Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

21st Century Text Structure

NOTE: Readers should take a moment to first read this[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As this discussion and my comments impacts more than just fiction articles I moved my contibution to this topic to Template talk:Subarticle. I tried to do this quickly once I realized my error but one response comment (by Ursasapien) was moved with it. Low Sea (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, my comment was about the discussion here and makes no sense where you moved it. Could you either put my comment back or delete it from the other discussion? Ursasapien (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad Ursasapien. Below is your original comment in the context of this page as you correctly point out it should be. These are indeed two different discussions and yet my comments apply to both, but moreso to the sub-article discussion I believe. Low Sea (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The debate is whether these articles/sections each have to be independently notable (sourced by two or more reliable, independent sources) or if the topic has established notability each article/section under that topic should be considered notable. [break]
This is based on a misunderstanding of 'topic'. Spinout articles have spinout topics; they are not articles on the parent topic. The topic of List of characters in Star Wars is "characters in Star Wars", not "Star Wars". The topic of Elan Sleazebaggano would be "Elan Sleazebaggano", not "Star Wars". So Star Wars' notability is not inherited by either article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe most editors understand that WP is not paper, that hard drives are cheap, and that we edit in a multi-dimensional structure. The issue is what standard do we use to ensure that the encyclopedia is not simply a collection of indiscriminate information. Ursasapien (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What criteria/methods do you use now to determine if a section is appropriate for keeping inside a main article? Low Sea (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we are trying to come to consensus on that. Certainly, WP:SIZE issues come into play. The basic issue is subarticle=inherited notability vs. subarticle=needs independent notability. Ursasapien (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:SIZE is about readability and navigation, not about subject matter. You are confusing form with substance. The form of a "section" is totally irrelevant to the issues of content and notability. In other words: a section is a section is a section ... whether it is one sentence, two paragraphs, a "list of x", or a full page with subpages of its own. Low Sea (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, "section" is quite a clear term. It's a part of an article topped by a heading. See WP:SECTION. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is the stuffy old two-dimensional thinking that Low Sea was talking about. We look at WP as if it were paper and all "sections" must be on the same page and topped by the same heading. This is essentially Britannica online. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for a modern encyclopedia, but willfully misunderstanding a word whose meaning is spelled out in the online help seems like a bad way to go about modernising it. Though, if your goal is to make an encyclopedia that can defeat Khan, making rules that include every single member of both versions of starfleet is probably the way to do it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Percy, you just supported my position and you don't even realize it. You said a section is a part of an article topped by a heading (a title if you will) ... this does not say how big a section is, how small, what color, what language, etc... In multi-dimensional text structures a section's location and shape is an absolute NON-issue. There is a difference between (as you put it) "willfully misunderstanding a word" and "expanding its meaning in a new context". The heading on this section is "21st Century Text Structures" and in this context the current WP definition of section is inadequate to the task. Low Sea (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think the definition of section is inadequate, your best approach would be to use a different word, rather than redefine a word which has a whole article to define it. I realise that words can have different meanings in different contexts, but it's still better to avoid confusion. Your 3D point of view is a valid one, but as I've said elsewhere it doesn't imply that we should discard notability. Considering an extra 'depth' dimension is fine - but the depth of coverage given to a topic should be governed by how much real-world coverage there is. A user should be able to look deeper and deeper, but only until the coverage runs out. When coverage stops, we should stop providing subarticles. WP:N exists to make sure this happens at the article level, but WP:IINFO covers article content, too. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


On a separate issue, the term "inherited notability" has some significant problems. Take a look at this discussion[2] at the Village Pump and note the discussion at the bottom on the idea of Umbilical Notability. Low Sea (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose what we are struggling with is "what is a section?" If an article (a seperate page if you will) can be considered a section or not. Percy illustrates what I see as a basic misperception. I think of List of characters in Star Wars as a section of our article on Star Wars, not as a seperate article on the characters in Star Wars. With hyperlinks, we should be able to point back to the section in the main article and allow people to navigate back and forth seemlessly. Ursasapien (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no struggle with that question. See WP:SECTION. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How about you go back and carefully read WP:SPINOUT and quit playing silly games of semantics. Ursasapien (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"Silly games of semantics"? I'm not the one trying to change what "section" means. WP:SPINOUT gives advice on how to break out long sections - not long sentences, not long articles. It doesn't exempt the new articles from notability, and it doesn't say they remain part of the original. It explicitly calls them "independent". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You hold to your interpretation, as if it were crystal clear, when there is no consensus for your point of view. "gives advice on how to break out long sections" - EXACTLY! WP:SPINOUT speaks about breaking out a long section into a seperate (aka "independent") article to make the information easier to read. There is a reason you leave a summary in the main article and put a hatnote linking back to the section in the spinout article. The reason is that the articles are linked. Why do you insist in forcing your obstinate, idiosyncratic point of view on everyone else? Ursasapien (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you think my interpretation is? You seem very angry about it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem very arrogant and sure of you unequivocal rightness. Your interpretation appears to be that when you split out a section of a long article, this section suddenly becomes a seperate topic and wholly independent of the article you took it out of. This does not seem to be borne out in the guideline which requires a summary and a hatnote. I am not angry, but I am passionate and your snide attitude leads to a passionate response. Nevertheless, I am logging off so any replies will probably not occur for 24 hours. Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you weren't angry, you wouldn't be calling me arrogant and snide. Hopefully tomorrow you will be civil. Requiring a summary and hatnote are there for ease of navigation; they don't imply that an "independent article" has a dependency. Nor do they imply the opposite; you seem to think I'm saying that WP:SPINOUT is contrary to WP:FICT's position that articles should be judged as part of their parent. All I'm saying is that that is only said by WP:FICT. I do believe it shouldn't say that, but I don't believe that based on a misreading of WP:SPINOUT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I continue to be civil and calm today, as I was yesterday. You do seem to be saying that WP:SPINOUT does not jive with WP:FICT's assertion that spin-out articles are inextricably linked to their parent article. You state that WP:FICT is the only guideline that makes this assertion. I contend that this statement is demonstrably false. Perhaps, if you do not see this, we will have to agree to disagree (although I think you will find that you are in disagreement with a number of editors). Ursasapien (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, please explain to me how you get from "independent article" with templates, to "inextricably linked", without assuming that they are in the first place. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Break

If I could just move things to the left a little... Now all this talk of multidimensionality and sections is getting rather silly. But this 'modern' definition of a section, a section is not just the section itself, but if the section should happen to be a summary (or even something like a summary) of another article, that article is now part of the section too. And if that article itself should summarize other 'child'/'sub'articles, they're part of the section too, aren't they? And so on we go, ad infinitum (well, until we reach an end to all the branches). Now that seems to me to be a very awkward definition of a section to me. One doesn't have to see articles as somehow completely unrelated to all other articles (who does?) to consider the normal definition of a section more useful for discussions.

When you talk about hatnotes, Ursasapien, you're not referring to hatnotes on the 'child' article, which template:main specifically tells editors to avoid, are you?

Personally, I think any article should be able to stand on its own without a 'parent'. If you deleted the parent topic, the article shouldn't suddenly become non-notable. If anyone has come up with a workable solution for allowing 'child' articles to be non-notable without opening up the doors to anything and everything, please refer me to it. Richard001 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When I speak of a hatnote in the subarticle (or child as you put it) I am speaking of {{Subarticle}}. If the subarticle is completely seperate from the main article, why bother including a summary and a link? Why not simply put the link in the See also: section and be done with it? WP is not paper so your hypothetical ad infinitum should not be a problem. Nevertheless, can you give me some concrete example of where this hypothetical could ever be the case? As far as notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view are concerned, aren't all sections of all articles expected to cross these thresholds? [break]
Verifiability and NPOV, yes. Notability, no - though the requirement for real-world coverage in WP:PLOT would seem to say otherwise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying that subarticles can be about non-notable subjects (who has?). [break]
From WP:FICT: "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate..." - that says that spinouts can be about non-notable subjects. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is approaching wikilaywering if you pick and choose parts; the overall text of FICT (in the para below the sentence above) warns explicitly that singular fictional articles are generally contested. But again, what a lot of this comes down to is the fact that I don't think anyone participating in this discussion has an clear picture of how non-notable spinouts are dealt with as I'm mentioned above. We know a few lists seem always appropriate, we know a few types of articles that are never, but the DMZ between those is so large and vague. The only additional caution that we can give is that for any non-notable spinout, you should expect to be challenged by other editors, and possibly the only additional thing would be to create a talk page tag that includes when the spinout was created and why it was, to help remove that ambiguity. --MASEM 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I feel that that sentence and indeed that whole section gives a free pass to all fictional articles, no matter how non-notable, is that it doesn't ever go so far as to say that there are articles that should be deleted. "may be contested" is as strong as it gets. It establishes an upper bound for the 'DMZ' but no lower bound, and as such editors can always point at it and say that their non-notable article should be given the benefit of the doubt. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that WP policies and guidelines, as well as common sense, allow for a cluster of articles to cover a given topic. The topic must meet inclusion criteria and the depth to which we cover that topic must be balanced and neutral. Ursasapien (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but spinout articles have spinout topics, and it's those topics that need to have notability demonstrated. The depth to which we cover that topic must be balanced and neutral, and the only way to make sure of that is to require coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines and consensus

Over at Template talk:Subarticle#Entering the fray, User:Richard001 raises questions about the support in other guidelines for spinouts that lack real-world coverage. As I understand it, the other guidelines (including essays and policies) which are commonly stated as supporting the inclusion of such articles are WP:NNC, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SIZE,WP:SUMMARY and WP:PAPER

  • WP:NNC is a section of WP:N which states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". If spinouts are considered as articles in their own right, this doesn't support their inclusion. If spinouts are considered as part of the parent, it doesn't apply to them at all.
  • WP:SPINOUT is a section of WP:SIZE which gives guidance on how and when to split content out from an article. It doesn't say that the resulting articles should or shouldn't meet notability criteria.
  • WP:SIZE doesn't speak about spinouts, except in the above-mentioned section.
  • WP:SUMMARY gives guidance on how and when to split an article. Some sections of it can be read as supporting spinouts; for example, "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place" supports their creation, although its wording varies in how strongly it supports considering them to be still part of the original; for example, "their own articles" would seem to suggest they aren't, while "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point." can be taken to mean that references in the parent article can demonstrate notability in the spinout. (It can also be taken to mean the opposite, if "a specific point" includes notability).
  • WP:PAPER is a section of WP:NOT which states that "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic", but it also states that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars", emphasis not mine.

So, there is some support for the inclusion of spinouts, but it all depends on reading certain guidelines a certain way. Now, guidelines which are commonly stated as supporting the deletion of spinouts that lack real-world coverage are WP:N, WP:V, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTINHERITED.

  • WP:N is the notability guideline, which is summarised as follows: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It doesn't state the converse, and goes on to state that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." However, it does go on to state that "Notability requires objective evidence" - so in the absence of real-world coverage, there has to be something. It goes on to state that the various specific notability guidelines will give guidance on what other sorts of coverage are acceptable.
  • WP:V is the verifiability policy. It states that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This unambiguously requires sources for articles, but does not require them to give real-world coverage.
  • WP:IINFO is a section of WP:NOT which states that "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." If spinouts are considered to be articles, this does require them to show real-world coverage.
  • WP:NOTINHERITED is a section of WP:ATA, which gives guidance for deletion debates. It states that "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances)" which would seem to suggest that it's up to the relevant guideline to decide.

So, there is some support for the deletion of spinouts. In particular, it would seem that we are required to find some standard which spinouts have to meet; we cannot simply say that they are or may be acceptable and leave it at that. Now, it seems that there's agreement that we want at least some spinouts to meet our guidelines - in particular, lists of fictional works and (possibly major) fictional elements have a tangible benefit to wikipedia, and are recommended in a footnote to WP:N. Alternatives to the current proposal have been made which would incude them in different ways, but it seems clear that we'd all like to see them declared notable somehow. Unfortunately, that's about as much as I've seen agreed upon; the degree to which we should specify what is acceptable and what is not, and the specifics of those, don't seem to be widely agreed upon, and pretty much everyone involved claims that consensus is on their side. So, I've started this section to try to work out what consensus is. I'd particularly like to hear from Richard001, and any other users who are new to this debate, so I'll be posting a link to this at the village pump and the relevant wikiprojects that I'm involved in; I encourage other editors to do the same. The question is: is there consensus support for inclusion of spinouts without real-world coverage, and if so, what other criteria if any should we impose on them for inclusion? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I mean to ask whether we should drop the requirement for real-world coverage by considering spinouts them to be part of their parent article, or whether we should find a different way to include the good spinouts. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Easy enough. If enough real-world information exists to pass notability for the individual element (not the whole work!), spin away. If not, and enough is written on a given element to make the article unwieldy, time to start trimming, not time to start splitting. Simple, easy to remember, and keeps the cruft out. A subject itself is notable or not, notability is not inherited from a parent. (If we allowed notability to be inherited, the universe and Earth are clearly notable subjects, so everything on and in those would be, right down to garage bands and my dog.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Percy Snoodle knows the answer to this question already: there is no support for the inclusion of spinouts without real-world content, as this would be licence for Wikipedia to be flooded with plot summaries comprised of OR and POV which have no real world perspective. At the moment, there is a terrible problem with hundreds of Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles which contain virtually no real-world content. None of these articles fall within the scope of Wikipedia, but if they were, we may as well merge Wikipedia with Wookipedia and forget about building an encyclopedia based on real-world content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that all articles and sub-articles should be well-written: no OR, POV, crystalballing, and there should be some mention of it's role in the real-world. I think that stating Pichu first appeared in the US in Pokemon Gold and Silver on Oct. 15, 2000 is a great supporting sentence. But some would feel it's not enough... this conflict is a problem (we could also add voice actors from shows and movies, and first appearances in other medium). Also, the five pillars state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on being comprehensive (elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs), neutral (2nd pillar), and free (3rd pillar)... nothing saying it can't be based on real-world, and fictional content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the basic problem here, is that length can vary depending on the work itself, and it's not necessarily tied to the content. Here's a non-fiction example of what I mean: Paul Dukas is a clearly notable composer, but wrote such a small body of work that a works list could easily all fit in the article without bogging it down even by FA standards. On the other hand, a composer like Franz Liszt has a works list numbering into the 800s and in fact has two separate pages for the list.
    So while notability isn't inherited, I think a lot of times it's a matter of breaking up the topic into 'child' articles rather than being separate articles themselves. That seems to have been the original justification for most spin offs -- to keep things more organized. See what I'm getting at? It's NOT that some topics aren't notable in and of themselves; rather, the issue is that they are really part of the SAME article, just on a separate page for reasons of usability.
    Of course, this doesn't mean all cases, but it's something to think about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I could have phrased the question, "does consensus support judging spinouts as part of their parent, rather than as separate articles?" - from what I can tell of the guidelines, it amounts to the same thing. What I'm interested in is finding out whether consensus supports that view (and hence the current version of this guideline) or whether it doesn't (and hence we need to reword it) Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I will point out that WP:N has another important phrase: WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines, specifically: If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context., this is footnoted to include the example of merging minor characters into a list. --MASEM 12:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed. I'll note that above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for consensus; I don't think any of us can. However, here's my take on it. It makes perfect sense for some articles to be considered effectively part of another article, where their inclusion in that parent article would make it unwieldy. However, some sense has to be kept of notability, so individual characters shouldn't have individual articles unless there's valid notability or they are so important to the "parent" topic that it warrants a larger amount of material. A "list of characters" article would probably, on the face of it, fail notability, but it is still useful in making a good encyclopaedia and providing good coverage of the "parent" topic. I hope that all made sense... SamBC(talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean to say that you support considering lists to be part of a parent, but not individual elements; or do you just mean that you want the lists to be included and not the individual elements? I'm trying to work out whether consensus supports the part of these guidelines that states that the spinouts should be considered to be part of the parent article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Lists are a special case, and there are guideline pages that address lists (see WP:LISTS for a starter, but I'm sure most everyone has seen at least some of that page or related pages before). It's my understanding that lists which are content forks of notable topics are generally acceptable. As an example used in the list guidelines you have List of minor characters in Dilbert. Dilbert is a notable topic, but many of the minor characters aren't (with obvious exceptions, for example Bill Gates has "appeared" in the comic several times). The point with many lists is that they could be included in the parent article, but doing so would make that article much longer, so that content is forked to a list. This is the same reason that Franz Liszt's compositions are forked into a list (or two in this case) as putting it in the main article would make an already lengthy article even longer. It's also my general understanding that lists should be about a notable topic, but each individual item on the list need not be notable itself. I interpret this in the same fashion, i.e. such lists could (in principle) be included in the (notable) parent topic but isn't done so, partly for size reasons. As another canonical example cited, List of dog breeds could be included in the main article Dogs but isn't. The list still needs to serve some "encyclopedic" purpose (whatever that means, everyone's definition of "encyclopedic" varies, one man's "cruft" is another man's treasure, which is why I don't use the terms "cruft" nor "encyclopedic" in these conversations as I view one as derisive/dismissive/divisive and the other as nearly undefinable). --Craw-daddy | T | 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of this. I'd be a bit more inclusive and say that highly notable topics might have more than just a list subpage. For example, the discussions about For Better or For Worse show an example of a reasonable spin-out article that isn't plainly a list....Hobit (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point." This sentence is saying that the main article does not need to repeat all of the references used in the spinout. It doesn't support spinouts using parent articles to demonstrate their notability (although I am personally in favour of some leniency here); instead, main articles delegate some of their verifiability to the spinout. Geometry guy 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Counter-interpretations

  • If no one objects, i'll end up merging this above, to juxtapose opposing viewpoints, but below are some counter-interpretations of the guidelines:
    • WP:NNC Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. - If we view sub-articles as part of parent articles, we are regarding them as content broken up for style/readiblity issues. Notability guidlines do not regulate content, therefore, do not regulate sub-articles.
    • WP:SPINOUT If a long article includes an unwanted section, or unwanted information, it is better to simply remove that content than to create a new article for it. (emphasis added) - This information isn't unwanted, it is merely making the article otherwise difficult to read by overshadowing other sections. And, appropriately, SPINOUT and WP:SIZE in general doesn't make a recommendation either way regarding notability, because it's discussing content.
      • Whether the information is wanted or not depends on whether the spinout is subject to notability or not. Again, you are making a circular argument. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • this one, however, is not circular. I admit i did not read where you were quoting this from... but now that I have - you took it completely out of context. An "unwanted" section, in this case, is one which is attracting a lot of unhelpful contributions... the examples given are the external links and trivia sections. sections which recieve a bunch of spam, or useless info that don't contribute to the understanding of a work at all (that's why it's called trivia). it's talking about sections that editors have agreed is a bad section with poor info, and a blight on the article. the paragraph is saying that rather than spinout a new article like List of TV characters that look like Pikachu, you get rid of the content (but that's just because it was bad content in the first place). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:SUMMARY If only for the sake of completeness, you freely admit you don't really have a way to make this support notability in sub-articles. But you mention it's a bit ambiguous - the only thing I can say is that you need to read beyond the nutshell description which is where you got "their own articles" from. The text uses the word article most often in the beginning, however it begins referring to these same "articles" as "sub-articles" midway when it starts discussing how these are different than regular articles (special naming conventions, navigational considerations, and special reference/citation guidelines). This strongly suggests your "ambiguity" is merely derived from semantics. And to further drive the point home, read the first two paragraphs on Characteristics, you can see that SS is about developing a sub-article/spinout based on the amount of text: When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article. It has nothing to do with how notable that subtopic is.
      • Although it recommends starting a new article when the amount of text reaches a certain size, it does not comment on whether the new article should be subject to other guidelines. We're trying to decide whether it should be or not. You rightly say that SS has nothing to do with how notable that subtopic is; that's left for WP:FICT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • yes, here we have the base of the argument. and so all my arguments would fall on the premise that *I* feel content spun out from a parent article is a special case. I support this "special case" theory by pointing out that WP:SS already mentions three special guidelines for these new types of articles (naming conventions, navigation, and references). It also just seems logical to me that because the content itself never had to be notable in the first place (WP:NNC), that we shouldn't suddenly make demands on it because there is now too much of it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, this is probably where we have to agree to disagree. It's worth noting that while content doesn't have to meet notability guidelines, per WP:NNC, it *does* have to contain real-world context and sourced analysis, per WP:PLOT. It's also worth noting that there are other ways of including most of the same spinouts without phrasing it as an exemption from notability. I'll look more closely into how the other special cases deal with things; perhaps we can find some inspiration there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:PAPER This is not technically a defense for non-notable sub-articles, but more against those people who say, "If the article is getting too long to be readable we should trim the info rather than spin it out." No one, at least not myself, has argued that anything can be written about. You use the sentence: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. So you're arguing that a subarticle on a fictional element has only just stopped being indiscriminate when you can find real-world context? That would still give free range to any character who can be linked to their actor and first appearance. Not a convincing standpoint. And throwing "notabilty" into it would be erroneous because no content policies on fiction, or the 5P, require notability.
      • "articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." is from WP:PAPER; it isn't my argument to make. I would agree that an article on a fictional element with real-world context passes WP:IINFO's requirements, but only if significant commentary or analysis is made in that context; listing which actor appeared as a character isn't significant commentary or analysis. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • i know where you got the sentence from, i was just saying you used it... damned lack of inflection in cyberspace.... well anyways, so where do you get that real-world context must contain significant commentary (what's "significant" for that matter) or analysis? IINFO says "detail on a work's development", well, the name of voice actors and when and where something was relased are all details of development. Let's say i write that Pichu was first introduced in some north american movie on a certain date and was voiced by so-and-so, and was then later a new pokemon added to the lineup with the october 15th release of pokemon gold and silver in 2000. Then i go on to talk about how it was ported to the 3D world with the release of super smash bros. melee. Aren't these all details on the development of of Pichu? [break]
          • They are, and if you have sources to back them up then that's commentary from a real-world perspective. It may help to rephrase those in the active voice: The film-makers introduced Pichu, then Nintendo added Pichu to the line-up, then HAL Labs added Pichu to a game... those are three things that happened in the real-world. If you can find sources for each of those things, you've established Pichu's notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I personally don't feel they make it any more "notable" which is why i contest the notability requirement, but i feel that any fictional element can give at least one detail on it's development, which at least satisfies what wikipedia is not. however, i still feel that we should be reasonable, and if you have only a small amount of information anyways, then we should keep it in a list for now and let it grow - like with Photon torpedoes. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
          • ...whereas I do think they make it more notable, which is why I think the notability requirement is a reasonable one. If a fictional element can't find information of the type you describe, then that means no-one has commented on its appearance in the fiction - which is a pretty sure sign that it shouldn't be here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You say the support for sub-articles depends on a "certain way" of reading the policies... to me, the literal interpretaions do just fine. You add subjective connotation to words like unwanted and define ambiguity of an entire guideline by citing simple semantic issues that are easily clarified when put in context. It is this perceived ambiguity that is the crux of your argument, so there is no need to delve into your supporting policies because they all apply to articles and topics, but not content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I'd prefer to keep your interpretations separate, though it may be possible to merge some of them. Your interpretation is no more a "literal interpretation" than mine or Gavin's or Seraphimblade's or Masem's or anyone's. It's a fine and valid interpretation, but holds no privileged position. The position that subarticles should be judged as part of the parent article - that content guidelines apply but notability guidelines don't - is found only in WP:FICT, so it's not appropriate to assume it before looking at whether the other guidelines support it. That's why I've asked whether it has consensus support. If it does, then the notability guidelines don't apply to spinouts because the notability guidelines don't limit content. However, if it doesn't, then spinout articles are subject to notability the same as any other article because their spinout topics are subject to notability the same as any other topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to point that personally (the amount of time I've invested in polishing FICT) is that spinouts are appropriate for two and a half fundamentally different reasons. The first reason is outlined in the discussion above - though arguably certain readings of the policy suggest otherwise, NNC, SPINOUT, SIZE, SUMMARY, and the like suggest that spinouts from a notable topic that lack notability are appropriate. The second reason is the fact that non-notable spinouts represent a middle ground between hard-nose inclusists and hard-nose deletionists. They allow for deeper coverage of material that may not be completely notable but still provide useful information for a larger topic, but they also provide a means to prevent proliferation of many smaller articles on non-notable elements. As .. crap, can't remember, someone above pointed out, inclusionists would love to have X articles, deletionists would love to have 0 articles, spinouts allow that to approach log(X) which is a happy medium between both. The half reason that is associated with that is that there is no denying there is more than log(X) non-notable articles out there, and spinouts provide a good stepping point in merging existing articles that were created way back before the more recent adaption of notability was present without losing that information. So the point I'm trying to make is that spinouts not only are supported by policy and guideline, but that they are also necessary to keep the present battlegrounds between inclusionists and deletionists at bay without trying to create a guideline that favors one side or the other; if at some later point consensus agrees to move towards the inclusion or deletion of such articles, we can easily adjust then from spinouts without too much problem. --MASEM 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that misrepresents both the article as it stands, and either deletionists or the spinouts that are out there. Allowing spinouts to inherit notability as the current article does gives us X, not log(X), because all the fictional topics out there are spinouts of their fictional work. I believe that most of the list spinouts - the log(x) you mention - could almost certainly meet WP:N if allowed to do so through real-world coverage of the list entries, which is why I've suggested including them by allowing for a collective notability. What I'm hoping to find out is whether the current article - which allows fictional topics to inherit notability - has consensus support, but unfortunately I've asked the question badly. I shall add a note to clarify what I meant. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To allow articles to inherit notability would be a very bad move. It will invite the addition of massive amounts of non-encyclopedic content into Wikipedia, and make a mockery of WP:V. And as Wikiproject Video games has shown, we can follow the current higher standard of notability and verification of sources and create massive amounts of Featured content. Yes, for some articles it can be difficult, but it also makes the most sense for the encyclopedia as a whole to require individual notability. Further, there is nothing that suggests that any of these spinout articles that lack notability will ever be able to achieve GA or FA status, and to encourage the creation of permanent, second-class articles with our own guidelines is very scary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I will point out there is nothing in the criteria for FA or GA that requires notability; articles have to meet policy and specific attributes, but notability is a guideline, extending from WP:NOT but is not required. Furthermore, most articles of this type likely can meet featured list status, based on the number of episode lists that are presently listed there. Mind you, there is a certain degree of context that needs to be added to non-notable articles to make them more appropriate for GA/FA/FL status, including sourcing and the like, and I am not under the illusion that the bulk of our non-notable spinouts as they exist now are GA/FA/FL material, but I don't rule out the possibly that with sufficient improvement in every other area outside of notability that these can pass as a quality article. I agree that creating a second class of articles is a daunting issue, but that's why the quality of a spinout is important here; a high quality spinout that meets every other policy save for its own notability should not be seen being that much different from an article written with the same quality but that has notability, as long as the spinout's parent is also appropriately notable. --MASEM 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think I do not understand why these articles should be exempted from our guidelines and quality measurements just because they are spin out articles. We have Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and other articles already, and as time goes by many more of these kind of articles will be made because they have sufficient notability because they have tons of reliable sources. And also, I think the argument that has been made many times is still true; we don't have non-notable fiction articles because we don't want articles that exist just to massively retell the same story a hundred times in different ways and perspectives; we want those articles only if we can have actual real world stuff like creator interviews and reception information. I agree with you that spinouts are appropriate, but not unnotable spinouts. I just don't think it makes sense. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The point of what we're trying to decide here, and what you seem to be missing, is weather a spinoff is an entirely separate article or not. I'm not the best at explaining things, but from what I can tell, you're missing that important fact. Many articles are just going to be too LONG if all the pertinent info is stuck into one article. Think about it this way -- a play with only two characters could easily have its character list fit into the main article, but one with twenty probably. Why should the former get special treatment just because it has less? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The amount of treatment shouldn't depend on the cast size - but it should depend on how much real-world coverage the plays have received. If the first has received very little, it's likely that the characters shouldn't have sections in the article at all; if the latter has received a lot, it's likely that all the characters deserve their own articles. The guidance given by WP:PLOT on how much content an article should have is the same as WP:N; so even if spinoffs are part of the original article, they should be limited by the amount of real-world coverage. If there's no real-world coverage for fictional elements, their sections should never reach sufficient size to spin out; if there are a lot of small sections with no real-world coverage which are making a notable article too big, those sections should be merged or deleted within the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Those last sentences are a dangerous problem... but I think I'm now seeing where you're coming from. You feel that guidelines from WP:PLOT say to "trim" down sections that have become too long with text which is basically just a description of the work. You feel that the amount of explanatory text should directly rely on the amount of real-world coverage - in this imaginary play, it would be reviews and interviews. [break]
Yes, that's pretty much it. I don't think I'd say 'directly' since there are other considerations such as readability which affect the amount of text; but I certainly think that the depth of coverage which is appropriate for a topic depends largely on the amount of real-world coverage of that topic. If you're at the level of creating non-notable spinouts, you've exceeded the correct level of coverage. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that we should strive for a higher ratio of real-world to description text, i realize that we can't always get there. I realize that there are some very notable fictional works which are complex enough in their "plots" or just have so many different aspects and elements that the level of detail required may still be only superficial, but still take up a lot of space. These same notable works, may have nothing on their individual elements/aspects in the way of real-world info, or only those kinds of things that people write off as "not enough". [break]
If no-one in the real world has seen fit to comment on its complex plot or large cast, then those aspects don't deserve a significant amount of coverage. It's not usually necessary to describe every plot twist, or every character in a fictional work, in order to give a summary of the work, and if nobody out there has done so, then nor should we. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To assume that no notable work like this exists (i.e. a fictional element section with no/little/not the right kind of real-world coverage that would reach sufficient size to spinout), or ever would exist, is fallacious.
You've moved the subject of that sentence from work to element when you add the paretheses. Notable works exist with both notable and non-notable elements. A notable fictional work could be notable only for its influence on real-world people; in that case, only the slightest of plot summaries would be appropriate, and no subarticles on fictional elements would be justified, even if several subarticles (Influence of Hypothetical Work on XXXX) might be justified. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Your second argument, your talk of merging and deleting, is counterproductive when applied on an "always do this" scale. I'll contend there are cases when this is a good idea, but there are also cases when it is a bad one... but that actually strays from the topic a bit, b/c little sections can always stay in the parent, or be grouped into a list. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's more of a style argument than a notability argument. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Out of all the counter-argument rebuttles, the only thing that matters--when we are talking about spinning out fiction articles--is whether it meets WP:PLOT. No matter if you view it as a "section" of a parent article, or an article all by itself (i.e. the former would mean that WP:NOTE has not bearing on its existence, and the latter meaning that it must meet WP:NOTE), the fact remains that you cannot spin out an article of plot information. In other words, you cannot spin out an episode plot summary just because someone wants a play-by-play of the episode in question. You cannot spin out a character article if the only thing you have is his/her particular plot information from their respective movies/television/books etc etc. There must be something else. It's unlikely you'll find any character that appears in multiple works with written about the real world information on the character. Whether it's how they cast the role, or how they came up with the idea for the character, if they appear in multiple works then they have a more realistic chance of having the real world content necessary for separation (and satisfaction of WP:PLOT). The difference between whether the article is considered the former example I gave, or the latter example I gave, is on how sources are applied to the article. If you consider a spin-out article a "section" of the parent article, then "third-party sources independent of the subject" does not apply, and using DVD commentaries, or interviews with the creators to discuss some real world content is all that is needed to justify the existence of the article (also, that there was so much info that it needed splitting in the first place, but that goes without saying). If you view it as its own subject, that's when WP:NOTE comes into play and you have to find those independent sources. So, what we really need to determine at this point is how we view spin-out articles, because that is going to tell us how we can decide what qualifies as needing "spinning out". Personally, I don't care if the article only uses primary sources (i.e. DVD commentary, Q&A with the creator, companion books), so long as the plot information doesn't overshadow the real world content. We have to remember that having 2 lines of real world content doesn't justify having 30KB of plot information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well ok, if that is the question we then have to ask this: If articles are going to cover, for example, their plots in full in another article if it is long and complex like Chrono Cross, what limit is there then to how large those articles can grow? They could be massive articles if no longer constrained by being a summary. A policy would have to be made to constrain them from becoming epic retellings of the story. Also, I would love to know where people have gotten the argument that these sub articles are extensions of their parent article and not individual articles, because I honestly haven't seen that in any policy or guideline pages.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of any article where the plot itself was covered in a completely separate article (which would go against WP:PLOT). Also, you cannot create a policy that governs how much plot information can be written down, becuase it's subjective per topic. If someone believes that there is too much detail then they can slap the section with a tag that says so. Many plot section of film articles how way too much information in them already. You can choose just about any random film article and prove that. There has been a general consensus that films should range between the 500-900 word marker (with the more complex films going deeper into the 900 territory...sometimes being necessary to extend past that). Television shows are less, because they're only 22-42 minutes long, on average, and you shouldn't need 700 words to give a basic summarization of the plot of the episode. The point of WP:SS isn't about just when to split off articles, but also how to write them, and articles need to be a succinct as possible. Chop out the wordiness, keep it tight. You can usually read through a plot section of any given article and reword multiple sentences into fewer, more "to-the-point" sentences. As for article size, WP:SIZE's current rule of thumb is that when you get to 60kb of readable prose then you should really start to think about separating out something from the article (the key in that being "readable prose". I've seen many editors just open the article edit page and see "72kb" at the top and yell to high heaven that they need to split off the article. But, when you just look at the readable prose the article is actually closer to 40kb). If the only extremely large section in the article is the one on the plot of the subject, maybe that section isn't as concise, and succinct as it should be. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching, reading, listening, playing or anything else. As for the policy on defining what a spin-out article actually is, there isn't one. People interpret the spin-out guideline with their own perspective. Some people view it as a separate entity, while others view them as part of the parent article. Regardless, there are still policies to follow when it is spun-out. What we need to do is give a specific identity to these spin-out articles, so that editors who spin-out know exactly what they need to do in order to justify the separation. Spinning out just to have an elongated plot section is not a justifiable reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
exactly. As written, its a reasonable approach to the best of current practice. DGG (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This comment has become detached from what it was a reply to, but current practice in the AFDs I've seen is generally to require notability from all articles. As written, WP:FICT gives a free pass to all fictional articles to ignore notability concerns - but you may have meant something else by 'it'. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't necessary mean that all lists of fictional elements are being challenged. The ones that I see pass through there usually fall into two types: lists of fictional elements at a relevence level too deep to be encyclopedic for WP (not necessarily spinouts of spinouts, but material that would not be present in the notable topic's article should WP:SIZE not be a concern), and lists that are poorly written in considering WP:WAF that accessing the usefulness of the list is questionable and arguably, deleting and starting the list anew is likely to achieve a better end result than trying to trim down from that list. The more general case, a list of major and minor characters from a fictional work, seems perfectly acceptable given how the general case of a well-written list doesn't show up much through AfD, though there is a factor of the size and notability of the work to determine if a list could be trimmed and merged further back into the main article.[break]
This doesn't fit with what I've seen, but I suspect we've seen lists of different elements in different media - so lists of characters in, say, a television show tend to make it through because they have a large enough fanbase, whereas lists of vehicles from games tend not to because they don't. I've seen lists of characters from games go both ways. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But again, I don't think we have enough experinece to say exactly where the line is between an acceptable and a unacceptable list is, only that we know there are such spinouts that fall on both sides. --MASEM 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. The current, inherited-notability-for-spinouts guideline allows both. Now, there are some that should be allowed, and some that shouldn't, and that there isn't a great deal of agreement on where the boundary is; but I think we should have some sort of boundary if we're to reach anything that we can call a compromise. We need to explicitly state the things which are made unacceptable elsewhere: for example, that a spinout with no sources at all is unverifiable and should be deleted, just to establish that unacceptable spinouts exist. Equally, we need to explicitly state the things which are definitely acceptable; I can't think of a criterion other than real-world coverage that does that. The middle ground is what we should leave uncertain - the current guidelines extend that uncertainty all the way through definitely unacceptable content. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that, as was pointed out above, we may create a guideline that is out of step with current AFD practice, and accidently encourage the types of articles we don't want, as the nutshell description seems to say that making a totally non-notable character article is fantastic. What we need is to say what kinds of spinoffs are encouraged, such as when there is a ton of reliable sources talking about it, like Characters of Kingdom Hearts, what kinds are discouraged, ones that have no notability, and those in the middle that require an individual judgment call. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aggregate articles

I've added a new section on aggregate articles, to make sure that the articles that are definitely allowed are allowed without having to inherit notability. Any suggestions on improvements for the content or wording are welcomed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I strongly oppose this section and ask that it is removed. The idea that groups of fictional groups of characters, which do not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, individually or a group, is just a means of circumventing WP:NOT#PLOT. I have seen many examples of the articles given as examples: they contain citations from fansites or other regurgitation or synthesis of primary source material, none of which warrants an article for any of the individual characters or a group. These articles are a type of list with long plot summaries. This section should be removed, as this type of article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree that the typical way these lists are approached are riddled with other policy violations or otherwise generally written as a fan guide. However, the collective approach of presenting non-notable characters in this fashion, as argued elsewhere on this page, is currently an acceptable mid-point solution between inclusionists and deletionists; they fall out of main articles on fiction as spinouts, and they help prevent having many singular character articles around without notability. This doesn't mean presenting a list of characters is a free pass; it needs to be written to support the main work, and should be written per V/NOR/NPOV, concise plot elements, not told as a plot rehash, and the like. --MASEM 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There should be no compromise on this issue, as it is obvious that the example articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT and fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. I don't accept your argument that this is an acceptable "collective approach" or that it is an "acceptable mid-point solution". Lack of reliable secondary sources leads to unverifable plot summaries, which is basically a synthesis of primary sources at best or plain original research at worst. This section is a free pass to original research, in universe perspective and convert Wikipedia into a fansite. Where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be cut out not aggregated. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • TTN tried to enforce that, and basically got his head chewed off by dozens of others that disagree with that. Exactly how we treat fiction is not well defined. Obviously the key work must be notable, and there's some need to describe plot elements to support it, but the level where supporting the work and creating "fancruft" is not bright. We need a short-term compromise, being non-notable lists, to figure out what the long-term goal is. --MASEM 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not follow his story closely, so I only know of him through the debates here, but I understand he got into trouble for edit waring, not his perspective on notability. I think if he were here today, he would say that just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean we should sanction it by loosening the requirement for real-world content based on reliable secondary sources. I propose this section be removed, because it goes against WP:NOT#PLOT. I have never seen an article deleted for contravening WP:WAF, but if this section is not removed, then we have opened the flood gates for in universe plot summaries. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin - would you object as strongly if, in "A grouping of elements has established notability if there is significant coverage of the grouping as a whole, or if there is a significant amount of coverage of the individual elements," we inserted "real-world" before coverage? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry Percy, I totally disagree from where you are coming from, and the examples (Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Smallville (season 1)) given in the aggregate section totally freak me out; they appear to be well referenced, but in fact they are based on primary or unreliable secondary sources, mainly self-published fansites and TV guides that are not subject to peer review, and are terrible examples to include in any guideline. WP:N says there must be reliable secondary sources, not only to demonstrate evidence of notability for each individual element, but because real-world content cannot be drawn from primary sources. WP:WAF explains why a real-world content supported by reliable secondary sources is our only defence against in universe plot summaries comprised of synthesis. The creation of a class of articles called aggregates that permits synthesis is not only bad practise, but is unnecessary, since the internet has made available a profusion of reliable sources that were once available only to accademics. I totally dispute this section and it must be removed as it contravenes WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to resolve the spinout issue

I'm going to suggest the following text to be added to help try to resolve the issue on spinouts.

Non-notable spinout articles are often contested if they do not directly aid in the general understanding of the main fictional work and its real-world aspects. There is no requirement or limitation for what content a spinout may or may not contain, but editors should be aware that non-notable spinouts that cover in great detail the minutiae of fictional elements that may only be of interest to those who have read or seen the work are typically trimmed, merged, or deleted; such information is appropriate for
Typically, acceptable non-notable spinout articles can include the following, though this list is not exhaustive:
  • A list of major and/or minor characters from a work
  • A list of episodes or volumes from a work
  • A list of recurring objects or terms necessary to understand a work (a glossary of sorts)
Similarly, the following types of non-notable spinouts are generally trimmed, merged, or deleted, but against, this list is not exhaustive:
  • A list of one-time or cameo characters from a work
  • An article about a fictional character from a work that lacks academic coverage
  • An article about a fictional setting
  • An article about a single episode or volume from a work.
These should be considered as rough guidelines, and each spinout should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

This is just an attempt to set where the acceptable bounds are for spinouts, but I point out that there may be cases in the second set (the typically non-accepted versions) that are appropriate, which is why this guideline cannot say "These types of articles are not acceptable". --MASEM 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be more acceptable. I've corrected some typos (hope that's OK) and I have a few thoughts:
  • I'd delete "non-notable" throughout, as the advice is generally applicable.
  • I'm uneasy about "There is no requirement or limitation for what content a spinout may or may not contain" because there are - such as WP:V and WP:NOR; perhaps it should read "There is no notability requirement or limitation...".
  • It's probably better to remove "major and/or minor" as everything is major and/or minor. Perhaps it should read "A list of characters from a work; in some cases, a list of major characters may be more appropriate"
  • I'm not sure about the glossary entry - it needs a note to remind users about WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#DIR.
  • Some fictional settings are fine. How about "An article about the fictional setting of a single work"?
  • In fact, all the "an article about..." entries would seem to be saying that individual elements aren't generally suitable for spinouts. Perhaps we should just say that explicitly?
How would you feel about making some or all of those amendments?
I generally think there's major, minor/recurring, and then one-shot characters.
Ok, maybe saying glossary isn't the best, but it is appropriate for "list of terms" or the like for a fictional universe where they need to be introduced (Star Trek, Harry Potter).
Some fictional settings are fine, but not all are. What we list here needs to be nearly universally ok with some exceptions, and single setting articles tend to be hit-or-miss. This is also why it's important to be explicit about what types of singular articles are typically inappropriate, as we know those are; this doesn't meant other singular element articles are appropriate (the list is not exhaustive) just that we don't have enough info for sure to state that in the general case. --MASEM 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If there's that much doubt about fictional settings, then I'd argue that we shouldn't mention them at all. How did you feel about my other thoughts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that non-notable can be considered redundant here, but I think we want to be explicit to say that these are only cases that apply to non-notable aspects. With notability, all these fly out the window. Obviously, spinouts still have to meet V/NOR/NPOV and other policies, so that's fine. I agree that if a setting is questionable, it shouldn't be listed; we should only be calling out explicit cases that are known to be generally kept/uncontroversial, and cases that are generally deleted without controversy.
I'm still not comfortable with saying non-notable articles are OK in those words. By saying they're OK on a notability guideline, we're saying that they are notable. The title of the page is "Notability (fiction)" not "Acceptability (fiction)". Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to make another suggestion here, and that is, I think we may want to consider a breakout with a separate guideline on "Fictional Spinout Articles" (maybe WP:FICTSPIN). Take the bulk of what's already in FICT, what we're describing here, and what's in WP:MOS, and move it there, {{seealso}} to point from FICT and MOS to there. It's not quite a MOS, it's not quite a NOTE, but fits in between. We leave what is currently the first para in FICT on spinouts here to match with the previous two sections. This allows us to explain more on spinouts without weighing down FICT, removes the issue of what are appropriate spinouts from FICT, thus allowing that definition to change with time without affecting FICT, and so forth. This will shorten FICT (a common complaint) as well. --MASEM 15:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that separating the guidelines for spinouts is a great idea. I don't see a need to restrict it to fictional articles - having it at Wikipedia:Notability (spinouts) (WP:SPIN) would put other topics on the same footing as fiction; and it would mean we could move the controversial parts of this guideline elsewhere and finally leave us with something we can all agree on! Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: Wouldn't that effectively make the left-over WP:FICT a copy of WP:N? The main article (TV show, computer game, book) needs to demonstrate notability (WP:N), and almost everything else (characters, LoEs, etc.) are automatically spinouts (WP:SPINFICT). – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be where any exceptions are made. It's a good place to discuss it, and moving it to another page feels like CREEP to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we're better off with one accepted guideline and one disputed one, than with just one disputed guideline. Once the spinout issue is resolved, we can merge the guidelines back, if you think that would be better. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking about the episodes clause, and I'm not fond of all nn episodes being merged... change it to "episode pages where the primary focus is on plot and/or trivia", so episode pages like The Unicorn and the Wasp (on DYK now) survive, as it'd be hard merging all that production info into even a season page. Sceptre (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds better; though I'm not sure how well it interacts with WP:NNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Good attempt Masem, I know you are trying hard to get something acceptable to all, but that suggested list is very bad. To discourage all "world of" articles, when GA's and probably FA"s will be made of a few of them? Or lists of minor characters, which by definition shouldn't have whole article explanations. I think this discussion is illustrating the impossibility of attempting to divorce notability and this spin off articles. Here's an easy guideline for spinoff articles; "Spinoff articles on a particular section of an article, such as the characters or the development of a game, can be created if there is an overabundance of information drawn from real world reliable sources and this information creates an imbalance in the article that trimming and summary style cannot fix." How's that? Tear it up, but it makes sense to me, it's how you get articles like Development of Elder Scrolls IV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    What you describe is perfectly fine without the issue of notability, because if there is an overabundance of information from real world aspects, then the topic is notable and any issues we have with non-notability are out the window. I doubt anyone has a specific problem with that type of article; the sticky wicket that we are dealing with is when there is absolutely zero aspect of notability on the fictional elements, we need to find a way to deal with them; we can't let them spread far and wide freely nor out-right delete them without creating a huge chasm in the population of wikieditors.
    Now, as for the selected list items themselves, maybe its the phrasing that's bad. I am not trying to discourage "world of" lists, which are good to have, but discouraging "location" articles (like Black Mesa Research Facility). Lists of minor/recurring characters with concise descriptions are appropriate as well. Any language suggestions or improvements are suggested
    I would argue that we have to keep in mind that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion of an article in WP; it is a inclusion guideline, but not the only one. Non-notable element/list spinouts are not notable, but the current general consensus is that when reasonably approached, these can be included. This is why the guideline split I'm suggesting is for only non-notable spinout articles specifically for fiction. They will still be mentioned here in FICT as a possible solution for presenting non-notable elements, but how they are presented and what material is presentable in that fashion should be left to this other guideline. I would still make sure editors are cautioned that any non-notable spinout article is likely to be challenged, and that continuing to look for notability aspects is highly recommended. --MASEM 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've not been very active in this discussion recently - I've been rather busy. I have been following it, however, although in recent days I've not been able to keep up with the details. Since I last commented, there has been much discussion about notability for spinout articles, and in particular, concern about the idea that spinouts can be non-notable in certain situations. These concerns have been expressed most notably :-) by Percy Snoodle, and I agree with almost all of his contributions that I have read.

However, the main reason I am commenting now is that by stepping back, I have noticed something: different editors use the word "notable" (and hence "non-notable") in slightly different ways, and I think this may underlie some of the difficulty in reaching consensus on how to word this guideline. The main difference is between the concept of an article which is notable simply because it is about a notable topic, and an article which is notable and demonstrates its notability per WP:N.

I think it is helpful to distinguish between the two, and also that it is important that we do not add too much wikipolicy baggage to the meaning of simple words like "notable". In other words, it is perfectly possible to have a notable article which does not demonstrate its notability per WP:N (in fact, Wikipedia is full of them!). So, while I agree with Percy Snoodle that there should be no compromise in notability for spinout articles (all Wikipedia articles should be on notable topics), there may be some scope, in some circumstances, for spinout articles to rely on parent articles to demonstrate that the spinout topic is notable enough to deserve a separate article.

The principle of not attaching too much meaning to simple words applies also to the word "spinout". One contribution of Percy Snoodle which I did disagree with was the comment that "In neither case is a spinout of a spinout appropriate". However, this is because additional meaning is being added to the word "spinout". In the simple meaning of "spinout", spinouts of spinouts occur all the time: an important character from a list of characters is a common example. However, Percy Snoodle is using the word "spinout" to mean a spinout which gets special treatment in terms of the notability guidelines. But it isn't a good service to Wikipedia editors to devise subtle meanings for these words. I hope that my suggestion about the meaning of "notability" will help to resolve this issue as well. I must say, the quality of the discussion here is extremely high! Geometry guy 20:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I strongly object to this idea of spinout, as lack of real-world content and secondary sources is a free ticket to original research and extensive plot summaries. In particular, I propose that the following to be removed entirely:
"A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style"
This basically turns Wikipedia into an open fansite. There is already enough spam and fancruft pretending to be sourced material without making the fictional guidelines somehow make them appear acceptable. If we allow this to go through, Wikipedia will loose its reputation as a source of verifiable content.
My view on the topic is that "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources or real-world coverage is never appropriate, particularly when the amount of content for that element would ordinarily be deleted from a long parent topic, due to the fact that there no reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion of the subsidiary topic within a parent article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
While a section within an article on a notable topic does need to be sourced (per verifiability), the notability guidelines make clear that they do not limit the content of an article, merely what things are acceptable subjects for articles. No section or content of an article should be deleted per the notability guidelines, only whole articles. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very sympathetic with Gavin Collins' point of view: it is, in some sense, my a priori point of view. We have to find a way to address the spinout issue: it should be a compromise, but it should not compromise the basic principles which underlie Gavin's comment. Geometry guy 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I also have to agree that the need for these articles seems to conflict with other aspects, however, I strongly think we need to allow them to gain some sort of middle ground and peaceful editing so that we can then as a whole take a look at the larger picture and determine if we need to go in another direction.
The thing is, it is becoming very clear that the content and style of spinouts needs to be corralled to meet certain expectations, and that's why I think we need a guideline on the MOS side to describe what is appropriate content for fictional spinouts. We still mention they are acceptable for non-notable articles per WP:FICT, but editors need to be aware that there are expectations that these articles need to meet and that spinouts that fail these and cannot be improved to meet them (through trimming or other actions) may be deleted. --MASEM 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think we are in a position "compromise" here, as what you are proposing is a fundamental change to the rules by shifting the goal posts so that a synthesis of primary sources falls within the scope of Wikipedia. My understanding is that where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be cut out not spun out, otherwise Wikipedia will become clogged up with lots of spinoff articles made up of plot summary and regurgitated primary material (as is the case with Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles). Sometimes being a good editor means that we have to delete, merge or cut out synthesis and original research and insist on real-world content from reliable sources, otherwise Wikipedia will degenerate into a fansite. This spinoff section is currently based on the premise that synthesis should not be edited out where it is sourced. Its difficult to edit sourced material, but I feel that is the cowards way out of this situation to allow spinoff articles without real-world content or reliable secondary sources just to accomodate it. If I quote the offending sentence at the core of this issue, it reads:
"A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article"
However, what this means in reality is the following:
"A spinout article comprised of original research or a synthesis of primary sources with an in universe perspective may be appropriate where a plot summary is very long because it does not contain real-world content based on reliable sources as evidence of the topic's notability."
I don't subscribe to this view, and I don't think there can be compromise on this issue: I propose that this entire section should be removed, since it goes against the spirit of WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and ignores WP:RS. No guideline that goes against core Wikipedia guidelines will be enforceable; it leaves too much ambiguity and will lead to endless debates about what is and is not an acceptable spinoff article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Every article on WP uses a small amount of synthesis to summarize information. A plot summary of a notable work is definitely going to have synthesis to distill key details of the work down. However, the point is that this synthesis should be without POV-pushing (eg what is actually described in WP:SYN) and with no original research. It is possible to write a list of non-notable elements that satisfy all other aspects of WP articles (V/NOR/NPOV, etc.) save for notability. We want to make sure spinouts are written to that standard. I completely agree that the typical ones that are out there are poorly written in exactly the manner you describe. This is why I am stressing that we need to deliniate to a point what spinout contents are appropriate, and how their approach has to be written. If we accept spinouts, we have to also accept that when they are poorly written, they need to be tagged, improved, and ultimately trimmed, merged, transwikid, and possibly deleted if no editor otherwise takes the initiate to improve it once notified. That's why I am proposing the breakout guideline to set what those standards need to be, because we get that situation that you point out. --MASEM 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Every article on WP uses a small amount of synthesis its true, but WP:RS encourages us replace it with real-world content, context, analysis or critisism cited from reliable secondary sources. There is no need for spin off articles which cite trivial content from unreliable sources, when what is needed is bold editing. Keeping article content about fictional topics in the real-world is hard, but that what differentiates Wikipedia from Wookipedia - higher standards. Spinouts are a POV pusher's licence to spam articles they think are important; what I am saying is that we have to be firm about enforcing the existing guidelines if we are to avoid the existing situation where unsuspecting editors are contributing to articles that have no real-world content that will ultimately be deleted. We need to have strong boundries, and not give in to the desire to create lenghy plot summaries on poplar topics. From a notability perpsective, loosening the editorial guidelines is like drinking sea water laced with the salt of synthesis. I propose this section is removed, as it goes against WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and ignores WP:RS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I agree with you on the basic concept. I pretty much agree that plot-only article from any point is not good for WP in the long term, and we should be working with off-site wiki a lot more to offset these details. However, there's a point where sticking hard-nose to the policy can be harmful, and again, that is because there are a numerous group of people, a good number of newer ones but several experienced ones as well, that would likely leave the project if we were that strict on reading of PLOT and NOTE, and likely they wouldn't go quietly. Unless there is a much larger discussion of which way we take WP overall, FICT has to be written to reflect the current consensus, which is that these types of articles are ok (even spelled out so in a footnote at WP:N), even if this is incongruent with PLOT (I can argue there's a looseness in that, but), because remember, policy and guidelines don't create consensus, it is the other way around. Again, we could take the hard road, ban all non-notable fiction articles including spinouts, but that's against how WP should be run. If we do have a larger discussion (and there may be one developing at PLOT) in which way we take this, we'll reflect that in FICT. --MASEM 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that there's a point where sticking hard-nose to the policy can be harmful, but the situation as it stands is actually the reverse: currently we are too tolerant of synthesis and plot summaries, and this gives the illusion that this material is useful to Wikipedia, when in fact it is not and will be ultimately be replaced by real-world content from reliable sources. By allowing spinoff articles, and pandering to synthesis, we are being dishonest to a whole class of current and future editors who think the poorly sourced material will be kept, when ultimately it will be discarded in favour or real-world content from reliable sources, or deleted wholesale due to lack of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I am against spinouts which are not on notable topics (although I am fairly "inclusionist" on the meaning of the word "notable"). However, I want the word "spinout" to have a simple meaning which everyone can understand: an expansion of a summary section in a parent article. As such spinouts, spinouts of spinouts, and so on, are perfectly legitimate as long as they meet other guidelines. Our job here is to make clear what the notability guidelines are for such spinouts in the case of fictional topics. Geometry guy 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Break point

May I interject for a moment here? We all agree here that Wikipedia is not a fansite (well, except a handful of new editors who stumble onto this page, but they can be educated), so that really isn't a point of contention. I also respect your commitment to defending the wiki from what you perceive as a major threat to its law.

However, as the multiple megabytes of archived discussion here have proven (a pity they're too long to be easily read...), there is no consensus for the absolutist stance against sub-articles. Further, after quite a bit of blood, sweat, and tears, it has been agreed by all the major participants here that a limited tolerance for articles on fictional elements that lack proof of independent notability is necessary. Yes, this does go against the apparent intent of some of our other rules, but it allows us to better meet our true goal of writing informative and readable articles.

Ultimately, the saddest part about all of this is that we have to codify it at all. In the magical land of best practices, editorial judgment is always given leeway with the rules, and wherever a subarticle was necessary we would welcome it on its individual merits. Unfortunately this is reality, where WP:IAR frightens people, so instead we must bicker over exactly what millimeter a line should be drawn at that shouldn't need to be drawn at all.

Moving back to the practical realm (read: wording quibbles) now, I would suggest that for character lists the guideline accept lists of "significant" characters, as I believe that would succinctly capture the notion of major characters plus minor characters important to the plot. And if we need a corresponding word to point out that lists of everyone who showed up in one frame of one episode of the series aren't useful, "exhaustive" (or "all") might help. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not prepared to accept less than Masem's original wording in this section, which I think is already a compromise. (Personally, I think the real root of the problem is at WP NOT, which should be interpreted as meaning that the group of articles on a fictional subject should not be devoted entirely to the plot, and that real world aspects should always be included to the extent their importance justifies. The division into articles is entirely arbitrary and a matter of editing. I consider Masem's solution as the bare minimum necessary, and I would urge a full but not excessive coverage of plot summaries as a key part of articles on fiction, a main reason that readers come to these articles in the first place. The reason I urge the rejection of Gavin's supposed solution is because the interpretation under it would typically restrict the coverage of plot to the extent it would not provide the necessary information. I'm willing to accept Masem's compromise--inadequate and restrictive though I think it is-- as a matter of peace, just to settle this issue and get on with working on articles. If a few can't accept that, perhaps almost everyone else can. DGG (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't - Gavin is wrong about what Masem means, but absolutely right about how Masem's wording will be used in AFDs. It's 100% inclusionist, not a compromise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG that Masem's proposal is our best chance for a compromise. Gavin and Percy's absolutism will only lead to further stalemate. I do not believe they fully comprehend the number of editors that consider episode and character list as de facto acceptable. I agree with erachima that it is truly sad that these things have not worked themselves out in the normal course of editing. I must disagree with Percy, both in the conclusion that this proposal is %100 inclusionist (%100 inclusionist would be a full article on every character, weapon, episode, plot device, and setting in fiction with no restrictions) and in his call for a prescriptive guideline rather than a descriptive one (the same arguments will be used and prevail at AfD, regardless of what guidelines say). Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "%100 inclusionist would be a full article on every character, weapon, episode, plot device, and setting in fiction with no restrictions" - yes, that is what the current spinout guidelines allow. Saying they "may be acceptable" and "may be challenged" means that AFDs will end in no consensus - so the articles will stay. The "absolutism" here is in the inclusionist direction. A compromise would have to actually say that some articles are disallowed; the spinouts section does not. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand your desire to try and reach a compromise but I don't agree, as this policy change represents a divergence from WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH. No matter how many editors want to create in universe plot summaries based on synthesis of primary material, it is still not acceptable because it contravenes WP:N and WP:V. I am placing a disputed clean up tag on both the Aggregate & Spinoff sections. I suggest that these sections go up for review at a highter level, its just too big a policy change to push through just so we can reach a compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to take this for review at a higher level. We have already been to the Village Pump and had a policy RfC. The basic fact is that the guidance change occured at WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT, while editorial process on the whole has never been in complete agreement. It is completely acceptable for these issues to be worked out "on the ground" at AfD and within wikiprojects. In conclusion, I point everyone back to the following quote from MalikCarr, "That's the way consensus is supposed to work, and in practice, the way it does. Guidelines proposed, drafted and implemented by a few editors will never replace the consensus of editors. This is why guidelines should follow consensus, not consensus follow guidelines. It's counterintuitive, a form of circular logic, and wholly ineffective." Ursasapien (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, great. Let's follow consensus and allow some extra articles - let's not provide a stick for inclusionists to hit other editors with. Consensus is not 100% inclusionist; the spinout guidelines are. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_24&oldid=1137429277"