Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glidoler

I've taken this as a random example. I think we need to be be more clear about when something needs to be independently notable (answer: having its own article). Whether something is mergeable has different criteria, but people apply the same rules to merging material as they do to separate article. Claims like: "We can't merge this it only has trivial coverage" are far too common. Criterion for inclusion is verifiability, criterion for separate article is notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people say something can't be merged because it's not independently notable too. Most fictional characters are not independently notable, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered in their own fictional universe... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to be too technical, but WP:N is actually the main inclusion criteria, but WP:N rests on WP:V. When merging, users shouldn't be concerned with notability though, just whether the content is verifiable. The page it would be merged into presumably already has established notability and the individual components of an article are not subject to WP:N. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both these approaches. We may have to accept that this topic is not notable for two reasons:

there is little content in this article that is written from a real-world perspective;
what little real-world coverage there is merely identifies Glidoler as a fictional element within the Zoid franchise, rather than discussing the element itself in sufficient depth to write an encyclopedic article.

For instance, it is not possible to identify who created or designed Glidoler in the first place, and no commentator has provided any real-world description or speculation about it in the way that, say, commentators have discussed the origins, significance or symbolism of the fictional robot Maschinenmensch from the film Metropolis. Aside from the other Wikipedia policies this article may fail, I think this character fails WP:FICT for these reasons (1) and (2) above. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My approach is the application of WP:N as described in the policy. WP:N clearly states that "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." By the way, I did say that the content that would be merged are subject to WP:V. If the content isn't verifiable or is trivial/repetitive then obviously it wouldn't be merged. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 13:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find hard and fast consensus about when we merge and when we don't. There's some stuff that's barely notable and we keep. But there's barely notable stuff that we merge, because there isn't a whole lot to say about it that passes WP:NOT. There's some stuff that's not notable, but we merge it because it's still kind of important to the subject. And then there's stuff that's so trivial that we don't mention it at all, because it goes well beyond what's needed for an encyclopedic summary. (e.g.: the color of shirt that Tony Soprano was wearing in Season 3 Episode 2.) I think we're better off leaving this out of the guideline. We already say enough: "Editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a larger topic instead of a standalone article." Randomran (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For this sort of thing we have WP:UNDUE, WP:NNC (although this also needs tightening) and warious things in WP:NOT. Reyk _YO! 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered

Since when did "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements" become policy"? If a fictional element does not meet the GNG or the three pronged test, then surely we are agreed if fails WP:FICT? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NNC - Notability only means that we don't dedicate an article to that subject, not that we don't include any discussion of that topic at all. Non-notable topics anywhere, as long as they meet all other policies, can be included in larger notable articles that are appropriate (characters in a work of fiction's article for example). --MASEM 15:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:NNC, but I don't think you can interpet in such this way. I am not sure what benefit it has from the perspective of writing an encyclopedic article about a particular topic, if focus is lost in the way you are suggesting. Focus is an important editorial consideration because going "off-topic" gives undue weight to elements that may not merit encyclopedic coverage.
For instance, an article like Jedi used to contain lots of "off-topic" topics that were only remotely related to the main subject, such as Dark Nest, but these elements have since been removed.
I don't think we should go back to allowing articles to becoming dumping grounds for "off-topic" content, and somehow I think this change needs to be reverted, unless you can give an example where the opposite is true. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should cover topics that are verifiable while avoid indiscriminate information - our goal should be to try to include as much topic content as possible per the mission and five pillars. We only use the concept of notability to judge article boundaries to prevent topics with lack of secondary coverage beyond their basic facts to be extended into the realms of OR and POV. Now, what NNC doesn't mean that an article on a notable topic can be flooded by the singular coverage of one or more non-notable aspects of it (that's WP:UNDUE), but in the case that the coverage of non-notable aspects is a reasonable part of the coverage of the larger notable topic, then we should be doing that. For example, a TV show may be notable, but none of its characters are; however, to describe the show some characters must be named and briefly discussed. Thus, we typically presume that the major characters, even if non-notable, of a notable TV show will be listed out as part of the show's article. --MASEM 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." WP:N says it right there. When you are discussing notability, it is only in the context of a subject's inclusion as a standalone article. This is not an interpretation, the policy explicitly states this at the very start. If you're discussing inclusion of content in articles, then this is a matter of verifiability, style, and whether or not this information is important enough to include in an encyclopedia article. This part is a matter of editor's discretion, not notability. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "non-notable elements should be covered" is already a pretty misleading statement. There's a lot of non-notable stuff we simply don't cover, because it goes into exhaustive detail. There's no consensus to add this statement, at least as it's currently phrased. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of "non-notable elements that if they were removed the reader would be left lacking an important detail to the understanding the work or other notable element."じんない 16:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think the Dark Nest illustrates this point. Since the topic did not cite reliable secondary sources, its encyclopedic value will always be called into question, and this particular topic would probably fail WP:NOT#PLOT if it was the subject of a stand alone article. For this reason, I would have thought that coverage of non-notable elements do not deepen the reader's understanding of a notable work or element because they don't contain context, analysis or criticism. That leaves only plot summary to describe non-notable elements, excessive amounts of which actually obstruct the reader's understanding. A good example of non-notable elements being described in excessive fashion is demonstrated by the article Guiding Light (1980–1989). It is an article looooooong on plot, but short on encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get off track here. Maybe we can satisfy Gavin and Random's (and mine too, really) concerns by removing that sentence and replacing it with one that links to and reflects WP:NNC. We don't need to say "you must merge fancruft" or "you cannot have fancruft" either way. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be okay. But I'd also accept something simple like "this guideline only covers what is notable enough for a standalone article, and does not cover article content." I'm equally worried about statements that say "non-notable items should be covered" versus "non-notable items should not be covered". (That's always a whole separate discussion.) Randomran (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to recognise that we are trying to build this inclusion guideline on the idea that a topic must be presumed to be notable, by reference to either the GNG or the three-pronged test. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we do that, no? Randomran (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Importance within the fictional work

I strongly object to the idea of "in universe importance" suggested earlier by Phil and Randomran, as this concept masks the fact that it is based on personal and subjective speculation, and brings the section Importance within the fictional work into direct conflict with WP:NPOV. Despite Phil and Randomran arguements to the contrary, importance within the fictional work is still a real-world attribute which is not present within a work of fiction itself, and can only be established through citing real-world coverage.
For instance, the King of Hearts may act as if he is important, but it takes real-world information to establish his importance within the fictional work. Whilst I would say he is less important than, say, the Queen of Hearts, that is my opinion and not a statement of fact.
Secondly, this section brings this guideline into conflict with WP:NOT#PLOT, since the only way to identify which characters are important in the absence of real-world content is to do so by reverting to plot summary.
Thirdly, plot summary focused on a specific character also brings this section into conflict with WP:NPOV, because long plot summaries are aproxy for saying "I think this character or aspect of the story is important, so I will write a plot summary is focused on it" when there is no real-world evidence that this is the case.
My conclusion is that Plot summary focused on one character cannot establish importance of a character within a work becuase it does not provide any real-world context, analysis or criticism, whilst at the same time it risks giving undue weight to a particular character within the overall plot that may not be warranted.
I therefore propose that the section Importance within the fictional work be removed., as it is misleading and intellectually bankrupt. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the section badly, and raising a ridiculous example of an argument. The problem is that there are non-ridiculous arguments to be made using fictional sources for this - ones that would gain credence on AfD. I repeatedly cited several in response to you - the use of the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a direct and explicit commentary on the premier, and the fact that episodes that introduce or kill major characters of shows would be kept on AfD for those reasons.

The problem is that there are dumb arguments to be made as well. But that's a problem with any guideline. We cannot legislate away stupid arguments without losing ones that would garner wider appeal. Unless you really think that "Keep - episode introduces one of the major characters of the series" would not be a persuasive AfD vote that would swing people's opinions.

Also, may I respectfully suggest that calling any portion of a guideline that people have been working hard on discussing and improving "intellectually bankrupt" is rude and does not make you come off as someone engaged in any sort of good-faith dialogue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit to pointy - no insult intended, but the example of who is more important, the King or Queen of Hearts, is not so ridiculous as it might seem, as I am distinguishing between importance from an in universe perspective (always subjective as this can only be based on an editor's personal opinion) and importance from a real-world perspective (such as the expressed in a reliable secondary source).
I admit that your example of Buffy the Vampire Slayer goes over my head, but if the first and last episode are part of the same television series, I can understand why the start and end would be connected by the over-arching plot, but I don't see that as evidence of importance, as maintaing a narrative thread is common theme in many fictional stories (e.g. good triumphs over evil...in the end) and implies no particular importance, as some fictional stories work without such literary devices.
My primary concern (which you have not addressed) is the use of plot summary focused on one particular character in order to imply that the character is important. Articles like Xander Harris are virtually all plot. This article has many faults, but if you read between the lines, its key message is "This character is important, as it has a 1,000-word plot summary to prove it!". Plot summary does not imply or imbue importance, and this is an important issue which this guideline should address clearly, not encourage or be vague about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll add a line stressing that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this part of the guideline either, but for every bad argument about "this character is important to the work because I love reading about him!!!", there are times when people make truly common sense arguments that are hard to deny. Gavin, can you concede that a character that appears in every single episode of a multi-season series is probably more important to the work than a character who appears for 5 minutes of season 3 episode 2? If so, then we're actually not that far apart. We just need to come up with a wording that distinguishes genuine importance from WP:ILIKEIT. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've tried to make clear with my version (see a couple of headings above) is that it must meet all the criteria. The Master Chief is integral to the plot of several video games, so it meets the second prong and offers a compelling reason against just merging the character into the article about the games (although a list of characters is still an option.) What allows it to go beyond (disregarding the numerous reliable sources) is the discussion by the developers about the design and how they wanted characters to interact and such. In short, I think that while alone the criteria would just be a fanboy's dream excuse, in conjuction they work well to weed shit out. For example, I don't need an article on the, say, Rod of Seasons item in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages because it's not crucial to have another article to explain its role in the plot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what David Fuchs is saying. "Importance within the fictional work" isn't carte blanche to write on any character with a few fans, but it's probably helpful... if not necessary. Real world information is still the key. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the 3-prong test require their be some real-world connection anyway? If an article on the Rod of Seasons just talks about it in terms of in-universe perspective it would fail because it had absolutely non real-world connection?じんない 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're saying. In-universe importance is required. It doesn't open the floodgates, because you still need that real-world perspective. Randomran (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Then if we are focusing on real-world perspective, can we not drop this first prong ("importance" altogether? Importance is a subjective label anyway, so if we drop this part of the test, then we can focus on what is objective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My read on this three-ponged test is that if you unequivocally meet all 3 prongs, you probably likely have an article that already meets the GNG and thus you can go forward with it. However, articles may not easily meet all 3 prongs - you may only have one source for real-world info but good demonstration of importance of the work and the element in the work itself. The idea of this test is to say that as long as all 3 prongs are addressed in some manner, the article will likely be kept; lacking any prong will likely cause the article to be deleted. Thus, while we do ask for real-world notability, if only a bare minimum can be found but the other two prongs are held up strongly (say, a main, in-every-episode character of older sitcom that ran 10 years on a major network), then we accept that article to be generally ok. The three-prong test is not a guaranty that the article can never be challenged again for deletion. --MASEM 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why you would want to keep importance, because it is a matter of personal opinion. If I create an article, I am hardly going to say that its topic is unimportant; no article on fiction will fail this test. Since it is at test based on an editors point of view, I don't think compatible with WP:NPOV. In the absence of reliable secondary sources I don't see how you can distinguish between important and unimportant at all - it is a test that no article can fail. Take for example the article Xander Harris - if you ignore the 3,000+ words of plot summary what makes this character "important"? I you have to make a personal judgement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's use the 3-prong test on Xander, just to show that this is not POV "importance":
- Prong 1: Importance of Work: BtVS is a 7 year show, surviving a move across networks, written by a notable author, and has been discussed academically. The show is important (this is beyond being notable)
- Prong 2: Importance of character: Xander appears in pretty much every episode, the actor is listed in lead credits, etc. Clearly it is a major character (mor than just reoccurring) and thus is important to the work itself. (I could cite even an episode itself, The Zeppo, as even further exploring the character specifically to show importance, but not really needed)
- Prong 3: Real-world. This is where there's a weakness; there's nothing about the development or reception of the character, and appearances in related media are not great examples. Arguably on this point alone, Xander would fail the 3-prong test. Now, with even one or two weak real-world aspects that can be added, then this is met, even if not greatly, and all three prongs would be satisfied, thus being encouraged to keep the article.
Now, the thing about these tests is that they need to look at the likelihood of having such sources, not just the current state of the article. I find it hard to believe there are no real-world considerations of Xander. --- and now doing a quick google search, I have at least one article that establishes some real world context (the actor had to overcome his stuttering for this role), so this is why it is important to talk the likelihood of sources, not just what is present there. Also, we have to separate plot cleanup from this test. Just because there's a zillion words of all plot does not point to anything about notability; that's a content issue. The prongs still must be met of course, and cleanup still must be done. --MASEM 17:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This well demonstrates that this third prong is broken and should go. The stuttering of the actor is quite irrelevant to the fictional character and is a detail which only belongs in our article Nicholas Brendon. If the character himself stuttered then this would be a proper addition to the article. Note also that the Xander Harris gets about 500 hits/day which is more than articles upon notable real-world Harrises such as Frank Harris or Harris Tweed. This is a lot of readers and is orders of magnitude greater than the handful of editors pontificating here. This discussion has no legitimacy or mandate and utterly fails WP:NOTLAW. If someone can demonstrate by means of a reliable source that this huge readership is not getting what it wants then we have something to work with. Otherwise, all we have is policy OR: just personal opinions and prejudices. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What the readership wants and what the goals of the encyclopedia are are at odds, and since this is the Foundation's playground, we need to meet their requirements. If users were footing the bill, that would be different. It doesn't matter if a page gets 500k hits/day - if it is not notable and not encyclopedic, it should be deleted or its content trimmed and merged.
You also missed the point I was trying to make - ok, maybe the stuttering issue is more about Brendon himself instead of the character, but that was the first usable hit I found after a very quick search on news.google. That is, I'm sure there's more info for the real-world impact of Xander if I had more time to search. (I also disagree the stuttering is irrevelant - to prepare for the role, Brendon had to work around that, and this would be no different from an actor having to learn martial arts or the like for a movie). I'm arguing that Xander should stay as an article based on the likeliness of sources, it just needs trimming. --MASEM 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What wants and goals are at odds? The Wikimedia Foundation did not require a notability guideline for fiction. And the five pillars say nothing about notability. And users are footing the bill. Do you see that huge donate banner at the top of this page? If a page is viewed 500,000 times a day, you conclude that the topic is not worthy of notice? Could you explain that logic for me? --Pixelface (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When we start writing content to maximize pageviews we stop being an encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, a few people further up the talk page put together a more concise statement of "importance":

Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion.

It specifically says that personal opinion is not valid, and gives examples of indisputable facts about the work that can help assert notability (e.g.: debut episode, multiple appearances). And keep in mind it would need this kind of internal importance in addition to real-world commentary. For the record, I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of relaxing WP:N. But I also see it as impossible to pass this proposal with broad support unless we allow in-universe importance to at least be a factor. If we can find a way to contain this factor so that it doesn't become WP:ILIKEIT, then it will only help us pass a fair but firm guideline. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

These "indisputable facts" are actaully matters of opinion. The fact that a character appeared in a movie, book or game makes every element of fiction important. This is not a "test" of importance at all, but a bogus "proof" that every ficitional element is important. For example, the arguement that Xander appears in pretty much every episode, the actor is listed in lead credits, is not proof that he is important to the story at all. If the character has been dropped from series, would that indicate he was not important? I see this "test" as an excuse to create an article for every fictional character under the sun just because reason is given for why WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be a use for a "importance to the fictional work" standard, but "Appears in many parts of the fictional work" is a really weak case for it. It's an objective standard because it's an all-inclusive standard; you can include all of the good things in a set of all things, but that doesn't make a set of all things useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pasted in the more concise version as outlined about. To AMiB and Gavin: my thought was that the phrase "The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts. (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") to prove importance, rather than personal opinion." meant that the work itself can indicate importance based on appearances, but should rely on sources to prove its importance and indisputable facts about appearances, et al for indicating inportance by the work alone. Just because you can prove it's important to the work still does not necessarily mean it meets the prong. Would this phrasing help? (removing the 'prove importance', as I recognize it may cause issues.)

Importance within the fictional work: the subject should be important to critical or comprehensive coverage of the work as a whole. The importance of the topic is assessed by researching commentary in reliable sources. The work itself can indicate importance to some extent, but avoid original research or comparisons, and focus on indisputable facts (e.g.: "it's the debut episode", "the character appeared in movies and games") rather than personal opinion.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...i would say "...but avoid original research or comparisons not backed up by a reliable source[/b] and..."じんない 19:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's covered; at the end of the section it's specifically stressed that adherence to WP:RS, WP:V, et al, is still required. We're just laying out an alternate path. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Although we want to avoid conflicts with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the problem with this test is that the criteria it employs are too broad and are non-substantive, i.e. it does not take any evidence, but only personal opinion to make a case that a particular element of fiction is important. Now what is wrong this, you might ask, as most people can put forward a good argument that their favorite fictional character or television episode should be worthy of an article in Wikipedia mainspace? The problem is that articles which are included by way of a non-substantive test are free riders; they get to be part of a good encyclopedia because other articles about other non-ficitonal topics (like commercial companies or scientific theories) have passed more vigorous tests and are of higher quality as a result. If we lower Wikipedia criteria for inlcusion, we do so at the risk of lowering the quality of coverage for fiction, and because fiction is a very large and wide subject area, we risk watering down the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Only today I read arguments for the inclusion of non-notable topics based on these tests[1], but basically it boils down to POV. Personally, I don't want inclusion criteria that don't exclude poor quality in universe content on fiction - that I can get from the flap cover of the books and DVDs. I want Wikipedia to be more than just a repition of book and movie portals that are devoid of context, analysis and criticism. We would not include articles about every non-notable company in existence, nor would we even dream of including their subsidiary and associate companies. Yet this is the route which we are going down with fictional elements by allowing inclusion on the basis of personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, if that diff is the best bad use of the three prong test out there, I think it's pretty good as written; I can rip apart that user's thinking any which way (and using the economic downturn as an excuse for an article to not meet FICT or GNG has to be the most bizarre excuse ever.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I read the argument that Gavin is concerned about. It boils down to "this location is the only location where the action takes place". Gavin is right that this criteria, taken alone, would open up a mountain of bad arguments and even worse articles. But taken in combination with factors 2 and 3, it actually holds things in check: importance to the fictional work is the start, not the end of notability. Otherwise, the argument that Gavin is concerned about is no worse than what we already have now. They've just replaced the usual "it meets the WP:GNG because I know reliable third-party sources are out there somewhere" with a new "it meets WP:FICT because I know that reliable real-world information is out there somewhere". Okay, WP:PROVEIT. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you conceed that the test of importance is not sufficient on its own, then why have it at all, if it is a non-test as I have argued? My view is that the importance test must be dropped because it is based on an editor's opinion. In my view, the real-world coverage test is the key to a establishing a presumption of notability and here is why: if an element of fiction is the subject of real-world coverage, it is reasonable to assume that reliable secondary sources may become available at some future date.
The example I would give to demonstrate this principal is the article Kender, which has very little coverage from reliable secondary sources, a topic whose notability is, at best, marginal. Despite this weakness, it is a topic fortunate enough to be the subject of real-world coverage from primary sources: their creation and development of these characters is the subject of commentary written by the authors. It is this type of real-world coverage that will be useful to researchers and commentators in the future, and suggests to me that this real-world content will form the basis of reliable secondary sources in the future.
However, where an element of fiction is the subject of trivial coverage that is over reliant on in universe perpective, this suggests to me that it will not be the subject of reliable secondary sources, as there is no real-world coverage for academics and commentators to build on. I therefore think we should drop the other two prongs and focus on real-world coverage only in order to protect article quality. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not trying to set a guideline here, but instead writing one to meet current results and consensus. The three prongs are necessary to account for cases of articles that are kept on the barest of real-world info (not enough to meet WP:GNG) but are part of an important work and are an important part of the work, typically major characters of those works. Dropping all but the real-world aspect would turn this back into the GNG, which we know is not the case for fiction - there are articles that are kept that don't meet the GNG. Also, while real world coverage with analysis and commentary is a high value for us writing an encyclopedia, we also still are looking to provide non-transformative information, and there are times that plot and in-universe information without significant real-world aspect is appropriate and can be used to meet encyclopedic standards. --MASEM 14:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
We need the first factor just as much as we need the others. There may be trivial subjects that people can find real-world content for. Especially with video games, you may see people justifying an entire article based on an enemy because a developer commented "we had trouble balancing the strength of the cowshark until we limited the range of their lasers." Okay, but who cares? The cowshark doesn't really let us understand anything significant about the work. That's an instance where you need to show that the element itself is important enough to the work that it justifies an article. Randomran (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Masem, I disagree that dropping all but the real-world aspect would turn this back into the GNG, as this proposal widens the presumption of notability such that it can now be established from real-world primary sources, for example commentary from the publisher or author as illustrated by the article Kender, which is a big break from a strict interpretion of WP:N and WP:RS. The proposal to allow primary sources to be used to establish a presumption of notability is actually very radical and represents a big shift in widening the inclusion criteria, and is actually quite contraversial. Furthermore, I stongly disagree with your view that "plot and in-universe information without significant real-world aspect is appropriate and can be used to meet encyclopedic standards". This statement flies in the face of WP:NOT#PLOT, as I think you are forgetting that it takes real-world commentary, context, analysis or criticism to write an encyclopedic article. I don't think your view that in universe content is enough to write an encyclopedic article is supported by any consensus at policy level.
In response to Randomran, I agree that having real-world content from primary sources is not evidence of importance on its own because there may be trivial subjects that people can find real-world content for. The test needs to distinguish between trivial real-world content which provides no indication of importance from useful real-world content that can be found to justify an article. My view is that the test for real-world content needs to be beefed-up, by saying that the real-world content needs to do more than just identfiy the fictional element as being part of a notable work; and this is where we need to say that it takes real-world commentary, context, analysis or criticism to write an encyclopedic article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentary from the creator of the fictional element is not a primary source, it is a first-party secondary source since it is a step removed from the work itself. They still are bordering on self-published works, which makes them as sources semi-unreliable which is why having the other two factors - the importance of the work and the importance of the element in the work - necessary balances: leaving only the third, I could go out, make a web comic, come back, make a commentary about the comic, and then insist that this all meets the third prong to have articles for each main character in the comic. But with all three pongs, the first one would be failed completely unless that comic happened to gain a large reputation itself. --MASEM 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It now reads, spelling error and all, "real-world content needs to do more than just identfiy the fictional element as being part of a notable work". What about the many articles who have side articles for their list of characters? They are part of a notable work, but no reviewers are writing in detail about all of them, other than perhaps as part of a review for the work itself. Dream Focus (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for corecting me. What is becoming clear to me is that importance is a test that can only be evidenced by non-trival real world coverage from a reliable source, i.e. real-content is the test, and importance is the result (rather than a test in itself). --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Specific tendencies

Gavin removed this section, Phil added it back. I actually agree with Gavin that this should go, albeit most likely for different reasons. To me, this tendencies bit is what WP:WAF should be taking care of; much simply restates what we say in the three prongs section; some of this stuff isn't for Wiki, on a case by case basis, yes some might. I'd much rather remove this and focus on getting the refs section in line (as that's more a strengthened elaboration for the prong bit.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right it does make better sense on WAF, but two points here: WAF has recently been considered "stable" so falls under the monthly policy and guideline changes update; let's avoid moving this text there until we know this guideline is stable. Secondly, I think when this is ready to go to a larger RFC for approval, we want to have this section here so that readers can see what will result from it. It would be great if we can msgbox that section to say that it only lives here for the short time to provide specific examples of how we think this guideline is implemented, but otherwise will not live here, instead referenced from WAF. --MASEM 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be necessary. This is only for determining notability for fictional elements; we say "if not GNG, then 3/3 prongs; PLOT, NOT, apply no matter what"; if someone can't see how an article meets those or doesn't then that's them not putting 2 and 2 together. We repeat ourselves several times in the sections; we can be much more clear and concise by axing it altogether. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It may also make sense to move this to the explanatory essay that we seem to generally agree should be written. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree here w/ david. It doesn't belong only because it doesn't literally present a decision rule for editors. WP:N is 7200 characters. This should probably be shorter. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to argue to keep it in some form, because I thought it explains how to apply the three prong test... but actually, it's the other way around. The three prong test is justified by these tendencies. This is a good description of what articles are kept or not, and explains how we came up with the test. But it doesn't really have any value as a guideline. That said, I think this the perfect kind of thing to add to a supplementary essay. We need to show people how we got here. Randomran (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This section should be taken out because there is no evidence that non-notable fictional elements, on their own or grouped together, provide any worthwhile enyclopedic coverage, particularly if their content fails WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:NOT#GUIDE. Once a topic passes the criteria for inclusion, then we know it is possible to write about it using non-trivial real-world coverage, but if it fails, then it is likely that the topic will fail Wikipedia content policies. There is a reason why lists of non-notable fictional elements should not be created, and that is they are listcruft. This section should be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources section

I have some problems with this section.

Primary sources are insufficient to establish notability. OK, that's true to an extent - but to my mind, much of that extent is that primary sources can't provide real-world perspective. I do think primary sources have a role to play in the "importance within the fictional work" prong.
The prohibition on analysis is currently too strong. There is a line between obvious and non-obvious interpretations, and that line is vital to actual progress.

This combines to be a genuine problem; It takes no problematic leaps of research to observe that the scene in which Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Giles walk down the hallway in Chosen (Buffy episode) is a reference to the first episode of the series, and that connection also establishes some notability for the first episode of the series. There's a lot to be cautious about down this road, but we have to be careful not to lose the baby with the bathwater. Much of this probably needs to be dealt with in another guideline about fiction and sources - one I'll probably start work on once we settle this matter. But I think this section would benefit from taking a tone more along the lines of "avoid" and "be cautious" rather than the forbidding tone it currently employs. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to take it up with WP:OR then, because that's where your real issue lies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because NOR has never forbidden the sorts of edits I describe above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the second sentence of the WP:NOR policy does forbid unpublished analysis like the edits you describe. The analysis might well be a no-brainer but that does not make it exempt from the policy. Reyk _YO! 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a marked change in the policy from its formulation, which was always about preventing "novel synthesis." The more expanded policy is "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." These sentences, however, are gibberish, largely because there is no meaningful distinction between "descriptive claims" and "interpretation." However, I take "a primary source may be used to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" at face value - if a reasonable, educated person can verify the claim without specialized knowledge, it is not problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is. A descriptive claim is when you make a claim based on exactly what is printed/spoken/filmed. By drawing your own conclusion of how the scene in "Chosen" is a homage to the pilot episode of Buffy, you are introducing your own originally researched theory, that is not supported by any reliable source other than your personal interpretation of that scene. When I see the scene, I don't draw that conclusion. If it is a subjective call, then you cannot make it. Now, I cannot deny the specific actions that the character perform, because it's in black and white on the screen, but I can interpret that scene any way that I like (thus, any interpretation that is not backed by reliable secondary sources is original research). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not actually a difference between how one interprets the plot of an episode and how one interprets those references. You say that it is in black and white on the screen, but it is far from it - Buffy is full of flashbacks, dream sequences, and other moments that do not interpret smoothly as plot, and do not have clearly delineated and explicit markers. Even the basic process of watching a simple scene involves interpretation - when you see characters walk through a door, and then the scene cuts to an interior shot with the characters, one has to fill in the gap there that there was no temporal loss - that is, that the interior shot follows immediately from the exterior shot.

My point being that reading fiction is not actually a matter of simple description of what is undeniably there on the screen, but a fairly complex process. The test of "simple descriptive claims," if applied straightforwardly, would cripple our ability to provide even rudimentary plot summaries, because simple description does not cover the basic grammar of film, which is a grammar of cuts, edits, etc. I am unable to believe that WP:NOR intends to forbid that, and thus am forced to take the "obvious to a non-specialist" test at face value, because the alternative is to have a policy that is so implausible as to be useless.

In any case, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue the rigid standard set here in the practical case. Absolutely nobody who watches Chosen and remembers the first episode will miss the reference. Nobody. Now there is a threshold here - we have to be careful not to allow interpretations that are actually non-obvious. But we also cannot pretend that there is some sort of effortless and prima faciae distinction between describing and interpreting a fictional text. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are interpreting the meaning of a work or the author's intention, then you are engaged in original research no matter how glaringly obvious the meaning or intention might be to you. Reyk _YO! 02:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If interpreting the meaning of a work is verboten, we cannot even use primary sources for summary. As we are obviously allowed to use primary sources for summary, it is clearly the case that we are allowed to interpret the meaning of a work. I mean, the alternative would be that, when we read a speech by Barack Obama in which he says "We need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least two and a half million jobs" we cannot actually conclude from this that Barack Obama believes that we need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least two and a half million jobs. That is obviously not what the policy is meant to forbid. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a copout. It's as simple as this, if you try and interpret what a writer/director/etc was attempting to do (and are not just restating the events that took place), then you are introducing original research. There is no confusion about "only descriptive claims". You're just attempting to twist the logic around so that it sounds like it is so vague that one could create their own analysis of a scene and call it a day. You cannot make the claim that "no body would miss it", because there are no 100% certainties in life. You see a homage, and I don't...and I've seen the pilot and the series finale. So, now I'm saying, "prove that it was their intention to pay homage to the pilot". You cannot do that by citing the episode itself, because, unless Joss Whedon interrupts the episode and says, "Psst, I did this as a homage to the pilot", you have no verifiable evidence that shows intent, and that is what you are claiming, and that is what we call original research.

As for citing the episode for the plot, you're confusing interpreting intention behind the events with restating the process of them. Me writing that this event occurred IS NOT the same thing as me writing that this event occurred because the writer/director wanted to create some sort of symbolism for the character. There is a big difference. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing anything. I do this for a living. The problem is that the distinction between interpretation and description has no credibility whatsoever to anyone who is even remotely familiar or trained in literary studies. The sequences in question are transcribed [2] and [3]. They are exchanges between the same four characters, that end with virtually identical lines, and have basically the same subject matter. To note that one echoes the other is no harder a leap than noting that when a character walks through a door and the camera then cuts to the character being in a room, these events are chronologically linked, and that the second shot is not four days later and in a different room.

The issue here is that fiction is not a simple matter of documenting what happens. This idea of "writing that the event occurred" is not without assumptions and interpretations. It's just that those assumptions and interpretations are sufficiently routine that we do not usually think about them. But identifying what happened in a film or television episode is an act of interpretation by any standard. For instance, when Buffy has a dream sequence, how do we read it as a dream sequence? In dream sequences in Buffy, among other things, Angel is killed. This does not actually happen in Buffy, but if we simply "describe the events," we must report that it happened. Or, in a literary example, The Yellow Wallpaper. Nowhere in that story does it mention that the narrator is crazy. But if you simply document what the narrator claims happens, you egregiously mis-summarize the story.

The idea that there is some body of claims that can be made of fiction without interpretation is simply untrue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that you may do this for a living is your problem, because it inherently creates bias in YOUR interpretation of things. It is very simple. You cannot suggest director/writer intent without a source saying that very thing. You can say, "Echoing her words when she first arrived at Sunnydale", as that is completely verifiable, and doesn't suggest intention of homage/symbolism/etc. If the fiction itself does not state that the narrator is crazy, then we cannot say that. If the entire story is actually based on the idea that the narrator is unreliable, then I'm pretty sure you can find a secondary source that says that. Constantly iterating in the plot section, "Don't trust what he's saying, because he's unreliable" wouldn't even be an option to begin with. The plot section is just that, the plot. Hidden meanings in the plot are not present there to begin with, so noting that the narrator is unreliable is something that would be present somewhere else, and since it is essential to the story it is most likely covered in a secondary source. Wikipedia is not your personal academic journal, where you can get your prize winning essays out to the public, as such, your interpretation of unrevealed/unspoken/creator intention are not welcomed. I do recall that dream sequences in Buffy are rather clearly defined as dream sequences. You may not know it while you're watching it, but at the end it is cleared up that way. Now, if you take said dream sequence and try and dissect some human condition theory based on those events, that is original research, no matter how obvious it is to you. When you write articles on Wikipedia you don't write them under the impression that the average reader knows the subject matter as well as you do, you write it as if they don't know the subject matter at all. You don't introduce your own theories, no matter how obvious they are to you, because you cannot be 100% certain that the average reader will see those same theories. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I respectfully suggest that you moderate your tone, as you are veering very close to a personal attack on my professional integrity. To declare that I am trying to use Wikipedia as my personal academic journal is offensive, petty, and inappropriate. I am well aware of the line between academic research and Wikipedia. Believe me, were I adding my "prize winning essays" to Wikipedia, you would know, because they would be drenched in citations to literary theory. You expose nothing but your own ignorance with statements like that, and it does nothing to further your position.

The issue is not that I am biased in my interpretation of things. I am describing what is commonly accepted truth about the nature of reading from the field of study that, you know, actually studies reading. I am saying, flat out, that the description/interpretation distinction is bunk. It is meaningless. When those sentences are read to my friends and colleagues, they laugh derisively, because the sentences are completely lacking in substance.

To continue with the Buffy dream sequence issue, nothing explicitly says "what precedes this was a dream sequence." The only cue is that the sequence is followed by a jump cut to Buffy waking up, startled in her bed. This could mean any number of things. You, like I, read it as a sign that the preceding was a dream sequence. But when we do so, we are interpreting what we see on the screen - the show is not telling us in any sort of direct way.

I mean, look, I really, really doubt that NOR was intended to be some sort of radical statement that texts clearly and unambiguously communicate any sort of meaning. I doubt this for the simple reason that, if that is true, NOR was deliberately written to embrace a view of how the act of reading works that has had no credibility whatsoever in decades. It would be comparable to Wikipedia insisting on a pre-empirical approach to science. That method of reading simply is not accepted by anybody who studies what reading is as a credible model of what happens. It actively positions Wikipedia in contrast to the whole of mainstream views on how language works. I do not believe that was the intent of NOR.

Now I'm wholly sympathetic to the need to prevent people like me from doing our research on Wikipedia. But there are ways to do it that do not involve standards that are wholly incompatible with the entirety of mainstream thought on reading. And I'm pretty confident we did not take the extreme and credibility-free route with that policy. WP:NOR is not a policy that is intended to contradict the whole of contemporary understanding about reading. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me illustrate by another example. It should be blindingly obvious to all who have seen both movies that Spaceballs is a knock-off of Star Wars. But claiming that without a source is original resarch. Does that mean we can't summarize the plot of Spaceballs? Does it mean we can't describe what happens in the movie? No. It is perfectly possible to describe the head of the giant vacuuming maid spaceship resting on the beach without interpreting that as a reference to Planet of the Apes. Reyk _YO! 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a dispassionate description of events is equally problematic - to summarize in that fashion leaves us no way to differentiate important events from trivia, requiring that we violate WP:NOT#PLOT. To say nothing of an example like The Yellow Wallpaper above. Or, for that matter, the interpretive leaps needed to handle with continuity editing. (Which can be quite a problem at times - c.f. the second season finale of House M.D., where assumptions about continuity editing are explicitly played with.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Phil. I think what bignole is trying to say is that we can't leave it in the hands of editors to make those comparisons and I think that NOR comports well with that view. We don't need to bring intentionalism into this--interpreting a connection is not the same thing as proving creator intent. We can cite secondary sources that describe The Dark Knight as a meditation on 9/11 without asking Christopher Nolan if that was the intent. But what I think you (Phil) need to understand is that it doesn't matter that you do this for a living. NOR is not an assault on literary criticism. It does not say such criticism is impossible or unwanted. It doesn't say (though many editors will) that the fictional world is not worth noting. What it does say is that I don't do literary criticism for a living. I'm not a biographer. Nor am I an industry analyst for the games industry. I am, in fact, studying to be an economist, but we don't depend on my expertise to judge my contributions. My contributions are verifiable summaries of material produced in secondary sources. The contributions of editors adding to fiction articles should be the same. Where those secondary sources don't exist, it isn't our job to act in their stead. The point you bring up that NOR stops us from differentiating trivial events and substantive events is a powerful one, but it doesn't just serve one end. That limitation comes about because we don't have secondary sources to summarize. It should be a warning sign. Either way, this is a content issue. I don't think there is support to interpret NOR in such a fashion that we may allow or disallow standalone articles due to editor interpretation of primary sources. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "I do this for a living." I do not mean that "I do literary criticism for a living." I mean that "A basic part of my job is understanding what it means to read, and WP:NOR describes a vision of reading that has no credibility." Not no credibility as a way for literary scholars to read - no credibility as a description of how anybody reads. The idea that description and interpretation are separate acts is actively rejected by literary studies. Not just for us, but in general. And so in that regard, NOR is an assault on literary studies - because it says that literary studies is flat-out wrong about what reading is. The issue would be analogous to if Wikipedia specified that, as a matter of policy, when writing Wikipedia articles, division by zero is possible. To say that there is a class of claims that can be made about literary texts that is "descriptive" and thus "obvious" is, in the eyes of virtually any reputable literary scholar working today, wrong.

There is a level of reading that we allow - the threshold is, for all practical purposes, that if any reasonable person would, upon reading the text, come to that conclusion, it's OK for us to come to that conclusion without a secondary source. This is borne out by practice and by WP:NOR. But that threshold is distinct from "no interpretation." Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So because there exists a philosophical stance that interpretation and description are two components of the same act, wikipedia can't make a policy that states that "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." and mean it to say that interpretive claims are not allowed? I understand your point. Humans don't process information without substantial amounts of interpretation. Nor do they summarize it for others without the same. But right there, in black and white, is WP:PSTS saying that only descriptive claims can be made and interpretations cannot. We can take that to mean that plot summary and description is allowed and that interpretation (as the rest of NOR defines it) is not allowed. Or we can take it to mean that interpretation and description are so wedded that some level of interpretation should be allowed, up to some threshold. Which accords most well with the letter of the policy? With the spirit? Remember that the description of primary documents (hell, and secondary documents) in any area is distorted by interpretation. We wouldn't have half the content disputes we do have if there weren't multiple conflicting ways to interpret secondary and tertiary documents on a subject. That fact doesn't mean that the policy is to be modified or avoided to conform to a less modernist view. Or, if it does mean that, the work in persuasion on that front should be made at WT:OR, not here. Complaints that NOR describes an incredible vision of reading likewise belong there. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. PSTS is, I think, currently vague on this. Because it sets up two standards - the "reasonable, educated person" standard is distinct from the "only descriptive" standard, as I think you and I both see. But notably, the "reasonable, educated person" standard is the only standard in that section that is remotely testable. And I think it's the standard that is closer to the spirit of the policy, to the historical use of the policy, and, honestly, to the letter of the policy. I think the description vs. interpretation bit is an infelicitous bit of language that is misleading - in no small part because it's meaningless. Not because there's a philosophical stance to the contrary, but because there's an overwhelming consensus among professionals in the relevant field to the contrary. It's not a usable standard. I cannot distinguish between a descriptive and an interpretive claim. I am unable to see a difference between the act of summarizing an episode of Buffy and the act of observing a referential link between the finale and the premiere. And it's not because I'm stupid.

So I think the most reasonable interpretation here is that the description/interpretation divide is an infelicity, and that the clearer and more usable part of the guideline - the part that actually sets up a sensible test and standard - is the relevant part. And that claims about primary sources that meet the test of "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" are OK. Because that test is actually capable of being applied, which is more than can be said for the interpret/describe test. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it is infelicitous and unclear. Specifically you are absolutely right to point out that it creates two standards, the "reasonable person" standard and the "descriptive not interpretive" standard. This comes from editors who feel compelled to write in 'legalese' when writing policy, so they use terms of art inaccurately and without regard for the totality of the guideline. I also agree that PSTS is a trainwreck. It is in there because otherwise NOR would not let us build a fiction side of the encyclopedia. And because it represents a possible "chink in the armor" for NOR, it includes the seemingly impregnable line "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims". But we failed to define what a descriptive claim is--partially because we aren't a moot court and partially because as you say, it would be rather difficult, but there is a third reason, one that I think is important. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a modernist effort. It was created with the notion that it can bring information to every person and that those people would be empowered by it. It operates on the assumption that a neutral description may be developed and can be blessed as such. It is shockingly old fashioned, from a theory standpoint. As such, claims will be made on policy pages and RFARs that Neutrality exists and enough effort will ferret it out.

From a practical standpoint I would argue that we can describe properly what editors can and cannot insert. Further, I think it is possible to write that policy without allowing claims that you describe as a reasonably level of interpretation. We already do, in some sense. We know what a plot summary is or we can agree on what a good example would be. So I could rewrite PSTS to avoid deep claims but not neuter the ability to summarize. What we would have to agree on is what the policy means now and what the community wants it to mean. Do we see the 'reasonable person' standard and take that as cause to forget the admonition to describe only? Do we see the example about plot summary and assume immediately that this eliminates mentioning the object of parody in a Family Guy episode is OR? It is partially our biases that do that, but it is partially the fault of the policy. That imprecision leads us here. But should we recognize that we are not compelled to fight it in this guideline. We shouldn't labor under a stupid rule in articlespace, but the battles have to be fought at the OR talk page. We shouldn't run the risk of sinking this guideline by fighting that battle here. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course some intepretation is necessary to make sense of a plot. If we're watching a movie and we see a character on one side of a door and then, in the next scene, they're on the other side of the door, then our brains interpret that information as the character having gone through the door. That's obvious uncontroversial and so far we are in agreement. But claiming that the Buffy corridor thing is just as obvious and unambiguous is wrong. Bignole is no moron, yet didn't see the supposedly obvious connection. I personally wouldn't watch Buffy in a fit, but if I did watch it I might see the connection but wonder if it was intentional and head to Wikipedia to find out. So it's clear that you're setting the standard of what a reasonable, educated person should find obvious way too high. But we're straying way off topic now. Reyk _YO! 05:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Toned down. I would prefer a ce and a few more pairs of eyes on it. The basic point, however, should remain: we aren't a content guideline but analysis of primary sources isn't sufficient to meet the 3 prongs--something has to be said about it outside the plot. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This bit -- Original research and original analysis of primary sources [...] may be used to a limited extent -- struck me as odd (since when is any amount of OR allowed?), so I made a tweak onto Protonk's edit. --EEMIV (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going for a record run-on sentence, too. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is another example of an issue we should just dodge completely. I'm okay with saying "avoided" instead of "prohibited", as that basically covers it, and leaves this debate open for someone else. (For what it's worth, noting a similarity IS original research -- similarity depends on the eye of the beholder. For someone, they see a call back to the first episode. For others, it's a call back to some Western from the 1960s. For others, they see a generic cliche. For others, there is no callback, it's just a random incident. If you want to argue that the similarity is actually there, then congratulations: you're writing an essay. Get it published.) Randomran (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Randomran. This is something core to Wikipedia were discussing and anything like that we try to clarrify here will either sink this guideline or have ramifications across the whole of Wikipedia we cannot begin to imagine for such a small group to decide.

I would have to say though, that if Bignole's idea is what the consensus of Wikipedia is, it should flat out say "No interpretation is allowed without reliable secondary source, even on minor details" because anything can be claiemd that "averge educated person" can't intrepret that. I have even been told that GA or higher articles need to cite every other line, even if the "averge educated person" could come to that conclusion because they said "there is no such thing as average educated person" which seems to violate the policy flat-out.じんない 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with comparison. Some comparisons are problematic - I'll even grant that the reference issue in Buffy could be debated. But on the other hand, a simple observation that Giles's line at the end of the scene - "The Earth is doomed," repeats is not original research. So there's some level of comparison to be made there. Which is why I figured pulling that line was advisable - it's overbroad. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but lines are different than scenes. You can't dispute that two statements are the same. But when talking about a visual medium, drawing comparisons between scenes is more difficult. Even so, wouldn't scene-by-scene or line-by-line comparisons be overly detailed beyond our standards for a WP:CONCISEPLOT anyway? Randomran (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the scenes or lines. One answer to a hypothetical I set up earlier is that there are cues that the viewer or reader picks up on that mark significance of a scene or moment. Much as the viewer knows to bridge Buffy opening a door and Buffy entering a room in two separate shots as a single action, a minimally competent viewer knows certain cues that a scene is a crucial scene, or that an episode is a crucial episode. So observing the line throwback to the premiere in the finale is not, to my mind, problematic from a concision standpoint, because both of those moments are transparently significant moments in the overall series. So I think we have some room to work here. Now I'll grant, 90%+ of the scene comparisons we get are garbage that should be removed. But it's important not to overreach - which is why I think it's the wrong example for the parentheses - I suspect there are cases where comparisons are OK, so it's probably best not to ban them with an incidental comment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's kind of why we have "exceptions for common sense", and why our guidelines need to be interpreted with discussion and consensus. These aren't robotic rules that can be applied by an automaton. In general, people are less likely to consider something WP:OR if it's true. (There's a word that doesn't come up on Wikipedia very much, since our standard is WP:Verifiability.) That said, maybe we can come up with a phrasing that calls out the kinds of comparisons we all agree are crappy? "Detailed scene comparisons," "contrasting character sketches" -- something that shows that we really don't want people to be making observations that aren't plain and obvious. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "detailed" works as a modifier for me that largely removes the problem. I'm hard-pressed to imagine a detailed comparison that does not hit an OR line. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Randomran (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think this policy should have some mention of some parameters for character lists. Wikipedia is not a directory so I don't think these lists should list every character, but I think there needs to be some sort of mention of these lists along with the individual character articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My editing experience with TV show articles is that it makes sense to only mention 3+ episode characters in character lists, with the odd exception for notable 2-episode characters - the others can be easily mentioned and crosslinked in the episode list entries. However, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (5th nomination) does not support this position (just yet). Video game character lists seem to only focus on recurring characters in video game series, or have no list at all. I have no idea how to decide the mention-worthiness of fictional characters in books or book series. It may be too early for FICT to make specific mentions what a char list should look like. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a whole other can of worms at this point. We don't even have a general guideline on lists, and it looks there's support for the idea that lists are treated with a lower standard than articles. The closest thing I've seen to a general guideline is this: User:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists). I think we're better off trying to pass something for articles than to try to cram lists in here and risk alienating more people. Randomran (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we can say it's best to consult Wikiproject and usually main protagonist(s) and main antagonist(s) are considered okay for lists at a minimum, if the list meets GNG or the 3-prong test since those characters are what drive the plot.じんない 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is they're not usually okay. We delete lists of characters all the time. Not all of them. But then, we don't keep all of them, or even most of them. Again, this is opening up a debate that should probably be tackled later -- after we've addressed basic articles. Randomran (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One idea, which is one I used when I created Characters of Smallville, is to only list characters that have some sort of real world content/context on them. This can be from some DVD commentary, or third-party source, but something beyond a simple reiteration of the plot info. In such cases, these can be characters who, though they may have multiple third-party sources, they have very little information actually written on them and thus would be better served in a list. Or, this could be characters who have a decent amount of real world information (not enough to really split off) but it's all sourced by DVD comms, companion books, etc (i.e. things not entirely "independent of the subject"). That's just a thought though. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds close to something I'd support. But again, I think this is a contentious issue. WP:FICT is already controversial enough. Do we really want to try to settle two controversies? I'm not confident we can get consensus on two big issues at the same time. Randomran (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We could always create a supporting essay where we lay out potential solutions to how to handle non-notable articles. This way, by leaving it as an essay we aren't saying "this is what must be done", but more "here are some possible solutions". The problem with not providing some definition or solution to these issues that have plagued FICT since, well probably since its inception, is that they won't go away and in a month or so people will return to argue that FICT needs to be removed (again) because it isn't providing a coherent stance on a lot of the issues that come up in AfDs and merge discussions. We need to provide answers for these problems, we just may need to put those answers in a location that doesn't sound like we're forcing them down people's throat. It's more of a, "Hey, if you do it this way then you're going to be fine. If you choose to do it another way then you roll the dice on the security of the article passing an AfD". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds best because there are a lot of reasons for lists. When I created List of Popotan characters i did so after consulting with the Wikiproject and task force for each and they both suggested because of the nature of the parent article and the nature of the differing roles in the anime than the visual novel, that a separate lists was best to not confuse the reader. This is a highly unusual situation that would normally not be the case for almost anything, but by using an essay, rather than adding it to the guideline, we are allowing for unusual circumstances while also saying that lists are created for different reasons and should each be judged on their own merits.じんない 07:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the essay idea, as a way to brainstorm options. The supporting essay is going to be very important to justify the rationale behind this guideline too. So let's not take this lightly. Randomran (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My central experience with character lists is List of Naruto characters, which attempts to list the significant characters for a manga series that has been running for over nine years (and fails to do so, hence List of Naruto antagonists). The inclusion of characters was largely determined by consensus, in which the characters judged to be significant to understanding of the plot were included (hence, this is a WP:WEIGHT question more or less). The grand majority of anime/manga series have character lists largely because not having it ends up being detrimental to the reader's ability to understand the plot, and these series have a cast large enough to justify this. For video games, it's usually plot-intensive games that garner character lists in which again, they are necessary for understanding of the plot. All this said, I agree that an essay is probably the best way to address this at the moment, and then we can write a supplementary guideline should FICT be passed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that lists of non-notable characters or episodes "are necessary for understanding of the plot" is not supported by existing article content policies and inclusion guidelines. The fact that many editors believe it to be the case that the regulation of lists is a "grey area" is a major failing of this guideline.
For instance, Masem has argued for a long time that non-notable topics should be allowed to be bundled into lists on the grounds that it such coverage provides the reader with a greater understanding of a fictional work, and that lists are the perfect vehicle for this information. Although he would claim that this practice has consensus support, AfD discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mischief Makers characters clearly demonstrate that this is not the case and actaully the consensus view is that this type coverage is listcruft.
In my view, it is a mistake to think that lists are somehow exempt from policy and guidelines, and this misunderstanding may have arisen from the idea that list pages, because their format and presentation is be different from articles, are somehow a class of Wikipedia mainspace that is entirely different from article pages. The reality is that both articles and lists all exist in Wikipedia mainspace as vehicles for encyclopedic content.
Lists of characters that contain only in universe plot summary such as List of Popotan characters fail WP:NOT#PLOT because they don't contain any real-world non-trivial content. My view is that the section Specific tendencies is actually misleading and needs to be taken out and replaced with a warning that lists of non-notable fictional elements don't provide any encyclopedic content, and are at risk of deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of characters and episodes may not be supported by existing policy but neither are they not allowed by policy. The two that apply, PLOT and N, apply to "topic" space, not articles. The RFC on WP:N clearly shows that people see allowances for lists (but we're still pending the result to confirm that) We are an encyclopedia, we should be covering all topics comprehensively once the topic itself is shown to be notable. Characters and episodes of fictional works have been shown by simply the number of years WP has been around to be what consensus says is part of comprehensive coverage. Unfortunately, we are also bound by size per article (but not per topic, WP is not paper), so things have to be split off to separate articles. Lists make perfect sense here. The one closed AFD with deletion you pointed was not closed because it was non-notable, it was because the last state of the list was basically a game guide, and the characters themselves (non-notable) could be covered in the main game. This is not the same as being deleted for being non-notable. --MASEM 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of characters and episodes are not be supported by existing policy because they don't provide any encyclopedic content. Distiguishing lists from articles in order to justify an exemption from WP:NOT goes against the spirit of this policy; lists such as List of Popotan characters are articles in substance; only its format and presentation differs from a stand alone article. I think that WP:FICT should proscribe against this type of list, because they are being used a licence to evade WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence my proposal that we create a supporting essay that details the most appropriate way to create/structure a list, for those that want to do that. FICT should not "ban" lists because people use them to circumvent WP:PLOT. No other notability guidelines ban any type of structure for presenting information. Gavin, you have to remember that there needs to be some sort of compromise on this front, because if you go in guns-a-blazin and try and dismantle everything and create some dictatorship over articles you're only going to yourself and your idea killed outright. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Characters and the like are part of a work of fiction. Concise coverage of them when they are otherwise non-notable beyond the work is encyclopedic. Or more importantly, anything on the in-universe side of a work of fiction is a critical part of the coverage of the work of fiction (imagine describing Harry Potter without describing anything in universe). Just because that part of the coverage of a fictional work cannot always be presented with "analysis and criticism" does not mean we don't include that in the coverage of a notable work. Remember, we are a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs, while I don't expected to see a list of characters in Brittanica, that would be very likely in a contemporary literature compendium. --MASEM 16:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I managed to find 1 guideline that deals somewhat with this. WP:SS clearly justifies splitting articles into subarticles based mostly on WP:LENGTH and does not really say such articles need to comply with WP:N because they are subarticles, not main articles. WP:Lists does not say anything either. WP:Listcruft deals a bit with it stating that basically they should only be created if the parent article can show WP:V and WP:N.じんない 16:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This argument was put forward by Masem at User talk:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists)#Criticism and refuted. What is clear is that there is no mention of any exemption from the General notability guideline for spinoffs or lists. Just because a guideline does not mention WP:N or WP:NOT, it is not plausible that this is meant to be interpreted as an exemption. I think you are reading too much to these policies to imagine that there is - we should be aiming to improve our guidelines, not trying to identify ways of getting around them.
This discussion reminds me why WP:FICT should discourage lists containing plot summary: lists like List of Popotan characters are essentially a type of content forks created to to contain over-long plot summaries which cannot be contained in main article Popotan. Essentially these lists are dumping ground for plotcruft, and we have already agreed to discourge this in the discussion Plotcruft and Narrative Complexity. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that WP:SS and WP:LENGTH specifically do allow for lists as sub-articles as long as they are non-trivial content and follow WP:MOS.じんない 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

- I don't see anyone but you refuting the issue, and again, I still struggle to see anything in policy and guidelines that implicitly or explicitly prohibit such lists. Lists aren't content forks because they are not POV forking and are explicitly appropriate forks per WP:SS. I think you're reading too much into the past talk archive here on plotcruft, because it is clear that there is a level that is acceptable to discuss plot details and a level where it is not; your approach here is throwing them all out without any consideration, when clearly consensus is that some types of these lists are appropriate and should be kept. --MASEM 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think if you took List of Popotan characters to AfD, and informed all fiction related WikiProjects of it, you'd find mixed reactions based largely around which WikiProject an editor came from. From my experience watching WT:VG and WP:VG/Deletion, that list would be either a) deleted, or b) merged back into the main text at Popotan, or c) redirected straight up, as it's a list for all-of-one-game/novel, which also goes into the individual characters in excessive detail and which doesn't serve to enhance the readers' understanding of the topic; I personally don't need to know what she wears, what color her hair is, or what role she plays in the plot, as the plot is rather simplistic: go get yourself someone to bed. Would the reaction at WP:MANGA be the same? WP:ANIME? I don't know. It seems to me then, if their reaction is different than WP:VG's, that there's a disconnect between the factions of fiction on Wikipedia. You seem to be coming from an "all-or-nothing" side of "NO LISTS EVER". Am I misinterpreting that stance, or is there something between "Lists are useful" and "Lists should die" (ie, Lists are a necessary evil)? --Izno (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

... see what I mean? We should drop this. This is going to sabotage the whole guideline. Better to discuss it later. Randomran (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it can be avoided entirely. Perhaps something like a nice "sometimes lists are acceptable," which seems to me to accurately and uncontroversially describe reality. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I never meant to say every list should be kept. Bottom line is that an essay describing those 4 points: importance within a work, establishment of the notability of the parent work(s), importance to understanding the work(s) and length of the article without a separate list. Furthermore, information on consensus and general practice within a wikiporject should also be noted.

List of Popotan characters does all that, importantly understanding the works because the differences between the 2 are so great that without such a list, the reader would be confused in most cases, thus being detrimental to wikipedia's goal

You have already explained the problem by your lack of reading it. The VN is like what you say "get yourself someone to bed", but the anime is so radically different in it's take that the plot does not even follow any structure of it; that the anime is more of a slice-of-life/sci-fi/fantasy/drama (too difficult to classify easily) anime, not in any way related to the VN, except the characters and some of their relations.じんない 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are trying to write FICT without waiting for WP:N's RFC analysis to conclude (which I think we can), the issue of lists should not be addressed, and as suggested, pointed to an essay that describes best current practice but may be more formalized in the future after the RFC analysis is complete. When all is said and done, I think a guideline, (not necessarily notability-related) about how lists of fictional elements should be approached, in a manner closer to WAF, should be developed to reflect all this, but we're not at that point yet, and it will confuse the issue. This fact should at least be noted presently to complete this version of FICT. --MASEM 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, I see this SNG as highly consistent with what came out of the Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Or, at least the stuff on issue B. That's a good thing.) Randomran (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with random. I really, really, really don't want to try to solve the "list" problem with this. Like phil said, it might be ok to say "sometimes lists are kept in practice where individual characters are not". But that might also be superfluous. I would like to park in in a supporting essay but I don't have the inclination to write that essay. At the very least I would rather not engage this issue fully in the guideline. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to solve the list problem, then lets drop the section Specific tendencies altogether. Politically I can see why many editors don't share my views: a lot of effort by a lot of editors went in to compliling List of Popotan characters and List of Naruto characters, so no one wants to admit that they fail WP:NOT#PLOT. The fact still remains that plot summary on its own (whether in lists or articles) does not contain any encyclopedic content, this is indisputable. You can argue that they provide "coverage", but that argument has been shot down many times in discussions at WT:NOT. There is also a strong indication at AfD that articles of this type are at risk of deletion as listcruft for the same reason. I think we must, at the very least, eliminate the section Specific tendencies because it is not supported by WP:NOT#PLOT nor WP:N, and at least that way this draft guideline would be silent on the matter. Some editors might be thinking "well, if we get this section into WP:FICT, then we have a good case to get rid of WP:NOT#PLOT", but it is not that simple. At the start of this compromise discussions, I welcomed this proposal on the basis that it was being honest, but this sections is dishonest because it can't make non-notable ficitonal elements encyclopedic because the arguments it uses don't stand up to scrutiny when compared with the rest of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to speak of honesty, I would respectfully suggest that you stop speculating about motivations of other editors. I do not think that anybody wants to get rid of WP:NOT#PLOT. Similarly, I think it is profoundly dishonest to suggest that there is not some consensus that there is a lower standard of notability for lists. The precise nature of that lower standard is not clear at present, but I do not see how anyone can seriously claim that there is no sense of a lower standard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that there's probably a lower standard for lists. I think that's reflected in the recent RFC as well, where people are at least sympathetic to a lower standard so long as it's not a total exemption. That said, I think we need to drop this in the most agreeable way possible. I don't mind being vague or vacant here: "some lists are kept, some aren't. See other content guidelines for why. None of our business." Randomran (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Random's comment approximates my feelings. I prefer to offload anything from this guideline that belongs in a content guideline. That cuts both ways. I don't want someone to say "this list is good, see FICT" or "this is listcruft, see FICT". Protonk (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Gavin, that's been refuted by the very tangible consensus in regards to keeping character lists well everywhere. The notion that List of Naruto characters, a character list covering a manga series that has gone on for nine years, fails NOT#PLOT is laughable. In any case, if you brought List of Popotan characters to AfD it would be kept by a pretty wide margin. If you haven't noticed the rather tangible consensus in regards to keeping character lists for series with significantly large character casts, then I don't know what to say. The disrepancy that many here are talking about between WP:ANIME and WP:VG only exists because people try to create character lists for single video games in which the plot is not really a major part of the game (i.e. a first-person shooter, a basic hack-and-slash game). Your notion that every entry needs real-world information also is ludicrous. Would you erase Goofy and Donald Duck from Characters of Kingdom Hearts? Of course not. Characters are present there because a reader has zero idea what the hell is going on in the plot without the entry in the character list, and the list isn't comprehensive unless the reader has an understanding of the plot (a requirement for FA/FL). Again, the only cases in which the VG project has really supported no character lists is for non-plot intensive games, which is why Final Fantasy (video game) (in which you select the classes of the main characters, they never talk for the whole game, and there's like four other significant characters) doesn't have a list and the plot-intensive games do have one. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think we need to remove the section "Specific tendencies", as there is no evidence that plot summary on its own, even if presented as a list, contains any enyclopedic content at all. WP:N does not allow lists of non-notable people's biographies, and I don't see why we should advocate create lists of non-notable fictional ones. If Characters of Kingdom Hearts can demostrate notability, then that justifies the article's inclusions. But I don't see how we can advocate lists that fail both WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT - it looks too much like a plea for special treatment for ficitonal elements being made from an editorial walled garden - you can't apply the same principles to other subject matters. If we are to provide guidance about lists, then let WP:LISTS do so. We have compromised on widening the notability inclusion criteria, but I don't think we can draft a guideline that contains sections that are contradict Wikipedia content policies, as that goes against the spirit of consensus at policy level. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Basic Draft Proposal

I went with a very quick draft of basic idea. It defiantly needs improving, but since no one seemed to be moving to writing an essay...

Lists for fictional works and elements can be helpful within reason Lists of fictional works and elements within those works have been quite controversial on Wikipedia with arguments on both sides for keeping and deleting them. Much of this contriversy stems from the fact that most lists do not meet general notability guidelines because they talk mostly about their respective work(s). In most non-fictional work, such information would almost certainly be deleted or merged, however that is often not the case for fiction-based lists. Most of the time these lists are split because of article length states that it is advisable to do so and the content that would be removed to keep the article length reasonable might jepordize the reader's understanding due to lack of context. Other uses such as consensus for various Wikiprojects or unusual circumstances when not separating such information could also confuse the reader due to lack of understanding; this usually happens when spin-off works contradict the main work which the article is primarily focused around. However, Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for trivial in-universe information and as such lists need to demonstrate some validy to enhancing the work to a general audience. For example, List of one-time characters in The Simpsons has been nominated several times for deletion due to its percieved relative unimportance denoted by the phrase "one-time only characters" specifically citing it as "fancruft", with arugments on the other side saying it is important because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and allows for lists. Because there has been no clear value on what should and should not go into lists and the large number of editors supporting the show, the article has repetadly been kept with each attempt at removal citing precedent of not being deleted before even though other major animation works such as Flintstones do not have a List of one-time characters in the Flintstones. However, List of One Piece characters is more likely to be fine because it talks more about the main plot characters; characters whose role in the narrative is critical to understanding the work as a whole. Even though there is a relative lack of real-world notability in the article, the information is still verifable, the parent article, One Piece, is notable, the characters listed are notable within the work, they are important to understanding the overall storyline and the article size would violate Wikipedia's article length guideline; nor does this article contain characters who appear incidentally like List of one-time characters in The Simpsons.

It's a start, but it remains my belief that we should punt on this with a general statement about lists "sometimes" being accepted, and deal with the broader lists issue at a later date. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Phil on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty accurate essay, and does a good job of punting on the issue. Randomran (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If we can find a way to easily integrate a guideline for lists that won't this bog down in a way that would get it rejected, that's always preferable. However, given the RFC discussion I doubt that is possible. I can go ahead and post this essay with a link to this and any other appropriate guidelines/policies/essays you think I should. I won't do so though unless there is some kind of consensus.じんない 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We should come up with a name for the essay that will explain how we got to this guideline. And including the "lack of clear consensus on lists" in that essay would be good. I defer to Phil Sandifer, and wouldn't want to create the essay until he added his two cents. He knows a *lot* about the evidence. Randomran (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone a made a temp version on one of my subpages: User:Jinnai/essay. Feel free to edit it if you think you can improve it. I have asked Phil to look at it, but he hasn't responded yet.じんない 20:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

discuss: multiple media adaptations

I think we've done a good job of cleaning up the guideline. But I want to start testing it with exceptions and examples, to make sure we have the wording right. I'm going to throw out a statement:

An element that has been adapted between multiple kinds of media (e.g.: a location that appears in a video game AND a movie, a weapon that appears in a comic book AND on an action figure) has a better chance of being notable. (Compared to an element that only appears in the original series.)

Is this generally true?

If it is, why? What part of the test does this improve? Is this real-world information, or is this evidence of importance within the fictional universe?

Discuss. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All I could think of. Lol. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- LOL I was channeling that a bit. Randomran (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My real answer is a dodge. Our measures (content, context, import of the parent work) are rough proxies for what a collection of us feel makes a subject able to be summarized appropriately vis a vis the core content policies. Even if some phenomenon like existential notability existed, our measures wouldn't make a one-to-one comparison. As such, we deal in approximations of multi-causal interacting occurrences. It is more likely that a character covered in multiple media would be discussed by the creator or covered in a non-fictionalized manner. It may be because the character is more compelling. Or sells better. Or it may be it sells better because they have positioned it better. don't get me started on the action figure thing. I'm already worried that folks are going to start citing ad copy to meet this guideline. I think it will give us the wrong answer to start at the outcome (a character is more notable) and look back. Protonk (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement is too vague. I mean, it might appear in each, but it might be incidental in all of them, major in one cameo in another, major in all of them. Without that information it's hard to say so. In the first, I'd say no. It's never good enough to get it's own article. It may be important enough to mention in the main article, such as reoccurrence of Cid in Final Fantasy series. In the second, that would depend entirely on the notability of the work it was prominent in. A good example of this would be anime adaptations of manga which often add new content. This new content may be based upon minor one-line mentions in the manga, but that doesn't make them nessasarily notable. However, if it spawns a central filler arc antagonist, FE, then it might be able to be mentioned in it's own article, assuming there is at least some real-world impact, even minor. For the 3rd, i'd say that it most likely does, assuming the qualification of at least some real-world impact. A good example of what isn't are antagonists from a action telivision show/movie that are made into a game as characters. Unless their is a drastic deviation in plot, the work is so similar to the original that it shouldn't increase it's notability; it's just rehash of the same. If they couldn't get notability for the original work, a rehash of the same storyline shouldn't make them more notable. Exceptions exist, if FE, the derivite work is used in such a way that enhances the characters prominence because of real-world impact.じんない 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let me be more aggressive. I create an article on a character, and in the reception section I say "The character appeared in the July 2006 webcomic X. The character has also been adapted into an action figure and plush toys. A giant full-scale model was featured at (company's) 2007 annual fan conference. There are several t-shirts and other merchandise featuring the character.(with reference to corporate website)". I then claim that this proves that the character is important to the fictional work, and that the article has significant real-world information. Thus, the character is notable. Is it? Randomran (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Because all of the information is cooperate-related information and might even get you flagged depending upon how it was worded for violating WP:ADS.じんない 08:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh, toys or merchandise is a bad barometer. If that was true, I could make a character article on every anime and manga character in existence (seriously, I could, see this picture). The only reason multiple media generally means notability exists is that there's a greater chance someone out there has covered the character (or whatever fictional element) due to the increased visibility. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, because notability cannot be inherited. For instance, Mickey Mouse (video game) does not inherit notability from Mickey Mouse. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't chimed in for a while, and first want to say that I generally like this new proposed guideline. As for this talk page section: no, definitely not. Example: the house of Gargamel has appeared in comics, books, animated cartoons, video games, and can (well, could) be bought for some fifteen years as a large toy. However, it is absolutely not notable. Almost nothing beyond the primary sources can be said about it, and no explanation of it is needed to understand any aspect of the Smurfs in any way. Fram (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there's an overwhelming consensus against this. But is that clear in the guideline? Arguably, I have a paragraph of "real-world" information, and it deals with the "impact" of the work. Randomran (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

However, you may have some real-world impact, but you've already stated the character has only appeared once in a comic-book; unless you can show in that real-world impact that stores, FE, were sold out of those items because of demand, then you have failed to show notability of the character individually because there has not been enough time for historic perspective. Even if the character was a main protagonist or antagonist, there still has not been enough time.じんない 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the implication is that it's television or video game character...the web comic means that it's now presented in *multiple* forms of media. So, that's how you get the "extra" real world information. Does that change your feeling on its notability? Randomran (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It would depend if the character was notable within the work itself. If they were the main protagonist and the work itself was notable, it might be enough. If it was some minor nobody, no; unless as I say, the reaction to the sales was enough to cause a newsworthy event, such as stores selling out of them everywhere or he was made into their mascot.じんない 07:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivial sources

I propose to change the part of the guideline that says:

"... should do more than just identify the fictional element as being part of a notable work"

to

"... should do more than just listing the notable works where the fictional element appears."

This would basically mean that you'd need more than a "list of appearances" in order to assert notability. (e.g.: it wouldn't be enough to say "character X appears in a video game, its sequel, its spinoff, plus a plush toy and comic book") I think this is pretty accurate, since we delete/redirect/merge fictional elements like this all the time. The real "keeper" article is when you have an element with info about reception or development. Agreed? Randomran (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I introduced the first version after realising that the only real-world coverage that an element of fiction might receive is no better than flap copy, i.e. the information only identifies the fictional as being part of a larger work. This sort of flap copy is often little better than coverage from an in universe perspective because it does not provide any evidence of importance within or outside the work in which it features. For instance, the souces cited in the article Characters of Kingdom Hearts say that "Sora is a character created for the Kingdom Hearts series", but so what? This information does not provide any evidence that the character is important at all, and the claim that "Sora is the primary protagonist of the Kingdom Hearts series is not supported by any real-world information at all.
Although I agree that a listing of notable works where the fictional element appears is also not an indicator of importance, I think this statement needs to be made in addition to the first. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a little redundant. But let's see what other people say. Randomran (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Sora is the primary protagonist can be cited with the primary source, the game. The fact you play the character denotes his relation as the primary protagonist. If you dispute that, you are disputing a core concept that is what video games are founded upon.じんない 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Gavin is disputing that she's the primary protagonist. Just that it doesn't give us any real-world information. Even if it proves the character is important to game universe, it doesn't prove that it's notable overall. Anyway -- this is a nuanced discussion that's slightly off topic. What do you think of the statement that we "should do more than just listing the notable works where the fictional element appears" to prove notability? Randomran (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That may need some clarity because if taken strictly by what it says literally, then yes.じんない 20:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have actually thought of a third prong to the "reality" test. Real-world information should be more than just identfiy the the creators, producers, directors or printers of fictional element. For instance, if a reliable secondary source says that Mary Shelley created the character Captain Robert Walton for her novel Frankenstein, that does not necessarily make the character important in any way. As this section says "Real-world coverage means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact". There has to be more information than just the inside of a book or DVD flap cover. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a legitimate concern. I think we might want to give it its own discussion, just so it doesn't get buried here. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would this not be part of "trivial" sources? Same as the air date for a TV episode, the voice actor for a character, and the like - stuff that would be straight-up facts typcially gleened from considering the out-of-universe aspects given by a primary work? --MASEM 04:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Effectively yes. However, there is a precedent for explaining why certain sources are trivial, such as those given in WP:BK, which also prohibits the use of trivial sources. It seems to me that when wrting an article about an element of fiction, the citation of a good commentary, even one from the author or director, would easily overcome this problem. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate that. "character was introduced in book X by author Y", "Episode aired on date X", etc., aren't trivial, are real-world and may be stated by a true reliable secondary source. But, I think there's general agreement that these "facts" are not heavy enough to carry weight to pass the third test. Right now, there's no good way to describe them beyond being general datum about the fictional aspect, however pressed for a way to describe them, this is "primary information" as opposed to "secondary information" (primary and secondary in the same manner as sources) - the primary information is non-transformative from the basic primary work and requires no "expert" analysis, while the secondary information (which would be "character X was modelled after person Y", or "Episode was planned to air shortly after event Y") is non-obvious information, analysis, or criticism that can only be provided from a secondary source (including commentaries from creators). Primary information alone, even if real-world, cannot satisfy the third test, based on the above discussion. (Mind you, this is all too heavy to include in the guideline right now, but we need some statement to this effect). --MASEM 14:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusions. Information like "character Z was introduced in book X by author Y" or "Episode Z aired on date X was directed by Y" is trivial information on its own, even though its source may be from a reliable secondary source. Often fictional elements such as characters or episodes are mentioned in passing in similar fashion to these statements, but this is usually an indicator that the fictional element is not itself important or notable, but is part of a work of fiction that is. I agree that non-obvious context, analysis or criticism is usually obtained from reliable secondary sources, but not always. In the article Kender, most of the article is drawn from primary sources; the compiliations of novels cited in the article contained real-world annotations by the authors about the character type, and these annotations at the very least give an indication of their real-world importance, if not notability. Fictional works annotated in this way are unusual in the world of publishing, but in the world of television series and movies, there is often extensive coverage of characters, episodes and even particular scenes added to DVDs that would support a decent stand alone article, which is I think what you, Masem, are in favour of, even though these sources are not considered independent of their subject matter. However, I don't think you cannot establish notability, nor importance, nor write an encyclopedic article (or even a list) just based on trivial "datum" which is why we need to make this clear in this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no less trivial than noting the birthdate of a famous person. That said, it's not enough to pass the 3rd-prong test.じんない 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - there is trivial (per WP:TRIVIA) "in passing" data ("Character X was mentioned in Y"), and there is factual data ("Character X appeared in Y"). Neither are suitable for the third prong, but we want to make sure that factual data is included where appropriate. --MASEM 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that if we're unclear, then people will try to WP:GAME the guideline by trying to present obvious or trivial information as "significant" real world coverage. Already, we've tried to prevent people from asserting notability through a mere "list of appearances". We might need to expand that to cover author and release date. I propose that we change:

"real-world coverage should be more that just listing the notable works where the fictional element appears and should do more than just identify the fictional element as being part of a notable work."

to

"real-world coverage should be more that just listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, and should do more than merely identify the author and release date of the notable work where the fictional element appears."

I'd be okay with wording changes, to be precise and clear. But I think there's a consensus that you need more than "X appeared in a 2004 game by Bob, and a 2005 movie spin-off by Jim." Randomran (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the following:

"real-world coverage on fictional works and elements is more that just a listing of trivial facts like as the author and release dates."

It's more concise and to the point about why those items are not enough, ie they are trivial.

It helps to be concise, but we've lost the important part: just a list of appearances isn't enough. How about "real-world coverage requires more than the authors and release dates of a list of fictional works where the element appears." Something like that? Randomran (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Change authors to staff (so someone doesn't go and say listing an entire staff is enough). Also somewhere in the pargraph we should linke to WP:TRIVIA so the reader can quickly see why.じんない 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "creators", rather than "staff"? Also, I wouldn't say things like the creator or release date is trivial. It's essential for any good article. We're just trying to say that it's not enough to assert notability -- *everything* has an author and a release date. Randomran (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Creator(s) maybe. Author doesn't fit for a character page from a movie or television show. How about:

"real-world coverage requires more than the expected information on creator(s) and release data of a list of fictional works where the element appears."じんない 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too picky. But saying "information on creators" starts to sound like we're against development information, when we're trying to promote it. We want information on creators, we just need more than a list of names. Trying again, how about: "real-world coverage requires more than a list of release dates for the fictional works where the element appears, or a list of cast/crew/creators." Randomran (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your being to picky. I put "expected" in for a reason; if the article doesn't have it, then usually is likely not going to be notable. Removing it is also not good idea because it is "expected". Maybe "essential" might have been better word choice.じんない 02:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think "essential" might make more sense. We could probably use a third-opinion here. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Creator commentary and critical commentary

When looking for real-world coverage, is creator commentary more or less equal to critical commentary in satisfying the third prong? --Malkinann (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Using the example of the article Kender in which the author provides creator commentary, I would say it is. Can you provide another example to illustrate this view? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In practise, the answer is nearly always "yes", as long as it is not just a paragraph of throw-away comments by the creators (the same is actually true for independent critical commentary as well). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) So do you need both creator commentary and critical commentary in order to satisfy prong three, or is one enough? "Real-world coverage means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. " The use of the word "and" implies that both are neccessary...? --Malkinann (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend on how substantial both are. A couple sentences by the creator and a passing review would be insufficient, while a silent creator but tons of in-depth critical commentary would be fine. It's more an evaluation on substance than a checklist of whether or not either is present. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are topics/subjects that had nearly no impact but have huge amounts of creator commentary (many Simpsons episodes come to mind, many of them GA quality), and there are topics/subjects that have to rely on critical commentary almost exclusively (e.g. Shakespeare's works). Trying to find a mix of both is always the best option, but there is only so much you can do as an editor. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally, alone, creator commentary isn't quite sufficient for notability in general, but I think this is why the first prong is very helpful here, as creator commentary does satisfy the third prong, and via the first prong, importance of the work, we avoid people gaming the system. That is, an example would be if I created some type of flash animation, then sometime later published my notes on the work. If we only allowed creator commentary alone to show notability, that makes that video notable (which it obviously isn't), but with the first prong, unless that video got a lot of coverage elsewhere, my work is not "important" and thus no matter how copious my notes are, will not be notable in this fashion. --MASEM 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This captures exactly, I think, the spirit of how and why this guideline departs from WP:N's strict reading. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Overkill

I think the drive to cut this guideline down has gone a bit far, at this point. The original version of the guideline took care to address various complaints - often raised in protest of it early on - that are now coming up again because they are no longer specifically addressed (for example, the "trivial coverage" issue a few sections up was something I know I had taken care of when I wrote the guideline, and the issue seems to be that, in an attempt to cut down the prongs, it got removed, and now people want it again.)

We've discussed adding an essay to the guideline, and I know someone (I honestly forget who) wrote a draft of it and wanted me to have a look at it - I apologize for my slowness in doing so. I'm juggling about five policy issues, and I wanted to leave this one to get along without my nudging it so that this moves away from being "my" proposal. Regardless, I think that we are getting to where the guideline is, I think, erring too much on the side of presenting bright lines. While I (grudgingly) recognize that bright lines are needed, I think part of why my original proposal was looked upon favorably by many disparate factions is that it actually did provide starting points to work through the various limit cases, and that it did acknowledge various important and persuasive arguments made by various sides. And I think that losing that from this guideline would be unfortunate. An explanatory essay may be the way to go, but I am starting to wonder if perhaps it would also make sense for the original explanation of the three prong test to get re-inserted after the summary section, thus providing both nutshell and more thorough accounts of the decision making processes.

In fact, I'm going to be bold and re-insert those three sections into the three pronged test. They may need cutting or editing, but I am increasingly convinced that the careful treatment and working through of the prongs is important to have as part of this guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your insertion of previously amended text. Your old version is too verbose, and would be paired down to essential points over time in any case. If there are any key points you want to introduce, then make a proposal. I don't want to go have that "Its déjà vu all over again" feeling. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed them. And I think that the essential points bright line version is both an important addition and the correct lead for the section. But the heavy cuts made to the guideline made it far too easy for the exact sort of automatic, reflexive analysis that, on both inclusionist and exclusionist sides of this debate, made it such a complete clusterfuck for so many years. The way forward is not simply to create a middle ground bright line distinction, but also to make this guideline part of the overall push to improve our coverage of fictional topics. By providing not just the line part of a guideline, but also the guidance part, this guideline helps build our standards and expectations, and helps provide marching orders for further work in the area.

I think that, without the three sections explaining the point of the prongs, this guideline becomes nothing more than a new set of rules for the war to be fought via, rather than an actual step forward. The goal should not be to codify the laws of engagement for deletion - it should be to make deletion debates a productive part of improving fictional coverage. That can only be done when the guideline provides guidance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Phil here that the added sections (wordsmithed and trimmed) are important due to the fact that this guideline is borne out of current common practice and not out of any magically determined bright lines. If as this progresses and we find the suggested bright lines stick perfectly fine for most, maybe those sections can be trimmed away, but right now, this FICT is a very broad stroke to set what is as close to established practice as possible such that further discussion can help fine tune it over time. --MASEM 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The content you added is basically word-for-word what was there before; it once again reads redundantly, which was the whole reason for shortening it and turning it from dense sections into succint bullets. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And the succinct bullets are there, and serve a useful purpose. But a careful and thorough working through of the issues also serves a purpose. I mean, the collapsing into bullets was great work, and improved the guideline. Kudos to whoever did it. But I think it's a mistake to view the bullets as a replacement for the explanation. Even if the majority of people are going to stop at the bullet points, and if the bulk of discussions will get settled at the bullet points, having the deeper guidance to fall back on in extended discussions is, I think, important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What your refer to as "a careful and thorough working through of the issues " seems to me more like personal opinions that don't belong in a guideline. Statements like "For the most part, works of fiction with greater artistic or cultural significance are works that Wikipedia will cover in more detail. In practice, the best method to evaluate this is through a thorough examination of the sources covering the main fictional work" don't have any practical application. Perhaps you should move this to an essay, as the longer this guideline becomes, the more difficult it is to understand. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think concerns about length are unfounded - at 14kb, this is right at the median length for subject inclusion guidelines. And I think that, by foregrounding a bullet points version of the test, it remains easy to understand. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If I was a computer, I would say 14kb was nothing. But I am flesh and bone, so clarity, brevity and readability are important considerations - lengthy statements of opinion such as the last one will get edited out - it is just too personal, tend to obscure the key points. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I find separating the key points so valuable. But I don't think that they amount to opinion. At least, not personal opinion. They amount to underlying principle. But that's not bad. Our policies could do with more principle and less bright line machine-readable rules. The hard decisions, after all, are the ones made on principles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand where Phil Sandifer is coming from, because we *will* get knee jerk reactions to this guideline unless we try to be clear and explain how the heck we got here. But I also helped to work through a lot of clean-up, to be more concise. The truth is, a lot of people don't like reading a lot, and sometimes more prose can actually make something *less* clear. We have to find a middle ground. I thought linking to a supporting essay would have done that, no? Randomran (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that there is something to be said for having explanation as part of the guideline, instead of as an essay. I honestly do not see the current version of the guideline as needing much supporting essay - and when 4k of text gets you sufficient working through in the guideline, I think it's worth keeping around. I mean, we're talking about a 14k guideline. Academics is 21k, books is 16k, music is 13k, people is 18k. We're not out of line with normal practice on length as it stands. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, but then those guidelines aren't as controversial. There's a bit more pressure on us to have something of higher quality. Anyway, let's try to find a middle ground to add in some more explanation, but still aim to be brief. The stuff you added back in: is it because you're trying to explain why the guideline makes sense, or because you're trying to explain some of the details of interpreting the guideline? Randomran (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the shorter version. I think we are overstating the possible harm that will come from not offering some 'history' to the guideline and needlessly complicating things by insisting that these explanations be there. These points to the guideline aren't that hard to grasp. All this needs is some explanation of why it is there (which isn't a restating of the prongs), a direction on how to treat content and a discussion of sources. That is it. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Less is more when it comes to writing guidelines. I think Phil's changes is an example of creeping embellishment. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes?

We already know we need a supplementary essay. We can also explain some finer points within the guideline through the use of footnotes. Most of the other guidelines/policies engage in some explanatory text in the footnotes. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes are a good idea. Another idea I was thinking of was a brief "rationale" section in the guideline itself, which describes a bit about how we got here, and a "see more" link to the supplementary essay. Randomran (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving the three explanatory sections to footnotes. I really don't see much beyond them that needs expansion, however, so I don't think that a supplementary essay is necessarily the best way forward. We're dealing with about 4k of text - very short for an essay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter. What matters is whether an essay enhances understanding and reasoning behind policy and/or guidelines. WP:IS is only 3k, yet it does what it needs to do.じんない 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with essays is that they're kind of a crapshoot of a category - they include both useful and vital exegesis of policy and half-baked and contradictory opinions. And the existence of the latter undermines the weight of the former. I think we're looking, at least in those 4k, at something that is more important than just an essay. Footnotes seem to me a good compromise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If Phil is fine with footnotes, then I'm fine with footnotes. I might copy and paste some of what's in the footnotes into an essay, and have a few "for more information about this prong, see WP:THEBESTESSAYEVERWRITTEN#Real_world_coverage". ... has anyone been working on the essay? Maybe someone should get it started. I'd be happy to help out where I can. Randomran (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted the copy Phil is citing at 4k on one of my subpages since we hadn't agreed upon whether we needed one. It is rough, but it has some major points including parts that aren't touched by WP:FICT currently.じんない 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we could remove the reiteration of "Of the fictional work" completely, if we're going to go with footnotes, as that's basically word for word the same as the miniature version. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think something should be added for dividing episode, characters, soundtracks, etc. into separate lists due to the fact such information will get compressed or removed when and if the article is nominated for a feature article, though the information may still be reliant for someone doing scholarly study or anyone wanting more in-depth encylopedic ibfirnation not readily apparant in a breif summary.じんない 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The practise of using footnotes in guidelines should be phased out. A guideline where the detail is in the small print is not a unified guideline, but a patchwork of statements that provide opportunity for conflict and ambiguity. In the current draft, footnotes are being used to qualify or amplify certain sentences: in my view, this is unnecessary, as this should be done in the body of the text itself. If the matter is not important enough to go in the main body of the text, it should not be in WP:FICT at all. If footnotes are used, they should only do so if an external reference is cited. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But look, if I had my way, guidelines would be lengthy, discursive musings that were long on philosophical justifications and principles, and short on hard and fast tests. We compromise. It's fun. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you take up drafting accounting standards where your approach would be warmly welcomed. However, this is a Wikipedia guideline, and we really need to to keep it short, sharp and simple. The embellishment of footnotes is a little too indulgent, particularly when we are not citing external sources; any pretence to faux intellectualism should be dispensed with in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gavin. Nobody is unclear on your position. And that is why the guideline has moved substantially from its original form. Now give a little. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) While I would normally follow Gavin's view for considerations of both brevity and diversion in guidelines, the footnotes as written here seem beneficial. We state the relatively simple test in the text and give some explanatory consideration in the footnoting. Too much footnoting (cf. most law review articles) leaves us with a divided focus or a work attempting to speak to different audiences at once. But too little and we are left to edit war over the small piece of real estate that is the three prong test when it is accepted. Note that the GNG is copiously footnoted and it could not be as direct as it is without the notes. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I support the footnotes too. At most, I might cut them in half and add a "see essay" link for further information. But right now, the guideline does a good job explaining the basic concept. The footnotes explain how and why. Over time, we might phase them out. But for the sake of getting this guideline passed, we do need some additional information to explain how we got here. Randomran (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  - That is very noble of you, but why? It seems to me that the footnotes are repeating what is being said in the main body of the guideline, except they are written in a slightly smaller font. I am not sure why they are there in the first place, unless there is a guideline somewhere that says every guideline has to have footnotes that duplicate what is said in the mainbody of the text^[1]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    - If they are purely duplicative, they should be cut down. Guidelines are not a forum for us to show people how much erudition and time we invested in them. They are just a means to unambiguously and accurately describe how differences might be worked out. Insofar as we need some explanatory bits (like the long explanation of what "important to the depiction of the fictional work" means), we should have them. We need to be able to say, on the FICT page: Article XYZ is the kind of article we want to avoid without turning the admonition itself into some winding, discoursive treatise on what sort of articles might be kept or tossed. If we can do that without footnotes, fine. But I prefer them to just having the material in the body text and I prefer keeping directly supporting info in the guideline so people can't just ignore it by saying "lolessay" and moving on. Protonk (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      - Problem with having them in the main body is it makes it bulky and cannot be described in a succinct manner that would likely get it passed. That was the problem noted earlier, that sadly people tend to want bullet-point style information and shove anything else sadly out the window. Footnotes or an essay are the best way to do this with.じんない 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Then I think we should trim the parts of the footnotes that are redundant, and distill them down into a "how and why". I still wouldn't ditch them completely. Citing a few examples is an interesting idea too, but I'd need to hear more. Randomran (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      - I think examples aren't worth the trouble. If we can find some good examples on the margin (i.e. the examples we have listed under "see also" do no good because it doesn't help to compare good/featured content to content facing deletion), we should think about it but since this is a subject focused inclusion guideline, article examples will not be particularly instructive. Protonk (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
        Then in fairness, the footnotes need to come out. Statements like "We are more likely to have articles on important and/or central elements of a fictional work, rather than peripheral ones" is a vague truism that cannot be proven or disproven. I think this statement and the rest of the footnotes are personal opinions which may be suitble for an essay, but not for a guideline as it at least once removed from the subject of article inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Guideline on Footnotes

^ There isn't any guideline that says every guideline has to have footnotes that duplicate what is said in the mainbody of the text, but maybe repetition in small font may help to reinforce the message by saying everything twice. However, I might be open to compromise if the footnotes contained example articles which illustrates the points made.

Inclusion criteria is not a presentational issue

I think the extension of footnote 3 to include presentation issues [4] is a classic example of WP:CREEP and should be reverted, as matters relaing to article spliting and presentation falls outside the scope of this guideline. These footnotes are taking on the form of mini-essays, and I would much rather get rid of them altogether. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the addition is a CREEP example and not the subject of this guideline. Protonk (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, the content in this guideline is getting way too bloated; throwing it into footnotes does not solve the issue. We should be addressing notability, not how it's presented or anything else beyond what is necessary; that's why there's the "it can be merged, all policies must still be followed" bits after the prongs. This is hardly a guideline in a vacuum. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. Protonk (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  - I reverted as this is a valid point that needs to be made as to why we have lists in the first place for so many items. I do not believe it is WP:CREEP because it follows WP:CONSENSUS on how to handle articles and why we do so. I'd say it's no less valid than the other 2 footnotes and if you want to remove that, remove them all because it does the same basic thing, describing how we come to certain practices in more detail. It is just as important for understanding as the first 2 are.じんない 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Per below, going into the list discussion is bad for the guideline. Next, that statement is a content issue this guideline shouldn't cover. Yes, FAC/GAN reviewers will ask for content to be reduced or split off, but not always. There's no need for a guideline focusing on notability to delve into here (and ironically, WP:NNC was cited right before that set of lines). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This guideline doesn't seek to answer the "spinout" or "list" question. Both of those are issues beyond the narrow scope of inclusion criteria for fictional works. Providing or even intimating what a satisfactory answer to that question would be is unhelpful and unrelated. Further, most of the footnote is about content and presentation. It doesn't belong. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

supplementary essay

Jinnai has been putting together a supporting essay, based on some of the things we've talked about or removed from this guideline (as excessive). I think it's a good starting point. But I wanted to bring it to peoples' attention here. Is there anything that's missing? Anything that's inaccurate?

Me personally, I'd like to see more concrete examples of articles we've deleted, and articles that we've kept and are unlikely to be deleted in the future. But I think Phil Sandifer knows more about the kinds of articles that have been kept (and are unlikely to be deleted). I can definitely help supply some of the deletion worthy material from the video games Wikiproject. Randomran (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A seasonal request

So, how does this current proposal, as-written, apply to the articles:

Thoughts? --Pixelface (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These are great examples of derivative works being markers of inherent notability. How many different times has A Christmas Carol been adapted, interpreted, or parodied? The Muppet Christmas Carol and An Easter Carol come readily to my mind. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A simple Google Books search brings up a half-dozen books on analysis/examination/interpretation of Dickens' works. The notion that one can't find literary analysis on these characters (or other characters in novels of historically prominent writers) is ludicrous. Hell, even go the high school cop-out route and you have SparkNotes and CliffNotes. The characters easily pass the third prong; that said, saying that "oh, they're obviously notable" by itself is bad. Showing sources so you can trout slap the nominator is what is needed, not assertions of notability without any concrete basis. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet we notice that our article Ghost of Christmas Past is poorly sourced and not very well written. The amount of effort put into an article is commonly in inverse proportion to its significance. We have vast effort expended upon the destruction of lesser topics and parasitic pontification such as this discussion but all too little work upon the most important topics. This is the Bizarro World. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

People write about what they like. No guideline or policy will ever change this. It isn't bizarro world, it's a natural consequence of Wikipedia. The only reason we're here is personal initiative. The Scarlet Letter is probably far more important in the real world than a good chunk of the stuff I write, but I hated that book with a passion in high school, so I'm never going to touch it. Conversely, no one will probably care about some obscure video game character, but I liked the game, so I wrote the article. Go figure. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jclemens but I should note (though this is cheating) most of those probably meet the GNG easily. :) But if we had to break it down, we can argue that one of dickens' works is "important" (1), Scrooge and the three ghosts are integral characters (and as said above, redone in multiple derivative works) (2), and their use as metaphors outside of the world of fiction helps meet (3). tiny tim could probably meet (3) on parodies alone. Protonk (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These examples illustrate my view that the concept of "Importance within the fictional work" as it is described in this guideline is too vague and subjective to be proven or disproven, which is why we should drop this prong. Afterall, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that all fictional characters are important, otherwise they would not have been created in the first place, which defeats the purpose of having a test if every fictional element passes. More relevant to writing an encyclopedic article is whether there is sufficient non-trivial real-world coverage cited from various sources to write a good article. I think we should amend the 3-pronged test, such that importance can only be established through real-world coverage and the test itself should focus on the quality of this coverage.
As regards the article themeselves, I note the comments of Sephiroth BCR, and I would agree it not unreasonable to assume that all of these articles could pass WP:FICT if they were better sourced. However, if no additional sources can be found, I would argue that coverage of the characters would not be diminished in any way if these articles were merged into A Christmas Carol or Ebenezer Scrooge. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pixel, this is WP:POINTY. These characters are all unquestionably notable, indeed, that is why you selected them. They need work? {{sofixit}}. You are being disruptive; there are hundreds of thousands of non-notable fictional this-and-that underfoot here; they are the problem, as are users such as yourself who relentlessly attempt to make the wiki safe for fluff. Jack Merridew 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew fails to assume good faith. User:Pixelface has provided some useful examples or counterexamples which have good seasonal relevance to our deliberations. WP:POINT would only be applicable if someone nominated these for AFD on the grounds that they lack sources, as is commonly done in other cases of well-known fictional characters. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Given Pixelface's behavior in the past, I'm inclined to characterize this as disruptive, but in any case, they're obviously notable because sources exist and per the current FICT. We all agree. Move on. Drama over. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That was fast, Colonel Tag team. Jack Merridew 10:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack, Colonel, Pixel, if you're just going to pop up for discussions like these, take it elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking people who have been busy writing guidelines to apply what they've written to actual articles is not "pointy" at all. It's pragmatic. --Pixelface (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find reliable third-party sources that cover all of them. We wouldn't even need this guideline for Tiny Tim. We'd definitely keep it. Randomran (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this guideline a generally accepted standard?

Despite some of my concerns not being addressed, I feel that we have reached a consensus on this guideline in its current form[5]. I know that other people have concerns too, but I feel if there are no major changes made to be made, it is ready to be rolled out. Unless there are any major objections, I propose that it is now time to say that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is (more or less) a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the next step is really to RFC this to move from "proposed" to "guideline". We've developed this in a not-so-closed vacuum of other editors, so now its time to see if they all agree to it. --MASEM 12:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we're basically done with discussion on the existing guideline. We've agreed to move lists onto a later date (and perhaps a separate guideline), so all that remains is a RfC. Hopefully, it won't be as acrimonious as the last one. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to remove the footnotes. I agree with whoever said above it gives the air of "fine print" when there shouldn't be any; can we just put the footnotes into the descriptions of the prongs and then just see if we can streamline them out (we don't need, for example, linking to essays, invocation of policies redudantly, et al.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if we're bringing this to a wider audience, perhaps we should assemble a FAQ explaining how we came to hammering out the different sections of the guideline, so people with issues don't have to go trawling through archives or bringing up old points? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That definitely needs to be there, along with a detailed reasoning of why we are skipping lists for now, among other details. Or more to the point, we want to get a stick in the ground that everyone agrees is current practice, and only once that is set, can we move forward. --MASEM 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the need for why we are skipping lists is paramount because it is doubtful it will pass by those who insist it does cover lists if we don't address the reasoning.じんない 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the editors saying that the footnotes aren't the best solution yet (merge them back onto the prose and try for another less drastic trim), that lists should not be covered in this guideline yet (enough time to consider options in the future), and that a FAQ makes sense (to explain why certain opposition is simply unactionable with the many views on fiction on WP). Then I'd see no problem with an RfC. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have two requests.

Before we propose this guideline for rolling it out, we contact a few WikiProjects to contribute to it and discuss it. Make them stakeholders in the process. Let them see it, modify it, discuss it for a while. Right now, we have a pretty decent range of viewpoints going into this guideline... but we want to be sure we haven't missed anyone.
When we finally have an RFC, we should have four options: Support, Neutral, Oppose as too lenient, Oppose as too strict. If this proposal fails, we'll want to know in no uncertain terms how to make it better.

Also, I think this is the kind of thing we can get a watchlist notice for. It would be a shame to only get the usual suspects out. We know how that will end up. Randomran (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen guidelines rolled out without a massive to-do and vote. I think making another announcement that we're finishing up the guideline, and making an explicit last call for comments, and then, if the consensus on the talk page is that it's good, we can tag it as a guideline and see if it sticks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Randomran (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you right now, if someone adds a guideline tag to the current page, I'm going to remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How does that add to the discussion, Pixel? What would you consider proposing as a compromise? What is unacceptable about it? What sort of evidence do you have that your reservations represent some broader feeling rather than just your opinions? Protonk (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm making my objection known now. I don't want anyone getting ahead of themselves. Over 1 in 4 articles on Wikipedia fall under Category:Fiction. How many people have been discussing the current proposal? What sort of evidence does anyone here have that this proposal represents broader feelings and not just their opinions? I can dissect this proposal later if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like that. It's painfully obvious that Phil, random, David, Masem, Gavin and I do not represent the community. But by the same token, no reasonable collection of editors will--like you say 1/4 of the articles in wikipedia are about fiction. So if we want (assuming everyone allots their time proportionally) /14 of the ~10,000 regular editors to wikipedia to comment, we are going to have to go with a pretty unwieldy solution. What I would prefer is that instead of just announcing your intent to obstruct this you bring up some reasonable complaint about why you don't think this guideline makes for a goof functioning inclusion criteria. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine without a pre made poll. We can probably just throw up an RfC and pop it on cent with a pointer to a talk page basically saying we have finalized the guideline (As phil says) awaiting some input from people outside this small group of editors. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the guideline is in good shape right now; we shouldn't be afraid of rejection, go ahead and put it up for discussion. If it's not representative then other editors will voice their opinions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I just look in on this thing from time to time. Generally, I am still opposed to it on the grounds of WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. I am particularly interested in its use of the phrase real world and shall say more on this below.

I am all for soliciting more comments. However, this has already been advertised widely on the appropriate venues. We should remind them of it, and tell them that the proposal is nearing finished and we think we have consensus for it. But on the other hand, I do not think a full vote or something is needed - generally speaking, guidelines have been determined on their own talk page, not with widely advertised votes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

how do we leave "lists" an open issue?

We've come a long way, and I want to make sure we cover all the angles. In an above thread, we decided to leave lists out of it. It's too complicated and will only piss people off. (As it stands now, WP:N's application to lists is unclear, and even when a list passes WP:N you sometimes get 2 lines of information from reliable third-party sources followed by 75k of original research from primary sources. This is definitely something we need to clear up. But not now.)

But even though we're leaving it out, I think it's important to signal to people that we're leaving it out. I'm worried about people saying "oppose: what about lists?" I'm starting to think we should have a section, with two lines that say something honest, direct, open, and neutral. e.g.: "Lists: This guideline does not govern lists of fictional elements. For further information about appropriate lists, see WP:LISTS." We're essentially punting. Randomran (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A line at the top to explain the scope should point this out, but when we RFC for input it should be mentioned we're considering lists as a separate issue to make matters as simple as possible (and that we're still waiting on the WP:N RFC to be evaluated by a third party before progressing on that route). --MASEM 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem punting. Where do we stop saying "this guideline doesn't cover XYZ"? Right now we repeat NNC, punt books and films in the lede, and bring up PSTS to avoid it. These particular 'punts' seem to fir organically in the text. I'm not sure how to put in some disclaimer about lists. And now that we don't have the specific tendencies section, it is less necessary to say explicitly. Protonk (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Listcruft is going to be an issue whether or not we try to stab at it; as it's more an issue endemic to all types of content, not just lists of characters (list of X people-type lists spring to mind) it makes sense to leave it to a wider audience to hammer out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Did someone wanna take a stab at adding a line in the lead, to clarify that this guideline doesn't apply to lists (or at least for the time being)? Randomran (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of character and episodes seldom provide any evidence of notability or importance, particularly if they contain only plot summary. This is a contraversial area, because I know Masem is very keen on such lists by virtue of the fact they enable coverage of fictional elements such as television episodes to be extended beyond the confines of an encyclopedic article that would normally be limited to notable topics such as a television series itself. I think this is an area that has to be discussed within the context of WP:NOT, and I propose that WP:FICT should be silent on this issue (for the time being) if we are to reach a point where we can all compromise on this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If we don't address lists, or make it clear that nothing here can be used to cover lists, i fear this won't be accepted since there will be too much argument on that front to bog it down.じんない 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  - All we have to do to address that concern is that when brought to RFC, explain the reason we deal with lists separately, and if too many people disagree because it doesn't deal with lists, make sure this point is emphasized. If it doesn't pass because it doesn't specifically address lists, then we'll have to add that but by the time we are there the analysis of the WP:N RFC will be done and we will be able to better address lists than we are now able to. --MASEM 15:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    - How do we deal with the use of sources then, specifically semi-independent ones? Already the issue has cropped up in List of One Piece characters as semi-independent being non-independent. Are we saying that semi-independent is exclusive only to non-list fictional articles, and ifso, why? If not, then we need to say that as well.じんない 15:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      - I have mixed feelings about affecting fictional lists with our source requirements. On one hand, yeah, a "semi-independent source" such as DVD commentary, or a self-published source such as a developer blog could provide useful *and reliable* information -- because it's the developer of the game, and they're an expert on their own work. But at the same time, I would strongly disagree that this is enough for the notability of a list. It's not like you can find two sentences from a blog that says "I put a lot of work into the characters and tried to model them after the American old west," and then add 75kb of information about the characters and their blood types. I think we're going to have to let people argue it out on the talk pages with no real consensus... until we can figure out a list guideline. Randomran (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        I thought we had that covered with the fact you actually had to have more than just one-line to fill to pass notability for an article? That would therefore invalidate such an argument.
        
        Either way, if consensus is we don't want this used for lists, then we should say so, and why. Saying so without reason is just bound to cause argument. Even saying so might, but at least we can having justification for our reason instead of it looking like arbitrary decision.じんない 16:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        Even a paragraph about character design wouldn't be enough for 30 or 40 characters to piggyback its way into the encyclopedia, IMO, but I know this will prompt further discussion. I agree we should spell it out in the lead. I'd encourage someone to be WP:BOLD and add something about how we're not going to tackle lists. I'll try to think about this too, if nobody else can come up with a way to phrase it. Randomran (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        Not sure because it needs to be made in such a way that doesn't look like it was just an arbitrary decision that we felt like we didn't want to tackle. We need to explain why WP:LISTS would be better for this even if it's only 1 line or I fear this policy won't be accepted because those who think it should cover lists will blast it.じんない 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        My sentiments exactly. Let me think for a while about what to add to the lead. Hopefully someone smarter than me will come up with something. Randomran (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        It may be predicable that I don't think that the addition of the new footnote[6]. It does not work on two levels: (a) it does not provide a workable guidance for lists, and (b) the statement "we thought it was best to leave the list issue for a later time" is a statement of personal opinion. I presume Randomran was using the "we thought" in the royal vernacular, as he probably meant to say "I"? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        ...does the half-dozen people above saying they want to punt the issue indicate what "we" means? Take the snide attitude elsewhere. We're leaving lists off for another time; hell, it's probably a whole new guideline we'll have to make. For the addition though, I would leave it off and include a note that we're not tackling lists as part of the essay FAQ we're making (seeing as if and when a guideline regulating lists is made, we're obviously going to mention it here). It looks weird in the guideline itself. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        I agree, it is too personal opinion to be approriate for a guideline. With Randomran's permission, I would like to take it out. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        I never said it was too much personal opinion; I was noting that it was more appropriate for the FAQ. Until you drive through your skull that putting words in people's mouths are bad, then you're going to have a hard time collaborating anywhere. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        
        So what are you proposing? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        I think it's important we communicate exactly what this discussion (and discussions like it) have ended in: a consensus to punt. I don't think we should be bashful about it either. That said, if you think there's a better way to phrase it, go ahead and be WP:BOLD. Randomran (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        That is what the talk page is about. I eliminated the footnote, on the basis that it content was not supported by any specific policy or guideline, which is what I think we need to stick close to. I have replaced it with a reference to WP:LISTS, which while bland, provides more guidance than the footnote that preceed it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Real world

The third test currently reads:

“

Real-world coverage: Non-trivial information must exist on the subject's development and reception beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. More is required than merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff. Real-world coverage means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact.

”

The phrase real-world seems unclear and confusing. The names of production staff are very much real world details but are disallowed for no clear reason. Critical commentary may well focus upon the subject within its setting - the emotional nature of a character, say, or the intricacy of a particular plot point. This lack of clarity makes this poor as a test and, if poorly interpreted, might result in systemic bias, favouring fiction which is allegorical or satirical and so has more allusions to real people.

An example may help. Consider Gollum. This article has lots of details from the story and lots of names of production staff - the actors who have played or voiced the character. None of this is real world. We have a couple of fragments which might be real world by this test:

In the first edition of The Hobbit, Gollum did not appear quite as wretched or murderous, and indeed showed Bilbo the way out after losing the riddle-game. Tolkien changed his characterization in the second edition, to fit the concept of the ruling Ring which he had developed during the writing of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien then explained that the version given in the first edition was a lie that Bilbo made up to tell the Dwarves and Gandalf.

The Annotated Hobbit suggests an Old Norse derivation for Gollum. Constance B. Hieatt notes that the word gull or goll can mean "gold, treasure, something precious" - and "ring".

The second seems something of a guess but might do. The first is more interesting in that it jumps back and forth between the author and his versions of the story. Such examples may give rise to furious arguments and wikilawyering about the nature of real world and so do more harm than good. As far as I'm concerned, the important thing about fiction is its internals: the way the story hangs together; the characters develop; the emotional impact; the stylistic flourishes - the stuff of literary criticism. Mundane stuff about the amount of return on investment or the details of some copyright dispute may be of interest to accountants but they are not the main point of such articles and so they should not depend upon them.

Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's at least a good number of scholarly editors that do want to make sure the fiction as a work of fiction is covered in a means to dissect the work in WP, which yes, can be included but only as long as we're bringing secondary sources along to do that job for us instead of synthesizing OR for the article. That is, I fully expect more classical works to have sections on themes, allegories, and the like. However, where the "real world" aspect comes in is that these are all treated beyond the covers of the work, even if the themes, allusions, or whatnot require no information from outside the work to understand; the work itself, to receive such treatment, usually means it has been received by literary experts in some manner to thus describe the work in some real world fashion.

Or most simply: any literary analysis by a reliable secondary sources would be, in my book, a satisfactory "real world" aspect to show notability per this guideline.

Mind you, this likelihood only exists for a small section of fiction; I don't expect that a random Simpsons episode or a Sonic the Hedgehog game is going to have the same treatment as Othello or Dante's Inferno, while at the same time these won't have sales figures or MetaCritic scores. The type of work will help describe what type of real world aspects we should be expect to find. --MASEM 12:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a clarity of language issue, because the example you gave would be satisfactory "real world" coverage by most standards. The guideline isn't trying to say that names of production staff are disallowed: obviously we'd want to know that Gollum was put together by Tolkien himself. It's trying to say that more than that is required for notability -- which was provided in the example you gave. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Colonel Warden, every fictional element is covered by "internals", which is the primary source itself. When writing an article about a fictional topic, there is no encyclopedic value from from plot summary on its own; what is need is context, analysis or criticism in order to understand why a character or episode is important in the real-world. Since we as editors can't write the "stuff of literary criticism" from our own perspective (that would be original research), we have to get that information from a secondary source. What this guideline does is to broaden the range of secondary sources which can be used to establish importance. I think the wording as it stands now is nothing less than is required to write a decent article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to cheat, Gollum the subject has more than sufficient coverage to be considered real world. The mechanism by which he was filmed alone could world. I know that multiple generalist newsmagazines did full articles on the character/character creation. I know what you mean in general, so I won't stand solely on that point. I think that "real world" prong could be clarified but the basic idea is appropriate. We don't want license granted to turn articles on fictional subjects into a directory of fictional characters and cast members. That is the reason for the specific prohibition (and it isn't so much a prohibition as it is a statement that information on cast-character connections is insufficient alone for notability). And remember this is just for articles that don't meet the GNG. For subjects with literary analysis available, this guideline does not speak with any force. Protonk (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your example is another good case of systemic bias. You suggest that, because Gollum was a CGI character in the recent movies, that this effectively makes him more notable than a character that was played by an ordinary actor. This is a nonsensical way to determine coverage of a fictional character and would give rise to absurd results - that Spock is in but Scotty is out, say, because Spock had stick-on ears. Such real world considerations are quite trivial. Does anyone now know or care who first played Lady Macbeth or suppose that Banquo is more notable because of the ghost effect required? I see current news coverage of David Tennant as Hamlet - his back trouble, the donor of Yorick's skull, etc. But this is celebrity gossip which is of little historical importance. We should not bias our coverage in favour of such trivia. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's a systemic bias, then we're only reflecting the systemic biases of scholarship in general. (Anything else would be WP:OR.) Yeah, the bad news is that "man bites dog" is more likely to be written down somewhere than "dog bites man". The good news is that notability is a low threshold. Covering "unusual" details like CGI characters or actors with lisps makes it easier to prove notability. But it is not a requirement. Virtually any important character would have *something* written about it in a reliable and independent secondary source, or would have an author who recorded or revealed some thought about its development. We're not asking for blood from a stone here. Randomran (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

....really? I'm just saying that sources covered the subject and listed an obvious example. Spock is "more" notable than Scotty for a number of reasons. We aren't going to fix that here. Systemic bias that we can fight against and fix is the bias inserted by the audience and editing population of wikipedia being predominantly white, <50, male and American. "Systemic bias" of sourcing is not something that I plan to fix. Also, what you call trivial I can call important--the purpose of guidelines like this is to ensure that our parochial interpretations of what should and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia don't dictate what actually is or isn't in the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

opening the floodgates

I think real world coverage is going to be pretty easy to come by. A quick look reveals a ton of sources that go into behind-the-scenes detail of how specific films were made. Video games also have an abundance of sources like this. Take the minor but notable indy game Castle Crashers, which has its own development blog with details on weapons and characters. Needless to say, it's going to be pretty easy for a competent editor to find reliable information about the development and impact of fictional elements.

As a precisionist, I don't particularly mind. My goal is quality control. I can think of many things worse than a flood of decently-written character or weapon articles with information about their development and reception. I'm okay lowering the standard for notability so long as it doesn't give people a licence to turn Wikipedia into a game guide about a weapon's strengths and weaknesses, where you find it, and so on.

But I'm curious what some of the more "WP:N is infallible" people think. Does easy access to real-world coverage (and thus notability) open the floodgates too far? Or do the other two prongs (importance of the work & element) provide enough of a safety valve? Randomran (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see no trouble provided that the real world coverage is substantive and independent, but those are critical. The template above contained a massive error, namely that subject-specific guidelines may be less restrictive than the GNG. That is incorrect. Substantive, multiple, independent real world sources are required in all cases. If that restriction can be met, an article is appropriate. If it cannot, it is not. That's really all the distinction we need. If there really are tons of real-world, independent sources available on the minutiae of some fictional work, then we can support a lot of articles on such minutiae. If there are not, we cannot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it does open the floodgates too far. That's why right from the start I have argued that real-world impact needs to be demonstrated. Basically it's not enough that the creator, or a handful of diehard fans, can tell you that such-and-such a character was inspired by some other dude, or that some fictional weapon was originally modelled from half a dozen empty Coke cans. All that stuff is a load of wankery unless it can be shown that someone besides the creator, and maybe a circle of obsessive fans, cares. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think making real-world coverage as being the prime focus for the inclusion criteria for ficitonal topics is a big step forward. Many editors associate ficitonal topics with plot summary written from an in universe perspective as this is common practice in the media; in reviews, film and television guides, plot summary is used as a "hook" to generate interest in the story. Although this is a good idea to get the reader/viewer interested in buying a particular book or watching prime-time television, this commonly used approach conflicts with Wikipedia's objective of providing a broader balanced encyclopedic coverage that demonstrates real-world notability as well as providing context, analysis or criticism about fictional topics. There is currently an RFC at WT:WAF which is seeking to undermine the requirement that fictional topics be written from a real-world perspective. This is a shame, because real-world coverage is what we need to encourge, not discourage. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not coverage which is the biggie, it's impact. Coverage can trivially be dredged from fan sites. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh. I think demanding that someone cares about fictional element XYZ is not a route to a good decision rule. I agree with Reyk normally, but I would say that lots of fictional article subjects are loads of wankery even if they meet the GNG. the three prongs provided in FICT will allow for the expansion of fictional articles, but only to the penumbra of what the community allows now. Think about it this way: we don't apply the GNG as rigorously as we could, otherwise core elements of fictional subjects would already be deleted (especially on popular subjects). I don't expect that the community will apply this guideline to the extreme, either. Protonk (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, lets not lose sight of what this guideline is supposed to represent: articles that just barely meet all three prongs should be kept, but likely need many more sources to move up the quality scale -- in time, we hope these articles will improve. This is also a minimum requirement to have a page, but meeting this requirement doesn't mean that a page is necessary' editors should also take steps that if there are several related articles on the same fictional work that all just barely meet the prongs, there's likely a way of grouping coverage in the main work of fiction or a grouped article that contains all the real-world information that can be stronger than individual articles on their own. (Note, this is not the same as completely non-notable lists) We also should still keep aware of the effects of WP:UNDUE on these articles, though as long as that's in WAF, then no need to include it here; if all you can find about real-world is one ref and more than in passing, that doesn't give you the freedom to write 5000+ words around it.
There's also cases of how the first two prongs come into play. In the Castle Crashers game, for example, the game is notable, but the individual characters are not significantly important to the game overall, thus an article on any individual character in the game will likely fail the second prong. --MASEM 14:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm relieved that there's actually very little opposition to "opening the floodgates". However, I do see an interesting sentiment from Reyk and Masem -- that the overall importance of the fictional element is going to be an important control. I also know that Gavin Collins sees the "importance" requirement as vague. Do we need to tighten up the importance requirement so it's not just my word against yours? Or do we trust the common sense of consensus? I'm going to think about that for a while. Randomran (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[1] There isn't any guideline that says every guideline has to have footnotes that duplicate what is said in the mainbody of the text, but maybe repetition in small font may help to reinforce the message by saying everything twice. However, I might be open to compromise if the footnotes contained example articles which illustrates the points made.

[1]