Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Mediation

It has been mentioned before and we are at an impasse here. Gavin and Nifboy and one side with a few others as well; myself and Masem and a few others on the other side with no clear way to come to a solution that meets with both sides because of fundamental differences in the scope of this project and what its intended purpose is that is unlikely to be resolved. Leaving it to the last man standing is not a positive way to get policy made. We can have more RfCs, but I feel that is a path we've traveled across before with no real success.陣内_Jinnai 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that mediation does not apply to differences of opinion in respect of policy or guidelines, the reason being that the mediator does not have any precedent which can be used to resolve the disagreements. The most productive way forward is to hold an RFC on a particular issue.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering none of the RfCs have made almost no impact I cannot see them having much of any benefit, unless we do in the manner where we tell people to ignore all the rules for the first round and just ask what and how they'd like to see fiction covered and then, only after everyone has had a chance to have their statements said without someone slamming various policies/guidelines around in order to stifle creativity would be begin to apply them, and also seek in some cases to change them, if they need to be.

The reason why we need this is to see clearly where Wikipedia stands on such articles because there seems to be a rift here, and elsewhere, that cannot be overcome.陣内_Jinnai 17:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We know what the result of such an RFC: everyone wants high quality coverage of fictional topics, that almost goes without saying. We just diverge on how that can be achieved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that very few people seem to find it acceptable that articles can be just plot.陣内_Jinnai 02:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the agreement on the second point is that it applies to the overall WP coverage of the fiction, not every article about a sub-topic within that coverage. The more restrictive position has been advocated and I do not mean to dismiss it out of hand, but only the broader has universal agreement.

I think there's a third point of general agreement: that WP:V applies. Is there a fourth, that primary sources are suitable for factual descriptions, or is this still controverted? DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly primary sources can be used to support facts, but there is widespread disagreement about the amount of notability they establish. Many users, including myself, feel that an article supported solely by primary sources is not suitable for this encyclopedia. This viewpoint is based on policy, and the notability guideline itself, whereas the contrary viewpoint as far as I can tell is based on nothing whatsoever. Specific to the topic of fiction, I think this is excellent advice. So my opinion is that primary sources can be used, once an article has established notability through independent sources, to verify claims made in the article but do not count towards notability themselves. Reyk _YO! 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Burdern doesn't require secondary sources be used. it requires reliable sources be used to verify evidence which can be primary sources for factual statements.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used to verify facts. What they do not do is count towards notability. WP:BURDEN states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Ergo, articles based entirely on primary sources are a no-go zone. I really don't know how the policy could be worded more clearly. Reyk _YO! 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are third party primary sources. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been using the term "primary source" differently to how Gavin and I use it. When I say "primary source" I mean one that is directly connected to the thing in question and that has a direct interest in it. For instance if we were talking about Lord of the Rings, primary sources would include the books themselves, anything else Tolkien has said or written and stuff put out by his publishers. These are no good for judging notability because the works themselves make no such claims, and the people directly connected with it have a motive for promoting it. A third-party source is one that independent of the thing being discussed and can therefore be used as a way to judge how much notability the thing has actually achieved. I do not know what you mean by these terms, but to me a "third party primary source" is a contradiction like a "square circle". Reyk _YO! 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If this were true, then the statement you refer to in WP:V makes notability a policy, which it has been sufficiently determined not to be. I did ask for clarification at WT:OR about how to define primary sources , and the consensus (granted, of only a few) is that primary sources are those that involve no transformation of information, not the relationship to the work. Thus, by this, there are third-party primary sources that are simply reporting facts (eg many newspaper articles). This doesn't change WP:V's goal - to show validation of a fact (using only first-party primary sources leads to vanity-type articles), and makes WP:N a stronger guideline by looking for sources that transform original information into something usable to demonstrate notability (thus removing the problem of routine newspaper reporting being used to justify the GNG.) --MASEM (t) 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to side with Reyk. The term "third party primary sources" is entitely disingenous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So how would you describe a TV guide article that is purely a synopsis of an episode? --MASEM (t) 13:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not allowable as evidence of notability because it is equivalent to "capsule reviews" or "flap copy", i.e. product description like that you would get on the back of DVD case. It is basically a regurgitation of the primary source, which this guideline describes as "Trivial coverage" because it is devoid of commentary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it can't be used for notability. That's not the question. Is it a primary, secondary, or tertiary source? --MASEM (t) 16:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's secondary but, for reasons Gavin has noted, not appropriately usable in an article. A TV Guide plot synopsis is not ever an appropriate source because the reliability/verifiability of plot information does not improve by being a step removed from primary. Policy emphasizes secondary sources because the only way to get sources more reliable than primary is to have a third party step back and evaluate the primary sources. But that isn't the case for in-universe information, where creator word is law (albeit very malleable law) and every step removed from that is a drop in quality. Nifboy (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the capsule review is primary. It's written by the production company, and reprinted verbatim by the guide. That's the reason you get precisely the same capsule on multiple websites and publications.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to both the above: change it to, say, the New York Times entertainment page providing it's own non-interpretive recap of an episode. (An interpretive one would be something like Television Without Pity does). Is it primary or secondary?

The point here and what seems to come out from the WT:RS discussion is that the measurement of primary and secondary is better described by not the relationship to the original work, but instead to the amount of transformation made to the original work. In this manner, a straight-up, non-interpretive recap is a "third-party primary" source, while an actual recap and review would be a secondary source. Thinking of things in this manner helps to clarify where things like newspapers articles sit for notability - most non-op-ed pieces from newspaper would considered "primary" coverage of events, usefully to establish facts but not enough to satisfy the GNG alone.

This might seem too far outside the discussion for WT:FICT, but it is important to consider this approach for what issues are raised about. I would think basing the classification of primary and secondary works off the idea of "Transformation" of information would make it much clearly what types of works in relating to fiction would not be acceptable for meeting general notability guidelines, as it is much clearer what is primary and what is secondary. This is in contrast to the case where we consider "primary" as being the source itself and "secondary" being anything else, effectively, that doesn't originate from the primary source. Again, if you start talking these (independent) recaps like I suggest, they would fall into "secondary" in this scheme, but would be "primary" in the scheme of "transformation", and thus would not be sufficient for general notability, and thus a clearly solution for all. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree the hypothetical source is a "third-party non-transformative" source. We only disagree about which portion of that defines primary/secondary; in my mind "third-party" defines it as "secondary" and "non-transformative" is synonymous with "not useful in the presence of an equivalent primary/first-party source", making it less than a primary source in practice. What I don't believe is that you can stick a "secondary" label on a source and pretend that's all the evaluation you need to do with that source. Nifboy (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I explained at the WT:RS discussion, there are 3, maybe 4 axis you can qualify any source under this scheme (and to be exact, this is only a scheme to think of these differently):

1. Primary/Secondary/Tertiary - This is a means to measure WP:NOR
2. First or Third party - This is a means to measure (in part) WP:N, and also WP:NPOV
3. Dependent or Independent source - This is a means to measure WP:NPOV/COI (this could be combined with first/third, since there is never a "independent first party" source.
4. Reliability (which is more a continuous scale and thus hard to put labels on specifics, but lets simply put that as "somewhat reliable" and "very reliable"; lets presume we immediately discount "not reliable" sources) This is a means to measure WP:V

In this scheme, a lot of our policies become simpler to understand with respect to what types of sources we want without changing their intents or practice, and in particular with notability, this scheme makes "secondary" sources ones that actually give more information than just facts about a topic because someone else has done some transformation on the information. Thus, in consistency with this, our GNG is based on finding Independent, third party, secondary, reliable sources, and using other types of sources to augment this coverage.

The problem I have with just calling any third-party source "secondary" irrespective of how the topic is covered is that in how the GNG is phrased, this means that a topic that has only been covered factually but non-transformatively in numerous sources (eg: most news events, but it is not just limited to that) barring any other considerations should be considered notable. This is, in part, why people are confused and dislike notability as we use it, because this interpretation implies we should be including more, but in actually it is more limited than that. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My internal scheme is limited primarily to "Problematic/Nonproblematic" with a separate independent/dependent for notability purposes. My definition of primary/secondary has little to do with Wikipedia but is more from a general knowledge standpoint, and I'd rather avoid trying to enforce a specific definition of a word that means different things to different people. Any source that falls under the "Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources" portion of the GNG has to not be problematic, and "primary third party" sources are problematic because they don't provide any additional information than an equivalent first party source. Between this Blizzard press release and this Wired blurb, it's the official press release that would get used in the article, and the Wired article is problematic in that it's just redundant parroting. Nifboy (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(Addendum) My objection is primarily that your use of primary/secondary as a useful distinction between sources is only useful for a particular definition of primary/secondary that not all of us share. I'd like to avoid a repeat of our mangling of the word "notable" if at all possible, as the latter has certainly caused us no end of grief. Nifboy (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree to that. I'm saying though that, right now, "primary/secondary sources" is a point of contention (not only here, but around WP in general) because outside of WP there are different definitions of it and that we're using all versions of that internally (see, for example, the variations in definitions in footnotes at the bottom of WP:NOR), as opposed to notability which has one definition outside WP but a different one internally. Nor am I trying to redefine these to weaken current notability by the GNG. I'm just pointing out that there are sources that we (here in this discussion) know are not good, but that because of how we have a variable way of defining sources, and emphasizing those definitions within policy and guideline, we make it difficult for newer editors to understand why certain types of articles don't work for notability, among other things. And I'm only suggesting my way (which is a better discussion over at WT:OR) simply because it requires no wording changes to any policy or guideline but makes the judgement of the type of sources that meet them that much simpler. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between Primary and Secondary sources is not a contentious issue in Wikipedia: there is plenty of policies and guidelines that set out the differences. We just can't go on trying to change this guideline to fit into Masem's personal view. If a plot summary appears in any publication, then it is a summary of a primary source pure and simple. Even a new editor can understand that. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What the line is between primary and secondary is contentious - not to the point of being a major battlefront, but the fact that at AFDs, people point to sources that aren't the work itself but neither are deep coverage of the topic and say "there are secondary sources". They are wrong, yes, but that's because our current method of defining secondary sources is "one step removed", which while partially true is not a full explanation of what a secondary source should be , which is "one step removed and transformed information" to provide deeper coverage. This is trying to make that better so there is less confusion and more clarity at AFD and at policies. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not contentious: have a look atWP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which is core policy, so its a highly visible, well explained piece of guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is written into a policy does not mean the idea is not contentious. Again, the fact that when I posted the question to WT:OR (link above as its in the archives now) there was disagreement among established editors there means that it is not clear cut. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you personally have an issue with this policy, that does not make it contentious by default. Its just your opinion, the policy still stands. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it in terms of being a general policy. I do have an issue that it leaves too many questions that are asked by editors - see the discussion linked and the disagreement over whether the provided example is primary or secondary. I am seeking to establish better clarity for it, serving only to improve the understanding of policies and guidelines, such as by making it clear that a typical news-story is not secondary and thus not sufficient alone for notability. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction between primary and secondary sources is widely accepted, and I think Gavin is correct there. But there is no policy based reason for rejecting primary sources in those situations where they meet WP:V, and the circumstances that they do so are reasonably well accepted, with a certain amount of controversy about some of the details. One ofthe situations for which they are accepted is the description of fiction. But that is not the question. The question is whether secondary sources are needed for notability. there is no policy about that; there is a guideline that says they are the normal way of proving notability, but I think the number of exceptions that are admitted to it in both directions show that this guideline alone does not answer the question. Worth respect to fictional elements, we can make whatever guideline we please. The GNG does not supersede other formal or informal guidelines--and the proof of this is that attempts to make the WP:N into policy have always been rejected by the community. I think it is clear from the general pattern of results at afd that the community is prepared to accept some articles on elements of fiction without specific secondary sourcing to show their notability,and is not prepared to accept others. what remains is to rationalize this, and a stubborn insistence that the community is willing to accept this does not hide the actual results of community deliberations. Gavin, the policy you refer to does not exist with respect to notability. WP:OR says nothing whatever about notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:V specifically states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". A primary source cannot be third-party, and an article based on them cannot meet WP:V. Articles can include material from primary sources, but cannot be based on them.—Kww(talk) 03:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, this depends on what "primary" means. This UCBerk page linked from WP:NOR includes news reports (by necessity, third-party) as a "primary sources". If we took the view that primary sources are either the original soruce itself (first-party) or sources that reiterate the original work without interpretation, commentary, or other transformation or the like, and that secondary sources are those that do provide transformation of the original work, then this only serves to strength all policies that rely on how we classify sources: WP:V wouldn't change at all, WP:NOR and WP:N would require secondary sources that give transformational information to support extraordinary claims instead of just factual information, and so forth, and more importantly, would establish that an article that is only based on third-party primary news reports is likely going to fail notability. The current common view, that only the original work can be primary, makes several of the other policies and guidelines difficult to clarify because they don't properly deal with news reports that otherwise contain no op-ed. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Op-ed is not considered to qualify as evidence or notability, as it not a reliable source (i.e. like a blog, it is not a source of information that is subject to peer review or factual attribution) or it is not significant coverage (i.e. it contains hearsay, throwaway opinions or views). Our existing guidelines are perfect clear on these issues and are easy to clarify if you apply a little common sense. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The op-ed stuff is missing the point. The point is, with our present definitions of "primary" (the actual work) and "secondary" (anything once-removed from that), third-party recaps and descriptions w/o any further analysis of the work can be read to qualify as "secondary". I think most involved in discussion know otherwise, but there is nothing clearly stated in the PSTS section to suggest that these are anything but secondary ("second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event."). Thus, a newbie editor could come along, see an episode written up in several places (and over time, to presume NTEMP is not an issue), and thus claim the work is notable because of multiple "secondary" recaps.

With a revamped definition of primary ("non-transformative") and secondary ("transformative"), then those recaps clearly become primary sources - third-party and thus useful for WP:V - but not for notability. NTEMP becomes actually stronger - if we're just going off news reports with no transformation of information, then there's no notability despite large coverage. The clearer definition weaken no other policy or guideline but instead strengthen them. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources & notability

I don;t go by the academic definitions of primary sources here: they are designed for their own purposes, and differ in different subjects. In literature the primary source is the work being discussed, but this doesn't hold anywhere else. For historians, it's the data they use, as contrasted to the discussions of it. For laboratory scientists, it's the published papers that constitute the primary literature. I think the literary studies definition works very nicely for literature. The documentation for the plot is the plot in the work itself. The documentation for the meaning of the plot is the works written about it. But that's WP:V, and I don;t think it has much relationship with notability in any meaningful sense, nor should WP define notability for fictional works in this manner. What needs to be emphasised is that we can define notability however we please. The practical meaning at WP is , notability=worth an article. We can decide whatever we want to as being worth an article. We could say no character is ever worth an article unless discussed out of context of the work--some earlier decisions seem to be based on that. We can define it requires a secondary work being primarily about the character, and require a particular size: an entire book, or a chapter in the book, or any evaluative paragraph. Or we could define it without regard to sourcing at all, by a combination of the importance of the work and the importance of the character in the work. Or, and I would prefer this approach, for it works well in other subjects, we could accept any of these three approaches--or any other that people can suggest and agree on. Masem, don't let Gavin switch the discussion to the assumption that we are tied forever to the GNG. We just plain aren;t. Other fields have accepted it: anOlympics athlete is notable as long as we can verify that he has competed in the Olympics,regardless of any other sources or information whatsoever. A settlement is notable if it appears as a settlement in any reliable source, including a map. or gazeteer or census. Nothing further need be demonstrated. These have held at AfD consistently for years without any exceptions whatsoever. We could do just the same. WP:GNG is not a basic principle, just a convenient convention for subjects in general. (I think it will fairly soon be abandoned as too inclusive in some fields, given the increased coverage of the googles. Already, we simply don't use it for news events, where we go by other factors that are much more restrictive. Twenty incidental sources to a one-time trivial incident, and there still won't be an article. ) Even I think that the GNG is too inclusive in some areas. Gavin, if we can find, as I think we will, that we can identify two RSs with substantial coverage for every episode of every television serial ever broadcast, will you really accept having articles on them? I won't--most of them just aren;t worth it. If two books are published detailing every named character in a cult novelist, will you accept articles? Again, not I. It goes in the other direction also. Masem, I come here occasionally to show the flag, but It has long ago gotten repetitive -- I think we're in a position where one editor has hijacked the criterion for a class of articles, and further debate on the same terms is hopeless. The proper course might be to simply rewrite articles on every plausible character in a systematic manner--I'd suggest using a reliable handbook like the many hundred volumes of Gale Literature Resource Center. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think DGG is ignoring the fact that notability is not inherited by virtue of the fact that television episodes are simply chapters or sections in a story. WP:NOTINHERITED is already a discredited criteria for article inclusion, which is why it is only if a topic such as a television episode is the subject of significant coverage is it worth having a seperate standalone article or list about it. DGG can ignore this if he wishes, but I think he will find that his approach is just too far outside of what is acceptable in terms of article inclusion to get widespread support.
On the one hand, I understand where Masem & DGG are coming from on this issue: they want comprehensive coverage of all television episodes, which in some ways makes sense. However, looking at fiction from a more balanced perspective, both he and DGG are wrong to think that Wikipedia should have articles on every single episode of a series is that this approach (ignoring notability requirement for a second) comes into direct conflict with WP:NOT ("information cannot be included solely for being true or useful") at a very fundamental level; for once the point is reached where information can be included for information's sake, the quality of articles starts to suffer. This is important to keep in mind, because at community level, editors are very intolerant of poor quality articles and lists.
Poor quality of articles about fictional subject has been the achilles heal of derivative articles: there is a lot of very bad articles out there because the coverage is based soley on the primary source. Most derivative articles, such as those about characters and episodes, conflict with WP:PLOT (e.g. Gaius Baltar), whilst the level of coverage given to such elements of fiction gives undue weight to in universe coverage of books, films and television coverage with the result that real world coverage suffers. If the proportion of coverage given to in universe content outstrips encyclopedic content by a factor of at least 50:1 or more, then basing articles on the primary work, such as Giaus Baltar, is simply going to reduce the quality of fictional coverage to the point where Wikipedia becomes more like Wookiepedia; I think DGG will find this is the reason why his approach will not gain acceptance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said I think we should have an article for every episode of a show. I have said we need to be comprehensive that every episode of a notable show should be documented in terms of title, production number, air date, writers/producers, and a very brief plot summary, which for most shows can be done via episode lists which should be part of the main show article unless they are large, at which point they are good candidates for spinouts; We only make episode articles when the episode itself can be shown to be notable via good secondary sources.

The point of arguing for a better definition of secondary sources is to close this gap between the present treatment of primary vs secondary which is: the primary is the work itself, secondary sources are once removed. In that fashion, any independent, third-party non-transformative recap of an episode (e.g. not the episode blurb provided by the producers of the work) is suddenly secondary, and leads us to the problem that editors could use these recaps with no depth to them to call an episode notable. We (experienced editors) know that's not really a valid argument, but at it stands, its a completely logical one from the present text. Now, maybe the language now in place in the first section of FICT helps to nip that, emphasizing criticism and commentary from the sources, something that is stronger than WP's currently WP:N. But this still points to a larger issue beyond fiction of the presence of simple news reports on people and events that go into no discussion of them beyond reporting the facts - independent third-party sources once removed but a far cry for what we expect secondary sources to provide for meeting WP:N. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem is being disingenous here. When he says only "notable shows" should have their own article, he means in the sense that "independent, third-party non-transformative recap" confer notability. However, all the SNGs disallow this form of coverage (e.g. flapcopy/capsule reviews), so this broadening of what is notable is another attempt to fit a round peg into an artifically enlarged square hole.
I think what Masem forgets is that WP:N says that trivial coverage of this type does not confer any notability, so in this regard, this guideline is no more or no less strict. Since a plot summary is merely a reguritation of the primary source, it is not allowable as evidence of notability because reguritation is devoid of significant coverage, or as Masem puts it, "non-transformative". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're getting that interpretation, that's completely not what I said. I certainly don't want the use of non-critical recaps of an episode to confide notability to the episode or the show. The thing is, to an editor not in the know about the subtleties of notability and sources, those editors may consider the non-critical recaps to be once removed and therefore secondary and sufficient for notability. Be we experienced editors know they aren't secondary, and certainly wouldn't be tertiary. But they don't fit the idea of "the work itself" as primary. They are basically unclassifiable in the present system. But if you consider non-transformative (by means of analysis or criticism) third-party recaps as primary sources, now they clearly can't be used for notability and removes the issue altogether. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that we can "define" notability the same way older guidelines were created, because the Wiki is a little more mature and we have years of case study to go off of. I think it's more accurate to say our task is to "describe" the way notability is applied to fiction. And my experience has been that there is a WP:WAF component (dependent on the GNG), and a WP:SS component. And the guideline now accurately describes both, without dipping its toes into the above primary/secondary argument. So I'm not sure what the point of that wall of text is, other than to get Gavin and Masem arguing again. Nifboy (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sourcing of Plots

Discussion has started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo (once again) questioning the use of books, films, and other media as the unstated sources for the plots of articles about those works, instead of being sourced to a "third-party source", under the claim that they are "unencyclopedic" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I have eliminated[1] the barebone list of policies that used to lead this guideline, as I think such a list of credentials that were added to provide gravitas is a bit pointless unless it is manditory for editors to read all these policies before they are allowed to read the guideline itself. Instead, I have written about the origins and purpose of this guideline, and what notability is means. Feel free to amend if more can be said with less or better wording. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's better just to borrow the language used from other SNGs; remember that WP space is not encyclopedic space, so we don't have to make it read like an encyclopedic article. Yes, the list of guidelines was not good, so I simply borrowed the lede from WP:BIO and adjusted as necessary. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but don't see how these changes are of benefit. It seems obvious to me that the first thing this guideline needs to say is what its purpose is:

"Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline that defines the inclusion criteria for topics about fiction, such as works of fiction, including serialised works that are comprised of episodes or installements, and elements of fiction, including but not limited to characters, events or locations that are fictional creations".

I think we need to agree what this guideline is about, and state that in the lead. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First, I think we've long passed the point where this is meant to cover works of fiction. That's either through BK/FILM or the GNG in general. The focus here is on elements of fiction which is where we have a lot more trouble with editors justifying articles. Also, we don't need to worry about the "proposed" language, that's part of the banners. That said, the rest of the sentence is probably fine to top off the lede. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you must have been misinformed, or were possibly hearing voices. You might want to check your records, as I would be interested to know who and when this was advised to you. My view is that this guideline is about fiction, both the works and the elements that make up the works, and it would be difficult to seperate the two. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure (I'm trying to search the archives but its not easy to discriminate when we removed that language) that we agreed that works are covered just fine by the GNG, BK, and NF - the works need to be notable through critical reception or other factors, and there is no special considerations because works themselves are inheritely real world items (WAF still applies, however). Even so, having works be covered here creates an overlap with BK and NF that is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And here I was confused because I was wondering how episodes managed to sneak into the scope of this proposal, which I thought was strictly about "elements of works of fiction"; that is, the elements within a work, as opposed to works or subdivisions of works themselves. Nifboy (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think ever since the Arbcom cases, we have considered these within the same breath, particularly if one treats an episode as a sub-section of the overall work (even for non-contiguous plot works). Certainly the same logic applies - need real-world notability instead of just plot coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can provide a rationale argument that could provide justification to separate the work from its episodes or its elements for the purpose of this guideline; hence the "Derivative articles" sections in both this guideline as well as WP:BK. This guideline covers all works, episodes and elements of fiction, including films, TV and computer games. The only reason why we have separate guidelines for books and films is that they have real world existence, and this has a tangible effect when it comes to providing evidence of notability for them as generally speaking, their distribution is wider than other forms of fictional works or elements compared with those, say, that are transmitted via the radio, or orally, as was done in times past. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends if you consider novels, films, or games in a series to be equivalent to episodes in a TV series. I can think of a few articles where that's the case (Vorkosigan Saga, Army Men) but I'm not sure if these are exceptions or exceptions that prove the rule. Nifboy (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it probably is fine to include works as long as we point to media-specific notability guidelines as alternatives when they exist, otherwise GNG. This also groups the episodes and other aspects into the same category as "works", in case there ever is, say, a "television notability guideline", and dealing with the aspect Nifboy commented on. I've stabbed at writing that into the General section since the rest of the advice applies to both works and elements. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No. We open a whole new can of worms if we include works. This was never intended to include works themselves. Episodes and volumes were included because they were often seen in as a whole of works. That means if Buffy the Vampire Slayer is notable as a series some of the episodes might be able to be notable enough, if they meet the criteria here, to have their own article. If Buffy is not notable, then there is almost no way an indivisual episode is notable enough to have its own article.

Making this conform with works would complicate this as we have BK and other guidelines as well which we would have to deal with and would only empower elawyers, on both sides, to pick and choose which of the SNGs they want to use for notability.陣内_Jinnai 02:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can of worms? This is silly. An element or an episode is just part of a work, and they are all fiction. Its impossible to write an article about any fictional topic without discussing the work it comes from, and its components (such as the plot). Have a read of the article on Fiction itself if you don't believe me.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 03:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with Jinnai that Gavin's proposed redundancy with WP:BK and WP:NF creates an issue that needs to be addressed in some way, either by keeping whole works outside the scope or possibly by merging the lot of them, maybe with WP:WEB and WP:NALBUM too (though it would no longer be a fiction guideline, maybe Wikipedia:Notability (works)?). Nifboy (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way we're going to get any agreement to merge those; BK and NF are all stable and deal beyond more than just the work. Again, in the edit I made, I point to media-specific guidelines or else FICT (which is effectively the GNG) so that we can deal with works and focus that's we're looking pass the work's content. Also, I will point out that inclusions of works in this has been there before (as late as Oct 2009, only removed on a general edit that wasn't discussed nor reverted at that time) --MASEM (t) 04:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, because BK/NF etc deal with both non-fiction and fiction, merging them makes it overweight. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a crazy idea and I only mention it because I think "commentary, criticism, and reception" is a good set of criteria across the board for works of art and other creative endeavors. Unfortunately, I think the particulars of the guideline are right now substantially more awkward, trying to fit "element... or work" into its wording. At various points during the past few months I considered asking "Hey, when we say "element" we really mean "Characters and other fictional miscellanea," right? Why not just call it Wikipedia:Notability (characters)?" because that was my understanding. Nifboy (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy for the guideline to be silent on whether it addresses elements and works, plot, narrative and storyline, episodes and characters, chapters and installments, events, locations and artifacts. Which ever way you slice and dice a work of fiction, you can't provide guidance about its components seperately, but I don't think the guideline needs to go into the difference between works and elements as such information could be confusing, and leads to all sorts of tautological problems.
As regards the relationship between books, films and fictional elements, they are categorised differently in Wikipedia, and are judged under seperate notability criteria because they are distributed through real world media. For this reason, its not a problem that there should be overlap with WP:BK and WP:MOVIE. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that the advice for published works of fiction and their comparison to fictional elements is that it is easy to write these articles without thinking about PLOT and thus try to pass off notability in that way; so certainly the same type of considerations for when we make a separate character article should be there when a new book or television episode article. Also, it is important that it is clearly possible for a fictional book or movie to satisfy BK/NF's own criteria (eg Nebula Award winners for books), so as long as we account and point to media-specific guidelines as a first gate when they apply, and then the remainder of FICT, we're in the clear in terms of overlap (language I've attempted to place here yesterday to point htat out).

This also points to how to deal with, say, non-notable books as part of a larger notable series, just like how one should deal with non-notable episodes of a larger notable television series. There may still be disagreement on exactly how that's handled, but the fact they should be handled in the same way makes good sense and only in the case if we talk about works and elements at the same time. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with excluding books themselves, movies, indivisual video games, etc. Problem with episodes is that they cannot stand, in most cases, by themselves. I absolutely don't think this should in any way, either openly or silently, be able to be used to apply to works. If its an issue with the title, there was a proposal to move this to something like WP:Notability (Fictional elements) which was shot down, but I think now may be needed to reinforce the narrowness of the guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still not following your reasoning. If episodes, chapters and instalments can't stand on their own, how can characters and other elements do so? The fact is that if you read the article on fiction, you will see that plot is also considered an element of fiction. Its bizarre enough for Masem to be hearing voices (which seem to have relented), but for Jinnai to insist that fiction does not included works of fiction, despite the evidence to the contrary, suggests to me that maybe some editors are suffering from mass hysteria. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that a compilation of chapters, such as a serialized novel cannot have its indivisual chapters stand as their own articles, in all but maybe a few extremely exceptional cases for which I think WP:IAR is best suited, if the original work is not notable. If it is, then those items can have their own article, if they are deemed notable. Characters and other plot elements are held to the same standard.

This contrasts with works in that an indiviusal novel may be notable without the series as a whole being notable.陣内_Jinnai 02:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is nonsense. If compilation of chapters, such as a serialized novel cannot have its individual chapters, then how come a individual comic issue can be notable and have their own standalone article? Since when did comics all under WP:IAR? I fail to see where this idea that "fiction does not include individual works" to be entirely counter intuative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, stop the personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. However, I do not understand where Jinnai's and Masem's opinions on this matter originate from. It sees to me a good idea to make the scope of this guideline to include fiction in its widest sense. Restricting its scope serves no externally validated purpose. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem including works (that's why I rewrote it to inclue), but the way you're talking about them, you're acting as if a fictional work has no physical or tangible aspect in the real world. Works are published just as any other non-fictional or academic work, so there are physical elements to be discussed (sales, production, etc.). The reason to include them here is that there is still the PLOT aspects to worry about; for example, I know there's hundreds of paperback books that are extension of other franchses (Star Wars, Trek, etc.) but have little else that can be said about them but plot, so per other aspects of fiction and of PLOT, it's not notable. When you group episodes and elements along with works, then you can discuss the aspect of seeking real-world notability. The only different for published works is that other guidelines provide lines where works are notable (eg BK and notable awards), but that's only for the works, and not elements thereof. But let's not sweep works of fiction as fictional; they are published media, and treated that way. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am "acting as if no physical or tantigle aspect"? Maybe you missed my earlier comment that "The only reason why we have separate guidelines for books and films is that they have real world existence, and this has a tangible effect when it comes to providing evidence of notability for them as generally speaking, their distribution is wider than other forms of fictional works or elements compared with those, say, that are transmitted via the radio, or orally, as was done in times past". I am not against these other guidelines, rather there is an entirely natural overlap between the related guidelines for books and movies. I still fail to understand Masem's earlier position and that of Jinnai that the scope of this guideline should be restricted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I still say we don't need this to cover works and it will only cause this proposal to fail as people say we already have SNGs that cover them and once again, like the last RfC, we are trying to be too much of a load-bearing guideline (but this time in a different way). Narrowness is better here.

And Gavin, I happen to agree with you on comics, but having studied comics, I can see the other side. You have long running semi-continuous series like Adventure Comics which outlive pretty much every other work in existance, fiction or not. I think because of that we should treat them like other long-running series.陣内_Jinnai 04:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That is just the point I am making: it is impossible to say where a work ends, and an element begins. Is a comic issue or a television episode a work, or is it part of a series? Is a short story a fictional work in its own right, is it just one component in a book of such stories? It seems to me that there are cases where the term "work" or "element" could be applied interchangeably. The most important of which is the plot: is it an element, along with character, place and setting, or does the plot encapsulate an entire work of fiction? Either way, it is impossible to provide guidance about elements of fiction without discussing the work in which it features, in the same way it is not possible to know the dancer from the dance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, 90% of the time, there is a common sense clear line: when a work has been "published" - the printing of a book or issue, the airing of an episode, etc. - we can define that as one instance of something tangible and physical demarcation from work of fiction - there is something that defines that part from any other part of a larger work or series if one exists. That doesn't, by any means, imply something is notable just for being published, but its a very bright line that separates the physical nature of publication and the fantastical nature of creativity in the plot. There are some areas of vagueness - like the short story (eg The Gift of the Magi or A Sound of Thunder) where publication is more difficult to define but regardless of how it was published, has surpassed that means of publication and is notable on its own.

I presently think its right to consider the works and fictional elements in the same breath not because they're the same thing (which is difficult to accept), but instead because in both cases, we're looking for notability that is more than what happens in the work (the primary pitfall with fiction articles), and that dealing with a series of non-notable works can be handled in a similar manner as a series of non-notable elements; there is a lot of overlap on how to handle these. But with works we always need to keep in light that there are other guidelines that have clear notability criteria beyond the GNG that should be first tested before looking to apply the GNG; again, a fictional book can win a notable award per BK. This also leaves FICT vague enough that if, for example, a notability guideline for (both non-fiction and fiction) television shows and episodes in the same manner as WP:BK is ever brought into consensus, we can defer to those tests as a first-pass check without any major rewrites of FICT. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the vagueness Gavin is pointing at: A work is a defined set of words, frames, directions, code, etc; at worst it is a performance or set thereof which varies, but those are defined by the words and physical actions of its actors. A character or other fictional element is purely conceptual in nature; it requires a degree of interpretation in order to be able to define it separately from the work, and a second degree of interpretation to describe it in a real-world way, which is why third-party sources are substantially more important for fictional elements being split out for WP:SIZE reasons than e.g. a list of episodes. Nifboy (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing that is meant to seperate a work from an element is viewing/reading/watching/etc it as a seperate entity rather than a whole. This does not have to have ongoing plot or anything, but usually does. Self contained episodic shows like The Simpsons would fall under elements as well because a single episode is a part of a whole, whether you watch only one or all of them. The only time it starts to get confusing is when spinoff titles occur that are wholly related to the series, but that has problems in other areas as well.

In addition, we have other guidelines that treat fictional works already. We would be aiming to directly put up a fight with SNGs like WP:BK which allow for a broader inteperpration of what is considered a notable book, something that has had long-standing support and at the end of the day would only empower elawayering as people pick and choose which SNG they want to follow based on what they want to do. There are also aspects, like awards, that were generally shown to be acceptable to presuming works themselves notable, but not elements that would need to be incorperated and cause another round of arguing.陣内_Jinnai 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think a work is defined by its physicality, and each individual physical component of a work is itself a work. This frame of animation is itself a work the same way Treehouse of Horror IV is a work and The Simpsons as a whole is a work. Once you look into the work and start investigating its conceptual components (Bart Simpson as a character) you've crossed over that line and that's where the fictional elements start. The advice in this proposal-as-written is certainly useful advice for works and subdivisions thereof, but I don't think defining its scope as "elements of fiction" adequately covers "episodes", much less "whole top-level works". Nifboy (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While you are entiteled to that opinion, you must understand that seeing every indivisual frame as its own work is an extreme minority opinion and would not have any chance of gaining consensus. To put it in perspective, saying each frame is its own work i saying each brush stroke on a painting is its own work.陣内_Jinnai 05:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I think this is getting off-track because I was distracted by Gavin's question of "where a work ends, and an element begins". What's important is that we figure out what the scope is, and communicate it clearly. I agree with Masem that including everything is an untenable proposal in the presence of WP:BK and WP:NF, but I agree with Gavin that it's hard to differentiate a set of articles on installments in a series from a set of articles on standalone works that also happen to be related in some way (compare Half-Life 2: Episode Two to Tales of Monkey Island). Therefore, my position is to exclude both from this guideline, and focus exclusively on "elements of fiction", defined as the characters, setting, and other in-universe miscellanea. Nifboy (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The only difficulty with this (its not impossible, just a roadbump) is episodes and similar divisions. Most other WP'ians consider "characters and episodes" to be the same thing because we basically deal with them in the same manner when they are non-notable. Now, we can argue the nitpicks of where "work" ends and "fiction" begins, but again, that's probably a goosechase. We basically have two routes:

• Limit this to "elements of fiction", explicitly defining those. We will get caught up here on where episodes and other aspects sit, but is also "simplified" the works aspects. This removes any issue of works already covered by BK and NF or others, but also may leave some aspects of fiction (the episode for example) floating - still covered by the GNG, but would be better included.
• Include works and elements. Here, we do need to make sure when a media-specific guideline exists, we tell editors to seek notability there first, dropping back to here (effectively the GNG) when they don't meet those. We don't have to spend any extra time distinguishing what is a work and what is an element, so its less open to debate, and only requires clear wording of using the media-specific ones first.

It can go either way. I'm more akin to the second because that basically groups anything that involves fiction into a single guideline and thus allows us to emphasize the real-world notability goals we seek in one place and how to deal with non-notable topics. But that's my current preference. --MASEM (t) 06:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that to emphasize the real-world notability is key, because whether you discuss a work or an element of fiction or an episode (which can be both), an in universe perspective can be applied to all. WP:WAF is clear that it applies to both works and elements, and its obvious to me that we can't restrict this guideline to one or the other, because you can't discuss one or other in isolation, hence this guideline must cover all aspects of fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The only element of fiction that could conceivably be called a "work" is an episode--there is no sharp dividing line between a work in multiple part, and a series of episodes. The question is not the name, but how we want to handle them in wikipedia. I suggest that the question about how to handle episodes is very different from the question of how to handle elements such as plot and characters. Trying to handle disparate things together makes it even harder to reach agreement. Basically, the only reason to really discuss episodes in separate articles in the question of extent. If one is so important it needs to be described at length and in detail, then it probably needs a separate article. The only real reason we have been trying to maintain separate articles, is to keep them from being successive chopped down into single paragraphs or sentences. I think that almost always the reader is best served by keeping episodes in sequence, up to the limit of what communication lines can handle (reminding that we are designing for readability using modem connections, not the high speed internet many of us contributors have. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to question DGG's statement that "the only element of fiction that could conceivably be called a "work" is an episode". Perhaps DGG has never read a comic? I think he will find that one continous plot or story arc can be spread over multiple works. In fiction, there is no "one to many" or "many to one" relationship between works and elements of fiction, so it is pointless trying to have seperate guidelines for episodes, works or elements. The principles set out in this guideline apply to all of these. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I worded it just to include our usual problem here, as we've been doing all along--Of course I included all similar serial publication-s. The distinction is from something that inherently can not possibly stand alone, like a character. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I say we go back with what Gavin said a while ago. Anything that was originally published as a stand-alone format, such as an indivisually aired episode, non-trade comics, etc. should be considered a "work" by definition of this guideline and would not be covered by it. If later it is broken up for some reason, such as a DVD release of several episodes being aired indivisually, they would still be considered elements of the DVD. If we don't have some criteria like original publication then as media franchieses continually repackage these items, in different formats the issue will just get bounced back here.陣内_Jinnai 13:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But at the same time, a work, by this definition, needs to be shown to be notable in the same manner as a fictional element - that is, we're look for more than just plot recaps and routine listings, but instead commentary and criticism and other material related to real-world impact. That's the notability part, and it's equivalent for works of fiction as they are to fictional elements. Yes, presently we have two other guidelines that should be checked first for books and films, and there is a possibility there could be more, but as long as this aspect of media-specific notability is noted, works and elements can be considered in the same light with respect to notability. It just simplified matters and prevents problems as we start to experience more new media that blur the line between work and publication. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Music - ballads and opera fall under them as examples - and Web - webcomics and the like fall under that. In addition those have lots of more broadly accepted criteria that are available for works and I can assure you trying to say fictional works cannot use any of those routes, like author of a work wins a notable award to show notability, will make a fictional guiideline that deals with works - something this guideline has never done before BTW if you look at its history - certain to fail consensus.陣内_Jinnai 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's definitely not what its presently saying. It is necessary, in evaluating the notability of a work of fiction, to use the appropriate media-specific guideline (if one exists) to deal with the cases identified there, but failing those, you turn back to FICT, and deal with real-world notability for fiction in general. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why create a media-specific guideline for every single work? If the principles contained in this guideline can be applied to elements, episodes and works of fiction, then WP:FICT covers everything not specifically covered by WP:BK or WP:MOVIE. Between them, these three guidelines cover all forms of fiction, plus non-fiction and documentary thrown in for free. That works for me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying we have to, taking the approach I describe leaves open if other media specific guidelines come about. Remember, not every piece of media deals with fiction; what if the television project wanted and got wide consensus for a notability guideline on TV episodes including for news-program shows like Dateline, how-to shows like Top Gear, and reality shows like Survivor, in addition to fictional shos? Then in that case, if an episode of the fictional show meets the requires of this guideline, then it doesn't also have to pass FICT. But I'm in no proposing that we need an generic television episode media-specific guideline at this point, or one for every type of media; we would just have the structure in place shoudl that come about. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Break

I think this would have a much better chance of passing if it didn't try to deal with works, although specififying what is a work and what isn't should be done. The tighter the guideline is in its focus, the better it is. We've been without a guideline for fictional elements for some time and the status quo isn't acceptable.陣内_Jinnai 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't write an article about a work of ficiton without discussing its elements, such as plot, and vice-versa. It would be distinctly odd to have more that one subject specific guideline on fiction, when in the real world the term fiction encompasses both works and elements. The proposal to limit the scope of this guideline seems to me to be supported by any real world rationale, unless I have missed knockout reason for doing so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your again confusing content with style. What you are complaining about is covered in WP:WAF and other guidelines. This, and other notability guidelines, say you need to show verifiable evidence in some manner (the exact nature left to style guidelines) that the subject of the article is notable.

Individual sections, such as a character section, within are regulated by these style guidelines, not by notability guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I am following you, Jinnai. As you know, WP:WAF is a style guideline, but it does treat fiction as a unified subject. I am not confusing an article style guidele with an article inclusion guideline, I am simply stating that the two guidelines should dovetail in the sense that they should both treat fiction as a unified subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are certain points they can and can't. They can dovetail in the inclusion of verifiable evidence to show notability and that being an article just about plot is not not enough. However, barring maybe a couple more minor points that's about it because WP:WAF is about how to write an a good article and WP:FICT is what are the absolute basic requirements for which we'll allow such an article to exist.

Also, RL does treat works of fiction differently, a lot differently than we treat them here on Wikipedia. It's all under the blanket genre of fiction, but on the other hand, everything else is under the blanket genre of non-fiction.陣内_Jinnai 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I like a unified approach, because even if the details differ, our general approach doesn't: Plot (in-universe), development (out-of-universe first party), and reception (out-of-universe third party) make up the bulk of any fiction article, and it's that last bit which is notability, work or element. For both elements and subdivisions of works, there's the additional consideration of WP:SS. While sources tend to differ in their approach, I think Wikipedia's approach shows enough of a parallel that a unified approach makes sense. Nifboy (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While that may be, that is not what a content notability guideline should care about. We can and should direct readers to those guidelines, but being poorly written is not grounds for failing notability. Furthermore, development of an element can also be notable if that item has impacted future works and is documented as such by outside RSes. That isn't reception; it is real-world impact.陣内_Jinnai 00:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a point here we've not yet addressed in this guideline but know we have to do it and that is what to do about non-notable fictional works/topics. I'm not saying exactly what we're going to do with those because I know there's disagreement, but there is a need to handle these in the same fashion. A series of non-notable books from a notable series (eg Star Trek books) should be handled in the same way we do a series of non-notable episodes of a TV series, and a non-series set of characters of a notable work. Again, I'm not asking "how" we do that, but only pointing that this advice will need to be added here and thus gives us a strong needed to treat works and elements together to avoid having any difficulties in defining different processes to these works or elements when we group the non-notables together. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was the point of the Derivative articles section: If an article isn't in sustainable condition and it isn't kept for other reasons (Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria), merge or redirect upwards because WP:AVOIDSPLIT. If there aren't any parent articles and notability still isn't met, then the deletion process comes into play. Nifboy (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We are cautiously avoiding the issue of list articles. I'm not saying we need lists or not nor trying to pass judgement that way, but I think we're addressing the key needs of "what is notable" before embarking on any other aspect. And thus determining if we need works included or not. Mind you, works fit just right into the der. article section, so it's another reason to talk about both at the same time. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I perceive broad conflict in Jinnai's approach: one the one hand this guideline is about elements, but not about elements in lists. This makes no sense to me, as it seems that lists of episodes and characters now fall outside the scope of this guideline. I don't understand his approach, and I don't see how it can be applied in practise. Many articles about fiction are lists, or contain lists. I can't see how this guideline can work if elements are separated from the works. Jinnai's recent changes are just not workable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

a question

As we have been getting nowhere, I want to restart this with a slightly different approach. I want to analyze the position that we should not have reasonably extensive and detailed coverage of as many elements of fictional as reasonable in separate articles for each element, with the question:

is the objection to the extensive and detailed coverage, or to their being in separate articles? Would those who take that position object to extensive and detailed coverage of as many elements of fictional as reasonable, but combined into one article for each work? This is not a notability question, for the overall article would be on a notable work. Content would still have to meet WP:V, but it is accepted that WP:V for description can be satisfied by the primary source. Our only problem would be over-long articles, but WP already has many such, and they are accepted when necessary. If this would not be acceptable, on what basis do they object? It cannot be NOT PLOT, for many other things than plot would be covered and we would continue to not accept plot-only articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no objection to either, provided that the article topic can demonstrate evidence of notability. Notability does not dictate the content of articles, but other policies, such as as WP:UNDUE and WP:WAF do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rework of the introduction

I have reworded the introduction to bring it into line with nutshell, which I think we are all agreed. The key points are as follows:

1. The guideline is about the notability of topics whose subject matter is fiction, as one would expect;
2. The term notability is not used in the subjective sense, rather it is used to denote that a topic has been "noted" in the form of significant coverage from reliable sources that independent of the primary source;
3. In accordance with WP:WAF, coverage of fictional topics should be balanced by having coverage that includes both plot summary and content written from a real world perspective;
4. Fiction distributed through other media are also the subject of other SNG's;
5. Lists are not mentioned in this guideline, as they are dealt with elsewhere.

I think if we can agree on the introduction, we are very close to reaching agreement on scope, form and wording of this guideline. I know we all have differing perspectives on this, but if we could move towards some form of agreemment, this would be constructive. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Most is fine, except #3. We are not here to say that for notability sake there needs to be balanced coverage. Failing to be properly written is not a criteria for deletion or merging.陣内_Jinnai 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should Notability (fiction) be reinstated as a guideline?

There has been a long and detailed debate about the inclusion criteria for fictional topics, which have involved many changes and proposals. Have the discussions reached a point where Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) could be reinstated as guideline? Comments welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I support this becoming a guideline, I was quite impressed on reading it. It's balanced, offers real guidance rather than diktats, and reflects what often occurs at AfD. I've made some tweaks for wordiness and to clarify a couple of points without trying to change the meaning or thrust of what was there already. What does "retain temporarily" mean in the section on articles not meeting the inclusion guidelines? Fences&Windows 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That they either are kept or receive no consensus for deletion at AFD, with no prejudice of renominating at a later time if no improvements towards the questions raised at AFD are made. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• If it means we'll stop having pages and pages of endless debate about topics like "List of fictional wombats", "List of fictional squirrels", "List of fictional hippos", "List of fictional New Zealanders", etc., I'm all for it.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This guideline is not addressing anything involving lists, in particular such cross-fictional lists (ones that pull from several disparate franchises) that you state. That's a debate likely for WP:SALAT. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• I really can't see anything wrong with the guideline. Promote it already! Sceptre ^(talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - a few things need checking for me to be okay that this is a useful addition, although in principle it would be good to see this as a guideline.

1. The section on subtopic splitting needs a bit more said. This is a common area of fiction article issues in the past.
2. How would this impact upon episode/series articles, such as "every episode of some cartoon series" or "every episode of some drama series". Do all episodes have the rwquired coverage? What if one did not? (Would we have articles on all the series' episodes except that one?) A guideline a section on "episodes within fictional series" is probably needed, to clarify this area. Hopefully the debate would not be too bloody.
3. Does this actually say anything substantial, beyond 1/ Follow existing guidelines (GNG/BK/NF), 2/ focus on the real-world matter not the in-universe plot summary (part of WP:NOT), 3/ media reprints and trivial coverage don't demonstrate notability (part of WP:GNG)?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• In answer to FT2, the section on splitting of articles "Derivative articles" is fairly comprehensive. It is very similar to the original in WP:BK so it follows a well trodden path. It also links in with guidelines such as WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:UNDUE and WP:CFORK on which it is based. I think that represents clear guidance, but if anything has been missed, do say. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• The subtopic issue is also the one where the "devil's in the details" and bogged down approval or the like. As to FT2's point 3 - there is the section about when such articles are usually kept even if they don't meet the GNG - but because the rules are so far and wide it is impossible to codify them in any useful way and instead only apply practical advice. And this leads to point 2 and Gavin's point above - #3 sets the stage for how one deals with such articles. I know, right now, consensus has come to the conclusion that we're presuming every episode of South Park is notable due to the ability to find GNG sourcing for a good number of them. There's several other major, current TV series where this is true too. We *could* trying to write something here about that, but like point #1, it would be what kills this of gaining easy acceptance, as there's too many details to go into. Instead we defer to the reading of the last section in the guideline to decide on common sense terms when articles that may or may not presently meet the GNG are kept with respect to fiction topics. If it is the case we need more detailed guidelines for television episodes, then what shoudl happen is that the members of the TV project propose a TV notability guidelines to the whole of WP approach, at which point, from FICT's view, it gets treated like BK and FILM as "look there for more details"; FICT stays out of the weeds that are more appropriate to specific mediums. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This violates our core principles of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Howso?陣内_Jinnai 06:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because he says it does. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is this putative guideline that is based upon "because I say so". Its point seems to be to push the POV that coverage of fiction should be about the real world rather than fiction qua fiction. This is a bias which is not supported by independent sources and there are plenty of external encyclopedia which do not cover fiction in the way which is advocated. When I looked in on these interminable discussions and introduced references to external evidence, then the response was typically blank incomprehension per I didn't hear that and the diehards returned to wrangling over their personal opinions. Policy making should be based upon our general practise rather than tendentious POV-pushing because of our core policy of WP:NPOV. To determine the neutral point of view, we should seek external validation per WP:V rather than engaging in WP:OR. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Of course there are some encyclopedias (or "encyclopedias", because one simply can easily just add that to a fan guide to make it one) that cover fiction as fiction. But that's the exception, and strictly for the most popular fictional works out there (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc, etc.) Coverage of fiction as fiction has this systematic bias that we on WP need to avoid, and why it is important that we stay towards covering fiction as a real-world subject. This is not to say we cannot include the fiction-as-fiction aspects such as plot, characters, and the like, but we need to recognize that in most cases 1) these likely can only be sourced to the primary work for most fictional works - not necessarily bad but a potential issue and 2) OR and POV issues abound within fiction-as-fiction coverage, particularly with newer editors that are unaware of our practices towards writing fiction. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again you make an unsupported assertion which is unverified. I have cited Encyclopedia Britannica and other scholarly works in the past so your fan guide opinion is not just unsupported, it is blatantly counter-factual. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Of course some fiction (Shakespeare, for one) will more likely be cited to scholarly works than mass-market books. But when these are used, they are not for explaining the plot, but instead explaining themes and analysis - part of the real-world coverage. When you compare what these are saying compared to what mass-market encyclopedias do for modern works, there's a huge difference. If the work of fiction is notable, or the character is notable, the scholarly articles are perfectly acceptable secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• You're rubbishing Britannica because it's a mass-market encyclopedia? Anyway, Wikipedia addresses the mass-market. It is explicitly our policy that initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field. This means that, in coverage of fiction, we cannot rely upon the reader's pre-knowledge of the work. We must perforce summarise the plot and all other significant features of the work. Any additional commentary such as critical reception is secondary to this primary work of explaining the basics of the work. This is elementary literary education and it is our task to work at this level. See, for example, an educational presentation of Lord of the Flies. The bulk of this digest is plot and in-universe description of the characters. For example, Jack is "proud and arrogant", "hungry for power" and "thinks of nothing but hunting". Now, as well as this extensive in-universe account of the work, we also have some commentary on the author and his themes and that's fine. But the balance of the presentation is clear - the in-universe summary of the work is dominant. This comes from the BBC and that's mass market too. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not considering the Britannica as a mass-market work; that's something like "The Star Trek Encyclopedia", or the like, which is geared towards covering one specific work/franchise in high detail. A general encyclopedia is just fine.
• Plot and the elements of that are necessary aspects to cover for notable works as you state; there's no question there. But we have to distinguish our job as an encyclopedia from what you're described, a detailed reading guide. We're here to summarize the work of fiction and any notable characters or elements that resulted from it, not to help guide the reader to work through it, as that is more the goal of a textbook or the like, the source you are presenting. So it is fine to source, as you suggest for Lord of the Flies, descriptions of characters from that textbook, but our presentation is geared towards understanding that work in the larger scheme of human knowledge. So our plot summaries are concise and we give quick overviews of the characters and other aspects if they are necessary to understand all that, while we encourage more content on critical reviews, analysis, and other aspects towards that, summarizing those views. That's the primary difference here. We are not guiding the reader to understand the written words of fiction, but to understand the nature of that work of fiction. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to support encyclical education. Classically, this is the liberal arts suitable for a free man rather than a slave (who got a simpler how-to education). That source provided as an example is written for the General Certificate of Secondary Education in English Literature, which is the modern equivalent. It therefore represents the balance and content of such education as determined by the examiners and syllabus setters. This therefore represents current educational standards which, in this case, are supported by the BBC - an institution with a good reputation and similar duty to educate. Your opinion about what we ought to be doing instead seems to be just your personal opinion which, being unverified, may not stand. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to support education, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is an educational text book that includes every element of fiction. Simply put, Wikipedia is more selective than a text book: itcovers topics that are notable, i.e. those topics for which there is real world commentary, criticism or analysis that provide context to the reader. To paraphrase Masem, Wikipedia is not guiding the reader merely to summarise fiction, but to understand the nature of that work of fiction by putting it in context. I think the Colonel knows this by now (we have been over this arguments many times before), I think he has to acknowledge that Masem is correct in his analysis. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• As Gavin states correctly, we're not a textbook, we're not including the same content that one would have in education material. And fully describing themes, character behavior and motivations, allusions, etc. etc. of such works would be part of the educational aspects, just as describing how to do geometric proofs, dissecting frogs, or balancing a solution's pH. We have sister projects that that information can go into nicely, nor are we nullifying the use of textbook material to back up as sources, just that we don't go to that level. For fiction, explaining the basic level of who and what a character is, barring any other secondary, real-world information, is sufficient for an encyclopedia work. --MASEM (t) 11:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the explanation, myself. I'd fight tooth and nail against any guideline that did all that. My feelings go more along with FT2: this guideline doesn't say anything earth-shattering. If it actually manages to undermine three of our core principles, it's a masterpiece of subtle understatement.—Kww(talk) 06:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question, can I safely assume that "or listings in comprehensive guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide", TV.com or Gamespot" doesn't exclude detailed reviews on said sites (which I believe Gamespot has for example)? Also, comment: Pretty nice job. I want to think carefully about this, but the text is much much better than last time I paid attention. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not meant to limit the use of actual reviews that occur on those types of sites (of course, reviews coming from editors on that site, not user reviews that some may incorporate). It it meant to limit the use of the type of "indexing" pages that are generated with useful factual data but no deep coverage of the work for determination of notability. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and salt The creation of Wikipedia policy is often a contest of tenacity, stubbornness, and zealot obstinacy, with little actual "consensus" involved. Once an obscure policy is adapted, it is then viciously forced on the entire wikipedia community who had no say in the policy's formation, with the same ruthless zealousness. In the last request to make this a guideline, I was viciously attacked for alerting the larger community to this proposal. These promoters simply do not want wider conversation about this policy. Why? Despite the same predictable and transparent lies of the promoters of this policy, this policy will delete thousands of editors good faith contributions and articles. If the majority of editors who edit these tens of thousands of articles knew about this policy, they would oppose it, and these promoters do not want this.
  Gavin.collins opposed the attempt to make this terrible policy a guideline over a year ago, in the 8th plus attempt to make this page a guideline, because it did not go far enough in deleting other editors good faith contributions. Editors attempted to make this page historical after the proposal failed, but after 58 pages archives and over a year later, after many editors lost interest or quit this argument in disgust or fatigue, only the most tenacious and most radical editors remain to ruthlessly force this policy on the entire community. Galvin.collin's has 187 edits to this policy, [2] 96 more than any other editor. Many of those who opposed his changes have left for the reasons explained above. After years of bickering and 58 pages of archives, let the community close and salt this proposal once and for all. (Editors will often expand an argument to a user's talk page, lets please keep this conversation here, where it belongs) Okip 18:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't attack the editor. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• If it is stricter than the GNG as Masem says below, then I have to oppose. I haven't read it, because I don't feel like parsing FICT anymore, but it's probably a mild oppose. We're getting more and more stable as time passes, and I don't think this guideline would effect things in either direction, but if it did, I don't think that would be good. Wiki has changed since we used to fight over this stuff like cats and dogs in years past. People who don't add references have left to a large degree. There aren't people creating 20 episode pages a week anymore, and there aren't people trying to delete tons of episodes anymore either. Characters are more problematic and there's still some fluctuation, but it's heading towards equilibrium too, I think, and I'd like to just let it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Its filled with things like Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work. That means every single comic book article around would be taken down, as well as a lot of other things. Dream Focus 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Can you provide examples of articles that have been confirmed to be kept by current policy/guidelines that would otherwise fail this guideline? --MASEM (t) 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• List of Pokémon (461–480) seems a good example of a "crufty" in-universe fiction article. Snow keep. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• As stated elsewhere, we are making no attempt to determine list notability/appropriateness here; eg that article doesn't apply to FICT as written. That's a much deeper problem once fiction notability is established. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• While you may state that here on the talk page, it's not at all stated in the guideline that lists are excluded. So an editor can legitimately cite this proposal as a reason to delete character lists, even though character lists were almost always kept in the past as legitimate spin outs of the main article. In fact, it is the lack of any mention of list articles that is among my greatest concerns. —Farix (t | c) 00:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a statement to defer lists to WP:SALAT. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Your action demonstrates the half-baked, unstable nature of this personal essay. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In its current state, this guidelines is very proscriptive rather than descriptive and is filled with instruction creep for something that should be a fairly simple and straightforward guideline. The guideline is also very unclear in its scope. If this guideline is not going to present any additional criteria beyond the general notability guideline, there is no need for it. It should not simply restate the GNG and then be getting into the areas of article content. Article content and structure are not the domain of the notability guideline, but of the content and style guidelines. As an alternative, I would like to present a proposal that I created over a year ago using WP:NF and WP:BK as templates. It still needs a lot of work, but even in its current form, it is far more descriptive of current consensus that this proposal will ever be. —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamFocus. If a fictional element has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, there's no need for such coverage to be real-world focused. This once again attempts to change that by fiat. This proposal attempts to impose a particular philosophy, that fiction should be written about only in the context of real world impact, that doesn't mirror Wikipedia's historical pillars, antecedent discussions, or the desires of our readers. Without such a license-for-deletion, we've already been making substantial progress merging articles (e.g., into list of minor characters, or season articles), trimming OR, and developing a more focused view of fiction that meets the needs of our readers without such a heavy-handed approach. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Read again. It says that real-world impact is one way of showing notability. Non-trivial criticial analysis and commentary is another way.陣内_Jinnai 03:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I think Jclemens is ignoring the existence of WP:PLOT which places effective prohibition on plot only articles from any source, even reliable ones. The only way around this is to show that a fictional topic is the subject of coverage about its real world impact or critical analysis as Jinnai says, because a regurgitation plot on its own offers no context to the reader. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Jclemens above. In general, my experience is that these are some of our most popular articles among readers. I think we should recognize that restrictions beyond the GNG in this area run counter to reader interests. The proposal isn't reflective of consensus in the editor community and is even less reflective of the demands of those we are trying to serve. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • WP does not base what we include based on popularity of articles (we specifically exclude this in WP:N). We should strive to include what we can that will interest readers but at the same time, we need to shake off this idea we're a detailed fan guide (ala Memory Alpha or SNPP) for fictional works. We are an educational tool, and to some aspects fictional coverage is necessary to complete that, but the type of detail that I've seen some readers expect is far beyond that. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • If you're actively proposing new rules to limit our inclusiveness, you're not "striving to include what we can", you're attempting to limit that scope. My point is simply that readers demonstrably want one thing and you are supporting the exact opposite course of action. The bar for such proposals needs to be extraordinarily high and the harm they prevent extraordinarily great; this proposal does not come close to meeting that burden. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • No, it is long standing that we don't base inclusion on what readers want, though certainly it is a fair idea to try to include the most popular pages by showing the topics notable. We are an encyclopedia serving a larger goal. If readers want to influence how that grows, they are encouraged to become editors and to influence policy and guideline towards that. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think any larger goal can be meaningfully understood or even conceived in the absence of strong attention to reader interests, if the project is to be focused on serving a worldwide audience. Once you've excluded the common interests of the global population it is hard to find a footing for decision-making that is not entirely self-interested. You seem, in fact, to be arguing for a smaller goal: paying attention to the desires of the tiny ingroup (editors) vs. the huge global outgroup (readers). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Our goals are determined by the Foundation that are providing the sandbox to play in. Their goals, per m:mission, is "to collect and develop educational content". I don't think it's hard to imagine that there is a large chasm that separates this goal and "what readers what", and likely the reason that Wikia was created. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• undecided Like I mentioned below, this is a hard issue to deal with and one we've been trying to deal with for years. I see a lot of good things in this proposal, especially reading it after not being active in this discussion for so long and being able to see it with fresh eyes. I know a lot of people on Wikipedia think guidelines should be descriptive rather than proscriptive, but to describe the current situation would be to describe something very split and with opposing views. Because of that I feel it might be better to continue this not as an "official" guideline, but as a suggestion/proposal/whatever and attempt to have it catch on. In other words, proscribe something for the time being and see if it catches on. If it does then it will describe the current situation. If it doesn't then keep working at it and repeat. Something like that. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• weak oppose unnecessarily long and complicated. the nutshell seems tolerable but everything else starts to confuse it... Arskwad (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason why the WP:GNG is not adequate to determine whether a fictional subject merits coverage. If an article meets the GNG, then fine; if not, delete it. We don't need an extra guideline or policy specifically for fiction. *** Crotalus *** 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jclemens. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I haven't been involved in the discussions about this proposal, but it seems fairly reasonable and common-sense to me. It looks like it still has considerable opposition, which is unfortunate - tempers clearly run high in this area, but I think it would be a good thing for Wikipedia if something like this were to be eventually adopted as a guideline. It's not perfect, but it's on the right track, and we need something like this to point users to in deletion discussions. Assuming it isn't adopted as a guideline, it should probably be left as an essay, as it outlines a commonly (though far from universally) held standpoint on this topic. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  One criticism I do have of this proposal, though, is that it seems like a mistake to try to cover works of fiction (episodes, books, comics, etc.) and fictional elements (characters, settings, plot devices, etc.) in the same notability guideline. They should be considered separately: the former should probably be covered by specific guidelines like WP:Notability (books), while a notability guideline for fiction should concentrate on the latter. It's only the latter for which 'real-world importance' makes sense as a concept (unless TV episodes, books, etc aren't in the 'real world'?). It's possible to imagine someone taking the view, for instance, that television episodes are generally notable while fictional characters generally aren't (or vice versa), but this guideline tries to cover them as though they're both aspects of the same thing. Robofish (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • While I agree in general, there is the problem that its hard to break down where an element begins and a work ends. FE, is a non-seralized chapter in a book a work or element? And its a work, why isn't it considered in WP:Notability (book)? If its an element, why should serialized chapters, such as comic books, be treated differently?陣内_Jinnai 04:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Since WP:NOT#PLOT is policy, the best course of action is to remove excessive plot detail from articles until the true nature of an encyclopedia can shine forth. If the pared down articles are too short, they can then be merged into List of episodes and List of characters articles. Abductive (reasoning) 08:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Tentative support - the proposed guideline seems to be an accurate representation of what generally happens for fictional subjects. This seems to basically point to GNG and NOTPLOT, while trying to control forks and allowing for some editorial discretion for merges. I think that it is a meaningful goal to provide better guidance with how to deal with fictional subjects, which seem to be treated differently depending on bias toward the subject, medium, or other arbitrary quality. —Ost (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• As long as the clause "or an episodic elements of a works such as an individual television episode or issue of a graphic novel" (and any statements derivative of this) is included, I oppose this. Stop confusing epistemological levels -- a serial episode has objective existence, while a fictional character does not. If this is edited to deal strictly with fictional elements, then I will weakly support -- weak, because it pretty much is a restatement with annotations of the GNG, which makes me wonder why it's needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please read more carefully. It covers both works and elements in articles except those covered elsewhere, like WP:Notability (book).陣内_Jinnai 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I saw that. I still object to mixing epistemological levels. Ideally, put we'd guidelines for serial installments in the notability guidelines for the medium they serialize -- which is admittedly difficult for television shows, as they're blanket notable per WP:OUTCOMES, but we can be clever. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prescribes rather than describes consensus. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As it is now, it's nothing short of a regurgitation of the GNG and doesn't propose any specific way to demonstrate strong evidence of notability. In comparison WP:BK offers such means. --KrebMarkt 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. The "Derivative articles" section doesn't sit with me well. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate.陣内_Jinnai 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That section advises that topics should not be split into too fine a level of detail. This is something that you could say about any topic. And we do say this in our general guidance such as WP:SUMMARY. The advice here is therefore redundant and so, per WP:CREEP, should be excised. Note also that the advice is self-contradictory. It counsels against the multiplication of pages beyond necessity but that's exactly what this putative guideline is - a specialised version of more general guidelines for which there is no need. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Colonel is misrepresenting the purpose of this section. Of course we can split articles into sub-topics in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. But we don't split them and split them again (splitting hairs is a good analogy) as that would contravene WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The Colonel knows that there is no point to articles about fiction into trivial sub-topics that could never demonstrate notability, as that would contravene WP:UNDUE. In this sense, this guideline follows the guidance given at WP:BK#Derivative articles for exactly the same reason: Wikipedia is about notable topics, not trivial topics. Yet he Colonel knowns this, so it is hard to understand his stance, unless of course he is casting himself in the mould of that hard line recidivist, Pixelface, who never understood why WP:UNDUE applies to the coverage of fictional topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not directing this comment at anyone in particular, but I think the word "Completionist" needs to be brought up. What troubles me is the notion, for example, that if Shea Ohmsford from the Shannara series has an article, every last character from that series deserves an article: Category:Shannara characters. Abductive (reasoning) 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• First, on the CREEP issue - the area of fiction has long been an area where people will want to create articles on new characters from the first day they can, without considering how the overall work of fiction should be treated. While this can be said of any field, it is worse for fiction and thus needs the special attention here. Technically we are redundant but in the past, authors of fiction areas seem to take the idea that special rules apply to them. We've been through enough RFCs to know this isn't the case.
• On the "completionist" aspect, I personally agree that every major character from a work of fiction should be searchable to be found on WP - but this is guided by the use of other means of presenting characters and through redirects. There is a reason this guideline is mum on character lists becuase that's a whole other pickle of issues to start with, but I'd much rather see characters brought into a character list than to have articles on weakly notable characters (like the Shea character listed above - which only has one secondary source present). We can adequately summarize the whole of a fiction's universe, we just don't need to create articles willy-nilly on that, which is what happened in the early days of WP. --MASEM (t) 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I feel the same way. It's the stand-alone articles that are the most troublesome. They are full of the worst sort of OR, are duplicative of material found elsewhere, end up in AfD where the best outcome, merge, is often ignored, even when the closing admin says merge: there are over 250 unmerged articles. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned, while this may be WP:CREEP, it needs to be firmly and unquivicably mentioned that fiction isn't special because that seems to be running idea for a number of editors. Therefore placing it on a page that directly relates to them makes it much harder for them to say "well that doesn't pertain to my article".陣内_Jinnai 22:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am wary of this section because it is redundantly redundant. Policy applies to all articles; the utterance that Wikipedia:AVOIDSPLIT, Wikipedia:PLOT, and Wikipedia:SUMMARY applies to Fiction articles is neither subject-specific nor needed (whereas guidelines like avoiding capsule reviews is specific to Fiction). -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• No one is contesting that those policies do not affect any other articles. We are stating, for historic reasons, that fiction needs to be a bit more aggressive in declaring that.陣内_Jinnai 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Close this suggested guideline as historical once and for all

After 58 pages of conversation, arguments spilling over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and 8 plus attempts to make this page a guideline, it is clear that there is not community consensus for this change, and that this page protected as historical.

1. Per proposer. Okip 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Endorse The original guideline from years past was something totally different. What it is now is just an excuse to mass delete thousands of articles. Dream Focus 20:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Although this guideline offers some good food for thought, it doesn't add anything to current guidelines other than some extra hoops and deletion criteria. Years of discussion have yet to answer why this is necessary in light of the simpler GNG. In failing to make things simpler, it should just be marked historical. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Support the guideline in its current form attempts to shape inclusion criteria, rather than reflect consensus. Again. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
5. No prejudice to close, but I fear leaving nothing (even an essay) for FICT is still a long-term issue. GNG + PLOT are not enough to establish when best to create articles on fiction. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
   1. I have to agree with Masem, nothing, not even an essay, is probably worse than any solution as it will just create more headache and more gaming, edit wars and attempts to make a point as history has shown what lack of such guidance has done since the GNG is highly disputed on both extremes when it comes to fiction on Wikipedia.陣内_Jinnai 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
   2. Agree with Masem for once. WP:GNG + WP:PLOT + WP:WAF are already long established polices and guidelines; this guideline simply squares the circle. If it did not exist already, WP:FICT would probably have to created where they intersect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose It's a topic that we've had to deal with since the start of Wikipedia. Even if you were to protect this specific page it would be completely meaningless. We will continue to try and adapt guidelines regarding topics of fiction. Just because it is a difficult issue is not a good reason to try to ban discussion on the matter, or ban attempts to make some form of guidance on it. This will continue to be a challenging issue, but that's just the nature of Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose can't stick our heads in the sand... without any specific notability guideline these articles will continue being deleted under the general notability guideline... Arskwad (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Support moratorium on future consideration. Obviously consensus can change, but proposing the same guideline 8 times borders on filibustering. With WP:AFD, there are at least regulars who show up at every discussion to provide stability. Here, it comes off as an attempt to sneak it through when no one's looking. *** Crotalus *** 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
   1. If that were the case we wouldn't have posted an RfC.陣内_Jinnai 19:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
   2. It is quite far from "the same guideline" each time it is proposed. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Support the gag order (and oppose to the original (?) proposal). I studied the archives and did not find a compelling rationale for sidestepping the general guideline. If it violates upper-level guidelines and policies, it's wrong; if it doesn't it's redundant. And half-backed despite years of "development". East of Borschov (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose. This is not some distruptive nonsense such as a proposed guideline to censor Wikipedia. A careful examination of article histories reveals that the urge to remove unsourced, over-detailed and in-universe verbiage on non-notable topics is common among new and old Wikipedia editors alike. The Tyranny of the Majority (or at least the Tyranny of the tenditious editors) must always be resisted. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose: See Abductive's first sentence. FICT can't really be used as a negative reason to exclude articles more than what it relies on the policies and guidelines most rational people agree with, such as V, NPOV, N, and NOR. That said, this will always be a point of contention, and it's a Good Thing to keep talking. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Support The interminable discussion is disruptive in that it distracts editors from doing useful work. For example, Gavin Collins has some professional knowledge of accounting while our articles about accounting and business are typically poor. He would be far better employed working on those articles than trying to control the entirety of our fictional coverage. If more notability guidelines in this area seem needed then they should be more specialised per WP:SONG, WP:FILM and WP:BOOK. Media-based guidelines seem more sensible than this absurdly broad-brush failure — try separate guidelines for plays, poetry, videogames &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment on the guideline, not the editor. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Please cease your impertinent heckling. My comment is directed to the proposition that this hobby horse should be terminated for the general good of the project. This is a sensible suggestion for the reasons stated. That this activity wastes much time to no useful purpose seems apparent and your attempt to shout down this observation is improper in that it does not address the motion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
        • In answer to the Colonel, he has a valid point that there are a lot of really terrible business related articles, but I think he will agree that is not a good arguement in favour of terrible articles on fiction, nor for terminating this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I don't know—or really care—about the history of how this proposed guideline was suggested or debated, but running away from an issue doesn't solve the problem. Fictional works such as television shows are often treat disparately with some culled to a single article and others allowed to have pages for each episode. The guideline can be changed to reflect current practices if some are not currently included, but I think that this is a well-meaning and helpful attempt to provide guidance on how fiction is handled here. —Ost (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - There is not anything close to community consensus to utilize anything close to this. Hooper (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose as this proposal reflects the consensus of how fiction should be treated in accordance WP:WAF. Although the MOS for fiction is a style guidline, style and content are closely related - they are different sides of the same coin - and WP:FICT follows the community consensus on the real coverage of all Wikipedia topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - reitterating more clearly my opposition to this. Sticking your head in the sand because you don't want to deal with a problem won't make it go away.陣内_Jinnai 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Some sort of guideline is needed, regardless of my objections to the current proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose - We must refuse to give in to those from any side who from the very beginning never wanted a balanced compromise. To not persevere would be a strident defeat for Wikipedia as a whole demonstrating that the English wiki is dislocated into irreconcilable groups of editors. Do we need one more crisis and again an ArbCom motion like in the unsourced BLPs case? --KrebMarkt 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose, per nomination actually. 58 pages of conversation indicate that this guideline is an issue that Wikipedians can keep exploring. Months/years? of efforts shouldn't be for nothing (it's not like this is a war with a rising death toll. There is no harm in continuing this conversation.). -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. It appears that this proposal has been around for more than FIVE YEARS. How is it that the norm for closing a AfD is 7 days and yet something like this can remain unclosed for years and years? Time to move on to something that will actually be adopted. The policy is so lacking in specifics that the rationale for having it (which should presumably be to cut down on arguments elsewhere on Wiki re specific deletion decisions) is undermined anyway. Have something specific like "articles where the topic was the subject of one (two? three?) critical reviews in a reliable source are generally notable" and that would be a policy worth keeping because editors could "hang their hat" on it. If there is no more specificity than WP:GNG then why have a policy additional to WP:GNG?Bdell555 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One pesky change to discuss

"A fictional work—including but not limited to a book, movie, television show, radio program, video game, or graphic novel, or an episodic elements of a works such as an individual television episode or issue of a graphic novel—is presumed to be notable if it either meets the appropriate media-specific notability guideline (such as WP:BK for books and WP:NF for films), or otherwise meets the general notability guideline." should really read "...—is presumed to be notable if it meets the appropriate media-specific notability guideline (such as WP:BK for books and WP:NF for films), and meets the general notability guideline." None of the subject-specific guidelines can override the general guideline, they can only supplement it.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the SNG's are written "This type of topic is notable if it meets the GNG or meets this criteria.". They are showing alternate means which a topic is presumed notable. The "or" is appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Those SNGS are simply wrong. No group of people can decide that their pet topic can have notable instances that are immune to the requirement for independent sourcing. WP:NSONGS has it right: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It then lays out the additional requirements that must be met even if the general notability guideline is met. Articles are routinely deleted because they fail WP:NSONGS even though they meet the general notability guideline.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguably, the SNGs have been vetted at the global level, so no singular "group" of people have determined this - though when and where that consensus is, I've no clue without digging. But while they be "wrong" in your opinion, you're going to have an impossible time fighting against that. See the discussion at WT:NSPORT (which aims to replace ATHLETE, but terribly misses the point, still presuming for major sports that all players that touch the field once are notable regardless of sourcing). The "or" language was also part of that big RFC on WP:N a few years ago, with consensus generally agreeing SNGs are alternate routes to GNG. Right now, we aren't attempting to change those other SNGs, and I have a feeling you will find a lot of resistance in doing so. For that reason, the "SNG or GNG" approach is the only approach we can state here at FICT. If you can address that problem on the other SNG pages, certainly we can flip that "or" to "and", but it's not our place here to do that. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:EVENT does override WP:GNG, because it takes into account the policy WP:NOTNEWS, which clashes with the general notability guide. WP:GNG is not the be-all-and-end-all of notability. If we reach a consensus that the WP:GNG is not sufficient for a class of article topics, that's allowed. WP:GNG is guidance just as the SNGs are guidance; nothing is set in stone. Fences&Windows 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. Obviously WP:V, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:BLP are also to be followed. Fences&Windows 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So how am I to interpret this guideline? Is this intended to be a way for articles that don't meet GNG to be included, or is this a way for articles that do meet the GNG to be excluded?—Kww(talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In FICT, we have removed any "either GNG or this" type clauses after extensive debate earlier. I would argue we're notching ourselves slightly stricter than the GNG due to the focus on real world notability. So for elements of fictions, and non-books/films, we use the GNG. For books and films, we defer to those guidelines. If they are "wrong" as you believe, that's where you need to address the issue, but we're not allowing for GNG-bypasses here in FICT. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the notability guidelines besides the GNG are designed to include things that have not necessarily been shown to meet the general notability guideline. In a few cases, such as Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), the guidelines do actually set stricter criteria than the GNG. However, all of the notability guidelines are supposed to have a wide discussion before being accepted as a guideline. A Wikiproject is not free to just write their own guideline to be applied to there own articles without it going through a larger discussion. In this specific case, I believe the "or" is appropriate, as at least one of the guidelines referred to (WP:BK) allows subjects beyond those that meet the GNG. So you could interpret this as "a way for articles that don't meet GNG to be included". Keep in mind though, that I think the intent of guidelines like WP:BK is to identify things that are very obviously noteable but for which sources might be hard to find, and not to include subjects of actual lesser notability. Calathan (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a key point. We may not be able to find sources easily or immediately, so some SNGs use proxies that are likely indicators that sources exist. Some like PROF allow an override of GNG for people who are 'obviously' notable by other standards, e.g. a massively highly cited author. These shortcuts allow us to stop arguing about notability and deletion and instead focus on finding sources. Fences&Windows 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't really interpret it either of those two ways; it's more about how to apply the GNG rather than being inclusive or exclusive. Although, as Masem notes, it has a slight exclusive bent because of the emphasis on a real-world perspective. Nifboy (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

陣内_Jinnai 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

GNG/SSNG comment

Technically there is no reason why a subject guideline could not supersede GNG. The core policy requirements are that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, Wikipedia considers enduring notability of people and events and content must be verifiable to reliable published sources and not include original research or synthesis. GNG happens to be a very good yardstick we use to reflect the inclusion criteria of these, but it's quite possible that there could be a subject where consensus agreed these requirements werewell met by some notability rule that was slightly different to GNG, or that GNG allowed too much indiscriminate coverage for editors' comfort in some topic area.

I'm not searching for such a topic, I'm just noting the opening that GNG is not itself, a policy, and is not "set in stone". The above are the actual policies that all notability guidelines (GNG or SSNG) have to follow or implement. So if a proper consensus says some SSNG is better suited to a topic than GNG, in principle and in some cases that could be a valid decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• And in fact things like WP:PROF do exactly that. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Well put. This was pretty much the original idea behind individual notability guidelines, but things got blurry as time went on. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I am not sure that what FT2 is correct, as WP:PROF will probably go the same way as WP:ATHLETE: it will be brought in line with general notability guideline in the future. WP:GNG may not be a policy, but it is so well rounded that all the SNG's revolve around it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You have seen what they're trying to replace it with? I don't see the use of SNGs to assert notability in the fashion FT2 has described going away any time soon particularly when there are people that actively seek to delete material on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I have indeed. The debate about which inclusion criteria have been very similar to here. Slowly but surely they are inching towards the idea that inclusion criteria for article topics must be based on significant coverage from reliable sources. The key sticking point is whether "signficant coverage" is required, which has been an issue here too. I suspect the same issue will surface at WP:PROF at some point. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • You haven't read through it because most of their points do not require significant coverage, only that a certain criteria is met. There are a few general aspects that do require GNG coverage, but that's not the bulk of the text there. However, the point that is argued and what is true for all the other SNGs is that the criteria included are vetter to be cases where significant coverage is likely to be found, just maybe not immediately. That's the important thing to consider about SNGs, their goal is to provide alternative means of showing notability that can't be immediately shown by significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Adding here that while normally agree with other SNGs like BK and FILM, I think NSPORT is woefully misguided as it is too far inclusive than anything else. I mean, they're willing to accept that any pro player in the major sports that touches the field once is going to have sources and be notable. I only point it out that ATHLETE really has only be deferred to NSPORT but the issues around it haven't been addressed. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Agree. I don't even think the most liberal versions of FICT ever went that far.陣内_Jinnai 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To add to my comment above, I would expect a "typical" SSNG to:

1. Summarize background briefly - Reiterate (one paragraph or a short section) the underlying principles or aims, especially those informing notability on the stated subject.
2. Provide criteria - State that typically the following list of criteria provide simple consensus-based guidance to allow subjects in the given topic area to be categorized as "very likely notable", "very likely non-notable", or "varying depending upon given criteria".
3. Interaction with WP:GNG - Be clear how it interacts with WP:GNG (overrides it ever? either/or?)
4. Clarify this is guidance only - While it is expected to be generally applicable to the topic and to draw lines that are reasonably helpful in most cases, users should understand the principles and seek to apply those in cases where it's possible an exception may exist.
5. (Optionally) comment on common traps/mistakes or topic-specific notability points - issues that catch people out who are considering notability on the sepcific topic (for example in fictional topics, verifiable reliable sources exist covering "in universe" but not "real world", and "episodic series handling"), or common AFD outcomes and background.
6. Style - SSNGs should usually be terse summaries of these, not long rambling essays and repetitions of other guidance.

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Which ones do you think it needs adjustment on? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on this specific proposal above - in this case it's not terse enough, and it just doesn't seem to say anything needing a new guideline. This section's more general reflections on GNG/SSNG. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If I am understanding FT correctly, he is saying that this proposal does not meet any of these points, but I think that is a sweeping generalisation. You could just as easily ask which of the 6-points does it not meet? My view is that this guideline is very important, since it addresses the two problems that plague articles about fictional topics: Real-world notability, and the WP:FICT#Derivative articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to speak for FT2 , I think he's just commenting on in general what SNGs are structured as as to address how SNGs interact with the GNG, and that there's nothing wrong with FICT the way it is in this larger picture. But that's just how I'm reading it. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems with its wordiness, feel free to make suggestions on how to tighten it without removing relevant points.陣内_Jinnai 18:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Popping in to say "I'm Sorry".

I'm sorry for starting the 59+ pages of discussion and debate with my urge to change guidelines three years ago. To me, fiction on Wikipedia needs to be treated via a case-by-case basis, using the basic policies and notability guidelines as a framework. This page should definitely be marked as historical. — Deckiller 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Here, have an image of a hedgehog. --Kizor 10:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

awww.

Ok. — Deckiller 11:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But...but.. it's not blue-- and it does have any running shoes on! --MASEM (t) 12:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it; contributions that lead to what appear to be pointless bickering can still be helpful in the long run, which I think this has been. I don't think "case by case" is the only advice, but to me its becoming increasingly clear that notability of fiction itself isn't very different from GNG types (making FICT unnecessary save for clarification of certain points, specifically real-world vs in-universe notability), but more importantly that its how holistically fiction is dealt with, which should be top-down, trying to keep everything about a work of fiction in one article and spinning out when necessary, which is counter to how most fans think about fiction. And to the bigger question, what should be WP's goal when it comes to handling fiction? How much detail should we go into. That's not meant to be a question begging for an answer here, but its one that I'm keeping back of the mind for how best to approach it. Right not there's no major "wars" brewing over it, so its best not to rock the boat but we really should address the bigger picture at some point. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Seasons episode lists

Mhiji (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since there has been no consensus building discussions about the naming of these episode lists, I have started a discussion at WT:NC-TV. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Episodes list naming survey

A survey started at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Survey on how to name episode list as "List of" or not. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reducing page to a simply essay with links to guide

Given that as this point, I think the most that watch this page can likely agree there's no special action needed for fiction, I propose to convert this from a failed proposal to an essay that hilights these points:

• Notability from fiction should follow the same guidelines outlined at WP:N and the WP:GNG
• Editors should review WP:WAF for details on writing articles on fiction.
• Editors may seek additional advise from the large projects that deal with fiction (listing out the big ones like WP:TV, WP:FILMS, WP:VG, etc.)

Short, sweet, and barring any major insights of how to approach it better, a way to get closure on all this. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It sucks but you're right. Support the essay as phrased... with any further refinements achieved through WP:BRD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as long as we point out lists are covered by WP:SALAT, not GNG.陣内_Jinnai 16:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review the major edit to reduce this to a short essay. Also, a note that with the recent RFC on lists closed, we're working in *some* advice about lists into WP:N, though SALAT is still the major hub for list-related notability. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. I re-sorted it into some headings and tried to write a short lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Looks good too. Apart from trivial changes, I've also changed "Non-notable elements of fiction" in #Lists of fictional elements to "Individually non-notable elements of fiction" to better illustrate that a couple of not-notable-enough fiction articles may very well make a fine merged list. A native speaker should review the grammar of the sentence Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element... though. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(Oppose A look at the archives of this m[age should make it clear that there is no consensus that the notability of fictional elements is determined in any useful way by the very general concepts of the guideline WP:N, and in particular by the criterion of th sub-guidline WP:GNG-- whetherin a positive sense, that those elements for which such references can be found are necessarily worth an article, or in the other sense, that distive focused references for the elements prevent an article in they are discussed in general references on the fiction.The history of the last two or three years of this has been the attempt to reach a statement that would guide what we decide in AfD discussions; this not having suceeded in getting teh necessary superconsensuss because of the strident opposition of a few individuals, the attempt has been to describe what we actually decide. This has foundered over the unfortunate fact that what we do is not very consistent, and depends primarily upon the degree to which z a sufficient number of Wikipedians are interested in the fiction. The principle that really applies is WP:BEFORE, that there are alternatives to deletion thatwould apply in almost every instance. There is essentially no character that has been proposed for a separate article for which a redirect at least would not be suitable, and the GNG offers little help in this--andthe proposal here offers no help whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried proposing a guideline that represents what you see as this consensus? I'm always in favor of writing down whatever agreements and compromises the community has made. I'm just wondering if you had a role in any of the rejected proposals and why you think they were rejected. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Failed proposal seems to summarise its status best. Changing this status might suggest that there is some sort of consensus which is not the case. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This version of the page is not a proposal. It is simply a placeholder that indicates that at this spot there were several failed proposals, and until someone comes along with something better, here's where you can go to find links to determine notability for fiction. If it were marked failed, people would take the information on this page as false or non-applicable, and thus possibly would ignore notability via the GNG and other set aspects in relationship to fictional works. And there was consensus that the advice - as "Essay" - is appropriate to list out, but as you see, it is not introducing any new statements that don't already exist in other policy or guidelines. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fiction related proposal

Hi folks, could people please take a look at [3] and chime in with their thoughts? Hobit (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Query about a history-merge

• This history-merge discussion started in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen:-

* Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has revisions. Revisions before the major change on 7 December 2010 must be moved to either WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10, WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works if possible. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• • The asked-for history-split point in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (20:08, 7 December 2010‎ User:Masem (3,158 bytes) (-8,276)‎ (cut out non-essay stuff....) seems to be a text-split point; the end part of the page was deleted, and may have been put in another page. The history of the beginning of the page is continuous across this point.
    1. WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10 does not exist.
    2. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07's history is all before this point.
    3. User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal's history is continuous across this point.
    4. Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works's history is continuous across this point.
  • Please, what do you want me to do? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ...Let's ask people in WT:notability (fiction) and its contributors, shall we? As for #1, I realized that it was formerly a guideline, but it failed. I don't know what else to do except (as far as I can see) abandon #2-4, as they turned out to be separate proposals, which were for rejuvinating "Notability (fiction)", that are not worth moving revisions into. --George Ho (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What I think might have been asked is:

• Split the history of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

• Take This old revision, as edited by Jinnai (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 7 December 2010, and every previous version, and move to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), failed proposal.
• Take every subsequent version, and move to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), essay.

At least, that is what I was thinking, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). However, I think that the MfD is headed for a straight keep, and that a few more people should be asked before going ahead with such a thing. I'd certainly wait until ofter the MfD is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While I rather expected it to be tagged, not deleted, in the end (or moved, renamed, or the like) one has to ask, looking through the old proposals: Did anyone actually ever try to write an actual notability guideline for fiction, instead of attempting to duplicate WP:MOSWAF? Notability guidelines are not meant to be content guidelines,, they're meant to give guidance on what is notable. Frankly, I can't help but think that every proposal deserved to fail, for not actually being any sort of notability guideline. 86.** IP (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait! Let's move everything before 2008 or 2007 into WP:notability (fiction), guideline 2005. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't split this. Instead, the best idea is to give pointers to the last "best" revisions as mileposts so that users can see the past history attempts. Splitting it up - particularly with them all labeled failed, would be a problem, and will also confuse the talk page issues. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS and reviews of fictional works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page.

It does not presently address notability-and-sourcing issues, but this may be an oversight to address.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Streels of Urtah

At some point, someone decided an article was needed for a location of some significance which appears in two novels, Shardik and Maia. I don't think it's worth having that article which has no sources and little relevance, but I don't know how to go about nominating it for deletion and would appreciate any help that can be offered. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: If you feel that the article should be deleted, the processes are outlined at WP:DELETE. There are four main ones which may apply to articles: WP:BLPPROD; WP:PROD; WP:CSD and WP:AFD. The first of these will not apply since it is not the biography of a living person. If your concern is purely about notability (and nothing else), the third one won't apply either.

BTW when starting a new thread, it's best to use the "New section" tab, rather than editing an existing section and tacking yours onto the bottom of that. Using this tab will ensure that your new section goes at the bottom of the page (see this edit), and it also means that the edit summary is appropriate (compare this edit with this one). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this TV series even notable?

I am starting to doubt the notability of this TV series for a few reasons.

First of all, the author isn't even notable enough to warrant her own article. See this diff. I don't even think the book is notable because it only has one source. I am requesting a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (book).

Second of all, even one one Wikipedia editor referred to Martha Speaks as "not even meet[ing] notability guidelines".

Third, it relies heavily on first-party (primary) sources for its essential (important) information. There are only three second-party sources - two of them are dead links, the third was published 10 years ago. Thus, the editor above could be right about the TV show failing WP:GNG. As an ordinary children's show, it probably would never get worldwide significance and recognition. Exponentially far more TV shows have worldwide recognition than do — and the difference between a show that gets an article and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". Unfortunately, Martha Speaks failed the test, big time.

The characters list was redirected in a deletion discussion a few weeks ago. Additionally, the characters's individual articles have been redirected for lack of notability:

[4][5][6][7][8]

Even think about it, think about more notable shows like VeggieTales and Danny Phantom. Those shows warrant articles and character lists because of their massive notability. If you even asked me, Daniel Fenton, Bob the Tomato, and Larry the Cucumber themselves would be notable to warrant their own articles. But as seen in the much above more discussions, Helen Lorraine, her Daniel Fenton-inspired father, and Mariella clearly aren't even notable to warrant any. Arthur (TV series) is much more notable and has its titular protagonist warrant an article. Just because Martha Speaks is affiliated with a notable TV show doesn't mean it is just as notable.

A search of Martha Speaks on JSTOR provides 0 sufficient results. The show is mentioned in some RS but they aren't independent of the topic in question. Zero results on Google News also.

Here are some reasons why I can argue that Martha Speaks is not notable. Being an average and now cancelled TV show, it would take a long time for it to reach notability standards, unlike VT, DP, and Arthur. 2407:7000:A269:8200:C74:70FB:2A75:F307 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

also see [9][10][11] 2407:7000:A269:8200:68B7:FFF1:8E82:F4F1 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see that this is a RfC matter. First, have the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE been tried? Second, why was no category provided, and what is the brief and neutral statement? See WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the book Martha Speaks is notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (book). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

oh, and the author, Susan Meddaugh, is notable, being the author of multiple notable books, wikiarticles just haven't been created yet. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Susan Meddaugh was redirected with the edit summary being "notable for only one work". 2407:7000:A269:8200:68B7:FFF1:8E82:F4F1 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Danielfenton got page redirected [12]

Many television series are notable, including Martha speaks, daniel fenton, arthur, veggietales, etc. But there are many that just are as non-notable. I think we need to only have television series that you would expect to see nowadays in a paper encyclopedia. Many of the articles on TV series here have little second-party reliable sources. Even one called "Ben's City" inspired by works of François Pérusse doesn't have an article here, and it doesn't have a mention on François Pérusse's page (that's 110% fine). We need to toughen up our notability policy on television shows. 27.252.57.36 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a table on television series sorted via a notability scale I invented. The scale should not be applied to Wikipedia just yet and it is just for reference.

Notability of television series by level of notability

Level	Notability standard	Examples
4	Characters and individual episodes can warrant own standalones. Highly notable with characters and episodes being topic of independent second-party sources.	VeggieTales The Simpsons Arthur (TV series) Danny Phantom
3	Characters and individual episodes cannot warrant own articles, but series is overall notable with mentions and being the topic of independent second-party sources. The show can have lists of characters and episodes.	Total Drama Island Wonder Pets! Team Umizoomi
2/1	Not notable, no lists required. Some mentions in second-party reliable sources but are not their topic. Probably does not belong in Wikipedia.	Martha Speaks (TV series) Being Ian
0	Simply not notable, does not belong in Wikipedia.	"Ben's City" (French: Perusse Cite)

2407:7000:A2AB:D00:98D0:7346:5BA8:86E3 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

List of characters notability?

Is there any codified guidance on this? I've seen a lot of these through AfD lately, for some substantial works:

• List of Kill Bill characters

WP:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination)

• His Dark Materials

• Dæmon (His Dark Materials)
• Dust (His Dark Materials)
• Races and creatures in His Dark Materials
• Locations in His Dark Materials

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials

• Mortal Engines

List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hester Shaw

• List of Redwall characters

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Redwall characters

Now at WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 21#List of Redwall characters

Although there has been regular discussion on this in the past, I can't see a linkable guideline, such that it could be quoted at AfD?

These are pretty major fictional series: Hollywood films on three of the four here. Surely if we're having article on series of that scale, at least one LoC article should be justified implicitly? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is none. We have tried numerous times to establish notability for fiction without success. Closest to be used is LISTN and NOT#PLOT. Some secondary sourcing should be required. --Masem (t) 12:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

What Masem said, although that was 10 years ago. The current mentality at AFD seems to be that fiction-based WP:SPINOFFs from the main article (or List of characters or List of episodes) are fine as long as there is significant non-trivial real-world coverage present in (or could be added to) the spinoff article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If anything, the situation is less favorable for lists of fictional elements today, than it was 10 years ago. We've matured in that we generally don't want excessive coverage of fictional elements unless they can be clearly backed by secondary sources for real-world aspects (reception or development/creation). We also don't want these pages to be used to cheat NOT#PLOT and various MOS limitations on plot coverage: just because you can add one source that says a character was in a top 10 list from some random website is not sufficient allowance to create a massive plot dump. --Masem (t) 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: this page should be re-marked as a failed guideline

I've seen increased reference to this page as an essay at AFD, with no noting that it was a failed guideline - something that you need to dig into the archives to actually show. This page should be marked again as a failed guideline using the appropriate template, with links to the RFCs where it was rejected in the article history. It is ok to keep it also marked as an essay but editors should be clear on the fact that it has been considered multiple times by the community and rejected for adoption as a guideline. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

E.g.,

FOARP (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd be happy for our treatment of fiction to default to the stricter and more quality-focused general notability guideline. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Mark as essay AND failed proposal "Failure" implies that the current text is bad, when actually it just points to other established policies and guidelines. The failure was that some thought the proposal too strong, others too weak, so we're stuck with the default "look elsewhere", which is where the essay part comes in. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarification The page WP:Notability (fiction) exists because it was a proposal (which failed). However, the current text is an essay as a result of the failed proposal. So this page is both a failed proposal and an essay. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This page as it stands is a valid essay describing the treatment of notability of fiction (namely, the lack of any specialized treatment due to failed proposals). It gives no specific notability allowances for fictional elements beyond pointing right back to the GNG. To mark it failed would implied that there is a notability guideline for fiction, which is not true. I can see the value in linking back to old RFCs on this though it would take a while to dig them up, but to mark this failed would be wrong. If editors are using this essay as a rationale to keep articles on fictional topics without alluding to the GNG, they are completely misreading the essay to start with. --Masem (t) 14:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For example, to take a use that looked like it was a problem from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega-City One, the first commentor there is 100% right, as mentioning "NFICT/GNG" is 100% correct - there's no special NFICT guidance so it should fall to the GNG where the topic appears to fail. The argument there where I see someone mention NFICT failed suggested that there is nothing limiting fictional notability on WP, not even the GNG, which is not correct at all; the GNG must still be followed. That's the danger in marking this as a failed guideline. --Masem (t) 14:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

None of which validates trying to rely on a failed guideline. WP:GNG is still a definite standard and I've seen no instances of anyone trying to claim that there was no limitation at all on fictional subject matter - just that this specific failed guideline should not be relied on, because it is a failed guideline. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This essay was agreed by consensus to be created in the wake of several failed attempts for a separate fiction notability guideline, as a description of what happened and reflecting practice then as well as now: fiction defaults to the GNG. It only provides relevant existing guidelines of additional advice in writing about fiction. No piece of this essay is counter to any practice, and so calling this specific text as failed is very much wrong, because it had consensus to be made in place of any iota of a specialized guideline. --Masem (t) 12:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, reducing this piece from a proposed guideline to an essay was the consensus. That does not make this something that should be relied on. Specifically, we are getting lots of "Delete per WP:NFICTION" nominations at AFD at the moment (as well as, bizarrely, WP:NCHAR nominations) and it should be made clear that, really, WP:GNG is the place where people should be looking, not this essay. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with a "Delet e per NFICT" !vote? It's a fair use of a valid essay that I read as the !voter saying "we have no notability on fiction, per several failed attempts, and use the gng instead, which this topic fails.". If it were the case that you saw several " Keep per NFICT", then I would agree there is a problem, since this essay provides no specialized guidance on notability determination, and !votes like that would question how this provides any rationale to keep. --Masem (t) 12:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with arguing that something should be either kept or deleted based on something that is prima-facie not a guide to what should be kept/deleted and, in as much as it ever was a guide, is a failed guide? This is a question that answers itself. FOARP (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This still provides consensus-agreed guidance that there are specialized allowances for topics on fiction and aligns directly with the defacto notability guideline GNG by saying "use the GNG", with the only other details being why there aren't specialized rules and where to go for more info. This text had support and was not a failed proposal; previous revisions may have b een, but not this current one. As I said, there is zero issue at ADD with delete !votes citing this essay as the reason, because this essay says "use the GNG". Arguing there is a problem here makes no sense at all, outside of the general concern that editors should try not to use only essays to support their !votes, but the is not unique to this page. --Masem (t) 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support The status of the page should be marked. Unmarked essays are of indeterminate value whereas the value of this one has been tested and found wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not failed, just essay-ized. And already marked as such. What's the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I came across Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) yesterday, where it was summarized, Mother of all notability disputes, edit wars have erupted over wording of the guideline, whether parts are/were significantly disputed or not, and even – once it had been demoted from a guideline – whether it should be tagged as "essay", "historical", "proposed", or "failed". Apparently, we won't ever find a solution for this. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Cleanup of very bad character articles

I invite interested editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Cleanup of very bad character articles. One main question: How to deal with fiction articles that may be notable, but do not pass content policies (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:OR) and guidelines (WP:WAF). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)