If over the years, the current notability increases, or stabilises, the article should be adjusted to reflect that. If, on the other hand, the current notability decreases (not much is being written about it any more), then the article should be adjusted to be a historical article about this thing that was very popular and much talked about once upon a time (its past notability, rather than its current notability). And for historical articles, the requirement for independent secondary sources confirming the notability in the past, should be even more stringent. All articles will eventually become historical ones, of course.
  • (2) Secondary literature - this can be a tricky subject. Some fictional topics develop a secondary literature (of varying quality), and the phases of development are actually fairly easily recognisable. As DGG pointed out above, though, this secondary literature can take years, if not decades to develop. Things may happen slightly faster nowadays, with popular culture studies having long been a topic in its own right, but my query is whether Wikipedia guidelines should say something about the spectrum of quality, amount and timing of secondary literature?

Does WP:FICT already cover these points, or are these points covered in other guidelines and policies? I think WP:CRYSTAL might make a related point that predictions are difficult to make, but in some sense WP:DRV also makes that point when it says that new evidence, or new developments, can lead to an article being undeleted (presumably because the topic is now notable). So, which of these points above are the most important to make? Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This would all be covered by sourcing, if you can source it's notable. Ridernyc (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think something need to be said about how deletion is not permanent - if notability is established later, the article can be recreated or undeleted. The other point is that the amount of coverage might be a good guide as to how much content should be present on Wikipedia - ie. notable fictional worlds with a lot of secondary literature and established longevity, might need to establish wider coverage to give adequate context, than some guidelines such as WP:PLOT might lead you to expect. Conversely, those fictional worlds with little secondary literature and that were short-lived, should have very concise plot summary-style content. For example, Macbeth#Synopsis helps the reader to understand what the rest of the article is talking about. Other examples are Star Wars#Plot overview, and the rather bloated The Lord of the Rings#Synopsis. The point here is that when you have a sprawling mass of articles such as Star Trek, Star Wars or the ones related to Tolkien's works, then often a fair amount of plot information is needed. Getting the balance right is tricky, and an argument could be made that it is better to explain plot details as and when needed in articles, rather than centralise a synopsis. My view is that it is best to start off with a short synopsis, and only expand as needed. Starting with a bloated synopsis and trying to cut it down is a nightmare. It is difficult to get the balance right, and that should be recognised by those who draw the line in a different place to others (that applies to everyone on all sides). Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, my experiences with deleted articles are exactly the opposite. More often than not, recreating an article about a subject already deleted is seen as reason to delete the newest version as well. Regardless of content. Which seems to have been the case with Daigacon. I have no idea what the controvery is about, but the article has been deleted six times and recreated other six. With the only reason given for most of them being its recreation. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why we shouldn't necessarily be deleting without saving content (unless the content is blatantly unacceptable). Articles of non-notable quality should be moved, at worst, to the Annex, or to an appropriate wiki; even then, admins can still restore deleted content in cases. If a user believes they can improve it, that work should be done in sandbox space such that overly anxious editors/admins don't wipe out works in progress. Maybe there does need to be something to be stated on how to improve deleted works along these lines? --MASEM 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Longevity is easy--notability is permanent, as a general policy in Wikipedia applying to everything. Obviously, the amount there is to say will depend upon the popularity, and we may have difficulty in writing about works published in past years that were popular then but did not become classics. (This is especially true for works in the formative periods of certain genres--it is long before they are taken seriously enough to have much criticism). But if we can find the material and have the interest, that standards are the same. I think the idea of decreasing an article if the subject's relative importance decreases in the world is such a drastic change in basic policy that we can certainly not adopt it here with extensive discussion at the Village Pump. I can see this becoming a problem in presentation 20 years or so from now, when nobody may want to read about some genres except the specialists, and we will have 20 times the amount of material.) Of course if coverage was excessive in the first place, it can be reduced, but that is always true of everything.
In the other direction, we can write an article as soon a there is material to do so. WP:CRYSTAL is a sufficient guideline for books that have not been published--only if they are important enough that there is sufficient material in advance, can there be an article. This will be most common of course with major fiction from established authors, or the continuation of a major series. People started talking about the likely plot of the last book of Harry Potter long before Rowling even wrote it -- or it had a title.
In theory Carcharoth is right that if there is not material now, and an article is deleted, one can always write an article later on, but that isn't the way it actually works here--it is relatively hard to restore an article, and many attempt to do so even when justified end up needing to go to Deletion Review, where the results are even more erratic than Afd. Even if we solve all this difficulty, having an article attracts the attention of editors to improve it. This is one of the reasons why combination articles are sometimes a good idea--it's easy to enlarge a section into an article when appropriate .
  • secondary Literature. The real problem here is how to source material where formal criticism is not yet written. Scholarship has its fashions. This affects many subjects other than fiction, such as some parts of computer technology. It has arisen here is connection with science fiction, where it has been accepted at AfD that the work of certain well-known critics is sufficient for notability, even if they publish it on their blog. We obviously want to go very carefully here, but I think we need no special rules for what is a general problem. I don't really see how we can get consensus on them now anyway--it's still experimental. With past literature some periods are not covered by much criticism--again its a matter of fashion. The question here is one that also occurs in history. Kings are notable enough for articles, and even the least known is covered in several books at the leas, but the total amount of information may be very small. So far, we've kept the articles when this has been challenged, and accepted that they will be stubs indefinitely. Itsa harder to judge here which ones are worth it, but the same principle should apply if we have the basis for deciding that. DGG (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I would not tend to agree with a blanket statement that "so far, wekve kept the articles when this has been challenged". In many cases, such articles have been deleted. In many others, they would have been if the AfD had been closed by reading and evaluating arguments rather than counting heads. There's no need for permastubs on long-dead works of fiction that never had significant sourcing and never will. Put them on Wikia, if you must, but keep the fancruft out of here. As to "fashions" in sourcing, it's true that sources may be imperfect, but it's not our job to "correct" them if they are—only to emulate and follow them. That's what a tertiary source does. If secondary sources decide something is not important enough to cover, we take their word for it and don't cover it either, we don't second-guess them. If you want to second-guess them, write sourcing of your own, and have it peer-reviewed and published in reliable sources. This is not the place to "correct" any perceived deficiency in sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My comments about sourcing were comments about sourcing, not arguing in a particular direction. Except that I do think and have argued in multiple contexts than respected blogs and the like can be acceptable sources in the 21st century for the subjects where they are the main literature. I totally diametrically disagree with you about long-dead works of fiction; once we depart from the guideline that notability is permanent, we open the door to incessant re-argument about everything. And I diametrically disagree with you about permastubs: they have always been accepted, and rightly, for there are very few things indeed about which we can be sure there is not additional information; even conventional encyclopedias have always recognized that sort of article. The 11th EB, noteworthy for extremely long over-sourced articles, also had many of one paragraph and nothing much in the way of sourcing. We can do at least as well, and I hope a lot better. There is a place for long articles, and for short ones. If anything, the desire to make fuller articles when not really necessary has caused some of the fluff which has infested articles about fiction.DGG (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG on permastubs. There are some historical topics for which only a small amount of information is known, either because the historical record is silent, or because the research hasn't been done yet. There is absolutely no harm in keeping the permastub if the information is verifiable. There may be a case for merging the content to another article, but deletion in cases of verifiable information about topics that were clearly notable in their day, but for which little information has survived to the present day, is just destructive. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the comment: There's no need for permastubs on long-dead works of fiction that never had significant sourcing and never will. Put them on Wikia, if you must, but keep the fancruft out of here." - I very much doubt that long-dead works of fiction have ever resulted in fancruft. It is modern, contemporary works that lead to fancruft. Maybe some examples will help here. I presume you are not talking about the kind of stuff covered at Category:History of literature? Maybe you mean stuff that is no longer being published? I think you will find that anything that is out of print that is mentioned somewhere, will be being mentioned in a context that makes its notability clear. Let's look at some early 20th century books. For example, Category:Novels by E. Nesbit, and then a bit later we have Category:Books by Enid Blyton. Have a look at Category:1900-1949 British children's literature. Can you give examples of where the line is drawn here? I agree entirely that the starting point should be that someone else (ie. a secondary source) has bothered to write about the book or author. The trouble is that many of the more obscure books and authors will only have a few sources, sometimes only a few scattered references in overviews of the subject area. The point is that there is no sharp dividing line between lots of sources and two or one or none. Is a single source enough? Sometimes a stub can take years for anyone to pay attention to it - but deletion means that a possible opportunity to get the stub expanded has been lost. What is needed is for experts to identify the permastubs - correctly identifying a permastub actually takes a bit of expertise. A non-expert may guess that further expansion will be difficult, but it takes an expert to know this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?

OK, I'm pretty new to this argument and I'm sure it's been discussed previously, but since I'm particularly disinclined to wade through 14 archives of argument, can someone answer me here.

To quote from "Why Wikipedia is so great": "Wikipedia is by far the world's largest encyclopedia. It is considered the largest and most comprehensive compilation of knowledge that anybody has seen in the history of the human race." Surely to leave gaps in the coverage of fictional works makes a mockery of Wikipedia's comprehesiveness. So, why is this idiotic proposal even under discussion? Let's dump this proposal in the trash where it belongs, and rather than deleting stuff, why not get on with improving our articles. Astronaut (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The primary reasons are that one of WP's core policies is What Wikipedia is not, specifically it is not an indiscriminate collection of info (that is, we require all WP articles to demonstrate notability) and not a collection of plot summaries. We don't want to prevent the inclusion of fiction topics in Wikipedia, but they must meet those above requirements in order to help ensure WP remains verifiable, contains no original research, and remains neutral. This limits, to a degree, how much fiction we can cover. --MASEM 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that being an encyclopedia limits, to a degree, the depth at which we can cover fiction. Most fiction can establish baseline notability, but the individual parts of fictional works (characters, settings, episodes, etc.) may not have enough information to rate an individual article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT doesn't say Wikipedia should include no plot summary, nor does set any kind of limits on plot summary. It says simply that Wikipedia is "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The most limiting word in the policy is "brief", which is ambiguous at best. None of the other core policies are inherently violated by plot summaries; WP:OR is fine as long as the plot summary isn't interpretive, and WP:V doesn't disallow primary sources. The only question is WP:N, which is a matter for the series itself rather than the plot summary. WP:FICT perpetuates a myth that Wikipedia should somehow avoid as much in-universe information as possible. It is representative only of the most restrictive interpretation of the policy rather than the most reasonable or appropriate one. Torc2 (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't disallow plot summaries, but "brief" implies that given one released/published fictional work, we can give a brief plot, but we can't go into pages and pages of character and setting info without any additional real-world context. I don't think (as I read it) the draft says "avoid in-universe information", but instead stresses that the balance with real world context is more important. --MASEM 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem though is having partial coverage. It gives the impression that Wikipedia is not as comprehensive as it could be. How would it be if you visited you country's largest public library only to find many books were being replaced by one-sheet summaries because some of the librarians decided those books weren't notable enough?
As for a Wikipedia example: I can start looking at Stargate SG-1 episodes from the series pilot with it's long-ish plot summary, and following the link in the infobox to the next episode with a short summary and a list of a few production staff, and then the link to the next episode is a redirect to the List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. In my opinion it looks like the editors haven't got around to creating the episode page yet and I might be tempted to create one. It looks scruffy with some episodes linked and others not, and when I look back at the history before the redirect was created, there is little to distinguish one episode article from another in terms of notability.
Astronaut (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Two points. first on the specific example: the pilot episode article of SG-1 does not have strong notability; ok, it was nominated for an award, and it was rated differently, but both of those points are rather weak. So you are correct in stating that distinguishing notability between these episode pages is hard because they really do have about the same level of, in this case, non-notability. What is generally considered to be a good demonstration of notability for episodes can be found in Cape Feare or Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Certainly not every episode's notability can reach Trapped in the Closet's level, but those give you baselines to compare to the SG-1 ones and you can see that those are presenting lacking that material.
The other point, which I hate to extend analogies too long, is that want we want to do is that while there may be a one page piece of paper where'd you expect to find something in the library, it gives you the information to get an inter-library loan of the lacking material. Or to be more specific: yes, WP cannot cover this all - however, there are plenty of wikis where this information can be covered in much more depth and thus we should provide those links for further reading. WP is comprehensive of material that falls within its five pillars, and where it can't be, we defer to other "experts", in this case, fan-created wikis that are under no such limitations that WP has. --MASEM 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This was also discussed on the mailing list at the end of last year. One point made there that I don't think has been addressed here is - "completing the set adds value". So the encylopedia is better off with a complete set of Stargate episodes rather than some arbitarily chosen number. Catchpole (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This I agree with with a caveat: if we had, say, 75% or more of the episodes with notability, I would have no problem keeping the other 25% on the grounds of the above and that likely there's a good chance notability can be demonstrated if needed. But in the case of the SG-1 episodes, we don't have that to start. --MASEM 11:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just like wikipedia is a work in progress when it comes to article creation, it is also a work in progress when it comes to cutting down on unencyclopedic content. The SG-1 episode articles have been getting depricated because they were terrible, with no one really working on them, and I am currently looking into starting season articles as to get rid of the remaining ep articles that also no-one seems to work on (although we're having our first Good Article nominee in the line). The wikia links next to each episodes are supposed to help the reader during this time of development. The other option to make it all look "clean" would have been to redirect them all at once, but that could/would have caused a huge outcry. Check back in three months, and I guess this issue will have been sorted out. – sgeureka t•c 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Character lists?

In the proposed modification, it currently reads "notability of a common group of fictional topics is better demonstrated than in individual articles for each topic (Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Carnivàle, Smallville (season 1))." Would it also be appropriate, where secondary characters are already broken down into defined groups, to take a 'merge to group' approach, rather than 'merge every single character into a character list'? -Malkinann (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? That "merge to group" is distinguished in types of characters, e.g., major, minor, guest stars? If that's what you mean, that makes sense to me, but I think the two options you present are about the same -- "merge to group" and "merge into character list" both mean, to me, "merge into appropriate character list based on group". --Lquilter (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the idea is correct, but be aware that this does not give editors freedom to expound at length about the in-universe material just because there's more special since you have multiple lists (particularly if you are talking secondary characters.) --MASEM 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to group, in the sense I was trying to convey, was that if you have your fictional characters being presented as parts of a team, that you could merge the individual characters of a series to "team articles" rather than a "List of X characters" article. It just seems to be a good middle ground to me, especially if the series is so populated that a "List of X characters" might butt up against WP:SIZE. -Malkinann (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; in fact, WP:SS allows for splits for both size and style, so if it's clearer to present that way, great. --MASEM 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers - the wording just seemed to strongly encourage the "List of X characters" format as the only alternative to individual character articles. -Malkinann (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft #9

diff from #8 full #9

This adds in from the helpful suggestions of other editors (there are also other changes others have brought):

  • Some message of deference to other Wikiprojects on handling non-notable articles, and making sure the list of steps is marked as "suggested" so that it's not meant to be a quick checklist
  • Changing the section titles for "Notable topics" to be a bit clearer; added a bit of language that suggests that sub-articles should not magically appear but need consensus and discussion to create, deferring to a section in WP:WAF for this.
  • "in-universe" has been replaced with "fictional". As noted, "in-universe" is a writing style, "fictional" deals with non-real-world notability aspects.

--MASEM 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

preliminary comments on wording

  1. fictional is an impossible word. fictional information means false information. A true description of the plot is not fictional. a false description is fictional. I do not immediately have a better single word, As a possible compromise wording "fictional element"s is clearer than "fictional". Fictional by itself won't work.
    I do not accept "concise in the term plot summary. I suggest 'adequate. I do not think the summaries should be concise -- or over-full. I'm open to other wording that will give some sort of compromise her
  2. I similarly not accept "minimal but sufficient" background for the characters, etc. I would accept "sufficient" or "adequate"
  3. "such articles should not be created until it is determined that the parent article is too long." is also wrong. I suggest ...too long, or the topic important. This harmonizes "summary style" with "notable topics". As another possible means of harmonization, change the second sentence of the summary style section to read as stated above, if individual elements are sufficiently notable, they can & should be should be given individual articles; even if they are not, it is appropriate to also use summary style to create sub-articles to remove some details from the main article page. The creation of separate articles should of course not be automatic, but should depend both on size and notability. I think that's the consensus, we just have to express it right.

these are just preliminary comments. I remain of the opinion that the plot, characters, and setting are the basis of the interest in articles on fictional works, and the guideline should say so. The other aspects are subsidiary. I think the consensus of WPedians in general would at the least reject saying the plot characters and setting are less important or not the basis for notability, but i am willing to accept a compromise here in order to reach some agreement. DGG (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo the gist of what DGG says even though we are complete polar opposites in terms of our wikiphilosophies. Think about how people use these articles. Very very very very few readers give a shit what some random hack writing for TV Times thinks about a particular episode of a particular series, or its ratings information or similar production tedium. They want plot & storyline details, they want the actors in the episode, they want the music that was featured, they want to know what was that written on the back of Cody's T-Shirt, they want to know the cultural references made, etc.... This is the information that is of interest to fans, who will make up the bulk of the readership.

To provide individual articles with abbreviated in-universe details (why did we drop in-universe - the phrase is fine) while having a bunch of meaningless guff about ratings and reduced to quoting the views of some review or another is largely pointless. Either we give the fans/readers what they want, which is individual articles on fictional topics (I focus on episodes, but also characters, books, etc...) which focus on in-universe details and are written to a certain level, or else we uphold a clear standard for notability which is unambiguous and stringent in the need for demonstrating clear real-world impact & indisputable significance, one where drive-by real-world references cannot be used as an excuse for a stand-alone article.

As its stands now, I fear that the compromise that is being reached will only deliver grounds for pointless wikilawyering (echoing TTN's concerns above), as the constitution of notability gets brandished alternatively by different sides in the debate. But even I, as an ardent deletionist, intent on world domination via the eradication of fiction articles, recognise that random stand-alone articles which "pass" our notability test by adducing run-of-the-mill ratings information or sales figures or drive-by references in the media is pointless. We'd be better off allowing detailed articles on the subject that provide ample in-universe content than an assemblage of tedium that has been gathered simply to satisfy some "real world" requirement. My preference is clearly for a stringent standard, and would suggest that the guideline therefore make the case for notability even clearer and forthright; but that's simply my preference. Either way, therefore, I am in slight disagreement with DGG in his introduction of flexibility into the guideline with respect to the degree we provide in-universe details. If we take the focus away from concision & impact, why then the vagary which permits certain topics to be allowed full in-universe detail, and others not. What's the point of that? I feel in the interest of being consistent and fair, this guideline needs to fall one way or the other, and do so unambiguously. This is not meant as a criticism of Masem, btw, whose work is to be highly commended. Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)On "concise" or "minimal but sufficient" in terms of plot details, the only other guidance we have is from PLOT that used "brief". I can see "adequate" but that might encourage people to write a bit more verbosely, but that's probably a better word. Any other suggestions are appreciated.
"In-universe" was dropped only because it does overlap with the use of "in-universe" style of writing that WAF addresses. Maybe instead of "fictional" as the opposite of "real-world", we use 'fictional-world" (which clarifying it is fiction, instead of a falsity?)
One common on DGG's suggested change: ...too long, or the topic important.. This sets an extremely loose bar that would allow for individual articles on main characters of niche-works without notability demonstration because the editors of that work believe the character to be "important". I can see adding something along the lines of "too long or to improve the readability of the main article", or other language that doesn't limit the sub-article formation by size.
Also another DGG comment: I remain of the opinion that the plot, characters, and setting are the basis of the interest in articles on fictional works; I will note that at least as I read it, the guideline does not prevent this approach (we used to have "notability is the primary focus" but this has been removed). Structuring articles around the notability still allows for good coverage of plot and characters, depending on how the editors decide to take the article.
One thing that both above comments address is that unlike most other articles on WP (outside of fiction), nearly all fiction articles have two "types" of readers: the "fans" and the reader that is researching information but otherwise is not interested in (directly) the content of the work. WP's goal is to cater to the later, not simply to the former, but catering to the researcher doesn't mean that we should ignore the fan; we can do both. Mind you, we still need to end up meeting WP's top policies: V, NOR, NPOV, and NOT, and to completely satisfy the "fan" reader is not wholly congruent with those policies - we can't go into every minutiae that fans want (and thus the suggestion of off-site wikis for information of this nature). But we don't want to completely alienate such readers (I will note there are calls to require secondary sources for all plot information, or even drastic cutbacks of plot beyond even the "100 words per 10 minutes" guideline of Films and TV - I feel these are way too far). I feel that what the proposed version of FICT does is give us a framework that allows for maintaining most of the current approaches to fiction as to appease the fans while still providing content to appeal to the researching reader, while still allowing potential exploration of other ways that fiction can be presented better to be appealing to both types of readers; WP is a new type of encyclopedia so there may be ways that aren't done in traditional manners that WP can take advantage of. I really don't think we found what works "best" yet, but we need to have something that stabilizes to some extent how fiction is handled on WP than compared to what has happened in the last 6 months. --MASEM 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Along the same lines, my first reaction to "Notable topics merit individual articles" was that it seems to call real-world objects such as episodes "fictional." And in general treats the real and fictive world as in parity, contra WP:WAF. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to Fictional elements, such as characters and locations, as well as for individual episodes or entries for serial works,? I think this makes the distinction that episodes/entries are not the same as fictional elements; simply that both need notability to merit an article. --MASEM 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"For articles about fictional concepts, reliable sources can cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. Fictional content refers to descriptions of the work's plot, characters, location, objects, and other aspects of the fictional setting provided by the work of fiction."

Fictional things don't have sales figures. Merchandise is too vague; it's most unlikely that Dora the Explorer would be allowed a character article, regardless of how many millions of toys get shifted. Conversely, it would be used to prop up ailing articles about unpopular, niche fiction because said fiction has an action figure.--Nydas(Talk) 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're exactly right - but this also points to the founding statement for notability: "significant coverage". I cannot say that a Transformers character is notable with the only support that there's an action figure for it. That's not "significant". (This also points to the concept of toyetic mediums). Notability has to be demonstrated from multiple sources, and just merchandising isn't going to help. But merchandising is a valid aspect of notability in association with other information. --MASEM 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's vague, and doesn't clearly match the wording, which implies that merchandise alone can carry an article.--Nydas(Talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fans vs information--I made my comments not from the point of view of fans, but from those seeking general information When i come to a WP article on fiction as a reader, i come for information--but for information bout the work of fiction--usually about the plot and the characters. Either i don't know the work at all, and want to find out what is going on, or I do know the work a little, and want to find one of the relatively minor things i've forgotten. I think you have it backwards--it's the fans who want the so -called real-world information about the details of production and distribution, and what is on the trailer and the cover and the details of the release history. There is a place for a specialized wiki for major fictional works or series--the true minutia--just what a character said when , and how it is consistent or not with what he said the 200 other places he appeared, and things of this sort--and the "real-world equivalents--who was considered and rejected for the role, and what of the various anthologies or releases contained what episodes, and things of that sort which would only concern the most dedicated follower. The basic information about all the characters in enough detail to know what their role is, and about the plot to know what is happening, belongs in Wikipedia. I am not surprised Eusubius agrees with me--i think that almost everyone who comes here looking for fiction recognizes this. As he says, it's not a question of wikiphilosophy, but intrinsic to the topic. Fiction is important because it's a fiction, not a box of DVDs. DGG (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I never meant to imply that the information that is provided by real-world information is not wanted by fans - it's that fans tend to also want a lot more that can't be included (trivia , quotes, etc. ) and that can confuse someone unfamiliar with the work and only needs a top level understanding of it (thus why sub-articles can also be a good thing). --MASEM 05:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Flexibility.--I too would rather have it really fixed in concrete to support my point of view, but thats not going to happen immediately. This is really a practical question: do we want to have an agreement, or not? Masem, I thought you in particular would support a flexible wording, to ensure that your efforts would come to fruition, and because in general that has been the lines of your proposed compromises. There are real disagreements here, and if we actually are going to have consensus, it will be by admitting what we have and have not agreed on. DGG (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, where is/would be this flexible wording? I can't follow from the current threads... --MASEM 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The perceived difference between readers wanting the main facts and those wanting the details may have a very simple solution. Which is actually one of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. "A concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections".
The WP:LEAD should be used to summarize the article, yes, but the lead should not be used to overload general content to leave the rest to "fan". For example, a non-fan may want to research exact dollar amounts of movie ticket sales. This is info nearly always found in the body, though mention of its general performance in the lead is common. Basically, I would strongly recommend against using the lead to separate out "fan" from non-"fan" details.
Using sub-articles for some aspects when appropriate (characters, episodes, etc.) does help to some degree. But I don't think we want to necessary create a line that says "non-fan info here, fan info there". --MASEM 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The reader who wants details is not a fan but a researcher. Ticket sales is a subject that you can go on detail in a section on release information. Only a researcher would care about how does character portrayal in a certain film fits ,for example, Stereotypes of blacks or how a television series seems to reflect sentiment bordering on Anti-Arabism. The lead should be addressed to readers unfamiliar with the subject, those who want only the basic information. Why do you assume only fans would be interested in details? Have you actually done research on a film based on scant information? Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A good researcher would watch the show, in that case. Even if you had a complete summary of a work of fiction, using Wikipedia to "experience" the work is an injustice to that work. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If the details regarding what you refer to as researcher-interest-only material are a substantial aspect to the work, then of course they need to be in the lead (lede?). The lead is a summary of the key aspects of the article, an abstract if you will. Hence major media coverage, controversy or academic interpretation and use needs to be mentioned if it forms a significant aspect to the understanding of the wider effect of the work. LinaMishima (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, let's face it, a good researcher would not be using Wikipedia. Our goal is to become the definitive encyclopedic source of information, but we are currently only semi-reliable. I would think that a researcher would look to WP for additional references without having to resort to some type of pay archive search. In that case, too, they would want more than plot details and themes. The researcher would want reliable sources, outside of WP. Ursasapien (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, researchers and seasoned wiki-users learn to look for the reliable references for any statement on wikipedia. We can only use sources for their trivial details (i.e. those available from the raw source material without strong synthesis or deduction). As such, care must be taken with plot summaries, and almost most details on the issues dealt with and the media's wider effect will require a secondary source that provides such analysis. LinaMishima (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the secondary sources requirement should be dropped, or at least toned down, and that we should focus on the content of the source rather than who made it. I think "A fictional topic is presumed notable if there is significant coverage in reliable sources" would be fine, as it would allow commentary tracks on DVDs to be used to demonstrate the episode's real-world context. Will (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Commentary tracks demonstrate the context within which the program was made and the intended real-world effect, they cannot document anything more than this unless they cite other sources within the commentary (in which case the other sources would be preferred). However I see nothing wrong with using commentary tracks as sources, and I too would approve of removing the need for significant secondary sources (this very much creates an arbitrary, hard to quantify, line), but I am aware of the desire to limit articles to those covering matters that have a wider effect outside of their own interested parties (note that this wider effect can refer to the field the work is within alone, interested parties here refers to the production crew and fanbase alone). LinaMishima (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the secondary sources requirement should be dropped at all. Without that requirement, we'd get inundated with even more self-made films and web shows and fanfics than we already are by virtue of the author being able to say "well, its notable since I wrote up a "making of" paper. Second sources not only go to show that the someone else has noticed the media in question beyond the people who made it, but they also provide some validation on the factual accuracy of some of the basic primary sources. Dropping the secondary sources requirement would also go smack against Wikipedia policy regarding verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
First, to Sceptre and Lina, I will note that the current draft does drop "secondary" - partially over problems at WP:PSTS on what primary and secondary mean, but more so the fact that in most cases, commentary is useful and reliable information that rarely a secondary source can ever report accurately on. As to that specific (and AnmaFinotera)'s point, this is why there's a note about using self-published sources for notability. You are absolutely correct: I make a 5 minute youtube video, I then create the "making of" and publish it, that technically satisfies notability (to a degree) but it fails due to being self-published resources. Also, on the point of verifiability, while having commentary is good, it is not a third-party source, which is why "significant coverage" should include several real world aspects, not just development. Furthermore, one does have to consider the source of the commentary. Information said by the Simpsons writing staff has been validated with third parties and considered reliable, but I wouldn't trust a lot of what Matt Stone and Trey Parker have to say about South Park in certain circumstances since there's been differences between what they've said and what others have said. Still, as long as one provides more than just commentary information for notability, a lot of those problems can be easily overcome. --MASEM 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some brief comments on the draft. #1 please bring back "in-universe" rather than fictional for the reasons stated above. It is much less clear this way. #2 Per the writing style guidelines, an article should be split if it is too long. I don't see any need for a "sub" article to need to re-establish notability in any existent policy. Again, I commend those of you working on this, though I think it is headed in the wrong direction. Hobit (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a careful look to make sure there's a better distinction between "fictional" and "in-universe" terms. As to point two, there can be non-notable sub-articles - however, people should take care in creating these and limiting them to things like "list of characters" and the like. We'd like them to get notability, but they don't have to have it. --MASEM 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the current draft (nutshell included) says "NO" rather than "limited". I think it says it darn strongly in fact. So if that's what you are shooting for, I don't think you hit the mark. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's the draft's nutshell: Articles, including sub-articles, dealing with a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Such articles should be structured around the demonstrated notability for the topic, with an appropriate balance of fictional information. Articles on fiction that fail to demonstrate notability should be improved to demonstrate notability, trimmed and/or merged into a larger article, or moved to a GFDL-compatible wiki. I think it clearly states that sub-articles (as part of a larger article) are find. --MASEM 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. In good faith, I honestly read it exactly the opposite way. It says to me that the sub articles need to assert notability from reliable sources themselves. I can't find a way to parse it that gets me what you are saying. I'm sure there is such a way, but at the very least I think it's unclear. This is a situation where being in the same room would help. I don't know how to explain how I'd reading it without the rapid feedback of an in-person conversation. Anyone else see the same issue I do and are able to express it in writing? Hobit (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_17&oldid=1136057690"