Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 26

Suggested rule of thumb
I mentioned this above in the context of spinouts, but I think it's a good rule of thumb we might want to reflect, or even say quite clearly, in the guideline:

If a fiction-related subject is notable, it will always be possible to include more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, and references from popular culture

This amounts to being able to say, at AfD, "if it's notable, you can write more than that plot summary; if you can't, it's not notable, *splat*", which frankly sounds good to me. SamBC(talk) 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting - though given that the real-world information has to be verifiable through citations to reliable sources, isn't that equivalent to WP:N? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No; WP:N requires sources to be third-party and entirely independent of the source (so not connected to the author, publisher, etc), which WP:V/WP:RS doesn't require. There's some restriction as to how such sources can be used, but they can still be used. Notability is the only thing that requires sources to be third-party. Thus real-world analysis of a fictional element that is written by the author of the original fiction is fine for WP:V, AIUI, but not for WP:N. So information beyong plot, in-universe and pop-culture would be a necessary but not sufficient condition to pass WP:FICT in terms of what I'm saying. SamBC(talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So it would function like a weaker version of WP:N that allows for primary and non-independent sources? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Also passes WP:KISS. That's exactly what I meant when I wrote WP:PLOT. Hiding T 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I was about to suggest I spend a little time working out where and how to work this in to the existing page, when it suddenly hit me that WP:FICT has gotten slightly... well... sprawl-ish and waffly. This hit me particularly when I was just reminded of WP:KISS. It even has one of the longest nutshells I've seen for a while! Is it maybe worth trying to pare it down to essentials, with more guidelines and less discussion? SamBC(talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was wordy before the last few weeks, it has gotten moreso recently, and I fully expected that a word trimming would be needed. I like the KISS statement above, and should be included.  --M ASEM  22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this proposed statement clears anything with a bit of sales or (often primary sourced) development info. Not sure if that was the intent or not. --erachima formerly tjstrf 02:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? G.A.S 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We could clear that up by saying "... more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, promotional material and references from popular culture". Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I kinna like it! —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me — and it would actually make a good nutshell. G.A.S 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Whatever we end up with, this is the sentiment it should express. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you added the but about promotional material, and "Articles that do not do so should be deleted", then I would fully support this. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will strongly caution about the "delete" phrase because that's basically why FICT has been unstable for close to a year. The fact that delete was given as the first option to deal with non-notable material is what ultimately led to the ArbCom cases through a series of editing wars.  Ultimately, this information needs to be presented in a more acceptable form, deletion being the last resort, but to mention deletion in a nutshell is going to reverse the consensus we've build for the current version of FICT. --M ASEM  13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that is probably too strong. How about "Articles that do not do so, do not meet this notability guideline"? (or something equivalent, but less clunky)  That way, it's up to the user to read WP:DEL themselves. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this, with or without the note about promotional material is fine, I think it really gets the point across pretty well. I haven't seen an issue with promotional material as an only source but that could just be because I haven't participated in enough AfDs. Stardust8212 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so an adjusted version is:

If a fiction-related subject is notable, it will always be possible to include more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, information from promotional material, and references from popular culture.

I don't think anything else is needed regarding deletion or non-notability, as that's implied by the "If a fiction-related subject is notable" at the beginning. I'm liking this more and more, especially in relation to my split approach suggestion below. The implication of it is that any article including only those elements may not be notable, but notability can still be demonstrated (possibly during the AfD) by addition of properly-source verifiable content other than those elements. SamBC(talk) 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shorted version of FICT
I've taken the current FICT and done a major edit of text on it in my sandbox, included the above line in a couple of places. The reduced version, I feel, does not alter the approach taken with FICT now (yes, it includes non-notable spinouts, but written in a more discouraging manner). This can be found at User:Masem/fict2. --M ASEM 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a few suggested tweaks - feel free to revert them once you've seen them - and while I still think we should be saying "without real-world coverage" instead of "non-notable", it's much better. I think perhaps the above discussion (the KISS one) may be a more productive way forwards, though. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Working with what we have
Starting from what we have, what changes are needed? Adding the short & sweet version above as a nutshell seems like a good start. I'm not sure the second half of the third condition is well worded; it sounds like you could invent a character, but never use them in a fictional work, and that would make them notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, I must repeat my request for the removal of the controversial sections Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles and Some topics are necessary to understand others, at least for the time being. I know they have been introduced to address particular problems, but since they conflict with the WP:NOTE's core principles, I dispute the assertion that there is a consensus to adopt them at this time. Either a technical solution that is more acceptable needs to be found or if there is no alternative, then they should only be adopted through a seperate review process (e.g. by RFC or Arbcom) because of their contraversial nature.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the version Ursa found, not the one that it was reverted to - which also has the all fictional topics are notable section, that I would have thought you'd object to more strongly. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, the section of WP:NOTE you point to is the baseline that any subject may be measured against, and any topic meeting it is presumed to be notable; other notability guidelines, like this one if it's approved, are not only allowed, but actually supposed to give additional criteria that can be met instead of the general criteria. Hence the sports ones allowing anyone who's played professionally at a high enough level, and so on. If there's consensus (and I agree it needs to be broad) to consider certain things notable without meeting those general guidelines, then that's not contradictory of WP:NOTE. I quote: "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard" (emphasis mine), not and it meets any applicable subject specific standards. SamBC(talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will point again that the version from a couple weeks back was nearly acceptable to all being representative of current accepted processes, there were a few small things being worked out. Trimming out the text like I have done with the addition of the KISS statement keeps the same approach and general direction. --M ASEM 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are sidestepping my requrest and would like my objections about lack of formal process to be addressed. I understand both of these points, but I still believe these two sections are too controversial to be considered adopted without going through a distinct and formal approval process for each one. I am not sure there is specific evidence of concensus to include these sections at the present time, and I think there should be some procedure to establish that concensus has been established, other than your assertion that the rubicon has already been crossed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the specific sections: 'notable groups' falls exactly in line with NOTE: if the grouping of fictional elements is shown to be notable (critical response to all the characters of a work, not just one, for example), there's no issue with that. This is very different from grouping non-notable elements and saying that the grouping is ok (the general spinout issue).  We have FAs that demonstrate this approach.  Mind you, I see this being no different from the general fictional notability clause (if it has secondary sources for real-world info, it's appropriate for an article), and thus not needed.
 * The second clause is also straight forward, as at least how Percy wrote it, it required notability to be established for the secondary article. However, I see this being no different from the general fictional notability clause either.
 * The issue of spinouts is the one where we have had established consensus since 2005 (the Minor Characters deletion policy), and is only reiterating the general approach: that under certain conditions, spinning out non-notable fictional elements can address WP:SIZE. The only major change that has been done in the more recent versions of FICT is the try to close loopholes that people would wikilawyer through (either way, for inclusion or deletion).  I can only point you to the archives since about.. August of 2007?; we've had pages and pages of heated discussion, we've had an RFC, and basically prior to mid-March, since the Jan 27 new version went live, there was general agreement from both inclusionists and deletionists involved in this development that it appropriate, with only fine tuning of the spinout issue.  I can't point you to anything else more concrete; you can walk through the deletion reviews, you look at WT:EPISODE where there was a huge RFC about non-notable episodes, you can look at both ArbCom cases on "Episodes and Characters"; these latter points should show you were a good portion of the inclusionists sit, and why FICT needs to maintain the limited allowance for non-notable spinouts in the short-term.
 * Basically, (again, not a personal attack, just a time reference) before you or Percy got involved, we were probably a few weeks away from a general RFC to move this from proposed to accepted. This is why I want to move back to the version before this point, and let it go through that process; if the RFC clearly shows that spinouts are a problem, then we'll fix that.  Yes, we could present a version without spinouts, but my gut feeling based on the current attitude of the inclusionists is that if we present FICT without allowance for spinouts, they will take that as an afront, and while the RFC will fail, there could be more fallout.  Instead, we present something of a fig branch that may rub against policy that should satisify the bulk of the inclusionists, and probably a reasonable number of deletionists, but may rattle the chains of a few that will shout "violation of PLOT and NOTE!".  Fine, we can use the context of the larger RFC to discuss that, but at least out the gate, it will not seem like we are trying to remove all non-notable fictional coverage from WP (again, I have to note that I agree in the long term this is likely better for WP, but in the short term, this is a very bad proposition). --M ASEM  15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we present FICT with the current allowance for spinouts - the one that allows absolutely all possible fictional articles, then that's a greater affront to the deletionists! It's hardly likely that the RFC would have passed under those circumstances.  Yes, consensus wants some spinouts included, but there is not and never has been consensus to include them in that way, except among hard-line inclusionists and editors who don't understand the implications.  I know you've put a lot of work into the spinouts exemption, but I'm afraid we can't proceed with it in place.  We need to work out which spinouts to allow, and allow those, without commenting at all on the others.  We can't start from a position where all spinouts are allowed, then merely discourage the ones we don't want. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are a free content encyclopedia, so technically we should not allow any non-free image use, yet we do; there are several technical requirements for these (rationale, licensing, can't be outside mainspace, can't be of living persons), but once you get past the cut and dried tests that can be checked by a bot, the rest are necessarily vague because not all situations of non-free use are the same, though there are cases where acceptance pending all other technical merits is virtually guaranteed, and cases where its use will virtually be rejected. When I wrote my draft for the spinouts above, it is the same approach here: there's a few technical points (needs to obvioiusly a spinout, meets V/NOR/NPOV, etc.) but we can only go as far as saying that spinouts on non-notable fictional elements are generally avoided if at all possible, but if needed, identifying that here are a lot of acceptable uses, here are a lot of unacceptable uses, but again, at the end of the day, its a case-by-case evaluation.  I hardly agree that allows for all spinouts, as you suggest it does; even though someone could wikilawyer a full article on a one-shot character, the requirements for that article would be so high that it would not last.   Remember, we cannot stop the creation of such articles from a technical standpoint; we need to provide appropriate guidance that helps editors aware of the guidelines to generate them off the bat, and provide mechanisms to remove the ones that are patently bad per the spinout guideline.
 * That said, the only difference between these processes is that we can easily seek and tag images; spinouts are not as obvious. I've suggested way before the similar idea of a rationale for spinouts, which would categorized them and identify when and how the part was spun out and/or created from several merged elements, in which case people could review through the list of spinouts. I know that approach may be considered a problem because now all the appropriate spinouts are tagged, someone dead set on deletion can AFD each one, and people may not include that tag to begin with, though if we make sure that the first case doesn't happen such that putting the tag on "blesses" the article some additional protection if brought up in AFD ("Hey, we agreed before this spinout was appropiate for this case as shown here..."), its use would be better. --M ASEM  13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I a spinouts-with-rationales approach could be a solution to the loophole - but why make such a complicated system? We should just put the valid rationales here in WP:FICT, as circumstances under which articles are acceptable, and not bother with inventing a new class of article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are never going to come up with a checklist of appropriate requirements that every possible valid spinout can be expected to make, just like we can't enumerate every possible fair use justification. Yes, we hardcode some acceptable and unacceptable uses, but someone may come up with a spinout that is completely appropriate, meets all other requirements for writing, but doesn't fit into a hard-coded category.  Additionally, because of subjectiveness, one editor may feel that a spinout fails while another editor agrees.  A rationale of some type at least allows for cases we cannot predict and a method of identifying that at least some editor believes the spinout to be appropriate as to start a discussion process should the spinout be brought up for deletion.  This mirrors the NFC approach for images. --M ASEM  14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We very nearly already have. All that's left is spinout lists with insignificant coverage, and spinout elements that aren't essential to understanding the main topic.  If there are any acceptable spinouts that that describes, I'd be very surprised - but if you can think of any, let's add them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, this (as well as NOTE) are guidelines. We have to be descriptive and not prescriptive.  This means, we cannot disallow any type of article just because it doesn't meet the general aspect of the guideline.  I very much doubt that a spinout dealing with a non-notable minor character from a work of fiction is appropriate, however, we cannot rule out the possibility that someone will demonstrate such an article meeting all other guidelines and that it needs to be a spinout from a larger topic (again, I don't see how, but that possibility has to remain).  Thus, the unfortunately equivalent statement to "we cannot disallow any type of article" is that "we have to allow any type of article", which I agree does open the door for technically any non-notable spinout.  But that's our hands-tied part of being a guideline.  The best we can do is note that while spinouts of non-notable elements have to be allowed for, they may ultimated be merged, trimmed, deleted, etc, if they don't possess certain other desirable quantities; certain arrangements of elements prove more acceptable than others, and failure to meet V/NOR/NPOV will also be considered grounds for removal.  But because lack of notability is not grounds for speedy deletion for fictional elements, we cannot outright say that a spinout arranged as X is not allowed; we can say "strongly discouraged", "unacceptable", and a bunch of other descriptive words, but outright banning such articles cannot be done at the guideline level. --M ASEM  15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, your argument is that spinout articles violate the general notability guideline. Perhaps I've missed this argument, but the entire point that allows us to use spinout articles is the wording of this same guideline.  WP:N discusses the notability of a "topic" (emphasis quoted), while SPINOUT deals with the creation of articles.  No where is it written/maintained (that I know of) that articles must be notable to fulfill inclusion criteria.  The concensus of Notability as an inclusion criteria only relates to topics.
 * Concerning "formal process", there isn't one. The processes involved are WP:Concensus and WP:BOLD.  It is generally prefered to stick to these methods when possible.   If you believe these constructs have failed (which is an opinion you are certainly entitled to take), then WP Policy directs you to take the actions described at WP:DISPUTE. -Verdatum (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gavin, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. There is no formal review process by arb-com. All we have is WP:CONSENSUS.  That involves everyone working together, putting aside serious objections if they are the only objector and people working to a common cause.  Wikipedia notability isn't a core principle, and one of the core principles of WP:NOTE is that it bows to subject specific notability guidance. That's because subject specific guidance came first, and WP:N grew from what they held in common. Hiding T 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you can claim that consensus has alreay been reached but this assertion must be disputed. I don't see how there how you can claim their is consensus for these two categories of article because I believe that that aggregates and spinoff articles about topics that have no evidence of notability per se is contraversial from the wider perspective of WP:NOT. You can also claim that aggregates and spinoffs are in accordance with with WP:NOTE, but I disupute this claim as POV; I think the justification for these categories of articles is muddled and mistplaced. The argument for changing the guideline to fit with current practise is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. I think the problem is that there is no mechanism for strictly enforcing WP:FICT (at AfD for example) and this is the reason why so many spinoff and aggregate articles have sprung up like weeds in a lawn. Just because aggregates and spinoffs exist is not a good reason for watering down WP:FICT; loosening the editorial guidelines is like drinking sea water laced with the salt of synthesis, a problem that will get worse unless the guidelines are clear, and actually proscibe aggregates and spinoff of topics with unproven notability, rather than permitting them. I think overall that WP:FICT has been watered down, rendering it ineffective. Serious editors will have to look to WP:NOTE, WP:NOT and WP:WAF for guidance on fictional because aggregates and spinoffs as currently described are anomolies and a licence to spam synthesis of primary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you should really work on spelling and grammar if you want your desire to improve the encyclopedia to be taken seriously. Perhaps, if you typed your responses in an external editor and then copied the text into your post, you would have a better result.  Second, guidelines are supposed to be “descriptive” not “proscriptive”.  In other words, WP:FICT should detail what a consensus of editors have found to be best practice, not what a cabal of guideline writers believe should be followed.  WP:N is not the absolute law.  Even WP:PLOT is subject to interpretation.  You seem to be most comfortable in a world of strict rules, narrow interpretations, and absolute adherence.  This is not the world of Wikipedia.  We keep articles like Spoo, because the community of editors thinks it belongs and the rules be damned.  Part of the basic spirit of this institution is ignore the rules when the rules do not make sense.


 * I think we have gone far off course in this discussion. I am trying to figure out where to post this, but the discussion is not really about “spin-out” or “aggregate” articles that do not meet notability standards.  The issue, when it comes to fiction, is and has been list articles.  One can not discuss a notable television series without discussing the individual episodes that make up that series.  One can not adequately discuss a notable novel without having some discussion of the characters in the novel.  Sometimes these elements will not fit in the primary article about the notable work of fiction.  However, these elements are not notable in and of themselves, particularly in a dozen separate stubby articles.  So consensus has turned to allowing list articles that contain these elements but avoid splitting the information up in to many smaller articles.  This is the compromise we have reached.  We will not have hundreds of separate articles on all these elements of fiction, but we will allow neat list articles of these same elements.  I think this is a great compromise, but your mileage may vary.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You might take a look around wikpedia and its articles. The "tail" (articles) wagging the "dog" (FICT) is thousands of article editors disagreeing with tens (to be generous) of guideline editors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You will always find that other stuff exists, but good guidelines will help everyone in the long term. I think we have to firm, otherwise thousands of editors will be making additions to articles which will probably get transcribed to the Annex when they thought they were adding to Wikipedia mainspace. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't expect to get any traction on this page, but "Other Stuff Exists" is only valid when following guidelines, not writing guidelines. If thousands of articles and editors contradict a guideline it means the guideline needs to reexamined, not the thousands of articles.  Descriptive and not prescriptive and all that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that guidelines need to be continuously improved, but in this case the principles of the guideline need to run against the current trend of spamming topics without evidence of notability, rather than running with it. My point is that articles based on synthesis have a limited shelf life as, over time, they will be deleted or merged into topics in which synthesis has been replaced with real-world content based on reliable seondary sources. Having a guideline that permits aggregates and spinoffs goes against this trend, and is dishonest because gives the impression that somehow that they are good practice, when in fact the opposite is true.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:N per-topic or per-article?
After all, the language in the guideline itself (WP:N) is inconsistent, to the point where I generally read it as referring to topics, but presuming that there is a 1-1 correspondence between topics and articles. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly other guidelines indicate that the basic concept of a spinout is acceptable, which would then imply, to me, that either the spun-out subject must be considered as a separate topic, or that this 1-1 assumption is broken. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, we can't decide what WP:N means, in a general sense, here. However, we must try to decide how we will interpret it. I am leaning towards, for the sake of simplicity, interpreting "notable" as "meriting a wikipedia article". This would mean defining per-topic notability here in such a way as to define spinoutable subjects as notable. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I've been using the word. WP:N makes clear that there's a difference between 'notability' and 'having coverage'. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

However, this notability need not be completely freestanding. Awards are considered evidence of notability in many subject-specific guidelines, but I suspect that any award that was acceptable for that purpose would be, itself, considered notable, and any that wasn't acceptable wouldn't. Thus, the subject in that case is, in some sense, "inheriting" notability from the award, just not in the sense usually meant by "notability is not inherited". SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So why not specify that subjects may be notable if they are closely associate with a notable subject and meet some other criteria, which are not as strict as the general notability criteria or the WP:FICT (or other) subject-specific criteria? My "rule of thumb" above would be one such criterion, and some others can be and- and or-ed together to produce something generally acceptable and descriptive of at least the non-controversial existing spinouts. We then need to come up with two cleanly separated sets of criteria: to determine independently notable fictional elements, and to determine acceptable spinouts. Keeping them clearly separated separates associated debates, and makes use of the guideline once it's accepted much more simple. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - that's exactly how we should be going about things. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, here's my practical suggestion; forget what we have now, although we can refer to it. Forget all the crazy back-and-forth debates. Agree between us that we will work in that framework (that I outlined above), and start putting together the two lists of criteria. Then try to work them into fresh prose, and build the guideline up around that. How about it? SamBC(talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to make sure that it's not just me and Percy, let's have people indicate their agreement or lack of:

People agreeing to "fresh start" approach suggested by SamBC

 * 1) Agree, naturally. SamBC(talk) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree becuase this is a good way of clarrifying whether the changes since January 27th make sense or not. My opposition to the current guideline is based on the view that it is an anomaly that it permits two categories of articles call aggregates and spinoffs about topics that have no evidence of notabilty per se, which conflicts with other guidelines. It is clear there is no evidence that consensus has been reached for the changes that have occured since January 27th. However, if this process reveals that aggregates and spinoffs for topics without evidence of notability per se is the best way forward, then my current thinking may need to change. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

People who disagree that this is a good idea

 * 1) Disagree Not trying to be a killjoy, but we already had a "fresh start" in December/January, and what we have now (or what we had last month) is the result of that fresh start. I doubt that a new fresh start will result in anything much different. I will also say that since spinouts are such a subjective topic, there will be always be a bit of "strong" disagreement, at least in the near future. So we are either forced to live with the middle ground, or will never come to an agreement (the latter of which seemed to be the case until Masem served as a voice of reason to the hopelessly opinionated discussions). – sgeureka t•c 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Note that I am not against such attempts per se. But I am thinking this can be done in parallel and not as throw-everything-over-board-and-start-fresh, and if it works, it can be adopted/included. If it doesn't work for whatever reason, it wouldn't do much harm of what we currently have. – sgeureka t•c 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) **That's a reasonable point; I didn't actually mean delete what we've got, I actually meant more of a work-in-parallel. I realise now that was not at all clear. SamBC(talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Disagree - Starting a new is throwing months of good and consensus work just because of one bit. I don't think anyone disagrees that absolutely clearly, notable fictional topics with secondary sources are clearly appropriate.  Trying to work above the meaning in notability, this route (at least for topics) has been suggested (by Nydas for one), and would be similar to WP:MUSIC and WP:FILM notability paths (aka "an album published by a notable group").  That idea may be good in theory of fiction, but the problem is two fold: people's appreciation for certain works will make them "notable" in their minds, and would make notability defined this way highly subjective, and that at the end of the day, any non-"coverage by secondary sources" route for notability still needs to meet the five pillars, which means both WP:V and WP:PLOT have to be met; a vague "meriting an article" would aggriviate the situation.  We have been looking for clear concise rules like this that avoid subjectivity and will end up with a good encyclopedic article and there's no strong case for any, save for "major character from a work discussed in an academic publication" and even that may be a bit lax.  On the spinouts, I agree that this needs a separate guideline which I've already proposed before.  --M ASEM  13:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) *We're not suggesting that we assert that a topic that "merits an article" is notable. We're explaining that the meaning of "notable" is "merits an article", not "has coverage".  To say that a non-notable topic merits an article is a contradiction in terms - but that's not to say that a topic without coverage is automaticall non-notable.  WP:MUSIC and WP:FILM don't say that non-notable subtopics should be included, they say that under certain conditions, subtopics are notable.  We're not being vague, we're being precise.  As regards moving talk of spinouts elsewhere, where they can be disputed separately, I've agreed before. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) **I understand that, but that's the point that we've tried before and there's no easy other approaches to defining notability for fictional articles that has a high guarentee of an article that meets all other WP criteria. Example, it's been suggested "major characters in major works of fiction are notable".  Assuming major is understood, this provides such a criteria, but when it comes to writing the article for that character, it may end up that only primary sources exist for that character, or that given a "blank page" to write about the character, editors may end up engaging in OR and POV pushing.  Now, if you're suggesting that we're trying to define that list of normally non-notable elements is "notable", that's not a good approach because how WP already uses notable is confusing to many folks.  We want to say that certain spinouts meet WP's inclusion guidelines; remember that notability is not the only measure of this. --M ASEM  13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) ***But no notability requirements ensure that an article meets all other policies and guidelines. They don't need to. Notability isn't a shortcut to ensuring those policies. If a marginal spinout were allowed under this guideline but still failed WP:NOR or WP:V, for example, then it could be deleted or whatever on those grounds. Also, the only policy or guideline I know of that excludes primary source completely (and then only from its own consideration) is WP:N. WP:NOR allows primary sources quite happily, with caveats. So, to have an article, a topic must be notable and it must be possible to write an article that meets other requirements. SamBC(talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) *** We want to say that certain spinouts meet WP's inclusion guidelines, but we don't want to do that by making all spinouts - which is effectively all articles - acceptable. You claim there are no easy approaches, but I've put forward two that only Gavin objects to. We can cover the rest of the cases without giving all spinouts a free pass. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) **My view is that we could cease to view some of what are currently considered spinouts as spinouts; they would be notable as articles themselves, but notable because of their relationship with something unquestionably notable. The phrase "merits an article" wouldn't appear in the form of guideline I'm suggesting, just in this discussion in order to clarify what we're meaning by notable. Existing consensus-supported guidelines indicate that "has significant third-party coverage" is not the definition of notable, just the only accepted universally-applicable criterion to discern it. It is sufficient but not necessary. SamBC(talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) ***And this I think is bad approach and not necessary. Notable is a meausure applied to a topic of whether that topic should be included.  Spinouts should not be creating their own topic (that is, a spinout on a single fictional element) unless they are notable, per this.  Spinouts of several non-notable elements that fall within a larger topic cannot be judged by notability because this spinout is not a new topic; again WP:N makes a strong distinction between topic-level and article-level for this.  We need another yardstick, and that's why I agree that we need a spinout guideline just like our non-free content guidelines which judges the spinout's appropriateness to be included, with the key thing that spinouts should be written as supplementary coverage of a topic, and should, unless notable, be a topic to themselves.  It does not bend or create a new aspect of notability. --M ASEM  13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) **** Argh, do I have to say this again? Spinout articles have spinout topics. WP:N applies to the topics of articles, so it applies to the spinout topics of spinout articles. Considering the topic of a different, notable article instead of the topic of the spinout means that all spinouts are included. All of them. Each and every one. Anything, at all, that anyone has made up, so long as it is related to a fictional work and isn't a copyvio. Some spinouts are desirable, but we can include them without including all the rest; we can do that by describing them in our rules here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) ***** There is not enough guidance presently to say that a spinout is its own topic or not. This may be a key point to see if this has been considered in the past (not just FICT). --M ASEM  14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) ****** It may. The closest thing I can see is note 6: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."  This is the other way round - but here an article on a topic is considered to be a separate article to one on a "broader topic"; in other words, an article on a spinoff topic is considered to be a separate article to one on a main topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) ******* I can see it that way too. I am taking the viewpoint above, however, of what inclusionists will look for if we try to require spinoffs being their own topic, because we need to be able to respond to those arguments as well.  My best answer is that the approach of how a spinoff is written is what determines if it it is its own topic or not; the fewer the details and the more support provided to the parent topic, the less likely the spinout is its own topic.  --M ASEM  15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) ******** The unfortunate thing there is that that still leaves down to personal opinion as to whether the spinout is its own article or not, so the creators of an article will always say it is one; and so all possible articles are still included. That's going to be true of any approach where we start from a position of saying "spinouts are OK with exceptions" and spell out the exceptions.  We have to say "spinouts are acceptable under these circumstances" and explain the circumstances.  We should also add a justification of why each circumstance is beneficial, so that deletionist editors can see why they're needed, if we're to get agreement on them.  You claim elsewhere that it's an impossible task, but we're actually most if not all of the way there with the first three circumstances that the article describes (notable topic, notable group, essential topic).   Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) ********* I suggest you go back to the fictional spinout guidelines I drafted. I listed 3 cases of "generally acceptable" and 3 cases of "rarely acceptable" cases of non-notable spinout lists, any case not listed has to be considered on its own to the other approach the guidelines give (relevance and style).  See the comment I made above too: a guideline cannot be prescriptive, we cannot limit what articles can be created, we can only warn editors that articles not generally accepted as a whole will be likely deleted because of relevance and/or style. --M ASEM  01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) ********** Those guidelines cases - while preferable to a blanket exemption for all fictional articles - were phrased in terms of the topic of the article: whether the article was about an episode, or a character, or whatever. We shouldn't say "series are generally notable" or "episodes are generally not notable", because the appropriate level of detail is different for different works.   Notability guidelines need to be phrased in terms of the importance or benefit of a topic.  That has to be shown by citations to reliable sources - not necessarily real-world coverage, but verifiable statements about the topic.  Whether the topic is about a series or a fictional weapon is irrelevant to notability; what matters is the real-world significance of the topic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) *********** Notable spinouts don't need to follow those at all. Once you should notability through secondary sources, then the article should be structured best to talk about that notability - if the notability is on the whole character cast, you don't talk about each character in its own article, but only in one, a character list, for example.  But if you can't demonstrate notable for any in-universe aspect, these spinout guidelines take over and suggest spinout types that work or don't work in terms of being generally acceptable and how such articles survive through AFD; the groupings (aka "topic" though I disagree with that) are what best works to avoid dozens of extraneous articles on in-universe information.  But again, once notability through sources is shown, the spinout guideline is no longer applicable.  --M ASEM  13:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) ************ You are confusing 'notability' and 'coverage' again. The aggregate and essential sections are for spinouts that lack sufficient coverage to meet WP:N - in the case of aggregate articles, because the coverage is not of the list topic but rather the individual elements, and in the case of essential articles because the coverage is trivial in size.  You still haven't shown that there are any spinouts that don't fall into one of those categories that we should keep - can you give any examples of a group that has insufficient coverage, even on aggregate, or an element that is non-essential, that it would be appropriate to keep? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) ************* The aggregate case is one thing; basically saying that either the grouping (the topic) has notability through sources, or a significant portion of the elements of the grouping have sources; the first case is already covered, the second case can be seen as an extension of this, and I think the second case is just a one-sentence addition to the general case of notability, but this is where Gavin's point comes in place: there needs to be a threshhold quantity of how many elements are notable; one notable character among 100 is not a good list; likely the alternative is to have a non-notable list of characters with sub-articles for the notable characters. The "essential to understanding" case, I believe, is basically saying that "source X says that Y is important to understanding the work of fiction, thus an article on Y should exist".  This is basically saying "Y is notable", it's just calling out a special type of coverage, that Y is "essential".  Thus, I think this is duplicative. [break]
 * 21) ************** Perhaps it is, if you read WP:N with an extremely inclusionist eye. A strict reading of WP:N doesn't admit those types of coverage, and so we should provide guidance here on the reading that best fits consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) ************* But now let me address your question of a grouping that lacks aggregate sourcing or sourcing to stated essentialness, and that should be kept, and that should be as an approximately line, any list of major, or minor/recurring, or both, characters from a serial/multiple entry work, a list of episodes or chapters from a serial/multiple entry work, or an article describing the universe/setting of a serial/multiple entry work (pulling from my spinout guideline). Those articles, 90% of the time, will never have secondary sources or coverage (aka non-notable), though will at times will be necessary to support the topic of the work of fiction itself (though again, no source is present to say this).  These are elements that, ignoring SIZE, would be covered as part of the article of the work of fiction, so spinning them out to a new article is not changing why they have been included.  This is the fundamental argument of why certain types of spinouts lacking any coverage (aka non-notable) need to be allowed.  --M ASEM  14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) ************** You say they are "necessary to support the topic of the work of fiction itself" but that "no source is present to say this". If a source doesn't say it, then it's just the editor's point of view that it should be included - this isn't an acceptable reason, as evidenced by the rules against POV and content forks.  In general, however, the relevant sources do exist.   If a an article on a fictional topic has not been given undue weight, then its sections contain citations describing their real-world siginificance, and can be spun out without violating WP:N.  Your figure of "90% of the time" has no basis in fact.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) ****I can't help feeling that we're now talking at cross-purposes. I'm not talking about dealing with all instances of spinouts; people mean different things when they talk about spinouts, and I'm now talking about those items that may be considered spinouts but could be seen as notable. What is notable is not completely determined by WP:N; WP:N sets out criteria that can judge anything, but allows that more specific guidelines might allow things that WP:N on its own would forbid. So an article on a character that might not meet any straight notability criteria, but is in a notable book, film, universe, whatever and meets some other requirements that we agree indicate notability, then it can be seen as notable. It might not have the coverage required by WP:N, but still be able to generate a good article within WP:V and WP:NOR, etc. SamBC(talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) ****Also, I disagree that WP:N makes the strong distinction between topic and article; it's written in a very unclear way that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Percy makes a good point of subarticles having "subtopics" that can be rated in themselves. After all, your suggestion would mean simply having to draw a line from whatever-you-want-an-article-on to something that is notable, and no further requirements. That would mean almost everything being acceptable. Also, I assume that "should, unless notable, be a topic to themselves" should be "should not, unless notable, be a topic to themselves". SamBC(talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) ***** Ignoring anything with spinouts at the present, if there is a criteria that you are suggesting here, it needs to be nearly absolutely objective. There will be large biases for certain types of fiction if such criteria are objective; look at the history of Spoo staying as an FA for an example of when such fan-biases come into play. Trying to find any criteria that don't have a bias of that approach is very very difficult, and is an exercise we've gone through before with no luck.  The most objective criteria ends up being back at NOTE: "significant coverage in secondary sources".  If we can find other non-subjective criteria, great, but we've tried before without luck. --M ASEM  14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) ****** Well, the other notability guidelines give some indication. The Spoo article isn't so much an issue of a failure of objective criteria, it looks to me like a failure of reasonable application of half of the guideline's and policies on wikipedia, followed by application of circular reasoning. But one farce doesn't prove anything. SamBC(talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Disagree, we've aleady had a fresh start. Hell we've probably had give since the one in December, because as soon as get near consensus and something workable, arguments start all over again. *sigh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) *The point is to try to understand why arguments always start and work around any (and hopefully all) underlying issues. My suggestion might not be the best way to do that, or even a good way, but the point isn't so much the "start again" (as I indicated in a reply above) as it is about the structure and strategy I'm talking about. The current structure and strategy has left us with a complex, long, and verbose guideline that people can't seem to easily agree on how to clean up and get back on track. So, let me ask, ignoring the "start again" issue, what do you think of the structure and strategy being put forward? SamBC(talk) 15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) **Who knows anymore? In less than a week, we've had at least TWENTY different topics on this page started. How anyone can figure out what's being put forward or follow any discussion is a miracle. Its no wonder so many have dropped out of the conversation and just given up trying to hammer things out. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) ***Exactly. That's what I'm trying to fix, in a number of ways; put aside (for now, for this page) the question of all spinouts, and of spinouts as a distinct category. Focus discussion onto identification of discrete criteria, as featured on most of the other specific notability guidelines. Not fifteen threads about spinouts, which seem inherently able to generate controversy. SamBC(talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Disagree - This version doesn't even really represent actual practice but it's the closest thing that bridges what the few editors here want and the thousands out there want. Every month a few new editors show up here and want to "tighten" things up, that's (and this) is nothing new. When this guideline is actually enforced, then the other side shows up.  Welcome to FICT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Disagree Some might notice that I've taken a break from this page for the past few weeks. From what I've been able to catch up on, I can't say that "starting fresh" is a good idea. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Another one for the opposition. While I can sympathize with the editors who are newer to this page and feel a bit disenfranchised because they weren't here when the original consensus was established, we cannot restart from square one every time a new face arrives. Consensus is community consensus, not just the consensus of whoever is on the page that day, and at this point, in order to throw out the current background discussions we would need evidence of a significant shift in the opinions or demographics of the community as a whole. (If it's any consolation, a lot of the people who were involved in the earlier stages of the discussion started out far more opposed to the idea of spinout articles than any of the current editors here appear to be.) --erachima talk 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) *When I contributed to the debate about this guideline in early January, aggregates and spinoffs were not even being discussed; I thought consensus had been reached back then. Since the radical changes which have taken place since January 27th are still being debated, I would say this is evidence that the opposite of what you state is true. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) **But they were in the guideline; at that point, we were calling them subarticles, and as I've mentioned, that allowance for some quality of non-notable spinouts (in spirit) has been in FICT from day one it was created. This entire explosion of discussion came about when Percy wanted to add language that including requiring spinouts to be notable, which went against what we had worked out as a point of agreement. --M ASEM  13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) ***I think that Percy's intent was (or at least now is) not to require them to be notable (in the sense of the general criteria at WP:N), but to sidestep the idea of "non-notable content" by defining certain types of (what has been referred to as) spinout's as articles on notable topics themselves. That avoids the idea of saying "these things are okay, despite being non-notable". Don't forget that WP:N gives the criteria "of last resort" and subject-specific notability guidelines can define things as notable that don't meet the WP:N criteria. SamBC(talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) **** Yes - that's correct. My issue with these guidelines isn't that I want to require spinouts to show significant, real-world coverage; it's that I don't want to give them a blanket exemption.  The coverage/notability confusion was responsible for a lot of the initial discussion, but I hope we're past that now. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

People who don't mind care anymore, and will go along with it get on with editing the encyclopedia

 * 1) Meh - I am taking a break from working on guidance to get on with improving some articles to GA and FA. I think this pursuit is quickly becoming a "caucus race" with editors running around in a circle, expending great energy but not accomplishing anything.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A vague skeleton to indicate what is intended
Okay, so here I'm trying to cut confusion. What follows is an attempt at indicating what the guideline, or part of it, would look like under my suggestion:


 * A fictional element or topic may be considered notable either in and of itself, or due to close connection to a topic that is notable in and of itself.
 * To be considered notable in and of itself, a topic must:
 * Criterion...
 * And another
 * etc...
 * To be considered notable in close connection to a topic that is notable in and of itself, a topic must have a close relationship with a topic that meets the above criteria, and:
 * Oh look,
 * Some criteria
 * etc...

We would then have an explanation of the "close relationship", and fit the "rule of thumb" in somewhere. The point is firstly that there's two cleanly separated lists, and that lists/aggregates aren't specifically referred to. True spinouts, due to size/style, can be handled in a separate guideline as people have suggested. SamBC(talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists
I just want to put a thought out there and see what people think. This guidelines doesn't need to, nor should it attempt to, cover lists of fictional elements. Lists have a separate understanding of inclusion and are generally considered separately, at WP:LIST primarily, I believe. The guideline shouldn't mention them, IMO, except to disclaim relevance to them and point to the general list guideline, and possibly (at a later date) a separate guideline for lists of fictional elements. SamBC(talk) 09:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:LIST is a style guide, not a notability guide; I'm not sure there is a general list notability guide. Perhaps there should be, but until there is, this is the closest match for lists of fictional elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct, Percy. So are lists an exception to notability?  The only guidance we have are essays that warn of the dangers of using lists to get around policies/guidelines.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With or without the current version of WP:FICT? Without the current version of WP:FICT, and without a more specific guideline, lists are covered by plain old WP:N, and have to show coverage of their topic: the class of things they are a list of. Under the current WP:FICT, lists of fictional elements are always notable, as are all fictional articles, because they can be considered to be a spinout. Other lists still have to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk)
 * I'm not sure that you can say all articles on fiction-related subjects can be considered spinouts. Spinouts must have a parent article that they point back to (and in my mind a particular section in that parent article).  [break]
 * That's also a style requirement, not a notability requirement. Unless spinouts without the relevant templates are speedily deleted, all possible articles are exempted from notability.  Even if they are, then (a) an interested user can just add the template, and (b) if we're really to treat them as parts of the parent article, it would have to be possible for a non-admin to delete them, which it isn't.  As it stands, absolutely all fictional articles are exempted from notability because an editor who likes them can cry spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also do not believe all editors consider lists to be subject to WP:N, as evidenced by common practice and this essay. Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Common practise in AFDs is certainly to argue from a notability POV. You mention that there are "essays that warn of the dangers of using lists to get around policies/guidelines" which seems to suggest that lists are subject to guidelines and policies.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting suggestion, one that deserves some consideration. Are lists spin-out/sub-articles?  Do lists need to establish notability?  What is/is not a list?  Our articles titled "List of episodes" and "List of characters" contain much more text than in a typical list article.  What do others think of this suggestion?  Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Up until November, I strongly felt that lists of fictional items succumb to WP:FICT like any other fiction-related article, but I am not so sure anymore. Also, WP:FAC/WP:FLC often direct you to the opposite candidacy page when you want to nominate your list-article. In short: The lines are totally unclear, and I now prefer to err on the save (inclusionist) side when it comes to lists, at least until wikipedia has a firmer standing on this issue. – sgeureka t•c 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A common feeling seems to be that lists are not articles, they just share the namespace. Articles that look like lists is another matter, I suppose, but the main thing about lists is that they are mainly handled case by case. However, if we were to apply WP:N et al. to lists, what would we apply them to? They apply to the suject of the article, or to the topic. What is the topic in question in, to give a hypothetical example, "List of Minor Characters in MyFavouriteTVShow"? Or to think about the broader question so we can see our place in it, "List of Fooologists"? My first assumption would be "MyFavouriteTVShow" and "Fooology", respectively, and then the issues of each list's criteria for inclusion apply. However, without a general view of lists across wikipedia, I think it's best to specifically not touch them. It also allows us to leave one major area of debate for later, and get something out the door. SamBC(talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that lists need to be about (or in regards to) a notable topic (or subject), but the individual items on the list need not be notable themselves.  (Words to this effect exist on one of the guidelines for lists, but I forget which one.)  The canonical List of minor characters in Dilbert is a prime example of this.  Dilbert is highly notable, but the primary reason why the list of minor characters exists is because they aren't individually notable.  --Craw-daddy | T | 13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is entirely true; you could edit the List of minor characters in Dilbert so that there it only comprises of characters with proven notability, since a List of characters in Dilbert with unproven notability would probably be deleted as listcruft. What I think is absent from this discussion is that there seems to be a lot of confusion between lists, aggregates and spinoffs. In my view, List of minor characters in Dilbert is an example of an aggregate, which started life as a list of topics with proven notability, to which content comprised of plot summary based on synthesis was later added. Spinoffs take this process one step further - they are in my view, are single topic which have been moved from an aggregate to its own article, or moved directly from a list of topics with unproven notablity to its own article without the intermediary step of being part of an aggregate. I think aggregates and spinoffs should be proscribed by WP:FICT, because they fall outside the scope of WP:LIST.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting directly from WP:SAL (another guideline, and not strict "policy", of course):

"Ideally each entry on a list should have its own Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." --Craw-daddy | T | 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And combine this with this statement from WP:N, where the emphasis is mine:

"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections."

--Craw-daddy | T | 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I am agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but the reason may be that the List of minor characters in Dilbert may have started life as just that, a simple list, but has subsequently been expanded into more than just a simple list which now qualifies it as an aggregate. What should have happened along the way is that reliable sources should have been added or the OR should have been edited out. Because WP:FICT does not proscribe the expansion of lists into aggregates based on original research or synthesis, this list falls between two stools, and this is key issue that needs to be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR and WP:SYN prohibit that. WP:FICT doesn't need to restate them.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue is probably closely related to the debate at WP:EPISODE, where the same process occurred: lists of episodes developed into agrregate articles on episodes, which then became spinoff articles about episodes.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which is fine, if those episodes are notable. Whether or not a topic is notable is independent of whether or not it has been spun off from a notable parent topic; that's why the spinouts section we have is in error. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this point.(phew) --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

CD: That bold section, which summarises WP:NNC, applies only to the individual elements of the list - it doesn't exempt the list article as a whole from notability. I hope that I've described the usual approach to determining whether the topics of list articles meet notability, in the groups section of the current WP:FICT - so the topic of List of minor characters in Dilbert, which is "minor characters in Dilbert", is notable because there is sufficient coverage, considered as a whole or across the individual elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. I wasn't attempting an argument to the contrary.  The topic of the list needs to be notable, but not every individual item on the list.  --Craw-daddy | T | 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not sure if I agree or disagree with you. A plain vanilla List of minor characters in Dilbert is probably notable as a single topic per se, but only when that list was strictly a list. However, since the list has been expanded into an aggregate article on multiple topics of unproven notability comprised of plot summary based on synthesis, it now fails WP:NOTE. To rectify this situation, it should be restored to being a simple list, or the non-list content needs to be moved into an article called Minor characters in Dilbert, where the notability issues need to be addressed. Would you agree that is what needs to happen? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Vanilla lists add little or nothing to Wikipedia; they're not informative, they're usually used as linkfarms, and composing the list is almost always an act of synthesis.  WP:LAUNDRY has more reasons why vanilla lists are often undersirable.  However, lists with a lead section that defines the inclusion criteria, a small (verifiable, real-world perspective) section on each entry, and perhaps a section at the end to summarize the lesser entries, are greatly beneficial.  They allow us to include minor topics such as the characters in a work without having to have an article on each one, which would give the minor topics undue weight; and their lead sections provide a place where a (verifiable, real-world perspective) article on the overarching topic of the list can grow. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree again here. The problem with List of minor characters in Dilbert isn't one of notability.  It's the (somewhat minor) OR that's present in that article (or what seems to be OR that lacks some sourcing.) --Craw-daddy | T | 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, I would have thought that the section on aggregate articles is redundant; such artilces need to be renamed and recategorised as lists, and the section Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles should be dropped. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow. A list-like article which is nonetheless not a list (e.g. Stargate SG-1 (season 1)) should not be labelled as a list.  The section on aggregate articles explains how lists and list-like articles of fictional works or elements should be judged; It's not redundant, because a strict reading of WP:N doesn't allow for coverage of the individual elements, only coverage of the list topic.  Consensus would seem to be that that strict reading is not the desired one, so the aggregates section clears that up.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Stargate SG-1 (season 1) is an article about a notable television season (althought that is debateble) with a list of episodes embeded in it. If season 1 was not notable, the list could stand alone as a list. I still do not why you need to have aggregate articles.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aggregate articles - lists and list-like articles - allow us to include minor topics such as the characters in a work without having to have an article on each one, which would give the minor topics undue weight; and they provide a place where a (verifiable, real-world perspective) article can grow. Starting with a list, there may come a point when the content about the overarching topic is too great for the lead section of a list article, but not yet demonstrating sufficient notability for an article of its own.  The resulting article still has the benefit of a list, but isn't strictly a list, and it would be inappropriate to remove the (verifiable, real-world perspective) content to force it to make it more "listy".  To stay with my example, we could have an article on season 1 of Stargate, and a separate list of episodes of season 1 of stargate - but it's preferable to combine the two.  If you'd prefer "list or list-like article" to "aggregate" article, I'm fine with that.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the underlying principle is flawed; for example, the series won many awards, but I don't think that the season is notable per se. My view is that there are no notable seasons or episodes, only a series with a lot of notability, and unless reliable secondary sources can be found for the season itself (e.g. content is not inherited from series), then that article is likely to be merged Stargate itself, and the episodes placed in a list. Perhaps this is a bad example, but I think we need to be clear that an article should be about a single identifiable topic which is notable, and that a list is about multiple topics, which may or may not be notable. Aggregates fall between the two, and as such act as coatracks for synthesis, mainly plot summary. Such article are ultimately destined to be merged back to their overarching topic (see my comments at Articles for deletion/Warcraft universe which has since been merged. I think I will conclude by saying that Aggregate articles are content forks which are created to accomodate plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Others would disagree. Here's just one example: Homer's Phobia.  This episode won awards, including an Emmy.  The "reception" section shows both positive and negative reaction to that particular episode.   Your mileage may vary.  --Craw-daddy | T | 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a correct reading of the guidelines as I understand them, but doesn't reflect the consensus on what articles to include. That's why we need the section on aggregates - to bring guidelines in line with consensus.  I realise that's an argument you don't accept ("tail wagging the dog", above) so I suppose this is where we have to agree to disagree. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel duty bound to challenge that there is a consensus because most aggregate articles like Companions of the Hall are really terrible, and I think even you would agree that this is a good example of why this section needs to be dropped, and the guidelines tightened, not loosened. Have a look at Articles for deletion/Companions of the Hall, which parallels this debate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're now saying "a lot of this sort of article exist that are crap, so that sort of article shouldn't be allowed". This is somewhat akin to saying "some people drink too much and cause problems, so we should ban alcohol". Never mind the fact that you are suggesting guidelines be pr[eo]scriptive, rather than descriptive. SamBC(talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, that's a really bad example for you to choose. That article was kept at AFD, so the consensus was to include that article. However, I agree that that article should be sourced far better; it only has two refs, and they're both for the same character. That's a point which I may not have addressed - that the coverage for lists shouldn't all be of the same few entries - so thank you for bringing that to my attention. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was addressed up to a point, but it's good to check these things. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a good example of a bad aggregate in my view. The article was kept (bad decsision in my view) because the current guideline is too wishy-washy when it comes to the amount of plot summary that is allowed. You can see it is still a terrible article because it repeats plot from the overarching article. Unfortunetly it is the type of content fork that will be exempted from WP:NOTE if we retain the section Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles, which is why I would like to see this section dropped. In answer to SamBC, my earlier analogy that permitting aggregates and spinoffs is like drinking seawater of synthesis is better than your analogy that I am trying to ban alcohol. If we allow this section to be retained, the next step will be to write a guide called "Synthesis with style"!--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC
I don't think that between the current editors we are going to get anywhere on this. I think it is time we pop that question to WP at large, which admitted is going to likely have a huge impact on which way WP will go in the future. Thus, I've created the following RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 which is transwikied below in order to get a large amount of input. --M ASEM 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some questions:
 * Should it be made clear the the question is about (spinouts of fictional elements) that lack sources, not spinouts of (fictional elements that lack sources)?
 * What does oppose/support mean? I support the position that there's a dispute; I oppose the inclusion of all spinouts; I support the inclusion of some spinouts.  Which section do I post under? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The question that is being asked specifically is what is bolded below: Are spinouts of fictional elements that lack any real-world, secondary sources, appropriate for Wikipedia? The assumption being that if there are sources, we can figure something out, but the question is specifically unsourced fictional elements in any regard. --M ASEM  15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That question is ambiguous - is it the spinouts that lack sources, or the elements? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the lack of any secondary sources, so that means all the elements, and any summarized lead, lack any sources. (if elements can be sourced, or the lead itself can be sourced, there is notability of some type).  --M ASEM  16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that - but it's phrased ambiguously. Editors new to the debate may not understand.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about primary sources? For a hypothetical example, say we have a fictional setting of Fooland, and the original author wrote (possibly with help) a "guide to Fooland" that did more than repeat and analyse the original works involving Fooland. That source is authoritative and reliable for the details of Fooland itself, but not secondary or independent, and thus does not contribute to meeting the notability criteria-of-last-resort in WP:N. Spinouts can have sources that are valid for WP use without having sources that confer WP:N's notability. Of course, they may still be notable by a more specific guideline. SamBC(talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is generally considered unacceptable for notability from previous discussions on primary vs secondary sources. I could go out, write some fanfiction, post it to the net, then come back, post my notes about writing it, and that would make my work notable (ignoring the issue of reliable sources).  This is basically the same argument why commentaries and interviews from the creators of a work is not sufficient for notability, though this information is included as part of the real-world coverage. --M ASEM  17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my point. It's not allowed for coverage-based notability, but is allowed as a source for purposes of verification and avoiding original research. Thus a spinout can be sourced and fine in terms of WP:V and WP:NOR without meeting the coverage-based criteria for notability; it could then meet some other criteria for notability, as WP:N gives the criteria of last resort. SamBC(talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)