Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 29

Can of worms
Just to open a can of worms, but I'm sure you have long running TV series in the US like we do elsewhere in the world, and I think it's worth thinking about long running characters in those works. Some of these characters can enter a nation's consciousness and become a part of the social fabric. These characters may well have been covered in dead tree sources, which are hard to find on the internet, due in no large part to newspapers deciding to charge for their archives. Now I don't think we should write a blank cheque for every character who has appeared in a long running show, but there needs to be some consideration for long running recurring characters in a serialised medium, especially those in the past. Hiding T 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to specify anything for that; dead tree sources are fine for notability (and anything else) SamBC(talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone uses paper sources to establish notability, no prob. If the article is short and has no sources for real-world information, it can be merged into a character list without a problem. If the article is long and has no sources for real-world information, this means PLOT and/or OR is at work, and the article should be trimmed accordingly to reflect that; then, hopefully, it is short enough for a merge. If a related character article however has demonstrated to have many paper sources, good faith should give an extra batch of time to allow those who may have the sources to update the article - the problem may even solve itself without intervention from FICT then. – sgeureka t•c 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The work itself is usually the source in such cases. If the work is well-established with millions of viewers/readers then it should be acceptable for our purposes.  We might then say that characters played by ensemble cast members or those that feature in the opening credits, are presumed worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The work itself can never be evidence of its own notability, although I hope no-one would ever challenge the notability of, say, Friends. In terms of assuming that regulars (or characters who feature in the opening credits) are notable, I think that would be unwise and unnecessary. If a character hasn't got enough about them in independent sources, certainly sources other than the work itself, it won't be possible to give them suitable real-world content for more than a stub or start-class article, and we shouldn't have articles that can't conceivably grow beyond start-class. SamBC(talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the trouble is the dead tree sources might not be available or might not be vast in wordage. Sometimes it's just cultural absorption... um, look, take a show like Dallas.  Now, what do we want to say about Dallas? Are all the characters notable?  The big things about Dallas are Bobby in the shower and JR getting shot, but what about the smaller stuff, like the oil baron's ball, something which has cultural resonance to the effect that you can mention an oil baron's ball and anyone over a certain age will get the reference.  It's trying to quantify how to fit that all in beyond the rubric of "multiple reliable sources" which get slavishly harder to meet with every iteration. I'm not arguing for an article on the oil baron's ball, but I am saying there's a lot in a show like Dallas which has affected culture to the point that if you were to have access to the dead tree sources, especially if you could search them with google, you could point and say, look how many times this phrase was used in a newspaper in the period 1980-1985.  It captured the popular imagination. There would be a lot of small references which taken together would amount to a depth of coverage from which to write within our remit.  And I think that needs to be extended out. Some soap operas have run for over forty years. The depth required to cover the impact these shows and their storylines have had is perhaps greater than can be seen in and of itself. Hiding T 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Those elements, if verifiable, can all be included in the article on the work itself; notability does not limit content. If they would be too long but aren't of demonstrable notability, then exceptions can be made with common sense and consensus. Mentioning such things here would encourage unreasonable exceptions. Also, old periodicals often are available in reference libraries. Someone just has to do some real research, that's all. "There are sources, we know there are, but they're too hard to find" is an argument that will only work in fairly extreme situations. SamBC(talk) 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem remains, Hiding. How do you want to report on something without having sources to back up your assertions? Drawing your own conclusions from memory or from plot will only go unchallenged for so long. – sgeureka t•c 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're not getting me. It's more than that. It's not about drawing your own conclusions, its about saying this show was watched by 30 million people and the character became part of the cultural landscape through references in popular culture and the like. And that can be enough. That should be enough. Because we're here as much for our readers and re-users as we are any glorified idea of being Britannica. And Sam. What happens when your source is one of those "I Love" shows, or Justin Lee Collins reunites the cast of Dallas, or worse yet, a radio interview or show? But never mind. All I can say is that I think current practise on the ground is a lot different to what this guidance is saying, and I don't know how you choose which side wins. It doesn't seem fair to tell one set of editors they can't play here anymore. I guess I never saw it as my ball. I'm an eventualist and a know it when you see it person who doesn't see the harm a lot of other editors do.  I've never subscribed to the but it encourages other bad articles point of view. Hiding T 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you just said about J.R. can be summarized in two sentences, and you don't need an extra article for those (this would basically be the same argument like whether an award and nothing more justifies a separate article). Neither do you need 5kB of plot to back up one sentence of real-world info. If you have some spare time, you might be interested in how other-language wikis deal with "notable" characters like J.R. - see e.g. de:Dallas_(Fernsehserie) (and IIRC, Dallas was also pretty major in Germany). Editors only interested in contributing plot and original research will not end up happy on wikipedia either way, no matter how much the rules are bend for them. – sgeureka t•c 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay Sgeureka. I'm done with this line of thought. Thanks for the link to the German wiki, but we all know each language version is a little different. If they had the number of contributors we have, it'd look a lot different. I'm just not expressing myself well enough to get my point across, and besides I already know the response it'll get. Peace. Hiding T 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if you consider this the same that verifiability is considered, you will find what should work:
 * If the work is undoubtably notable (Simpsons, Star Trek) there's clear reason to state it is "highly notable" and thus per the LOE/LOC allowance, those articles can exist.
 * If the work is likely notable (by you, the author, acting in good faith), then you should reasonably expect that you could make the LOE/LOC allowance, but realize that at the end of the day it may be challenged (just as some statements on verifiability using cn), and should be prepared to show that this is the case for those articles. "Dallas" would be a case here: I'm old enough, not quite to recognize the phrase but well aware of the cultural impact, but someone five years my younger may have no idea, and thus could challenge my assertion that is the case.
 * If the work is of low notability, the same applies: the editor adding or wanting the LOE/LOC should show why the show is sufficiently notable for them to exist.
 * Of course, this doesn't prevent the element alone showing notability on its own and having its own article; that trumps the LOE/LOC requirements. --M ASEM 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Determining notability for elements of fiction
I just had this thought as I was reading things over&hellip; I'm fairly sure that there are situations not necessarily covered by GNC that would indicate notability for elements of fiction, and that aren't covered by other (media-based) subject-specific guidelines.

The easiest example is awards. I haven't got the links to hand now, but I did find a while back examples of (real) awards given to characters or settings; some are regular awards, some are once-off. Given the fact that awards feature in just about every applicable subject-specific guideline, I think they have consensus generally.

However, one complication in this case is that the awards are sometimes clearly meant for the elements (eg a setting) but are technically given to the publication in which the setting is covered. One example is an award I found that's annually given to an RPG supplement describing a setting. To my mind, the setting itself is clearly also a recipient of that award, and the setting thus notable. If very little can be sourced about it, then it ought to have a combined article describing the supplement and the setting; however, in many cases the available (real-world) information about a setting would seem odd in an article about the supplement, which generally can't contain very much information that isn't actually about the setting.

I give this semi-specific case as an example, but I can see it generalising to things entirely non-RPG related. Deathmatch levels for multiplayer FPS games win reputable industry awards, even.

Just a thought to throw out there. Well, a few thoughts. SamBC(talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A "setting" receiving a single award doesn't necessarily qualify it for separation. We have too many issues already with articles that have a single notable feature (i.e. a single award given to an actress for her performance, or an award given to the production designer for their work on a particular set) and nothing else in the article except IU information. A single award, to me, is not justification for splitting off something just because you want to write about every tiny IU bit that occurred involving that element. To clarify, most awards for fictional elements are given for a specific instance, and not for the element in a general sense. It isn't like a "lifetime achievement award" for that particular fictional element (though that doesn't mean there wouldn't be such an award, jus thtat that is typically not that case).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, and everyone in this discussion would agree we have to avoid that situation ("splitting off and writing about every tine IU bit"); WP:PLOT and WP:WAF forbid that. If someone did split something off under this criteria and it didn't have sourceable real-world information then it would have to stay a stub; however, there are permitted sources for real-world information that wouldn't be acceptable under the GNC to demonstrate notability. If there weren't, there'd never be any need for notability criteria at all, as you can't write any article without sources (without breaking other policies and guidelines). SamBC(talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I also agree with Bignole, as awards on their own are not evidence of notability, nor can they take the place of real-world content, context or analyis from reliable secondary sources. Usually, they are a symptom of notability, but not the source. In any case, they are seldom awardeds relating to fictional elements themselves; awards are usually made to their creators. I do not believe there are any criteria for notability other than GNC, since ficitional elements do not have a real-world existence. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm trying to map the logic here, in case I'm misunderstanding... awards are evidence of notability for some things, and criteria other than the GNC can be valid, but they can't be for fictional elements because they have no real-world existence. Is this what you're saying? SamBC(talk) 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What I understand to be the current practise in AFDs where the assertion of notability for an article is based on an award or awards, but coverage hasn't been found is this: if an award is big enough, it's usually taken to be evidence that coverage will exist somewhere, and the AFD closes with a keep. If the award is trivial, it's dismissed out of hand and the AFD closes as delete. If it's borderline, then the AFD usually closes as delete unless editors find the coverage while the AFD is ongoing. Some of the more specific guidelines include award clauses that in theory override that, but in practise they say "major award" and the arguments are the same. So while I'm happy to see an awards clause go in, I'm not convinced it's necessary. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that awards are usually made to authors or creators of ficitonal elements, not to the elements themselves. Other than The Best Use of Spandex, I can't think of an award that was ever made to a fictional element itself.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If a creator wins an award for an element, then that's likely evidence of some coverage of the creator and some (but less) coverage of the element. If the award is sufficiently major, then it's evidence that both might meet the GNC.  Indeed, if it's sufficiently major then a nomination might be evidence for that.  The question of where to draw the line on "sufficiently major" isn't one I've seen very much dispute over so I don't see that it is a problem.  (oh, and you nearly had an example in 2003 when a character in Adaptation. was nominated for an Oscar!) Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's more at that link, as the reason I first gave you that link was the character, and to a lesser extent the level. And as I explained above, the award might technically go to the publication or the creator, but they are being awarded for the element, hence it makes sense to pay attention to them for the element itself. SamBC(talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An award is not "sufficient" of anything. An award is a single sentence in an article. What an award does it provide you with a window to look through for more information to add to the article. If the award is for the design of a particular element, then you now have the possibility to find information on what the people did to create that element. A single sentence of information does not show notability (significant coverage). Saying an award is "sufficiently major" is completely subjective. Maybe it was to you, but maybe it wasn't to someone else. An award is an award, unless it comes from some unrecognized organization (like a fansite).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you object to award-based criteria in other notability guidelines, then, like WP:BK? SamBC(talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First, that criteria is for the book itself, not minor elements within the work. What literary awards are given to the setting of War & Peace? Second, you're taking an award that is given to a creator and then saying that the basic correlation between the creator and the element is enough to satisfy notability. You've thinned the affectiveness of the award, and are still wanting it to provide the same result. If an actor wins an award for his work in a show, does that mean that the character was awarded that recognition, or the actor's performance was awarded that recognition? They give awards to guest stars as well, but that doesn't mean that the character's they portray in the series for one single episode are actually notable themselves, but more that the actors that portrayed them did a good job. Regardless, that isn't sufficient reason to have a separate article if something just wins a single award. Notability does not have to result in separate articles. Just because something is notable doesn't mean that it needs a separate article to give encyclopedic justice to it. If there is nothing else on the subject other than a single award, and some IU information, then as you said, it would be nothing more than a start class article (it wouldn't be a stub, because I'm sure there would be more than a single line of information altogether).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No awards being given for the setting of "War and Peace" doesn't mean that there aren't any for anything else, and who said anything about literary awards? Take the semi-specific example I gave: gaming awards exist specifically for supplements describing a setting. The supplements themselves could rarely have anything written about them, and taking up huge amounts of space with (correctly balanced) coverage of the setting rather than the supplement is inelegant (and has also drawn complaints from anti-fiction editors), but the award is clearly (to anyone familiar with the mileu) given largely on the basis of the creation of the setting itself. And your point about notability not meaning separate articles automatically I am in complete agreement with; that's why a criterion of this sort wouldn't have to be a disaster, because just because we're now saying that some more things are notable doesn't mean we have to have an article on them. That makes me think, in fact, that we ought to say something in the guideline like "an element being notable in its own right does not mean that it should necessarily have an article of its own; the information may still be better located in an article on the work itself" possibly followed by "short articles on a notable fictional element that show little or no potential for expansion may be merged into an article on the work itself". Unless the guideline says that already and I missed it, of course. SamBC(talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Percy: if the general practice seems to be to accept sufficiently major awards then we ought to document that, surely? That's one of the main purposes of these guidelines, after all! SamBC(talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I worry that we may not be able to document it without changing it. It's working adequately at the moment; we don't want to kick-start a load of "my award is so major" whining. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no major awards made to fictional elements anyway. Who would collect them?--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, you seem to be ignoring the argument made by both Percy and myself regarding awards being given for something, but to someone. After all, "Best Picture", or even "Best Director" awards are given to (members of) the production team, but the film is described as being award-winning; the point is still substantive even without that example. SamBC(talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be confused: a film is a real-world production; the Academy Award for Best Picture is usually collected the film's producers and director who made that film. You should try and distinguish between fictional elements that have no real-world existence, and the media (films, books, plays and games) which do. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins is a campaign book which won the 1998 award for best roleplaying supplement. This award is given to the book which does the best job of creating a fictional setting. So certainly, there is a real world physical object that received the award, namely "the book titled Greyhawk:The Adventure Begins, ISBN 0-7869-1249-9", but the award was granted for the ideas contained in the book, which are fictional. --erachima talk 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And, as is often the case with ontology, erachima's argument is as valid as mine; either, however, at least partially counters your argument. SamBC(talk) 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh... I thought we'd get onto ontology sooner or later. A copy of a film or book has a real-world existence, but a film itself, or a novel, or whatever, has no objective reality either, just like a fictional element. They are abstract entities given reality by the internal, constructed representations in people's minds. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * only partly true,. they are also given reality by the physical representation in the words or the images. DGG (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering this for a while now, so I'm just going to ask it directly; it could also be considere approaching this discussion from a different direction. Gavin, do you feel that Wikipedia should have articles on any fictional elements? Ignore spinout lists and similar that reduce the size of the article on the work, and ignoring the current state of any particular article; I mean, do you think we should have articles on Jedi, Superman, so on and so forth? SamBC(talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry SamBC, I won't be drawn on that question. As regards the relationship between books, films and fictional elements, they are categorised differently in Wikipedia, and are judged under seperate notability criteria, regardless of their "objective reality". Notability is not deemed to be inherited; fictional elements do not inherit notability from a award given to a film or a book: the fictional element must be notable in its own right, that is why is inadvised to confuse the message (fiction) from the medium (book, fim or game), at least from a notability perspective. I agree with Bignole: awards for fiction are not given to specific fictional elements, they are given to real-people for excellence in a particular creative medium. I also think this is why we should delete the references to IMDB or TV Guide in this guideline, because they contribute to this confusion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When seperate points are made separately (even indented separately), it makes it much easier to follow the discussion if they're replied to separately; I'll give you a chance to refactor your comments to allow this deparation to continue before I actually reply; if you do so, feel free to delete this comment. SamBC(talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving onwards
Enough is enough. We have discussed this matter quite enough already, rehashing the argument with the same participants yet again will be in no way helpful. You have had your input on the matter Gavin, consensus has been established across 27 archives of discussion here and a full year of editorial practice, and it is now your role, as a mature and reasonable editor, to recognize that your opinion is not in accordance with that consensus, and accept it. --erachima talk 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should ban the word consensus from this talk page. It is used to justify virtually every point of view under the sun. However, I think I have raised a valid point: if we provide Lists of characters and/or List of episodes has exemption from GNC, what is there to stop editors filling these lists with unencylopedic content? In my veiw, the current draft of this guideline is not watertight in this respect, and will not float for long, but will capsize under the strain of fictional elements being subdivided in every more unnotable and unencylopedic sub-elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: Your concerns here have already been addressed many times over. Wikipedia's editors are not fools, your fears will not materialize. --erachima talk 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ban the word consensus? Consensus is the justification for all policies not created via board mandate. If you don't consider consensus a valid justification, you're out of touch not only with your fellow editors on this page, but with Wikipedia's most basic principles.


 * I am fine with banning the word consensus, provided that such an action meets consensus...damnit, paradox. Nevermind.  It's very difficult to be proscriptive of concensus for this matter because there are strong and substantial support for conflicting mechanisms.  All that can be done is to take invocations of " has met concensus" with a grain of salt as a reader; and as a writer, not rely on it as the entirity of your argument, unless you can back it up with discussion pages and AfDs (which is a severe pain, and has whole bunches of bias issues). -Verdatum (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I thought I had seen it all. But what I am actually seeing now is my edits are being censored in the name of consensus. I have never seen this on a talk page before. Is this a first? --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Censorship? Nonsense. We've been discussing freely for 3 months. All the arguments have now been aired, however, and the discussions are now going in circles. There is no additional benefit to be gained by further discussion right now. This is the point in the problem solving model where we stop discussing ideas because it is no longer productive, and move into implementating the guideline.
 * The guideline will never be perfect, especially not on the first attempt, but that is expected, and it doesn't have to be perfect. Once we have some data on how the guideline is working in practice, we will make modifications, and I look forward to your input at that point. --erachima talk 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you erachima, well said. I move that we attempt to promote this proposal to a guideline or at least have a straw poll on whether or not we should proceed in this way.  I completely agree that it is time to stop talking about it and just do it.  Then we can get on to WP:WAF and the miserable WP:EPISODE.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen talk page edits many times when the debate becomes heated. I don't approve of them but they seem necessary when an editor is stuck in a rut and keeps repeating the same point at length.  This entire discussion has that flavour for me and that's why I contemplate deletion/archive of the whole thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said it once and I'll say it again, we need an examples guideline. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds interesting. Any ideas on what the examples should be? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * except for the most obvious cases, we are no more likely to agree about the examples than about the policy, or the interpretation of the policy. Frankly, I've stopped commenting on the wording of the policy, because the actual policy will be how it is applied, and as far as i can see that will depend on the strength of the feelings expressed at each particular article in the usual inconsistent Wikipedia fashion. The disagreement remains fundamental, and anyone who thinks there is actual consensus on their preferred position, rather than temporary partial truce through exhaustion,  is deluding themselves.    DGG (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * but to start, here are some obvious cases deliberately selected in very different areas which I think are notable enough and have material enough for extensive breakout articles on major characters and the like: (not selected on the basis of personal interest, by the way). I have deliberately picked some that are about a complex of different works.


 * War and Peace
 * Lord of the Rings
 * Star Wars
 * Sailor Moon
 * The Simpsons
 * Don't we want examples which are near the threshold, some just above and some just below? Subjects like Star Wars could probably provide sources for 20 FA character pages, so saying it deserves a list doesn't show where to draw the line.  Maybe a random anime like D.Gray-man or an older show with a list like List of The Brady Bunch characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Smallville characters could probably provide a good example, especially when I get done cleaning up the pages into a single page. Right now there are 7 pages which consist of 1 episode appearance characters. If you look at all the recurring characters in the show, you'll see that there are so many that people would want (and have tried) to turn into single character articles, but have nothing but IU information. Several of the characters show the possibility of breaking out on their own, though more will be known when it's finished.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For examples of nn lists, POKEMON and ANIME and SIMPSONS are probably going to be some of the better sources, but we should try to include other types of works (video games and books.. anyone know a good LOTR or Harry Potter lists?) Mind you, please grab the perm link for the example. ---M ASEM  00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exemption for LOE/LOC?
So Gavin's been arguing (somewhat reasonably) against exemptions from notability (or specifically GNC) for LOE and LOC articles. However, I've just been re-reading the guideline as it stands, and I can't find such. I find this:

In rare cases, where none of the above steps can resolve the length problem without damaging encyclopedic coverage of the work, groupings of individually non-notable element can merit their own supporting articles. This should be considered only for highly notable works

(emphasis added). We go on to define "highly notable works":

Highly notable works are taken as those that substantially exceed the minimum standards for notability, having large coverage in secondary sources. This would typically include those that have been the subject of extensive academic analysis.

Which is fairly restrictive, I'd say. So where's this apparent exemption? It only applies to the most notable of works in the first place, which seems reasonable enough. SamBC(talk) 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (public ip)Honestly, you could just ignore Gavin and his arguments. All he's doing here is pointing out the flaws in Wikipedia's system of information management that all of us already know about, his gimmick is just that he's strongly opposed to people reading things that he specifically isn't interested in. If we continue to humor him, this circlejerk will never end. - 66.189.62.200 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, his complaint is that he thinks it will become a slippery slope, with the definition of "highly notable" being pried wider over time. Which in the short term is unlikely, since the mergist/deletionist camps don't appear to be in any danger of selectively dropping dead on us from plague all of a sudden and will continue to insist the standard be upheld. And in the long term (by which I mean "half a decade or so down the road") I don't consider a problem even if it were true.
 * The ongoing idealogical shift is from a focus on quantity of writing to one on quality of writing, which is why the notability standards are being tightened in all areas. However, really significant works of fiction (the stuff you'd find in a normal encyclopedia) are created at a slower rate than we can write about them, so as time goes on and we approach the point where we have all of them covered, I'd predict the definition of highly notable will expand to give us more to write about, and not just in the case of fiction, but all articles.
 * In other words, once we have quality nailed on all our core subjects, we'll be able to move our focus more towards quantity once more. Well, either that or the project becomes less and less active, then dies when it hits the critical point where there aren't enough editors left to keep out the vandals. But let's be optimistic here. --erachima talk 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will admit that the "slippery-slope" or "thin-end of the wedge" arguement is in the back of my mind, as there is lots of fancruft just waiting to be copied and pasted in to Wikipedia by adoring fans, and I don't really want to go slide down the slope to ever wider criteria to accomodate unsourced inclusionism. That aside, I can agree with erachima that this argument is contingent on future events, which may or may not happen, and so it would be reasonable to be optimistic that Wikipedia will not be converted to Wookipeida, and so the "slippery-slope" argument could be discounted at this time. Nonetheless I do have other practical and literary concerns relating to the exemption from GNC which I feel are compelling.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with the notability of the work being part of the criterion. The length and detail of coverage depends on not just the amount of material available, but how much it is worthwhile to say in an encyclopedia. In practice, I think we do often devote to much detail to relatively minor works of fiction, and sometimes object to having detailed coverage of the really important ones. DGG (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see the lessened criterion for the inclusion of fiction sub-articles being a "slippery slope" considering the state of Wikipedia back in early 2007/2006 or so when FICT and PLOT weren't as strict as they were now and the worst it got was a slight overload of individual character and plot summary pages. Even if we lightened up the current guideline it would never be "that bad" again with the now larger population of mergist/deletionists watching the fiction articles like hawks and the still-strict guideline keeping everything regulated.

Also, giving a little more weight to less notable subjects isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as everything is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. After all you can probably get more comprehensive and accurate information on a notable subject via a Google search than Wikipedia, while information on lesser-known subjects remain obscure just about everywhere except here. - 66.189.62.195 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeating what I said on WT:NOT, about the same issue of LOEs and LOCs:
 * ""A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." (originally worded as "a part of a larger topic", but meaning the same thing) leaves the door open to seeing these pages not by themselves, in context with other articles on the show. While there is often disagreement about how much plot we should summarize for a given work, things like LOEs and season pages are often seen by most as an acceptable amount for fundamental information. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"

-- Ned Scott 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Depth of coverage
The DOC section currently states "Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of information which can be sourced." I'd like to make two changes to this, one of which may be controversial so I'm discussing it here first. The latter is the one I'm concerned that other editors may object to, but I think it's in line with what we've discussed above, and with both the letter and the spirit of WP:PLOT. What do people think? Percy Snoodle (talk)
 * 1) I'd like to put this in bold, as it's a good summary of the whole section
 * 2) I'd like to put "real-world" before "information which can be sourced"


 * I agree with both, although the second point may need clarification as people won't necessarily relate this to the balance required by WAF and PLOT without it being pointed out... we need to indicate that non-real-world information is appropriate, but only in balance to the real-world information. SamBC(talk) 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - the rest of the paragraph goes on to say that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I get for contributing during 2-minute compilation (and similar) breaks at work... if that's the case, then I wholeheartedly support both. SamBC(talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. What about a caveat on its significance to the work? That's part of WP:UNDUE.  It's rare that a significant plot point doesn't get some sort of coverage, but... let me try and think of an example. Hiding T 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, howabout, "Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the significance of the plot element to the work and the amount of real world information which can be sourced." Hiding T 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not really the same thing. How about "Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced.  This real-world information should be balanced by plot details as necesary to place that information in context"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds too clunky. Just leave it as you first suggested. If a plot point is significant, it will have received secondary comment. If it hasn't, we'll come back to it when we discover an example. Hiding T 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Actually, I'm wrong - it's the previous paragraph that says "with an appropriate balance of plot information" and I don't think we do address SamBC's concern fully. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I give another plug to the idea of moving this section to WP:WAF? It's more style than notability and WP:WAF would really really benefit from a DOC section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I was about to post on how this section came about, in that it was the DOC for an entire work of fiction, summating the main work, notable elements, and non-notable elements, as to make sure that in the creation of spinouts (pre a few days ago) excessive numbers weren't created to overwhelm the article. Now that there's agreement on limited numbers, DOC still has to be mentioned (as it is), but I think there is a better likelihood of this section in WAF since the spinout issue has been rendered mostly moot. ---M ASEM  13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.. I'm thinking about adding a see-also link and a sentence to the "Fictional topics as part of a larger topic" section, and dropping this in WP:WAF above 'Notability and Undue Weight' which I'd demote into a subsection of DOC as they're both DOC issues of a sort. How does that sound?
 * I'm still considering moving this and would like to hear from more editors. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How do ensure that Fictional topics are not unencylopedic if you don't apply GNC?
How do ensure that Fictional topics as part of a larger topic are not unencylopedic if you don't apply GNC? If WP:FICT states that a List of characters or a List of episodes has exemption from GNC, but it contains an unacceptable level of atomisation with respect to ficitonal elements (for example), then how do you assert that this unencyclopedic content is acceptable even though it meets the following criteria set out in WP:FICT:
 * (a) "it can improve the encyclopedia";
 * (b) "their omission would be "damaging encyclopedic coverage";
 * (c) "non-notable element can merit their own supporting articles".

I can't see where that would ever be the case, so why are we providing these exemptions? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, do you mean "how do you assert that this unencyclopedic content is unacceptable"? SamBC(talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The more content we have, the more encyclopaedic it is. Wikipedia is not a Greatest Hits or Best of.  It is supposed to contain the "sum of all human knowledge". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because WP:NOT states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia", whilst WP:N states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". For these reasons, I do no understand, why WP:FICT provides exemptions from GNC for Lists of characters (LOC's) and Lists of Episodes (LOE's), when that clearly goes against WP:N? Take an example, the article List of Mandalorians. Although this article has list in its title, in reality it has become an article on fictional characters known as Mandalorians from Star Wars in all but name. We know that there is a literary link between the characters but there is no evidence to support the notability of every single one. In this guideline there is a section Dealing with non-notable fictional topics, which applies to fictional elements of unproven notability. Why are we providing an exemption from GNC for this type of article whilst at the same time providing advice on how they should be dealt with?--Gavin Collins (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because people don't agree on what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of List of Mandalorians there is an established consensus at Articles for deletion/Mandalorian that this article together with some others should be merged into Mandalorian. Taemyr (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable proposition, since the list provides no evidence of notability for any of the fictional elements contained within it. However, if I were to take the role of devil's advocate, I could now object to the merger on the grounds that WP:FICT says "groupings of individually non-notable elements (such as List of Mandalorians) can merit their own supporting articles...such as Lists of characters in a highly-notable work" (i.e. Star Wars). I do not understand why the section Fictional topics as part of a larger topic provides a argument against merger, particularly, as Taemyr states, there is is an established consensus for the article to be merged into an article. This is a clear example of WP:N (which states that "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context") overriding WP:FICT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In an environment where it is a huge success to get to merge single fictional elements into a list, a resulting nn list is really not that much of a concern to me. Yes, ultimately, FICT should address the appropriateness of lists without established notability, but consensus and practise are simply not there yet. That's also not to say that you can't merge a nn list into a parent article simply through discussion, without backup from FICT. Let's re-address this issue in six months or a year, and maybe consensus in practise makes the FICT adjustment much easier than now. – sgeureka t•c 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * in response to the initial question (whether it contains the mistake I gtuessed at or not), I would dispute that anything meeting those three criteria could be unencyclopaedic. SamBC(talk) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the first instance, does List of Mandalorians qualify as a List of Characters under FTAPOALT or should I choose another example? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too narrow in scope - you need to be looking for List of Characters in X where X is a "highly notable" work. Even if "Mandalorians" were a highly notable topic in itself, it wouldn't qualify because the FTAPOALT section only talks about higly notable works - although it might well meet some other notability criterion.  You may wish to look here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would not the supporters of the List of Mandalorians argue that this list is part of a highly notable over-arching topic, namely Star Wars? After all, Jabba the Hutt is a Good Article about a fictional character from Star Wars, so would it not be worth retaining the List just in case one of the characters should one day reach Good Article status too? I think I am sort of following the rationale for case to preserve the list in keeing with FTAPOALT, but please correct me if I am off the mark in its application.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They might well argue that, but that's not what the guideline says. List of characters in Star Wars would qualify; List of Mandalorians doesn't.  The 'episodes' lists can be broken down by series, but it doesn't say under what circumstances the 'characters' lists can - perhaps it needs to. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved that advice into a footnote and explained why they shouldn't use lists to give undue weight to a less-notable subtopic. Hopefully that makes things clear. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that the List of characters in Star Wars would qualify; List of Mandalorians doesn't, yet both lists are part of a highly notable over-arching topic. How have you made this distinction? --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

elements of fiction
the section just added on Elements of fiction quite properly discussed some external things that do not show notability, but i think accidentally omitted to mention that there are external things that do. I added a few to start out with that I think are not all all controversial--I do not mean to imply there are not additional ones. But perhaps both my paragraph and the one about IMDB etc. belong elsewhere, for neither of them are really about elements of the fiction but external factors. Consider this just a suggestion DGG (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to put in why those are good examples: "Evidence of notability should explain what is special about the topic". Hope that's not controversial either. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are confusing media (books, films, television programmes and games) with fictional elements. The example of IMBD does not apply to ficitonal elements, it applies to films.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. See . Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the section those examples are in refers to elements, not works. Hence my edit. SamBC(talk) 10:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rowling
I've not seen any mention of this lawsuit here. This seems to be the only substantive reason why we should constrain coverage of fiction here. But the suit has not been settled. Should we perhaps wait to see how it turns out? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any article that remotely approached legally actionable status would already have long since violated policy, so that's immaterial to this discussion. --erachima talk 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the reasons behind restrictions on fiction are based on the idea that we are a real world encyclopedia, and covering the topic of fiction is from the perspective of the real world, and when it has real world context. (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This assertion is often made but I see little rationale for it. When the topic is fictional then the connection to the real world is necessarily weak.  For example, take the case of Mrs. Hudson.  When I search for sources on her, I find and expect to find a paper such as MRS. HUDSON: A LEGEND IN HER OWN LODGING-HOUSE.  This is nicely researched and backed up by sources but is primarily and inevitably about the fictional character and her attributes within the fictional world, not the real world.  The fictional world is based upon the real world and so there are interesting correspondences but it is primarly speculation/make-believe.  This is the type of material that is written on such topics and, in my judgement, this example is a good model.  Dismissing it as fancruft or the like is mere intolerant prejudice which has no basis in scholarship or encyclopaedic principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And not to repeat this too much, but Mike Godwin the WP lawyer was asked about the issue of excessive plot summaries and basically stated that until he or the Foundation says its a legal issue, we should not edit towards that concern. Mind you, it is a valid concern to keep in mind, but anything else that improves the encyclopedia that would potentially hit this issue should still be done until we're told otherwise. --M ASEM  23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See a similar discussion over on WT:WAF. Ursasapien (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what Mike told me on his talk page. He said "From a legal standpoint, I see no reason for contributors to worry about coverage of fictional universes, so long as relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed." I think the last part is the key,  that relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed. That indicates to me we have to observe copyright law and trademark law and any other law. Hiding T 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is he was partly refering to copy-righted images. I know that many fictional universes were hit very hard with WP:NFC early this year. (Off-topic) – sgeureka t•c 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He knew what we were discussing, and we were discussing text. Hiding T 10:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Standing issues?
We seem to have reached a stable point on what concepts the guideline will contain, so as the next, and hopefully next-to-last, step towards getting this page as a recognized guideline, we all need to give the page a look-over with fresh eyes and see if there are any standing issues with the text itself. (After a long discussion like this, everyone has a mental concept of what they think the page says, which may or may not be what it actually does say.)

As an example of what to look for, I personally think the following three questions are probably the most important (I'm sure you will of others as well):


 * 1) Does it express its concepts clearly (especially to newer editors)?
 * 2) Is the current layout sensible?
 * 3) Are any sections redundant to each other?

I'm not going to attempt to limit what type of issues with the text people bring up, but I would appreciate it if we could each make our own comments in this section, and refrain from responding to other people's comments at this point. Not quite RfC style, but a similar principle.

After gathering opinions on this and working out any significant kinks we discover, I believe we will have a good stable draft and be ready to implement the page as a guideline. --erachima talk 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute these assertions: its not stable (over 30 edits yesteraday alone - might be a world record for a guideline), and there are fundamental disagreements about its content on both practical and philosophical levels.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because its 30 edits doesn't mean it's not stable - if they were reverts and re-reverts, that's one thing, but all 30+ edits were all buidling off consensus and editing improvements. However, I would let this simmer for a week before seeking larger consensus; I've been off-on the last 90-hrs so I need to make sure it jives with me as I'm sure others are thinking about it.  If you feel there are fundamental disagreements, I suggest that in this sction or a new section, list what they are so we can have a discussion separately (if possible) for each.  Realize, however, you seem to have an extreme position relative to the current point, and we can see if we can add language to address them, but I don't see the guideline draft moving that far from where it is now for every disagreement you may have. --M ASEM  00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline hasn't shifted significantly with regard to concept since august of last year, when Deckiller's draft was put onto the page. It's stable. And if single individuals who disagreed with a concept were allowed to single-handedly block proposals, WP:NOR wouldn't be policy. Come to think of it, NOR gets a lot more dissent than this page does. --erachima talk 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 30 edits to a proposal is nothing. The fire will cease when we stop feeding it. Hiding T 07:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry gentlemen, but the evidence suggest the contrary: not only is this guideline unstable, but the trend suggests that it is getting worse. The edit pattern show that there have been major shifts since August 2007:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: smaller; width: auto;"

!Month ! style="text-align: center;" |Edits
 * April 2008
 * style="text-align: center;" |86
 * March 2008
 * style="text-align: center;"|74
 * February 2008
 * style="text-align: center;"|89
 * January 2008
 * style="text-align: center;"|24
 * December 2007
 * style="text-align: center;"|47
 * November 2007
 * style="text-align: center;"|24
 * October 2007
 * style="text-align: center;"|20
 * September 2007
 * style="text-align: center;"|27
 * }
 * If anything, the evidence suggests that this guideline is still in the process of being drafted.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We're just suggesting that it's near the end of the process of drafting. SamBC(talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (For anyone who is interested; I don't have a point) Of those 86 edits:
 * 18 were completely uncontroversial (bots, interwiki, page protection, format, typos, style etc.)
 * 15 were extremely minor, like the addition or replacement of a single word or two
 * 8 were from April fool's day, vandalism and their reverts
 * 6 were good faith changes that were immediately reverted, and their reverts
 * and (partly already counted above)
 * 64 were made in the last 3 days of April, after the change concerning the notability of lists
 * – sgeureka t•c 09:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We're just suggesting that it's near the end of the process of drafting. SamBC(talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (For anyone who is interested; I don't have a point) Of those 86 edits:
 * 18 were completely uncontroversial (bots, interwiki, page protection, format, typos, style etc.)
 * 15 were extremely minor, like the addition or replacement of a single word or two
 * 8 were from April fool's day, vandalism and their reverts
 * 6 were good faith changes that were immediately reverted, and their reverts
 * and (partly already counted above)
 * 64 were made in the last 3 days of April, after the change concerning the notability of lists
 * – sgeureka t•c 09:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1000 edits that are nothing but reorganizing and rewording mean nothing vs. 1 edit that completely rewrites the page. No really major changes have been made in 9 months. --erachima talk 09:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute that - Masem's edit that removed the blanket exemption for spinouts was pretty major. But I think it's been very stable since - everyone but Gavin is satisfied that it reflects current best practise; we're just ironing out the little wrinkles now. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And the only reason I made that change was that with the RFC over and discussions on what it meant made it clear that "no with exceptions" to nnlists was acceptable to those that disagreed before and still in line with what was there previously. Everything else was building in concensus from that change. --M ASEM  14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely: Everyone was behind you on that one, with the obvious exception. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gavin, you have finally understood how Wikipedia works. Policies and guidelines are always in a process of being drafted because consensus can change, we are a wiki and that's the way it is. I think the proposal tag makes it even clearer that the page is being drafted. Now, this is all good fun, but isn't really substantive. Do you have issues with any of the wording for which you would like to suggest an alternative wording, or does everyone need to stop feeding? Hiding T 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you agree that the proposed tag should remain for the time being. However, this draft is being changed so quickly it cannot be said to be stable. It is hard not to object to at least part of it some of the time, because of the lack of stability. I will continue to put forward issues that need to be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Topics for fictional works
Can we get this out of the way: The topic of an article on a fictional work includes both the story presented and the medium in which it is presented. We don't have to have a separate article for the book and for the story in the book; we're far better off with one good article than two bizzarre ones. So, coverage of sales of a book might show that it's notable, as might coverage of contraversial story elements. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That works fine for fictional works themselves, IMO. For fiction elements, it's more complex, but as stated your point makes fairly obvious sense. You get to a bit more of an issue when there's a single story (or set of stories) in multiple media, such as LotR or HP. In such cases, I feel that their are two sensible options:
 * A single article on the stories as a whole, covering all relevant media.
 * A "base" article based on the original form, and separate articles on other media that only detail the story, plot, whatever, in terms of difference to the original (while staying in accordance with other policies and guidelines).
 * However, is that more to do with style, or with notability-related issues? SamBC(talk) 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is more that a matter of style. See the lead of the guideline:
 * For articles about books and films, rather than fictional elements therein, refer to Notability (books) and Notability (films).
 * The topic of an article on a fictional work includes both the story, and fictional elements within it. The media by which it is transmitted have their own specific guidelines. Although these are related in the real-world, in Wikipedia they are treated as seperate as notability cannot be inheritied one from the other. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your suggesting that an article on a (fiction) book or film should not cover the story or the fictional elements depicted therein. Is that what you mean? SamBC(talk) 10:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...easily solved. The specific guidelines can overlap, so I've changed that to "see also". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't overlap. The medium is the not the same as the message. As you know, books and films can be the subject of non-fictional topics, so no presumption of overlap can't be made. If this guideline was about fictional and non-fictional topics, I would agree, but it is not. Please do not change the guideline simply to make it fit in with your mistaken point of view.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes they do. WP:BIO overlaps with WP:PROF, for example.  WP:ORG overlaps with WP:SCH.  WP:TOY overlaps with WP:WEB.  The GNC overlaps all the others.  The medium is the not the same as the message, but one article can cover both.  Isn't it better to have one good article than two bad ones? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The examples you give are real-world topics, where it is possible to physically observe that a subject can be governed by one or more guideline. Fictional elements are not real, but films and books in which they feature are. Fictional elements are not real, and hence they cannot be observed (except, perhaps in your imagination). Since everything that is real can be represented in fiction, you are effectively arguing that WP:FICT overlaps with the notability of everything under the sun. Think it possible that you may be mistaken. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be observed indirectly, both through the fiction itself and the writing about it in analyses and studies. We do not generally write about anything through direct observation (that would be OR), so whether something can be directly observed or not is, frankly, immaterial. SamBC(talk) 10:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, you've ignored my question. The medium is the not the same as the message, but one article can cover both. Isn't it better to have one good article than two bad ones? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a separate point, that I ask you answer separately, are you saying that an article on a book, a novel, say, should not contain any information on the story or elements thereof? SamBC(talk) 10:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course reliable sources can cover more than one topic to provide evidence of notability that meets the requirements WP:FICT, WP:BK and WP:BIO, but sourcing is the subject matter of WP:RS. In matters of notability Percy has asserted that "The topic of an article on a fictional work includes both the story presented and the medium in which it is presented" is not true, since a fictional character may be featured in multiple books and films, but still not be notable in its own right.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't really answered the question... and your final sentence doesn't actually seem to make sense. "The topic of an article on a fictional work includes the story" means that it is appropriate for the article to talk about the story; a fictional character may be in several books and films, and if they aren't in themselves notable they can be covered in the article on any or all of these books of films, as notability doesn't limit content. A while back I suggested that characters common to a number of works be considered notable in order to reduce redundancy, but without that it just means cover them in the articles on the works, and either be redundant or link between them as "see such-and-such" terms. Now please answer the question: should the article on a novel ever discuss the story or elements of therein? SamBC(talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not fully understanding. I think at times the subject of the book transcends the book in which it was initially published: Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Superman.  I'm struggling to think of a time when a storyline transcends from a single work, but sometimes, in serial works, a storyline can transcend the books themselves.  Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Hitch-Hikers, Shakespeare's historical plays, Wagner's Ring cycle, and so on.  There it makes sense to have an overview article of the saga, and each book or section may be split per summary style where sourcing allows.  Does that answer the question? Hiding T 11:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's in line with what both Percy and I are saying; such "sagas" are effectively an exception, and those characters have demonstrable notability outside the original works. SamBC(talk) 11:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is in how you scale that down to the micro level. Especially with serial fiction. Hiding T 11:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * SamBC is confused: Hiding stated that the subject of a book transcends the book in which it was initially published. Sherlock Holmes is notable as a fictional character in his own right as there are reliable secondary sources to demonstrate this. However, not all the books in which he features are notable. That is why the notability of a topic on a fictional work does not include both the story presented and the medium in which it is presented.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused at all, except about how you feel some of your statements make sense; Sherlock Holmes isn't the story of the books, he's one character in them; nor is he a work, so articles on him do not also (per the statement you are disputing) automatically cover every work he has appeared in. However, the statement does say that the article on any work may also cover the story of that work and elements thereof; it only makes that statement in one direction. Nor does the statement say that the notability of a topic on a work of fiction includes the story; it says that the topic of an article on a work of fiction includes the story. Arguing that it shouldn't say something that it doesn't say in the first place is rather redundant. SamBC(talk) 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow at all. Not every part of an article has to be notable; see WP:NNC. But you could have a fictional work that had a notable story without being published in a notable way, or vice-versa: either would be notable topics. While the focus of the articles should be different, we shouldn't exclude the one with the notable story just because stories are stories. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are very confused (no offence intended) about the difference between a fictional element and the medium of transmission. There is no such thing as a fictional work that had a notable story without being published. How would it become notable if it was not transmitted through a medium e.g a book? If no one got to hear about it, how could it then become notable? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not us who are confused. We're not talking about unpublished works, or elements from them.  We're talking about works or elements that became notable, but not as a result of the means of publication.  For example, Lady Chattersley's Lover isn't notable because it's a book: it's notable because it's a racy story.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're refuting something Percy didn't even say! He said "&hellip;notable story without being published in a notable way", not just published. A story may be notable even though no instance of publication of it is. SamBC(talk) 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There and Back Again. --M ASEM 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, quite. That raises a point: we've been saying "fictional works" when we mean "works of fiction" Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Normalising Terminology
Okay, I think it would be good if we agreed to use terminology in the same way. So here's a suggestion, based on my reading of relevant policies and guidelines:


 * Notability means worth of notice. If a topic is sufficiently notable, then it merits an article.  It is used of topics rather than articles, and there is some disagreement as to what the topic of any given article is.  As a shorthand, editors usually use "notable" to mean "sufficiently notable to merit an article" and "non-notable" to mean "insufficiently notable to merit an article". The notability guidelines exist to help determine notability, and it is policy that articles on topics which fail to meet the notability guidelines should be deleted.
 * General Notability Criteria (GNC) refers to the catch-all criterion in WP:N itself, that may indicate the notability of any topic. Failure to fulfil the GNC does not necessarily mean a topic is not notable; subject-specific criteria may be fulfilled instead.
 * Subject-specific criteria are other criteria, established by consensus, that indicate notability of topics within some particular area. Examples may be found in WP:PROF, WP:BK, etc.
 * Spinout means articles that, conceptually at least, started life as a section of another article and have become an article on there own. Other guidelines do not state whether they should be considered part of the original article for any purpose; consensus on whether WP:FICT should hasn't been determined, and no broader consensus on the matter is apparent.

Can we agree to use these terms with those meanings? SamBC(talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; I've made one edit which I hope is OK. Perhaps we should put it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/glossary and transclude it at the top of the page.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Edited it a bit more to combine both meanings... and if there's general agreement, then yes, that's a good idea. SamBC(talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Notability" does not directly mean "meriting an article" (this is a current problem with how the word is tossed around). It means, per WP:N "worthy of notice".  Mind you, if a topic is worthy of notice, it means it likely merits an article, but we need to be careful around this distinction (there's a discussion on WT:N about this aspect of how "notability" has become a bull in a china shop due to how the word is dropped around). --M ASEM  15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If something's worthy of notice, it deserves inclusion; if something isn't worthy of notice, it doesn't. That seems fairly clear.  Nonetheless I've edited and expanded the definition above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This philosophy is a large part of the problem. This is not how Wikipedia works.  Notability is one way that we demonstrate the need to include a particular topic.  However, we include a topic if we, as a community, decide the topic needs to be included.  This, unfortunately, is a lot more work than 1=on (include), 0=off (do not include).  Ursasapien (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "we include a topic if we, as a community, decide the topic needs to be included" - yes, I agree. But "needs to be included" and "is notable" are one and the same.  Notability is not coverage, and coverage is not notability.  Notability is, as Masem says, worth of notice; and if something is worthy of notice it needs to be included, and if it isn't worthy of notice it doesn't.  What you said is exactly the same as "we include a topic if we, as a community, decide the topic is notable".  There are a lot of cases where it's unclear whether something is worthy of notice, so you're right that it's a lot of work; that's why we need notability guidelines to help us to work out what needs to be included. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)To me, we can use notability guidelines to describe the best ways we have found to determine if a topic is worthy of note. Perhaps they have the secondary function of detailing ways we found to demonstrate the notabililty of particular topics.  Of course, I always err on the side of inclusion. ;) YMMV.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are still the same thing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Not in reply to anyone in particular) "Needs to be included" also does not equal "needs to get an article". The Flux capacitor is notable and needs to be included in the encyclopedia, but it can as well be covered in the article De Lorean time machine (which was also the result of a merger in 2007). Now, FICT should neither say that the Flux capacitor must get an article, nor that it must not ever get an article. So even though FICT is a notability guideline, its job is to say when a separate article would be appropriate, which is "it depends on the real-world content (i.e. demonstrated notability) in the article". Too bad that the workload that it required to demonstrate notability (i.e. the burden of evidence) is often rejected by the people who most want the separate articles. – sgeureka t•c 09:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, notability is something that topics have to varying degrees. The topics "Back to the future" and "Flux capacitor" are both notable to an extent, but only "Back to the Future" is notable enough to deserve an article.  More generally, that's why some spinouts deserve articles, but some don't; and why notability isn't generally inherited - because each spinout decreases the extent to which the topic in question is notable, and it quickly crosses below the threshold at which an article would be merited. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad some people would rather spend their time and energy arguing, rather than doing the work to demonstrate notability. I understand that some articles are beyond repair, but I have seen a huge emphasis on trimming and not much on sourcing.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's due in part to the difficulty or sourcing, and in part to the ease of creating new articles without sources: If we didn't delete the trivial stuff that gets created every day, there'd be too much there to even start sourcing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has little to do with "the trivial stuff that gets created every day." Many of the individual episode/character articles are greater than one year old.  I felt we had a good compromise.  List of episode/character articles to properly cover topics with complicated plots were allowed, avoiding individual articles on every episode/character in fiction.  However, even this compromise is too permissive for a vocal minority.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it has everything to do with "the trivial stuff that gets created every day." The reason I came to this debate was that two users had started pointing to the spinouts section here in AFDs in order to justify keeping articles on exactly that sort of trivial detail I describe - and in some cases the closing admins were persuaded by them.  The old, pre-exemption guidelines were working well; but the new guidelines are not just too permissive, they're 100% permissive.  Even Gavin, who I hope won't mind me saying is probably the most overtly deletionist editor taking part here, supports the old guidelines.  The problem is that while the moderates were elsewhere, a small number of misguided and/or overly inclusionist editors managed to overwrite the perfectly good guidelines that we had with ones that completely undermine notablity concerns for all articles.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And, of course, I see the exact opposite. The moderate editors were here, diligently hammering out a compromise that would avoid WWIII or at least (RFA Characters and Episodes III). [break]
 * How many editors are here? Ten?  Twenty?  How many take part in AFDs?  A hundred?  A thousand?  It can't be the case that the small number of editors here represent a moderate consensus if they're creating guidelines that are massively out of whack with the results of the AFDs that the larger number take part in.  It's has neither moderation, nor consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what AfDs you are talking about, but perhaps it was okay for the articles to remain. [break]
 * No, it wasn't. They were the purest sort of cruft, and the AFDs were overturned in DRV once it was pointed out to the closing admins that they'd applied a disputed guideline.  That extra overhead was created by the guideline that had been "hammered out" by a small number of editors who had consensus among themselves, but what they created didn't represent consensus in the wiki at large. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe they will be deleted later. [break]
 * Some were deleted, some were changed to "no consensus" results. In each case, the DRV process could have been avoided and an outcome that met consensus could have been reached far earlier if the guidelines had just been left alone. 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, the most overtly deletionist editor since TTN, wants to return to some mystical previous version of this guideline. This is a sign that we are headed in the wrong direction, back toward conflict, edit warring, and another arbitration.  [break]
 * While I have my difficulties with Gavin, I wouldn't say he's automatically wrong about everything. The current guidelines are consensus-free and harmful; the earlier ones are less harmful, so they would be a good thing to put up while we try to find consensus for a new version. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Sgeureka would not be having as much difficulty if the moderate form of this guideline had consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is they had widespread consensus, but not acceptance by the cabal of misguided and/or inclusionist editors who created the current, disastrously-worded guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. [break]
 * I do my best to. I don't mean to say that the editors didn't think they were doing it for the best.  Most of them seemed surprised at first to learn that their opinions didn't represent those outside this small discussion, and it was never their intention to cause the disastrous loophole to come into existence.  With "disastrous"  I'm criticising the edits, not the editors.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Understand that the previous guideline (probably the one that existed here about this time last year) was heavily contested by both sides of the issue, and thus became disputed, and thus forced use to have to reconsider what FICT needed to state. I've explained the history to Gavin, but I will say again that before you and he joined this conversation, we were a few weeks away from putting FICT up to test for global consensus, fully recognizing that those that actively participated were a small number; [break]
 * Yes, you've said that before. What happened was that the guidelines are so bad that the rest of the wiki didn't wait for you to come to them.  The guidelines would have been slashed to pieces at RFC.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * we knew full well that we needed to canvas all major boards for policy/guideline announcements to get that input (notice the template that is at the top of the page, I believe created by Ned Scott, that carries over to most other fiction-related policy/guideline and fiction-based project pages). I now know you and Gavin are both here because you found some article(s) where FICT was being used as a shield to prevent any discussion on improving it or against deletion, and to that, it would have been more helpful to say what those were, so that we could either discussion if there was any merit to that, or if the guideline was being applied poorly and needed rewording.  (However, I will point out you will never stop someone from wikilawywering any policy to death, so we must always expect cases like that).  That's why we have a fiction-related noticeboard to help dispute resolution for fictional topics, and from which we can gain understanding of cases that we likely had not considered and how to improve FICT from that.
 * I state again, for me, I'd love to see all non-notable fiction content removed and pushed to a wiki. I fully recognize, however, that WP cannot turn on that dime to make that change without disasterous results, whether it be a significant drop in editors, large number of retailitory vandal-like attacks from disenfranchised editors, and the like. [break]
 * I agree; but equally we can't turn the other way by allowing vastly more articles than are currently kept. The spinouts section does so, and would do so even if the loophole were somehow removed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Before we can even talk about turning on that dime, or even begin to make a wide turn towards that, we need to make sure we know what path we are on now, and that's why I am arguing against the well-intended suggestions if only to go to the version we had that we were ready to pose to the world for consensus. The worst that would happen is we'd be back at the drawing board but with a bunch of comments in hand to make the appropriate corrections to match what WP's current course is in handling of works of fiction.  Only until we understand the course by gaining global input towards consensus can we then talk about how to correct it better. [break]
 * I think some of us are coming to realise that going back to the drawing board is the only way to go forwards. What we have now has no consensus support at all, and its presence, even as a proposed or disputed guideline, is actively harmful. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To say this is "misguided" and "disastrous" I strongly disagree because we spent months arguing points back and forth to find what is presently the best midway point that reflects current practice (particularly the fate of articles during AFD processes), even if all policies are not 100% met (though arguably, it is more a matter that other policies need to be updated further to meet practice). --M ASEM 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By "misguided" I mean that the editors thought, in good faith, that they had consensus support when they didn't. By "disastrous" I mean that the spinouts section allows all possible articles. I didn't mean to insult; as conversations wind on words tend to get stronger, and I'm sorry if anyone feels those are too strong. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added stuff at /glossary and included it above; someone with the know-how may want to make it a pretty box. SamBC(talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)