Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Machinima work group/Guidelines

This page contains proposed guidelines from WikiProject Machinima.

Notability
Wikipedia requires content to be verifiable. Before creating an article about a machinima production, consider the following criteria: Red vs. Blue is a prime example of all four.
 * Popularity: Is it popular? This one, of course can be somewhat subjective. However, it can be verifiable and quantifiable in certain cases. If a reputable news source or site publishes information that such-and-such production has X downloads, that is verifiable. Alexa rank is another piece of verifiable information.
 * Commercial success: Obviously machinima that isn't sold is exempt from this particular consideration. This criteria may also become less important as more machinima gains commercial release, especially from professional groups.
 * Critical acclaim: Acclaim from real critics, not from your friend next door. See Reliable sources. In this context, reliable sources might include: normal print sources (newspapers, etc.), well-known websites or blogs by notable machinima or Internet authors (not some random forum), and well-known machinima awards (the Mackies, Rockets on Prisoners).
 * Impact: Has it helped shape or further the machinima movement (or that of related artforms), or attract more attention to the artform? Can you provide sources to prove this? See the point above.

A series doesn't have to meet all four, but at least one is good.

If you plan to create an article on a machinima production, you should be prepared to explain why it is notable, preferably when you first create the article. At least provide links or other reliable sources. Again, a forum thread is not a reliable source. YouTube is also not a real indicator of popularity, since anyone can upload there. Also, if the production has only recently been released, or isn't even out yet, it can't really have achieved any of the above criteria. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

It has been argued that there are articles on movies, games and television shows that have not yet been released, so a production-in-progress should be kept. Those games, movies, and shows are made by well-known companies/directors or people and/or are based on well-known franchises, and/or are famous because they have been in production for so long. They have been written about by reliable, verifiable sources. In all probability, nobody else knows about or has written about your machinima production that you are releasing in six months.

Per the autobiographical guideline, you probably should not create an article on a production if you are involved with the creation of the work (or related to/friends of someone who is); if you do, keep in mind that the neutral point of view policy applies to all, and that you do not own articles on your own productions. This doesn't mean you can't correct facts on your own productions. Just don't create new articles on them; if your production becomes well-known enough, someone else will write about it.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable and Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia (under Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day). Articles about web content without any assertion of notability or of historical importance can now be speedily deleted under the A7 criterion for speedy deletion.

Precedent has also been set by previous articles for deletion discussions, the majority of which have resulted in deletion. Keep in mind that, again, writing articles on your own works is strongly discouraged, and many of the articles referenced in the list of deletion discussions were, in fact, created by the machinima authors or people closely associated with the production. Indeed, a reasonable article about any fiction, machinima or otherwise, needs to have more than just the fiction itself as a source. Otherwise, it can do little more than rehash what people can already ascertain by simply obtaining the work of fiction and reading or watching it.

Common arguments
Several arguments often arise during deletion discussions:


 * But it's funny!
 * That may be so, but Wikipedia has a strict policy of adhering to a neutral point of view. If a reliable third-party source says that the machinima is funny, then we can include that perspective, attributing that statement to the source. Keep in mind that web forums are not reliable sources of third-party information. As such, people might rave about it on a particular forum, but we'd much prefer to see it reviewed by a reputable gaming magazine, film site, machinima organization, etc. Having won an award or selection from the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences or "Rockets on Prisoner" helps.
 * It's on machinima.com.
 * A lot of productions are on machinima.com. An analogous situation might be that of the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). It has been judged that IMDB is a better indicator of non-notability than of notability. That is to say, if a production is missing from IMDB, it is a strong argument against notability; but the inverse does not necessarily hold: Presence in IMDB is no guarantee of notability. The machinima production in question needs to be distinguished from the others available on machinima.com. Even though the site's editors do screen videos before posting them, most are posted without comment. It's a different story if a production is the subject of a full article on machinima.com; such a write-up would count as a reliable, verifiable, third-party source of encyclopedic information.
 * Machinima production X is also on Wikipedia, and Y is more notable than X.
 * If you feel that Xis non-notable, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. But every article stands or fails on its own merits. That another possibly non-notable series exists on Wikipedia is an invalid reason to keep a different series. See also Inclusion is not an indicator of notability.
 * The guidelines mention Red vs. Blue. No other series is that notable!
 * Again, every article is judged on its own merits. Articles on several other series do exist on Wikipedia.
 * Give it a chance; it's a new series.
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If your production has only one or two episodes, and is your first series, then it can't possibly have established notability. Wikipedia is not for establishing notability; it is for gathering encyclopedic knowledge about what is already reported in reliable sources. See also the section below.

New and future series by notable groups
While precedent has been clearly set in the case of new and unreleased series by relatively unknown production groups, there has yet to be a deletion test case for series that have been released by established machinima authors, such as Rooster Teeth Productions or Edgeworks Entertainment. Therefore, the following guidelines are possibly reasonable starting points:


 * Prequels and sequels. If a new series is an extension of an existing storyline — that is, a prequel or sequel — then it may deserve its own article, depending on the size and scope of the article on the existing storyline and on how much information is available on the new series. If it makes sense, then the first choice should be to incorporate into the existing article. Otherwise, a new article is reasonable.
 * New storyline. If the series is based on a completely new storyline, then the first choice should be to incorporate it into an article on the production group, until enough verifiable information is available to warrant a separate article.

Production article structure
The following is a proposed structural guideline for articles about machinima productions. Please feel free to discuss on the talk page, or to make changes yourself.

Generally, articles on machinima productions should look something like this:


 * 1) Lead. Follow the standard Wikipedia guidelines for the lead section. The lead should give a broad, succinct overview of the entire article. It should explain what the production is, who made or makes it, what game engine(s) it uses, and why or how the production is notable. See Red vs. Blue for an example. Infobox Machinima should be also used to give key data, but it is no substitute for well-written prose.
 * 2) Plot. Give a brief, prose overview of the overall plot. Even if the machinima is episodic, a broader overview, not confined by episode boundaries, should be present as well. It may be appropriate to split out an episode-by-episode summary to a separate article, but a relatively brief synposis should remain in the main article.
 * 3) Characters. Summarize the roles of the major characters in the work. How do they interact? Prose is preferable to a mere character-by-character listing, as it allows for clearer description of character interactions. Be careful to avoid original research. If necessary, split a more detailed character-by-character synopsis into separate article(s), but keep in mind that the reader should be able to infer a general "feel" for the most important characters just by reading the main article.
 * 4) Background and/or Production. Explain how the production was started, the processes used in creating the work, and how various special effects are achieved. Interviews with the machinima creators are especially helpful here.
 * 5) Reception and/or Impact. Summarize, in a neutral point of view, how the production was received. Did it win awards? What did reliable critics say about it? Did it affect the overall machinima movement in any significant way? Did it influence other notable productions?

Naming conventions

 * Productions. In accordance with general Wikipedia naming conventions, an article about a machinima production should reside at the production's most common name, unless this introduces ambiguity. Generally, this means that subtitles should generally be excluded from the article title, although redirects that include the subtitle or any variations thereof are often useful. As an example, Red vs. Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles is a redirect to Red vs. Blue, where the main article resides. If there is a conflict between the production and some other article with the same name, prefer the (film) or (series) qualifier. If a situation ever arises where two films (machinima or not) have the same name, then further disambiguate by year.
 * Season articles. Borrowing from the television naming guidelines, if articles on each season are necessary, then prefer the disambiguating suffixes (season N) or (series N), depending on the origin of the production. For example, we have Red vs. Blue (season 1). If the episodes are not differentiated by season, use the List of X episodes convention (e.g., List of The Codex episodes).
 * Episode articles. In general, most episodes are too short to warrant their own articles. However, if it is deemed desirable to create an individual article on an episode, then generally follow the television naming guidelines, adding the series naming as a disambiguating suffix if necessary.
 * DVD releases. For episodic machinima, generally do not create separate articles on DVD releases unless the DVD's main content is substantially different from the episodic content. It is usually sufficient to mention the DVD in the main article or season articles.
 * Characters. Most characters do not warrant their own articles. Prefer to keep a list of characters by series or storyline — for example, List of characters in Red vs. Blue. If desirable due to size concerns, split out this list into smaller groups — for example, List of main characters in Red vs. Blue. If a major character of a series does warrant a separate article, then follow the usual fiction naming guidelines, using the series name as a disambiguating suffix if necessary.

Other style guidelines
As a general rule, fiction should be narrated in the present tense.

Aim to have the majority of an article written from the real-world perspective, not from the time frame and perspective of the fiction. Plot summaries and character descriptions are essential, but the reader can ascertain that by watching the work. Instead, try to fill the article with information about background, production descriptions, and critical reaction. However, do not repeatedly switch between an in-fiction and an out-of-fiction perspective; this can be jarring and confusing to the reader.

Avoid excessive lists. In some cases, lists can help to clarify certain short points. However, they are no substitute for brilliant prose, a criterion of featured articles. For example, instead of a see also section, it would be preferable to integrate those links into the body of the article itself, to provide the reader with more context as to why the other article is related. If you cannot justify integrating the link into the main text, question whether it really belongs in the article at all. Is the connection so loose as to be more of a general belongs-in-the-same-category relationship? If so, that's what the categories are meant to do. Don't use a list to replace a category.

If you see a long bulleted list, consider whether its constituents could be more logically grouped into smaller sections, and rewrite that list as prose along those lines.

In a similar vein, avoid trivia sections. If something is noteworthy enough to belong in an article, then it should be integrated into the main text. If it's a random fact, then, again, question whether it belongs. Remember that Wikipedia is not a discriminate collection of information. Trivia sections tend to be magnets for original research as well.