Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 13

More about notability of fictional concepts in general
moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/More about notability of fictional concepts in general 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The bad thing, Ned, is that editors now have to go to a seperate page and add it to their watchlist if they want to keep up with this discussion. This section was in no way a "long rant" but, rather, a productive discussion about a facet of the guideline.  I do believe we are making progress and both sides need to stop giving up on the process.  Yes, there are parts that are repetitive, but that is always the case in a large debate.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not censor this page. Replace what I found to be a well formed argument and you found to be a "rant." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's done is done. At this point, I think it would be more disruptive to move the discussion back to this page.  However, I would encourage Ned to avoid moving discussions like this one in the future.  Additionally, I would encourage all interested parties to watch the sub-page.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * no what's done can be undone and I"m doing it now. Sorry Ned but stop trying to control the debate. Restored text below. Ridernyc (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not censorship or trying to control the debate, nor is it disruptive. We've already had other people come here and explain how it was hard to follow the discussion going on. But thanks for assuming the worst of me. -- Ned Scott 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is the draft talk we should move to a subpage, then? It would allow for the focused discussion, without people assuming that every time a wall of text (and that was one heck of a wall of text) is moved it is because of a disagreement. -- Ned Scott 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More about notability of fictional concepts in general
I wnat to address some of the points made earlier. Fictional characters and elements do exist in the real world. Sure, they exist as fictional concepts, but they exist just as surely as love, the Coriolis effect, and the number 593. Radio stations can and do spawn articles about individual shows and DJ's, but for those sub-topics which have little or no coverage in reliable independent sources, they are generally merged to their parent topics. Major radio stations and networks have spawned many notable shows and DJ's: e.g. The Howard Stern Show, Rick Dees, Wolfman Jack, Dr. Demento, and American Top 40. And the more notable shows have sub-topics of their own, e.g. see Template:Howard Stern Show. In the same way, while minor works of fiction might not need articles detailing every character and every element, major works (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, The Simpsons, South Park) do warrant extensive coverage. "Real world significance" is of course important for all articles, not just those on ficitional topics, but we seem to trying to set the bar higher for fictional topics by attempting to limit the type of coverage that is allowed to establish notability. Books, films, and television episodes exist in the real world, real people read and watch them, and various elements of them have various effects on varying numbers of people. Published books, films, television shows, articles, and papers which significantly cover those elements, created by people independent of the initial creators of those elements, establish a real world significance and notability, regardless of whether the coverage itself is from a "real-world" or "in-universe" perspective. We presume things are notable if they have been "noticed" (significantly) in published sources independent of the subject. We don't require sources to say they are notable, or important, or famous, or iconic, or outstanding, we simply require them to cover the subject non-trivially (i.e. more than a directory entry or a passing mention). We shouldn't require the sources to say that they had a certain "real-world" effect in order to document the real-world effect. The existence of hundreds of independently-written and published Star Trek novels, Star Wars novels, and Simpsons comics, establish, or ought to establish, the notability of their respective universes and major characters without even having to consult a single "real-world" source.

On the subject of original research, I see no reason why fictional topics would be more likely to attract original research than "real-world" topics. Surely primary sources such as the fossil record or the global temperature record are not less likely to attract original research than episodes of Star Trek or Star Wars films and novels, simply because one is a source for factual infomation and one is a source for fictional information. In my opinion it is actually the real-world primary sources which are more subject to original research, because primary sources for real-world information usually can only hope to be approximations and incomplete records of the actual real-world subjects, while the body of primary sources about fictional topics are the most accurate and reliable information about their subjects that could possibly exist. We often have to analyze and synthesize real-world data in order to extract the real-world information, and when that analysis requires special skill or training we need secondary sources to do that in order to avoid original research. On the other hand, elements of fictional works can usually be described and information extracted without needing any special skills or training, making the information exceedingly verifiable to anyone with access to those sources.

Now the copyright aspect might be the most convincing of any of the arguments for avoiding detailed plot summaries. However, I question that if copyright infringement is truly a concern, then how is shuffling off the more detailed articles to other sites going to help the problem? We might be saving the Wikimedia foundation from a lawsuit, but not we're not helping the authors of those detailed articles. And if Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha aren't getting sued, why do we expect Wikipedia to get sued? Really, if you're a copyright owner and you have a choice between going after the non-profit educational Wikimedia Foundation, or the for-profit commercial enterprise Wikia, which are you going to go after first, from a both a financial perspective and a public relations perspective?

Nevertheless, let's look at the copyright issue. The two copyright cases which were alluded to above were Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993), and ''Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group'', 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998). The first case was about a book which contained extensive quotes and paraphrases from Twin Peaks as well as detailed descriptions of plot, character, and setting. The second case was a book containing trivia questions about Seinfeld. These cases are well summarized at Stanford University's website. In the Twin Peaks case, the summary notes that the book was not a fair use because "the amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program." In the Seinfeld case, "the book affected the owner's right to make derivative 'Seinfeld' works such as trivia books." In both cases the concern was the amount of content copied or derived from the original work (it was "substantial") and the effect on the market of derivative works. (Note that also both cases involved commercial works; non-profit educational uses are typically given more leeway in fair use case law.) In essence, then, any policy based on copyright should ensure that we don't go into so much detail that we essentially replace the market for the work or authorized derivatives.

But for topics where the body of work is so substantial, such as the Star Trek or Star Wars universes, or even lesser known fictional settings which still have a large body of published fiction, it is easy to go into much detail without "substantially" replacing the copyrighted works. We shouldn't try to replace in-universe reference works such as The Star Trek Encyclopedia but we ought to be able to use it as a source, as long as we don't "substantially" repeat all the fictional content, and we put what we do extract in a real-world context. We can do that by describing the fictional concepts in relation to the works which contain and describe them, rather than describing them in-universe as elements of larger fictional topics. Of course none of this is an issue for works out of copyright. We really should have no qualms about writing extensively about the characters of Shakespeare and Homer (the Greek writer, not the Simpson!) even from an entirely in-universe perspective. Though it would still probably be better encyclopedically to use real-world context, and document whatever real-world information is available; we shouldn't make it an absolute requirement and subject such articles to deletion simply because they lack "real-world" information.

The idea that fiction has no physical limit for article creation is not realistic. Our coverage fiction is limited by that which exists just as much as coverage of living species; "that which exists" meaning being documented in reliable published material. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, so we don't expand our coverage to made-up Star Trek characters just because someone can imagine one (or even has written a self-published fan fiction article on the web about one). And our coverage of beetle species doesn't expand to coverage of the beetle scurrying across the sidewalk in front of my residence, even if it certainly exists. "Physical existence" is not a necessary nor sufficent condition for Wikipedia coverage. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, but there is no guy who dresses up as Santa Claus in the local mall. There is a Kwik-E-Mart, but there is no Slurpee machine in the 7-Eleven at the corner of Main Street and First Street. I am becoming less and less convinced that the notability standards for fictional concepts need to be stricter than those for real-world objects. I can see a need to limit excessive plot detail for copyright reasons, but that should be covered by WP:NOT alone, not a separate notability guideline. It seems that in all other cases, the subject-specific cases usually expand the notability criteria to cover topics where reliable sources might be difficult to find or have minimal coverage, because of systemic bias or FUTON bias, but fiction seems to be the only area where we try to restrict the general notabilty criteria.

Not to say that a notability guideline for fiction should not exist, but it should be a place which explains the general notability guideline and plot summary policy and gives general guidance when someone wants to understand what should be done when someone says that something is a "non-notable fictional ". What it should definitely not do is encourage more AfD nominations and arguments of the "Delete, per WP:FICT, WP:N, and WP:FANCRUFT" type. I think the present draft is going a long way towards this, but I still want to be careful that it doesn't encourage eliminating significant information simply because of lack of "real-world information" found in "reliable secondary sources", in cases where notability might be reasonably be established by a plethora of independent primary sources, which exist in the real-world, which cover "in-universe" information. (I'm defining "primary sources" here as it seems to be defined in the context of this discussion; in-universe sources. Some might consider Star Trek novels or The Star Trek Encyclopedia to be "secondary sources" for information on the Star Trek universe, as they are independent of the original creators of the fictional setting). DHowell (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You pretty much missed the point. It's not that you're wrong, and you are right about some of that stuff, but that you don't seem to understand the reality of the situation. We're not speculating about fiction being magnets for OR; it actually happens. I'm also wondering if you even bothered to read the article Santa Claus. There's also a difference in "existing in the real world" (about perspective) and writing things relevant and connected to the real world.


 * Notability for works of fiction is not what we are discussing here, but instead we are talking about elements of fiction. So while something as a work of fiction might be obviously notable, that doesn't mean there's any real value to an encyclopedia (grounded in the real world) to go into depth on everything about it, and there are several reasons why it can be a problem. But at this point, we're just repeating ourselves. -- Ned Scott 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ned, you are probably right--we are repeating ourselves and we will not solve it. the only rational procedure is to mark the guideline as rejected. DGG (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we don't bend to the extremists and the pessimists. Considering the positive direction things have been taking, I'm surprised that even you would still make such a statement. -- Ned Scott 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FICT should be a guideline that reasonably lessens NOTE like other subject specific notability guidelines (as a guick view of actual editing practices backs this up), not one that is more exclusionary. Barring that, it should be marked as rejected.  Thousands of editors and their edits have rejected it so far.  Because one editor can redirect and then keep redirected the work of thousands shows that the way we make/use guidelines isn't working. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * so you had some tv episode articles deleted and/or redirected? Let me ask you this The X-man have had 1000's of comic books published using them, should every one of those issues be notable and have an article that is nothing more then a plot summary and random trivia?Ridernyc (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have each of the thousands of comic books been viewed by millions of people, as is the case of each and every episode of many prime-time TV shows, for example? Have each of the thousands of comics, or even a significant percentage of them, been the subject of reviews in national magazines? If so, then perhaps they are all notable and should have an article. The content of those articles should be decided by those who have an interest in maintaining them; plot summaries can be trimmed to avoid copyright infringement and real-world context and information can be added where available to bolster fair-use claims. Now whether each of the thousands of X-men comics are notable themselves is a different question as to whether the existence of those comics prove the notability of the fictional characters, settings, and other elements which transcend any of the individual comic books; I say that it does. DHowell (talk)
 * Even if WP:FICT didn't exist, those articles would be cited as AfD by WP:N. We are trying to stress that more in the case of fictional articles, there are better routes than straight AfD.  We are trying to correct the deletionist trend.  --M ASEM  02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I work on comics related articles, and a large number of editors have decided not to create articles on individual comics, even when they can have their notability established. A small group of people working on FICT arent' needed to tell us what is reasonable.  If you want to include a description of that practice here, that would be fine.
 * As mentioned, other nobaility sub guidelines expand what is considered notable to bring it in line with what a majority of editors feel is reasonable. FICT is the exact opposite: a small group of editors saying the much larger group is wrong.  Describe vs. prescribe and all that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with stating what you did for comics: not every notable topic needs an article; we're trying to say through WP:N that every article needs to be about at least one notable topic (excluding what is written for summary style). We want a guideline that is a starting point for separate projects that may not more specific rules to start, and ones that be expanded upon more to meet the project's consensus, as long as they don't supercede/undermind WP:N/WP:FICT. --M ASEM  02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been stated before Fiction has it's own set of rules unique to it. WP:Plot outweighs notability and is the reason real reason 99% of fictional articles get deleted.  When some says notability in an AFD debate they are really saying "Fails WP:Plot, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V."  you can claim this guideline is exclusionary but really if it was not here you would have a much harder time trying to keep articles. Ridernyc (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that deletion arguments like that are usually based on interpretations of those policies which are not supported by the consensus which put them into place, and are also "just a policy" arguments. And none of these policies or guidelines say that the only or best way to deal with articles that "fail" them is to delete them. DHowell (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ned, I think you are missing the point, and it's perhaps because you have been so focused on articles about fiction that you don't see that the same problems you describe exist in every other area of Wikipedia. Articles about schools, small towns, local broadcast stations, and sports teams can attract just as much original research and "fancruft" as articles on fictional characters and settings. But we don't (or we shouldn't) solve the problem by simply deleting or redirecting large numbers of subtopic articles; we get rid of the original research and make sure the facts are verifiable to published sources, and merge and redirect if the content makes sense in a larger context. Also the content of the Santa Claus article is not the issue, the issue is that we shouldn't give special treatment to fictional topics just because they "don't physically exist". Things can be proven to be relevant and connected to the real world if real people write and publish material about them, and it shouldn't matter whether they do it creatively, in a documentary fashion, or analytically, as long as we recognize the real-world perspective appropriate for each type of coverage.
 * Articles for deletion/Atlanta in fiction is a good example of an unfortunate casualty of this bias towards requiring "real-world" coverage from sources. I made the argument that an encyclopedic article could have been written (and if I had enough spare time, I probably could do it) about the concept of Atlanta as it is portrayed in various works of fiction. I even gave one academic source which could have been used in such an article. While the list may not have been that article, it would have served as a starting point for people willing to contribute towards writing that article. As it has been deleted, however, it is unlikely that a good article on this topic will ever form, unless I or someone else is willing to take the extensive effort to write an article which will pass the "recreation of deleted material" barrier. The wiki process is supposed to take imperfect articles and turn them, eventually, into quality content, but this process is hindered by inappropriate deletion of useful content. The closer's offer to userfy the content doesn't really help, as the wiki process just doesn't produce the kind of content in userspace that it would in mainspace articles.
 * No one is arguing that we go into depth on everything about every notable work of fiction. But we don't go into depth on everything about real-world items such as cities, towns, schools, companies, broadcast stations, and sports teams, either; we go into as much depth as would be appropriate based on the amount of published material there is available on the topic, with appropriate attempts to correct for systemic and FUTON biases. But we should not be restrictive the "types" of published material we can use, other than to say that material which is self-published or promotional is only appropriate in very limited contexts. DHowell (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again fiction has it's own set of rules that don't apply to other articles. See WP:Plot. Ridernyc (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Living people have a set of rules that don't apply to other articles. I'm not sure the point of noting topic-specific guidelines and policies. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I tend to get myself into hot water living persons articles lately.


 * "But we should not be restrictive the "types" of published material we can use," You are at the wrong talk page. You want WP:V or WP:RS. It sucks, I know, there's a lot of stuff I want to write about, but without sources it would be either original research or unverifiable by our standards. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article is just parroting PLOT and RS, then it's unecessary as a stop on the way to RS and PLOT and we should deprecate it. This page is a pet for people who don't like the way the larger community deals with fictional works. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea in theory, but leaves a huge hole to be filled. And this certainly is not a "pet" for one side of a dispute or another. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think that I'm suggesting a change in V and RS, Ned. I acknowledged that self-published sources get special treatment, and that is grounded in the existing verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. An example of a "questionable source" as it relates to fictional topics, in my mind, might be a homoerotic story about James T. Kirk and Spock, even if it was published in a notable magazine or by a notable publishing house. Such a source could not be used to claim that Kirk and Spock are gay, but they still could be used as a source for the claim that Kirk and Spock have been the subject of homoerotic fiction, if there are many such published stories and they have been read by a significant audience. When talking about fictional topics, I believe that fictional sources are "reliable sources", especially if they are authorized by the creators of the fictional elements. Fictional topics are defined by the fictional sources which write about them, making them the most reliable sources available. And mainstream published companion guides, articles, and papers which analyze or criticize plots (even without without noting any "real-world" information or context) should also be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The essay describing examples of reliable sources, which I think has far more consensus then any of the recent versions of the fiction notability guideline, even suggests a looser, not stricter, application of WP:RS for fictional topics: it acknowleges that articles related to popular culture and fiction may be backed up by sources that in other contexts would be considered "unreliable sources" and, "When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." DHowell (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at. Though many would still consider that "real-world" information, because we're talking about how someone made those works because of their experience with the original work of fiction. Adaptations and inspiration into other works do rightly help indicate notability. I have no problem with such sources (provided it's more than a passing reference to pop-culture). -- Ned Scott 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do feel we can allow "1.5 sources" that are primary sources but that give insight into development and reception and other real-world topics. But even if such "1.5 sources" go into extensive plot details, WP is not a place for detailed plot information.  We can summarize enough to understand the real-world notability (which as we are writing, includes discussion at a low depth of coverage the characters, settings and other aspects), and we can use such materials as additional references or external links, but we cannot build extensive plot sections based off that information without violating WP:PLOT (which is policy, not guideline).  But as Ned states above, we can talk about influences, we can talk about notable critical commentary, and the like, for fictional elements. --M ASEM  05:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the guideline suggests that sources must specifically discuss "information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise", and that sources which demonstrate critical and popular reception and cultural impact without discussing it are forbidden. I think one of the problems we are having (demonstrated by your "1.5" designation) is confusing the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources with the distinction between "in-universe" and "out-of-universe" sources. What you call "1.5 sources" I would simply call "primary sources covering out-of-universe information". What many are calling "primary souces" (e.g. derivative fiction, companion guides), I might call "secondary sources covering in-universe information". With these definitions, the general notability guideline can be satisified by in-universe secondary sources, and the plot policy can be satisfied by real-world out-of-universe primary sources. The absolute demand for secondary real-world sources is what I am generally objecting to, even though I agree that they should certainly be used if available. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree (and as you see in my present rewrite) that secondary and primary sources that discuss real-world aspects are appropriate to demonstrate notability (reading the current mess going on at WP:NOR and WP:PSTS and considering WP:N as guideline, there's certainly leaway for this aspect in there). And while I certainly recommend sourcing the secondary guides to help support the plot, if these only covered the plot, they do not help to demonstrate real-world notability. (Mind you, it is very likely that if a work of fiction has a non-self-published guide, it is likely a notable work of fiction).  --M ASEM  05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur, and i think other perspectives are much too narrow. Such things as sales figures and publication history are to my mind interesting bibliographic trivia. The important things about fiction are what is in the fiction. that's why people want to read or view it in the first place--otherwise the whole general topic would be of no interest, encyclopedic or otherwise.  But I disagree with even the use of the primary-secondary distinction, and I think the discussion about it in WP generally is that there is not all that much for which the traditional WP distinction is applicable. What we want is the best source to provide the information that belongs in WP. the real question which we can not settle by verbal distinctions is what belongs in WP.
 * The only consistent meaning of in-=universe is that it represents the way in which fan fiction discusses the work as if the fictional universe were real--the way Tolkien presents his languages in the appendixes to the Ring. If we had to describe it in the categories used above, it would be secondary in-universe discussion--from an unquestionably reliable source. When Rowlands discusses what alternative plots there could have been, it's not in-universe, nor is it when we discuss what the plot is. When someone writes a biography of one of the characters as if it were a part of the series, that's in-universe.  Quidditch Through the Ages is in-universe. A discussion of Quiddich treating it as a fictional game is not in-universe. The distinction is merely a guide to how to write the articles.
 * What matters is that we treat the major fictional concepts fully, depending on the importance of the work, and the importance of the concepts in the work. the main ones are plot, characters, theme, and setting.  The subsidiary ones are authorship, publication, derivatives, and influence. that's what I propose as the basic guideline.  DGG (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pretty confident that that statement will not fly - given both PLOT and NOT, and that this is meant to be a general encyclopedia written for all readers, and not those that may have an interest in the work, plot details must always be secondary to the real-world aspects and influence of the work. You may consider those trivial bibliographic details, but in reality, that is what cements the work or fictional concept to the real world.  Articles should first and foremost be based on these elements, and appropriate plot details can follow, but once again, there's issues of undue weight that means we need to stick to enough plot details to allow comprehension of the article otherwise. --M ASEM  06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem. No way should we adopt such an open-ended position. Real-world significance is a major pillar. Eusebeus (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * and yet again, If you want to change WP:Plot change the policy, don't write a guideline that tries to weaken the policy. Again this is the problem with this guideline. People keep talking about notability and that's not the issue at all. We all agree what is notable. What people don't like is WP:Plot.  This guideline is just clouding the larger issue.  I also think it is becoming clear there will never be consensus on this guideline.  Even if we all manage to agree to something now, someone will just come along and change it in a week.  At this point we can't even agree on what we disagree on. Ridernyc (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to a few comments here, you are correct in that it isn't directly notability (to include or not include) that we're talking about, but rather the depth of information, a point I mentioned above in another thread. There's a general depth of information, as well as other factors that can justify further information. There also seems to be some confusion on what we think is "in-universe" or not. I noticed DGG's comment "When Rowlands discusses what alternative plots there could have been, it's not in-universe,..." Who said it was? WP:WAF might help people understand how we are defining things. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The mass exodus of fiction content and Wikia
It's a shrewd business move actually. The television episode articles aren't making any money for Jimbo while they sit here on Wikipedia. But on Wikia, the episode article becomes a moneymaker. The revenue pours in from AdSense and Fastclick. One easy way to drive webtraffic to the site is declaring fictional topics on Wikipedia no longer notable. Delete articles, redirect articles and tell editors to start "volunteering" for Wikia. There's nothing better than free labor. I hope no Wikia employee is behind WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE because that would look pretty bad in my opinion. How fortuitous if the mass exodus happens to align with their bottom line. Topic not notable enough for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? Wikia will take you in. You're always welcome at Wikia, the for-profit wiki that anyone can edit. --Pixelface (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it you don't know about how we also promote non-Wikia wikis? -- Ned Scott 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, enough with the "profit bad" bull. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said "profit bad." I said it's in Wikia's financial interest to have articles about fiction that Wikipedia doesn't have and it's in Wikia's financial interest to attract people to the site who will work for free. It's in Wikia's financial interest to take content from Wikipedia. It's good for their bottom line. --Pixelface (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, but those who are encouraging people to use Wikia on Wikipedia are independent 3rd parties that don't make any money from Wikia. This is why it's not considered a conflict of interest, and we've talked about this issue time and time again. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Three steps toward a consensus solution

 * 1) ARCHIVE This page is far too long. No one coming to this debate will ever bother to contribute, since who has the time to wade through all the back and forth above. We need to archive it and provide a brief summary of the main points. Keeping all this is cliquish. Can we agree?
 * 2) !VOTE Time draws near for an up or down on Masem's latest proposal (#3). This not voting, it's !voting. But we have descended into a mediaeval, scholastic disputatio that serves only to limit the level of participation, with people simply restating their positions. I suggest that if we do wish to thrash out argument further (and why not), Masem divide up his latest into specific sections and the debate be focused on specific aspects of his proposal and placed into relevant subpages.
 * 3) INPUT. Once this hydra has been archived, we need wider input from editors, especially those familiar with policy and practices, by posting at the relevant policy pages, AfD's, and merge debates.

So Proposed. Eusebeus (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have this auto-archived - it will happen next Monday though (best I can tell). I don't know if manual archiving breaks it.
 * Also, given the holidays, I think we won't necessarily have resolution on the issues until 08, but you're absolutely right that we're trying to get constructive input and instead seem to be rehashing the same arguments over and over.--M ASEM 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire thing has been an [self-gratifying group effort] by a dozen people to change the wording but not the meaning or rules of a guideline at least 90% of Wikipedia's userbase doesn't even know exists, yet is one of the main reasons why casual browsers and editors are getting more and more angry that they can't find any well-written Internet-based information on their favorite fictional works. This entire discussion in summary:


 * Hey, let's systematically remove all the information that lead to Wikipedia being popular and enjoyed in the first place.
 * No let's be bureaucratic about it, change a guideline to appease people mildly over a short period of time without changing or improving anything in the long run.
 * Sounds good.
 * Don't you think we should appease the fanbase who outnumbers us thousands to one instead of our own selfish views?
 * No, get out. And take your garbage with you to Wikia.
 * Maybe, let's add a "if" somewhere in the guideline.
 * We should respect what people want from this website instead of removing information a few people and policy do not like.
 * No, that would be against Wikipedia policy.
 * But that isn't morally or logically correct.
 * It is according to Wikipedia policy.

Repeat for 3000+ lines and you get a Tower of Babble. Ending this discussion won't get anyone anywhere, just like starting it didn't. Excuse me if I sound noncivil, but I thought I'd just put the situation in perspective. - The Norse (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All true, but this is the only framework we have. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the original wording with [self-gratifying group effort] to help maintain decorum. - Jehochman  Talk 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? If The Norse wants to make a jackass, unhelpful, childish comment like that, tampering it to remove his "idiotic circle jerk" is unwarranted. If anything, it is a good reminder that engagement, not smears, are helpful in advancing the debate. Eusebeus (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil Norse and Eusebeus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A banal and pointless comment. I see you didn't call Norse out when he referred to your participation here as an idiotic circle jerk. Or is that because you happen to agree with his position? Anyway, calling such comments for what they are is not incivility. Eusebeus (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Jackass, unhelpful, childish comment?" I dare you to find more than a handful of statements in this discussion that don't fall into that category from the perspective of any person who avidly browses the fiction articles of Wikipedia(Yours don't fall into that handful btw). Ironically, even when not seen from such a perspective my comment was far more constructive and mature than yours was. Please try to set a better example for those you look down upon. - The Norse (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are so right. I humbly apologise. I guess being in a full-on circle jerk gets us all a little confused, so thanks for sorting it out for us there partner. And keep those helpful, well-expressed comments coming - wouldn't want to miss out on more of your eloquent, thoughtful pearls of wisdom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your humble apology is accepted. I too humbly apologise for deeming you "idiotic". Idiots can't use sarcasm as superbly as you have done just now, fine sir. - The Norse (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Draft #4 - ready for more...
Diff from #3

Ok, so here's what I'm thinking. WP:FICT is (based on all input to this point) is nothing more than saying "Follow PLOT and follow N; PLOT (being policy) is more important than N". Technically, this guideline doesn't need to exist.

However, I have tried to outline that this is truly a "guide"line, to help people to determine how to approach articles on fictional topics - we're not giving them special treatment but its the fact that there's so much of it out there that could be included that we have to fall back to PLOT and N for WP and say there is a limit to what really can be put on the site. (Compared to, say, the number of county lanes in the US or the number of towns in Ireland, the amount of possible plot information for fictional works is near infinite.) I've tried to outline this in  "Reasoning behind this guideline".

Elsewhere, I've tried to stress WP:PLOT over WP:N (though it's still a notability guideline). I've included a section of what to do with excessive plot articles which included no recommendation for deletion barring lack of notability.

I've also tried to include some (recently passed) FA/GAs for examples. I can actually feel confident that Spoo is sufficiently notable if we consider the "1.5 sources" approach (a stance I felt much different a month ago). This may or may not be an intended result (as I previously though Spoo to be an exception of a rule).

I think we're getting to something that melds with all current policies/guidelines, and incorporates past consensus - it's not exactly the deletion policy on minor characters, but nearly every step in that old list follows from what's presented here, and so on. Again, I strongly believe this guideline as written doesn't change was is a notable/non-notable fictional article, but instead helps editor understand and guide them better when writing and working with such articles.

Comments or please edit directly. --M ASEM 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether to comment here or on the user talkpage, but should Articles on fictional elements with undue weight of in-universe information be moved to WP:WAF? This is really good, but I wonder if we are getting into too many details regarding manuscript style in this "notability" guidline.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The '1.5' sources idea is just an acceleration of everything that's wrong with this guideline. What's the betting that it will only apply to Wikipedians' favourite franchises? If it 'allows' a piece of utter, utter dreck like Spoo whilst still allowing the deletion of major characters from popular sitcoms or soap operas, then we might as well mark WP:NPOV historical.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea is not to give every fictional element (e.g. characters) the same weight, but to weight them by available real-world information (backed up by a short plot summary for context). Exactly like WP:NPOV wants. – sgeureka t•c 10:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To Ursasapien: there's no reason it couldn't, or at least redirect it to there; it may be excessive, but I wanted to make sure that for fictional elements, PLOT and NOTE go hand in hand, its almost impossible to separate them.
 * To Nydas - PLOT and NOTE are tied through UNDUE for fictional articles. No one is saying you cannot talk about major characters in a sitcom or soap opera, but if no sourced demonstration of notability exists regarding that character, then one cannot go into excessive fictional details save to establish the character's role in the overall (presumably notable) work. --M ASEM  14:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you support the deletion of J.R. Ewing then? Never mind that finding information on pre-Internet TV shows is difficult, or that the viewing demographic is under-represented on Wikipedia.


 * Demanding ultra-punishing standards for major fiction characters from important franchises is a violation of WP:NPOV, which states that popularity of a viewpoint is critical to deciding our weighing of it. If no sources can be googled, we should assume they exist, like we do for everything else. No reason for the ultra-punishment of fiction has yet been advanced apart from scaremonging about encouraging fancruft.


 * The real kicker is that these ultra-punishing standards will never be employed against Wikipedians' favourite fiction, especially with '1.5 sources' ready to spring into action.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this version. Eusebeus (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't address fundamental problems with this page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I ask which problems those are? Based on your comments in the present discussion, you're concerned about FICT restricting beyond what WP:NOTE allows, but as I point out, there is not here that neither strengthen nor relaxes from NOTE considering the policy of WP:PLOT, and we can't change PLOT.  Please let us know what you think is wrong so we can address it.  --M ASEM  20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it isn't changing NOTE or PLOT, then I don't see any use for this page. I would like it to weaken NOTE (not PLOT), but I don't think the current group of editors who frequent this page will allow it.  Se la vi. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no conflict with NOTE or PLOT then why have an issue with it? If anything, the draft (and even the current version, to a lesser extent) do help to soften NOTE by pointing out how articles can be a part of a larger topic. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Question. Can we fold the episode guidline into this guideline (perhaps as a subheading)? WP:EPISODE has always seemed a little redundant and micro-focused for me. Ursasapien (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Memory Alpha template deletion notice
Memory Alpha, an external wiki link template, has been listed for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 17. Since we often talk about liking to external wikis for fiction-related articles, I thought people here might want to know. Note the discussion is not about whether or not to link, but how the link appears. -- Ned Scott 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Acceptable direction for WP:FICT guideline
The previous version of WP:FICT has been heavily cited as a common reason for deletion of fictional content articles without giving the article's editors a good faith chance to demonstrate notability or merge or transwiki the material appropriately. While there is general consensus based on the results of these deletions and through both What Wikipedia is not#PLOT and notability that non-notable, heavily in-universe style fiction articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia, it is also argued that such content should not be immediately removed. This has lead to so called "inclusionists" vs "deletionists" edit conflicts. This has possibly been mitigated due to changes earlier this year in WP:NOTE that provided a brighter line for what material can be included, which many fictional articles cannot easily meet.

The proposed version of WP:FICT is not an attempt to limit or expand what notability means for topics on fiction beyond that this reflects on their real-world aspects: development, reception, and so-forth. The proposed version also heavily includes concerns with WP:PLOT and by association, WP:UNDUE. The proposed version is more of a true "guideline" in that it is meant to help both editors that want to write about fiction, and editors that are worried about encyclopedic quality, provided suggestions for approaching articles from either direction.

At time point, those that have provided comments for the article seem to either be mostly for it, or mostly against it and we seem to be running into the same walls over and over, and need fresh eyes to help work this out. This is not a consensus to approve this guideline but instead an RfC to see if there is any additional improvements that could be made or any addition concerns that we have not addressed or that may be raised by this version. --M ASEM 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a misleading statement of the problem. The WP:NOTE changes do not provide a bright line for anything, as the discussions about the fiction articles demonstrate. The consensus in the first paragraph does not exist, except among a small group of deletionists. The dissatisfaction with the guideline is an attempt to prevent the interpretation of WP:NOTE in a way inappropriate to fictional content. It is not true that development and reception are the only important real-wordld concerns about fiction, or perhaps even the most important,  and there is no consensus to that except among those who want to delete articles on other aspects. The rest of us feel that the plot characters and setting,  being part of the real world work, as read by real world readers, also have a real world significance., and that in-universe should be interpreted narrowly to exclude only works written entirely from a fan fiction perspective.


 * But the last paragraph of the RfC is appropriate--we are not likely to resolve these differences by continued discussion here among the present participants. Masem and I are not likely to convince each other, and there is no point in our attempting to wear each other out. There probably is some consensus--that the way fiction articles were written a year ago was immature and inappropriate. How to translate that into a set of guidelines that most people concerned with these articles can live with probably does need some new ideas. (Or perhaps it will be the case that the WP community in general does agree with one position of other, and that either of the two views are in fact in a small minority.) DGG (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what this present guideline does is some line in the sand that reflect an estimated middle point between all parties concerned and past consensus, and we're at a point we need to get the general communities input, not just through this RFC (to catch glaring problems or to address areas we're mision), but then (likely at the start of 08) to take the proposal to the body at large for consensus. It's a line in the sand because when we put this to consensus, it may be rejected but it is hoped that the rejection does not mean throwing out the entire guideline but simply tweaking a paragraph here and there, rubbing out that line and moving it a little bit in one direction or another.  ---M ASEM

I think the notability section of WP:EPISODE should be folded into the proposed new guideline. Ursasapien (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind . . . It appears that most of the information is already contained in this proposal (and stated more clearly for that matter. Ursasapien (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the note at the bottom could motivate more "Great Purge"s rather than encourage editors to improve articles or not create bad ones in the first place. Could we discuss softening it a bit?  Ursasapien (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestions? ( not I say nothing about deletion, I just want to make sure that it is clear articles should not be allowed to be indefinitely left in a state that the editors have been told to improve notability and nothing has happened for a "reasonable" amount of time.  Again, the hope is that we direct more people to merge or transwiki, which means the information isn't lost such that if new notability information is found, we can just restore the article easily. --M ASEM  14:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to leave the note off too. Anyone wanting to claim an article can stay indefinitely will get short shrift at an afd. Maybe just amend the sentence to read as Please note that the lack of demonstrated notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion, nor is there any deadline to improve such articles, although improvement is an expected part of the editing process. Maybe a wordsmith can tweak a little better.  Just make the point that whilst there is no deadline, improvement is expected.  That way there is no need for the note. Hiding T 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and taken out that footnote and replaced it with the above (adding in "good faith" qualification for any improvements). I think that still stresses that you can't sit on it when you've been told, but should avoid mass deletion rushes because editors aren't fast enough.  --M ASEM  22:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been fond of the idea that we should view sub-articles as if they were still in parent articles, as a way to guide people on how much content might be too much on a sub-article (if that makes sense). An idea for one of the sections (with italics noting the new addition):
 * "* They should concisely provide details of the topic or topics covered in the work - just because the sub-article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate. The sub-articles and parent article should be evaluated over-all, as if they were a single document, and trimmed as needed."
 * My wording isn't that great, but hopefully people will understand what I'm getting at. Something like this, or some other method of helping bring to context what is too much and what is justified when we have sub-articles that are lacking in real-world information. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent treatment of fiction compared to other topics
Ostensibly, the recent 'fiction purges' have come about as the result of efforts to bring notability standards on fictional topics in line with those for other subjects. However, if we apply the standards which are being argued for on fictional topics to other subjects we find that they are not consistent with existing practice there either. For example:


 * 1) List of tallest buildings in Providence (and eight other 'tallest buildings in ...' type featured lists) - Is sourced almost entirely to 'building fan' websites. Provides no articles in major papers indicating that tall buildings in Providence are 'notable'. Cites no figures of how many people care that these buildings are tall, have modeled other buildings after them, or otherwise shown 'independent notability'. If the standards being pushed for fiction were applied to these nine articles they would go from 'featured lists' to 'deleted'.
 * 2) Coconut crab - A featured article which provides no evidence of notability outside a small circle of academics. No press coverage. No citations of the annual tourism figures to see these crabs. Nothing which would meet the notability requirements suggested on this page for fiction.
 * 3) ISO 3166-1 - Not a single source independent of the subject. All the references used come from the ISO itself. No newspaper articles. No external usage/notability information analogous to 'sales figures'. Nothing establishing independent notability. Again, this is featured content.

And those articles are the best of the best. "Featured". There are thousands of others in non-fiction topics which have even less referencing... yet in most cases notability is simply assumed. This isn't about consistent standards of notability. If it were we'd be having the same deletion wars on everything in the encyclopedia. The real issue here is that some people believe that fiction, specifically modern popular fiction, is not 'important' enough for inclusion in Wikipedia... at least not at the same level of detail as non-fiction. A 'general encyclopedia' like Brittanica might have an article on 'Mammals' and one on 'Cartoons', but it wouldn't have an article on the Ja Slit-Faced Bat or Spontaneous Combustion (South Park episode)... in the 'anti-fiction' view Wikipedia can have articles on each and every one of the nearly 200 species of bats (not to mention all rodents, insects, fish, et cetera...), but not each and every episode of South Park. One is 'more important' than the other. Never mind that there will probably be more people looking for information on the 'Spontaneous Combustion' episode than the 'Ja Slit-Faced Bat'. Never mind that the television episode is actually more likely to have been discussed by independent media. Living species trump cartoons. Subjective 'importance' over 'notability' established by sources. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedic compendium of all knowledge people are interested in... just the knowledge which we contributors decide is 'important' enough to provide to them. --CBD 15:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The list of tallest buildings may be one for deletion, but be aware that by both WP:N and WP:RS/WP:V, secondary sources to demonstrate notability are generally more aimed to come from academics and more traditional peer-reviewed sources in the first place. The coconut crab uses appropriate academic resources to demonstrate notability; the ISO standard uses the information on its development in the computer field to demonstrate it (also, because WP uses that standard for country codes, it needs to be here no matter what its notability may be).  Since for fictional works we would almost never be able to demonstrate notability in academic and scholarly resources, we turn to the next best sources: press, reviews, development history, critical reception, and the like, areas that actually cover this information.  Notability can be demonstrated from any type of source as long as it is reliable and sufficiently independent of the original sources: that's why the new version suggests the use of post-release commentary and interviews in addition to other sources for fictional items.  We are not treating works of fiction any differently from any other topic.


 * "Importance" is not a good standard. I think my left toenail is important, there should be an article about it.  Ok, that's an extreme case, but without a standard like WP's notability, we would have tons of articles about items that have no references, would be highly original research and would be likely not written in a POV statement.  This requirement seems to affect fiction more because WP is presently unbalanced towards lots of articles on fictional works - that demonstrates the "importance" of that area, but for that same reason, Wikipedia cannot meet its goals of being a reliable, verifiable, truthworthy free (beer/thought) online encyclopedia.  The extent which we take fictional works to, at times devoting pages to minor characters with no outside sources beyond the fictional work itself, gives WP a stigma of being a fan encyclopedia and not a real one.  Policies like WP:PLOT and overarcing WP:NOT are what we have to guide how fictional articles (or any article) should be properly developed - we don't prevent them from being created, and we should not be rapidly deleting existing ones without trying to recover content elsewhere, but instead we need to take a direction that is somewhat less than what has been allowed to languish up until recently, and move the extra parts to other wiki projects as to provide readers more information.  We can be more than Encyclopedia Brittanica because we can talk more about fictional works and elements in them, but we need to still approach every article from the complete layman's point-of-view - real-world impact and a 60,000 ft overview of the fictional plot, with links to appropriate places for additional information.  This is the same for non-fiction articles too - there's science/math cruft that must be kept down just in the same fashion as fictional articles, and that external links and references are exactly used for getting more information. --M ASEM  16:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also add this bit of advice:
 * If you think an article should truly be deleted or delisted from featured because of non-notability, go ahead and put it up for deletion - yes, you have to avoid trying to prove a WP:POINT when doing this though.
 * If you think "importance" is more important than "notability", then I recommend bringing this to WP:N, where that criteria is defined.
 * If you think that fictional aspects are more important than real-world aspects, I recommend bringing that point to WP:NOT where limited plot summaries are required.
 * If you think there's an imbalance with how fictional works are being treated relative to other topics, then Village Pump (policy) is probably a better venue since it spans multiple policy issues.
 * The reasons I say this is because on WP:FICT, we've been through all these arguments before, we're at an impasse at my present draft of what else can be added: we don't what to make it any more restrictive than what WP:PLOT and WP:N state, but we can't loosen it pass these points either. We have an RFC for the policy draft out but obviously it hasn't gotten a lot of attention (I'm figuring the holidays have something to do with this).  This is a WP-wide issue, not just WP:FICT, so that's why I recommended trying to discuss this on the bigger policy/guideline pages at large to get more of an audience to discuss your concerns.  Arguing it here is likely not going to change anyone's minds.  --M ASEM  16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're comparing Coconut crab with fictional characters? That's insane. "no evidence of notability outside a small circle of academics"? WHAT? No, really, if you guys are going to continue to make such absurd examples, then there's no point in discussing this. Notability is NOT popularity. There are multiple sources for coconut crab, all with real world information (since it is real). Wikipedia does not care if this crab is popular on MTV. The issue has never been "who is this notable for", but whether or not real-world information exists to support an article.


 * Plus, it completely misses the point in that all of these examples are things that are non-fictional; they're real. Of course, a work of fiction is real as well, but we're not talking about the main articles in WP:FICT. Notability has nothing to do with popularity, which is what all three of these examples try to imply. -- Ned Scott 16:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And if individual elements of fiction have been discussed by independent media more than coconut crab, which apparently you believe that no one but stereotypical nerdy scientists care about, then it likely passes WP:FICT, and there still wouldn't be a disagreement with what the guideline says. There might be a disagreement in how people handle those situations, like showing potential for sources, but that's still not a WP:FICT issue (though we do have a strong desire to include advice on how to properly fix things, which will be included in FICT.) -- Ned Scott 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'importance' is not a good standard... I am saying that it is the standard being advanced here. It is "insane" to compare Coconut crab with fictional characters... one is taken to be more important than the other. There are multiple sources for coconut crabs with real world information. True. There are also multiple sources for Eric Cartman with real world information. The fact that Eric Cartman is a fictional character doesn't make the information about him any less 'real world'... it is all found in the real world. People talk about him in the real world. He is every bit as 'notable', indeed vastly moreso, as the 'coconut crab'. Not because he is more 'popular'... but because he is more extensively discussed and analyzed.
 * BTW, the attacks, assumptions of bad faith, straw men, et cetera really aren't helping. 90% of the above is disputing things I never said and do not agree with. I "apparently believe that no one but stereotypical nerdy scientists" care about coconut crabs? This is 'apparent' based on what exactly? Assumption of bad faith? I brought up the articles on individual species of bats because I have worked on alot of them. I didn't work on the crab article, but I used it because none of the bats have made it to 'featured' yet.
 * The standards applied are blatantly and obviously different. Material from websites can't be used to show that fiction is notable... but it can be used to reference NINE featured articles on tallest buildings. If an article on a fictional subject doesn't have references from independent secondary sources then it shows no evidence of notability and should be deleted... but ISO 3166-1 being sourced entirely to the ISO itself is just fine. You keep harping about how these are "real world" things. Is everything in the 'real world' (except fiction obviously) "notable"? The piece of lint on my coffee table is notable? No? Then why are the notability requirements so very different for fiction? --CBD 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would definitely agree that Eric Cartman has enough real-world information available to have an article, and would even call it independently notable based on the criteria of WP:N. I'm sorry for the accusation of bad faith, as you viewed it, but in the past some people really have tried to assert that species can be compared to fictional characters, so it's sometimes hard to tell when someone is making a literal statement, or using it as an example for something else (as you were doing).


 * There's also wide agreement here that requiring independent secondary sources isn't really needed for most of these articles, so long as there is real-world information about them, and the sources are still reliable. Once that basic requirement is met, we'd probably even be a bit more flexible about some sources, depending on the claim that source is backing up.


 * Notability for fiction is harder to show than something that does exist in the real world, but that's more often simply because of the nature of things. Never is the reality of something enough to justify notability alone, and I don't think anyone is making that claim. There is always context to these things.


 * As far as things like websources being used, do you have any examples? Many of our fiction FAs also use web sources, so I'm a bit confused by your statement there. -- Ned Scott 17:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)The 'tallest buildings' articles are sourced to two websites which are essentially databases for 'building fans'. If a 'List of fictional characters in ' article were sourced exclusively to two fan sites which provided detailed info on each character would that be sufficient to establish notability? Based on past discussions I'd think most 'anti-fiction' people would say not... so why is the same type of source ok for buildings? Likewise, I believe you put Porthos (Star Trek) up for deletion (ended up being merged)... that character is certainly included in each of half a dozen or so 'Star Trek encyclopedias' on the market. Why would those not constitute sufficient 'secondary source' material to establish notability? And why is the Ja Slit-Faced Bat, which like 'Porthos' is only going to appear in very specialized encyclopedias and few other sources, notable if the fictional character is not? Exactly the same kinds of sources... establish notability for non-fiction, do not establish notability for fiction. You say above that notability is harder to establish for fiction than 'real world' topics... but why? To me it all seems to come down to, 'fiction is less notable... because it is fiction'... which just goes back to 'fiction is not important enough for inclusion'. --CBD 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Porthos (Star Trek) was nominated with the intention on getting it merged. While I don't like using AfD to make some kind of "formal merge" discussion, I thought it was required based on what I anticipated from other parties involved. (I did the same thing to several Pushing Daisies articles at this AfD, in a more calm and thought out situation.) Porthos was also nominated in a time of frustration with another editor, and wasn't my finest hour.


 * "Notability" is also only part of the issue, with the other being information organization. If there is enough information on the dog as a subtopic, then it should be split on it's own, but it can also make sense for it to share a parent article, even with some real-world information. This is something I tried to get across to many people on Talk:Wikiality back when Colbert first started using the word. We sometimes have things that are very important and notable, but that share another article because it makes sense from an organizational standpoint. This is also why ratings information alone shouldn't justify an episode article, even if it is real-world information that applies in a per-episode format.


 * Fansites, on their own, are not bad. I do not doubt that there are many that would be seen as reliable sources, but it's just that most fan websites aren't reliable sources. So it's not because it's a fan site that something might not be used.


 * Elements within fiction are less likely to be notable than living species, or famous buildings, or historic events, because it's easier to identify why they are more notable, and it's easier to find sources. It's also a safer bet on incomplete articles, simply based on past experiences. You see this as bias, but most people see this as common sense. It's not a blanket rationale, and there will obviously be exceptions. Not to mention that most of us are fans, and we love writing about fiction. However, WP:FICT does not make any such statements, so this is just an observation of common behavior on the wiki. It's unrelated. Believe me, I'd like to change a lot of people's attitudes of things on Wikipedia, but I don't blame a guideline because someone else has a bug up their butt. -- Ned Scott 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No one said you can't use websites as reliable sources, just that the websites have to be an appropriate reliable source, and primarily here are those that are considered self-published (personal website, blogs, etc.). Each Wikiproject will likely develop a list of appropriate online sites that are known to be reliable and thus can be used for notability.  For video games, for example, IGN, 1up, and Gamespot are all considered such.
 * If "everyone" is talking about a character in the pop culture, there is likely some printed or online reliable source that says this. Taking assumption of word-of-mouth that a character is popular is original research and cannot be used.  (And I would argue Eric Cartman is a bad example, because there is a well-source notable article about him.  I see no evidence that people want to get rid of it either). --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CBD is mostly right. Fiction (well, most fiction) seems to be unique for the punishing standards demanded of it. If I made a stub about the tallest building in a city, it would be left untargetted, free to grow naturally. If it were nominated for deletion, and kept, I could be sure that it would be unlikely to be targetted again. If I made a stub about the main character in a fictional work, I would expect it to targetted relentlessly, redirected (often without warning) and the usual suspects swamping the talk page. If it were nominated for deletion and kept, I would expect it to be re-nominated on a monthly basis, with time-bomb declarations of 'clean up or else' and so on. All of this malarky seems to be unique to fiction.

A lot of (if not all) of our fiction deletionists seem to believe that fiction has fans as naturally as birds have beaks, even though this is not the case. This may lead them to wrongly conclude that threatening fiction articles will always be enough to wring any possible real-world info out of it.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * if you don't like WP:Plot I suggest you go there and try to change it. Ridernyc (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't have to. WP:NPOV supersedes WP:PLOT. Is J.R. Ewing going to go through the 'clean-up-or-else' wringer, or are we going to accept that sometimes, Google just isn't enough?-- Nydas (Talk) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV and NOT/PLOt are of equal weight, both being policy. One doesn't override the other. --M ASEM  22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, neutrality is an absolute and fundamental principle. WP:PLOT isn't.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV has nothing to do with it. Also, it is not "punishing standards" to cleanup what shouldn't be there, for any topic. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is critical to everything we do. If the punishing standards were applied to any topic, that'd be fine. But they're not. They're not even applied evenly to fiction; the standards are relaxed for fiction Wikipedians like.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is starting to smack of wikilawyering. Seems to me Masem is right: go change WP:NOT if there is a desire to accommodate the kind of content that fiction (TV) fans are looking for in Wikipedia, namely trivia, plot summaries and in-universe details. Eusebeus (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This conversation illustrates why this guideline needs to be deprecated. It's an effective tool for deletionists, but doesn't really follow the wiki spirit. This guideine is used to back up content removal, and when someone complains, they are told to go elsewhere with their complaints. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove this guideline, and you will still have stuff deleted, now citing WP:N and WP:PLOT instead of WP:FICT. Nothing will change.  The proposed guideline is supposed to be aimed to help people to writing content in the first place that won't be deleted in the long term, and in the case of fiction when many external wiki's exist, to help suggest better alternatives to deletion.  --M ASEM  00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I people want to change things, they'll be going to the right place. We already have a page telling them how to write about fiction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is a page to tell people how much fictional detail should be written when it comes to sub-articles. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The mass deletion of articles is what started discussions for WP:FICT in the first place. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, then people are told to go elsewhere. It seems like writing about fiction should be the place to cover the amount of detail. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add travel guide content to Wikipedia, someone will tell you to add that information somewhere else. There is nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia is not an episode guide, it's not an abridged version of a movie, it's not solely a plot summary. -- Ned Scott 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a "wannabe Brittanica" that only wants scholarly articles despite the fact it'll never be a scholarly source. - The Norse (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really wish I could disagree with that. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 01:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So your thinking is that we should be a shitty website, because we'll never be Brittanica? I don't care what Brittanica does, I only care about what Wikipedia does. And to say that because we have some standards for inclusion means we're going for an extreme is just silly and immature. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The remarkable thing about the tidal wave of AfDs is that there seems to be so little consensus for the underlying policy other than a small handful of stubborn deletionists. The same crew has effectively divided and conquered to push their disruptive biases and an unjustifiably narrow misinterpretation of the relevant policy. It probably is time that those who see ample justification for a broader and more inclusive interpretation policy to start making changes. Count me in. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've mentioned above, if you want to change how fiction is handled on WP, please go to WP:NOT and argue your case against current WP policy (specifically WP:PLOT) or at WP:N which is an established guideline. We're trying to develop a policy to bridge the gap between inclusionists and deletionists, but we're not vearing from what either of these policies or guideline states; neither is what is happening over at WP:EPISODE, where that guideline is based on PLOT and NOTE.
 * I understand the concerns that there seems to be this shift away from highly detailed fictional works, but its basically a self-correction in the way Wikipedia was going; such detailed works without demonstration of notability goes against the five pillars of what Wikipedia is (and which WP:NOT and WP:N extend from). I know WP:FICT is oft-sighted as the reason for deletion, but again, even the present rewrite (which is not perfect and what we're trying to improve to avoid AfDs), but WP:FICT is not the root cause - your concerns need to be directed to either WP:NOT/WP:PLOT or WP:N, as WP:FICT is only restating how these apply to fictional works and neither strengths or weakens those policies/guidelines.  You take away WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE, and the AfD reasons will just shift over to NOT/PLOT/N.
 * We don't need, at least here, more complaints about fiction is being handled on WP; the whole reason I've offered four drafts now and that other editors continually are trying to improve this is that this issue has been growing out of control and needs to be resolved ASAP, as it is making the generally editing climate harmful by polarizing groups of editors. We need constructive input, to make sure WP:FICT is working with the aforementioned other policies and guidelines on the presumption those policies and guidelines are immutable.   If you feel those guidelines are wrong, help try to correct them at those talk pages.  We've been through this machination... nearly 6 months now?  we need to get some conclusion to the issue of WP:FICT (which then should help resolve some issues of WP:EPISODE by nature).  --M ASEM  04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with this argument is that you are conflating two different things... 'notability' and 'depth of coverage'. Wikipedia has always had standards of notability, and most of the articles being targeted conform to them as they have been commonly understood until recently. However, Wikipedia has never had any solid standards on 'depth of coverage'... and it is this which the fiction deletions are really based on.
 * You claim that the deletion of fiction just follows notability standards. However, even setting aside that this is a new 'interpretation' of notability and the examples I provided of articles on other topics not being subjected to the same 'notability' requirements - the deletion efforts are going after clearly notable fiction. Going back to Porthos (Star Trek), and ignoring for the moment the independent sources on that character, the Star Trek franchise is clearly notable. The notability guidelines have, per common sense, long included statements to the effect of: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." Thus, in theory, the Star Trek article could be a gigantic monstrosity covering every aspect of the franchise right down to Porthos... with all of it covered by the easily established notability of the whole. That doesn't happen because it is poor article design and we long ago agreed that different topics should be split out into sub-articles. Some people objected to having individual articles on every minor character and two years ago an agreement was worked out that, if the main article was too long, major characters should have articles and minor characters be included in lists. That compromise was broken by the recent idea that these sub-articles should then each need to establish notability independent of the main article... starting the current deletion wars. This view essentially says that information which would be fine in the 'Star Trek' article becomes deletable if it is split out to a sub-article... which, in obvious contradiction, users are encouraged to do as part of good article design. That's not a 'notability' issue. The exact same information could be merged back into the main article and be free of notability concerns. Deleting it based on 'geography' is, frankly, perverse... and likely to lead only to poor article design in the long run.
 * What the fiction deletionists are really looking for is a limit on depth of coverage... which doesn't exist. If someone wanted to include every Ja Slit-Faced Bat ever given a name in that article there is nothing in our policies or guidelines preventing it so long as sources can be found. If they wanted to add the complete life history of each there is nothing stopping that either. Those bats aren't as popular as 'Star Trek' and thus there are not as many people working on them and they haven't gotten to that level of detail, but there is nothing in our guidelines preventing it... and that's the essential fact at the heart of this war. The deletionists are 're-interpreting' notability in an effort to introduce depth of content controls, but realistically this is pointless in the long run because the content can always just be put back into whatever level of article currently has 'bullet-proof' notability (hence Porthos is covered in Jonathan Archer). When Wikipedia was starting out there was no need to limit depth of content... our coverage was minimal and anything people did to expand it was a good thing. If we have reached the point where coverage on some topics exceeds what people think the encyclopedia should hold then what we really need are new guidelines on depth of coverage... whether in sub-articles or the main article. Until Wikipedia settles on some sort of new standards for that this war will inevitably continue, because it is inherently an effort to control depth... using 'notability' as an ill-fitting bludgeon for the claim that a standard already exists. --CBD 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that limiting the depth of coverage is neither the goal of this guideline nor wikipedia, enforcing WP:PLOT to the best of our ability is. When people talk about articles failing WP:Notability (fiction), they (and I) often mean that an excessive violation of WP:PLOT is a major issue. Going into detail of Padmé's costumes is perfectly fine as long as there are sources, but describing how Johne Locke arrives on the beach in time for Boone's funeral is unnecessary and can/should be cut without much discussion. If what is left is just three paragraphs of (still) plot, then there are the options to let the trimmed article be to encourage the addition of real-world stuff (but we all know that plot will take over immediately again), or merge what's there to prevent more plot additions, and wait until an experienced editor comes by and thinks, hey, I'd like to make my fave character a Good/Featured Article. Two birds with one stone with little to no effort. – sgeureka t•c 11:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alansohn, would you like to give any evidence to back up those claims? Is this really about some "cabal" out there to delete these articles, or is it that Wikipedia is not a place to dump pure plot summary, and people are cleaning it up? If you just want to drive by, without even giving a single comment about how the guideline is worded, or what it says that you disagree with, then you're not helping anyone. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm still not hearing why we need this guideline when the info is covered in the higher up poiicies. I think the reason is that it acts as a good bottleneck for the deletionists to stop any changes on how we handle fiction. Makes sense they wouldn' want to give that up. i've heard that it's supposed to do the job of writing about fiction, in which case that guideline should just be pasted over this page. I've also heard you can't change this one because it restates higher up policies, which seems like another reason to deprecate this, not keep it. Why do we need this, beyond helping deletions? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These "deletionists" are removing excessive plot articles because they shouldn't be there. Sorry, but trying to paint that as a negative action isn't going to work anymore. You're not hearing why we need this guideline because you're only hearing what you want to hear. You only want to think of people as deletionists, and you don't want to discuss the rationale for why they do these things, or why Wikipedia is not a place for excessive plot summary. I'm really getting tired of being painted the "bad guy" because other people refuse to accept that we're not a damn TV guide. Now excuse me while I go clean up someone else's mess, so we have a better focus on good information, that thousands of readers come here every day, expecting to find. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ned, thousands of people come here every day expecting to find the stuff you are trying to remove. Wikipedia has included information about fiction and television shows since the beginning. That information has been a big part of what has made Wikipedia a success. Denounce 'popularity' all you like, but if Wikipedia only covered unpopular topics nobody would pay any attention to it. Attempting to take away that popular coverage inevitably makes you the 'bad guy' to those 'thousands' (read: millions) of people who are interested in it. --CBD 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that "success" is countering what WP wants to be : a verified, reliable, free (beer/thought) tertiary encyclopedia; this may be "only cover(ing) unpopular topics" but that's what encyclopedias are for. While many may find the fictional coverage exactly what they are looking for, this has given WP a bad stigma at large that the only place that its relevant is in popular culture.  Again, its not that we can't cover popular culture, but the overall depth of coverage that we give it compared to historical and scientific topics is incredible outweighed simply due to where the present balance of all WP editors' interests are.  Of course you can't deny that there are readers that also come because of the fictional areas, and that's why we encourage the use of external wikis where many of the strict rules about what WP may include can be given all the attention they want, we can link and reference those from the main articles in WP, and make sure that interested readers know they can turn there as well.  At the end of the day, we will still have a line, that pages living at "en.wikipedia.com" will follow the Five Pillars (being V/NPOV/NOR etc.) and all other pages going as they want to with otherwise no restriction on content.  We meet the goals of WP's, we meet the goals of readers interested in pop culture, and the desires of many editors to met.
 * (We of course just need to make the wiki transfer process one of crystal-clear clarity to make sure its a viable option; it needs to be much easier than this.) --M ASEM 13:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion. That's not what the creators of Wikipedia apparently wanted it to be and not IMO what the vast majority of the contributors and readers want it to be. You think detailed coverage of popular culture gives Wikipedia a "bad stigma". I think it gives Wikipedia what credence it has. Popular culture is one of the few areas where Wikipedia has begun to come close to fulfilling its promise. That other areas lag behind is NOT a reason to cut back in the most developed area of the encyclopedia. --CBD 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no reason WP can't continue to have popular culture - the problem is that to make sure that the same standards for verifiable, reliable, neutral non-original research across any topic covered on WP, some of the depth with which we take fictional topics is too excessive because highly detailed coverage of non-notable fictional elements is often difficult to verify save from a single primary source (the work itself). (There is also the potential that such detailed coverage leads to OR and POV issues and makes maintenance of WP a large issue, but I don't believe that should be deciding factor whether we do or don't cover certain topics). This still leaves a large of popular culture that can be covered, and some even at great depth as long as there's plenty of reliable sources outside of the main work to draw from, but it also makes sure that fictional works aren't given leeway that cannot be given to scientific and historical topics.
 * I will point out that I personally have nothing against fictional stuff - most of my edits are in fictional works, and if I felt that both the general consensus and policy would allow fine detail of aspects of fictional works, I'd be right there to add in my fair share; right now, the policy and guideline pages, and various discussions throughout, don't support that that is the consensus (which I admit is counter to the majority). I just feel that from the goals of WP for trying to provide encyclopedic coverage of topics means that we do need to set a bar to how deep we cover fiction, and that the notability requirement is the best standard we have that still ties in back to the core policies of V/NOR/NPOV.  The methods of late to rid WP of fictional stuff are highly questionable and don't support the spirit of WP, but the fact that while these AfD's shouldn't have been placed in the first place as aggressively as they have, they still are closed generally in favor of deletion, showing that there is, to some extent, consensus for how PLOT and NOTE are being applied.  That's why I feel I'm trying to help here as much as possible - I see what both sides are saying, I am not set on either way, but unless larger policy is changed, we have to try to work out something that goes along with that.
 * We (as in all Wikipedia editors) need to work this out and i think it's a much larger scale than WP:FICT. TTN's arbcom case appears to agree with most that rapid-fire deletion is not appropriate at all, but they carefully kept out of the content dispute.  We need to either get an ArbCom resolution on this, or other (preferably) decide, as a community, exactly to what detail we can take fictional works while still working to the ideals of Wikipedia and update WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and related policies or guidelines that result.  --M ASEM  19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CBD, I can't even begin to tell you how flawed your argument is. Thousands of people every day want Wikipedia to directly include travel guide-content, and want Wikipedia to embed youtube videos, and allow more liberal use of copyrighted images. What people want, as odd as this is going to sound, does not dictate what we do. This is a very big reason of why we are not a democracy. Popular demand means nothing in this situation, and that goes both ways. Importance and popularity do not dictate what we include or not include. Your arguments based on this line of thinking show that you do not understand some of the very basic principals that Wikipedia uses to operate.


 * You're making a strawman's argument regarding our depth of TV coverage. Wikipedia has no problem on covering the little things, but those little things need some basis in the real world. That is a fact that you cannot change no matter how many dispute tags you slap on these guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Still no reply why we need this guideline if it's just trying to do what is done with by much broader poloicies and guidelines. When I try and play devil's advocate, I get nothing. Again, the only reason I can see is that it's a loved pet of the deletionists. Also, no one is trying to deny V, RS, or freeness, although we aren't really free since we include fair use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion on this is that you're exactly right: logically WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE give what the guideline states, we aren't changing anything. I don't deny that.  However, and here's the key point, is that sometimes even if you mark where the dots (PLOT/NOTE) are for people about how they should write for WP, we need to actually draw in the lines for them as well to make it very clear how the policies and guidelines work together.  Its meant to help assist newer editors who are not aware of all relevant policy to be to learn what notability means for fictional works so they can write better and know the processes by which such non-notable works are dealt with; same with those newer editors that are less inclined to write but want to participate by helping to clean up.  It helps to define specifically for fictional works what notability means and where it can come from (cases that are unique to fiction and not to other topics at large) as well, information that would not be present in the general WP:NOTE guideline.
 * We do have to avoid instruction creep and that would be a reason to avoid a new guideline if that was the case. I don't believe (in my revisions) this is the case; the primary thing is that we offer more options for what to do about fictional works but its certainly adding any more steps to the process.  It's trying to be descriptive, not prescriptive. --M ASEM  14:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an argument to let writing about fiction handle it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But you are not objecting to how we organize the guidelines, you are objecting to what the guidelines say. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons why we need this guideline have been repeated to you many times. It's understandable if you disagree with that, but do not say that the reason has not been stated. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)