User:Masem/fict-reply

Many points disputed
There are more than two points at issue.

first, with respect to significance:
 * 1) . The meaning of the term 'real-world significance" Does it mean primarily the authorship, sales, reception, or does it includes discussion in the real world about the plot, characters and setting?
 * Real world information on fictional elements can be used to support the work of fiction, and if enough exists, that specific fictional element itself.


 * 1) . The meaning of "in-universe" Does the mean anything talking about the universe of the fiction, or does it mean only the prohibition about writing in a fan-fiction fashion as if the universe of the fiction were actual reality\?
 * It means two thnigs, depending on context. "In-universe" in terms of content is about the universe of the fiction. "In-universe" in terms of writing style means writing as if the fictional universe were real.


 * 1) . The extent of plot information. is this to be minimal, or detailed, or somewhere in the middle.? Should the rule be that it should not predominate mean that it should not be more than 50%, or that it should not be 95%?
 * It is guided by WP:UNDUE and WP:PLOT and WP:OR. There is no number, however, I do think that the MOS for films has a general good idea that about 100 words for every 10 minutes of the fictional work is appropriate.  This doesn't apply cleanly to all works of fiction, but it's a starting point.


 * 1) . The source for information about the plot and characters and setting. Must this come from secondary sources, or should it come, alternatively or even preferable, directly from he work of fiction? If so, is this an exception to the basic rule about primary sources, or does the current meaning of the rule in general permit primary sources in such situations?
 * If you are stating a fact that anyone familiar with the work is not likely going to have an issue with ("Marge Simpson has blue hair"), a primary source is fine. However, if you introduce original ideas, potential analysis, synthesis, or other interpretive matters ("Marge is very naggy"), then it must be sourced from secondary sources.


 * 1) . The source for secondary information. Must it come only from conventionally published sources, or may it includes information from accepted informal sources appropriate to the type of material? If so, is this an exception to the rule, or the interpretation to which the practice is heading over material in general?
 * Appropriate sources follow generall reliable sources followed by any consensus met for the project/article type, but WP:RS and WP:PSTS still hold.


 * 1) . Do we treat all material the same, ir do we recognize the differences between different types of fiction? Do we ignore academic sources talking about popular culture, or take account of where the actual critical literature is? do we ignore the significance of a work in formal or informal culture, or pay special attention to the iconic works of film and literature--and computer gaming?
 * All material has to be treated the same - the same bar for notability holds across all WP articles, not just fictional, and thus we can't treat any area of fiction more "special" than others because it may be a different form of media.

''Then, with respect to structure:"
 * 1) . The basic principle that each work of fiction should have a single article. Or should we instead have the number of articles appropriate to its importance and the extent of material available?
 * A article about a fictional work should be written first ignoring any breaking off of subarticles. Once the article is written, summary style approaches should be considered to break off sections into their own articles, particular those that can stand on their own via notability.  This is partially based on what secondary information is out there.  Importance should never come into play


 * 1) . should major characters only have a separate article in special cases, or should all individual major characters in major works have a separate article? Should this depend upon formal sourcing, or should we assume that major characters in such works will always have a substantial critical discussion?
 * A major character article should be a special case, and must be supported by its notability. A single character page without demonstration of notability should be merged into a character list.


 * 1) . Should we just mention the names of the less important characters in important works, or a listing, or should we write combination articles with a substantial section to each of them, length according to how much there is to say? Does this apply to all minor character, or in some exceptional works, such as Shakespeare, is there sufficient critical discussion that essentially every named character can justifiably have an article?
 * Listing of minor characters should only be done if it is necessary to understand the real world impact of the work of fiction, or to help support discussion of the plot.


 * 1) . Is setting and background relatively unimportant, as compared to plot and character, or does this represent at least as important aspects of works, and to be discussed on the same principles as character? Does the geography of major imaginary worlds merit only a general discussion, or should major settings be presented in appropriate detail? Do the minor settings just get listed or ignored, or do they merit sections of a combination article for the more important works fof fiction?
 * Elements of setting and background should be mentioned if there are significant differences between the fictional world and the real world, or necessary to understand the real world aspects of the world. Details such as geography and the like should not be included, and minor settings should also not be included.


 * 1) . Are the details of setting and cultural cross references unimportant, or are they part of the essence of at least some forms of fiction such as film? Do we treat all such works equally, or emphasize strongly the settings used in major works of fiction, and the major settings used in multiple works? Do we need secondary sources explicitly treating each such element, or can we use the same primary sources we would use for plot and character?
 * I'll refer to a standard we're using at video games for pop culture references. If the cross reference has to be mentioned in a reasonable plot summary, it should be included; if it's only there as filler, it should not be.  Other cases are determined by consensus.


 * 1) . Do we deal with excessive size by compressing the treatment, or dividing the article? If there are too many minor characters to devote a paragraph to each, do we shorten the paragraphs, or find some way of separating them into two or more articles?
 * summary style is the approach. If a sub-article is too large on its own, separate subarticles with appropriate groupings is acceptable.


 * 1) . Do we rely on specialist wikis for all specific details, or do we try to make WP self contained, using specialist wikis only for the true minutia that only specialized fans discuss (e.g., the speculative detailed genealogy of Frodo's relatives)?
 * "Rely" is a little strong - I would say that if it is appropriate, we direct people to approach external link and additional sources for more info. Wikia is fine generally in this regards.  But key is that WP is not meant to be a collection of all that information (via WP:IINFO and WP:DIR) - we need to provide an overview and where to go to learn more.

''further, with respect to procedure"
 * 1) . Do we just let AfDs settle everything including article structure, or do we keep editing questions to article or project talk pages?
 * As much needs to be done on talk page discussion. See above: AfD should only be the case if no proper consensus can be reached on the talk page.


 * 1) . Do we follow the majority of whomever is present at a particular discussion, or do we attempt to form a stable and generally acceptable consensus?
 * WP:CONSENSUS. No question on that.


 * 1) . Do we renominate for deletion articles that have already obtained consensus to keep, or do we spend our time writing and improving articles?
 * You can't turn around a week later and re-AfD an article. However, one


 * 1) . If we cannot obtain consensus on details, do we argue till we have them, or do we attempt to get consensus on more general points?
 * If the devil's in the details, you start consensus on the overall article, and slowly work downward to the finer details.


 * 1) . Do we attempt to write policy so our favorit works get the treatment we want them to have, or do we look more generally at all media and genres?
 * You go cross-genres (see above - the guideline applies to all media with no special cases).


 * 1) . Do we depend only upon formal sourcing, or also upon importance?
 * Formal sourcing. Importance is not the same as notability, though importance can be demonstrated by formal sourcing.


 * 1) . Do we delete on the basis of no response to tagging after a time, or do we accept that growth is slow and irregular? Do we thing of deletion as a trivial concern, or do we recognize that it is much easier to build upon existing stub articles?
 * Tag, then wait, with also considerations of the past article history. If the article hasn't been edited for a year, and you wait two weeks after a tag, likely you're not stepping on any toes.  If the article was heavily edited up until you tagged, then no editing/response occurred, you probably wait, re-question if there's someone working on it, but don't jump to an AfD right way.


 * 1) . Do we accept failure of routine attempts at sourcing though tools like Google Scholar, or do we accept that sourcing in this area is sometimes difficult, and that nothing should be considered unsourcable until the popular and academic materials have been thoroughly examined?
 * Failure to demonstrated notability for a topic on its own should probably mean the topic be merged back into a parent article or list, or transwikied. This is leaves open the option that if someone comes along and produces key sources to demonstrated the topic notability, the article can then be recreated, with the hope that the text from the transwiki can be pasted back in and added upon.  However, what is "failure" should be based on a reasonable expectation for that fictional work.  I expect to be able to find something about Mario's popularity - I don't expect the same about Toad.  A good faith effort to find notability for a topic that ends in failure should not mean that the topic gets merged or moved - but that maybe someone else should look or a different approach taken.

I have tried to write it so the alternative in each clause is my preferred position, but at the least, each point i have raised here is a point where i think we do not yet have agreement. i strong dislike any attempt to pretend we have agreement on one particular person's position otherwise. Ned does not recognize the degree to which his views do not have general acceptance--not just about details, but about general principles. However, i do very strongly agree with him on the practical advisability of trying to get at least some general rules on which we might have agreement, and reserve the details for another place, possibly in the format of examples presented explicitly as an essay. DGG (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments above in reply --M ASEM 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)