User talk:Savidan/Writing about fictional things

Comments
Oddly enough, I agree with your final short summary- But you've been nom. for deletion material that should be merged, and aspects that are significant and probably do have major discussion. DGG (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. How do WP:TIND and WP:BEFORE intersect with this?  If you add those two in there, and throw in a good helping of WP:ATD, you'll have no disagreements from most of the fiction lovers.  Problem is, there's no simply way to get rid of the "cruft" without knowing the subject and investing a bit of time and care, is there? Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TIND is not an inclusionist argument; it could just as easily be interpreted to say we can afford to wait to create articles about fictional plot devices until their notability outside the series is established. I believe I have also explained why WP:BEFORE does not apply, and explicitly dealth with WP:ATD. If you're argument is that one has to be very familiar with a work of fiction before then they can understand a given topic, then that is a reason why the topic is not notable outside of the series.Savidan 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but only the WP:TIND rebuttal has any merit. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD apply whether you like them to or not, so until this essay is brought in line with those, or consensus changes so that they are no longer a guideline and policy, respectively, your essay will be limited to explaining your unique perspective on the issue.  Which is your right, as it's your userspace, but is a significant shame because I can agree with a lot of what you're saying here. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another place you might find useful to read: Requests for comment/Notability and fiction. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Existing framework
I think your essay gives a sensible and detailed rationale for the current draft of WP:FICT which sits within the existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Presumably you have seen the flowchart that shows how the notability of ficitonal topics interacts with Wikipedia's content polcies, which your essay seems to compliment.

Your approach has a slightly different emphasis from mine: your starting point is WP:WAF, whereas mine is independent sourcing. WP:WAF says that "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate". However, there is one weakness to this approach, and that is that WP:WAF is a style guideline, and so it tends to be ignored as it does not hold the same weight as Wikipedia's content polies.

My approach is that any source which reproduces or summarises the primary work (e.g. regurgitates the plot) cannot be viewed as being independent, because the primary work is effectively being repeated without criticism or commentary, which are the hallmarks of "being noted". Therefore, notability can only be established through sources which provide real world coverage and are indepedent of the primary source.

For your information, it has taken me a very long time to work this through. Having commented on the article Bulbasaur on the fiction noticeboard before it was merged, I think I have understood why it was a bad article, but could not articulate exactly why. Now I think I have clear understanding of all the issues. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gavin, thank you very much for your comments. I happen to concur with your approach as well, and thank you for your tireless contributions to the Bulbasaur and other discussions. As to the style guideline vs. inclusion guideline issue, I consider that a case of wikilawyering at its worst. It seems relatively intuitive to me that an article which demonstrably is never capable of rising to the level of meeting a style guideline should not be kept, and should never have been created in the first place. Savidan 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say that if a style guideline is incapable of being met, it's being used improperly and a content guide is more appropriate. Of course, using a style guideline to answer content questions itself raises concerns about whether the style guideline has consensus for such a use. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The text being quoted from the guideline has been in place for quite some time and carries the same weight as the entire guideline in terms of consensus. Savidan 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)