Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 32

New MOS for TV
Just an announcement. The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Version

 * Comment I have also now read through the new wording and I like the current version a lot. It maintains a strong injunction against in-universe material strong injunction against excessive in-universe material unbalanced by real-world content, places the right emphasis on requiring notability (and not simply a weak verifiability standard) and retains the need to demonstrate real-world significance for fictional material. At the same time, the LOE and LOC provisions offer good balance to those local groups of editors who are more interested in plot summary, trivia and in-universe material. Finally, I would note that in conjunction with the recently strengthened wording concerning global consensus at WP:CON & the renewal of the injunction against mere plot summary at WP:NOT, there is an effective convergence of policy & guideline that should allow for a significant increase in the standards of Wikipedia's coverage of fictional topics. I think many editors deserve a lot of credit for what I see as fundamentally a success, but I hope no-one is offended if I single out Masem for his outstanding patience and hard work, especially in the face of so much divergence of opinion. Eusebeus (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for highlighting where the real disagreement is. I think that what we should have, what is appropriate for an encyclopedia like this one, (in addition to coverage of publication & reception & criticism), is reasonably detailed coverage of in-universe material. What people come here is for this, at least as much as the publication details--to understand what a story is about, or what a game is: What the characters are, what people mean when the refer to them. What happened in an episode they missed. What the peculiar-sounding elements of background people talk about on the web are. This is the place I actually learned what some soaps are about--perhaps I wish I hadn't, but my distaste for the genre is at now an informed distaste. Informing the ignorant is the purpose of Wikipedia.  NOT PLOT says that plot should only be part of the overage, and all of us agree about that.  It does not say it shouldn't be the major part. If it did, it would not have consensus. I too admire Masems attempt to deal with the issue, but if it can be interpreted the way you interpret it, either he did not reach an acceptable compromise, or you totally misunderstand it. DGG (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do disagree with Eusebeus's interpretation, but I'm not sure how one would clarify it in the guideline without upsetting other people. At the moment, policies seem to carefully say that there should be "a balance" without saying what the balance should be, and I get the feelings that this is because there'd be significant numbers who'd disagree with anything specific. Maybe that's a problem, but I don't see as how it gets solved. SamBC(talk) 14:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely true that PLOT does not state anything about balance beyond that some have to be covers, and does suggest plots should be concise, but that's why WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE are cited - one aspect of a topic should not be covered in significantly more detail than other aspects. The level of detail that many would write articles on fiction want to go into generally is in great excess of what the real-world aspects are for it.  Mind you, I don't think we even want to try to set hard numbers or ratios on what content vs context we should aim for or the like, but there are obvious cases where the imbalance is there.  Since it is generally harder and more time consumer to locate information on a work's context, that's why the focus tends to be on limiting the coverage of a work's content more.  Plus, it is important to note that within the encyclopedia we can't cover certain things in some ways because of its goals and policies, but that's why places like Wikia and others should be used and should be encouraged to be linked into WP, not necessarily being a completely transparent line for the end user, but giving a place where someone more interested in the work can look too. --M ASEM  15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have a sister project like wiktionary instead of having to rely on ad supported wikis? I'm sure this has been discussed and rejected, anyone know where? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where those discussions have been. I suspect that one of the major problems would be funding. I can understand why people feel inclined to contribute money towards an encyclopedia, but can't imagine that many people would feel inclined to contribute to a television trivia guide.Kww (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MASEM, then, let us explicitly say that we are not specifying the balance, and that depending on the topic, the fictional elements may be either a small or a large part of the coverage.  DGG (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PLOT may not say it, but as FICT is the combination of NOTE, PLOT, and the other core policies, including NPOV/UNDUE, it needs to be stated here. Coverage of fictional works cannot be heavily weighted on the coverage of the works' content. --M ASEM  19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add my agreement to this sentiment here, and incidentally reply to DGG's objection above by noting my inaccuracy in suggesting this advocated an injunction against in-universe detail; rather such detail needs be balanced by consideration Masem notes above. That said, I understand that DGG and I are going to disagree based on very different wikiphilosophies. This guideline, however, strikes me as an excellent balance and I believe the gist of my remarks - the sloppiness of my initial wording now amended - is an accurate reflexion of its intent. Eusebeus (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm half-playing devil's advocate here, but that doesn't actually follow logically; what evidence, from policy and other guidelines, is there that "coverage of fictional works cannot be heavily weighted on the coverage of the works' content"? SamBC(talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant section from WP:UNDUE is Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Since we can easily classify the content and the context of a fictional work as two different aspects, we should try to balance the amount of material given to each. --M ASEM  21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and nobody disagrees with that. What Sam and I are trying to say, is that the proper balance will vary, and will usually be very much more on he side of plot and characters than has been the statement in the guideline so far--a widely ignored guideline, as we all know--the extent to which it has been ignored is perhaps what shows the true consensus. We shouldn't give undue weight to the "real-world" content about the production and distribution. We should give it due weight, as the framework and setting for what usually is the important parts. sometimes, of course, the production and so forth, and especially the subsequent fate in criticism and popular culture, will be the important part--I can think of a number of films where the production was more dramatic than the story, & much more discussed. We all agree we want balance, but we disagree where it lies. so lets just say what we agree, instead of pretending we don't. I have no way of forcing my views on Eusebeus, and no great likelihood of convincing him, and he likewise of me--I agree with him about that much at least! So  since we must work together here, we have to let the matters disagreement remain unspecified by the rules, for we have no other way of making rules except by agreement. But there's something else I know that he, and I, and all of us here agree on: what coverage we do have of each of the various elements should be well written, both appropriately  concise, and sufficiently informative, and above all, clear.  We can all work towards that. DGG (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which almost brings this back full circle - what I've been trying to do is get this to a point where fictional elements aren't prevented from being discussed, but at the same time, keeping a sense of encyclopedic treatment to these. Exactly the amount where they lie is impossible to agree on right now.  We should not be trying to force an exact limitation or allowance for treatment (being a guideline) but if we hit a point where some articles may exceed a bit too much, allowing for a bit of lenancy to this, is exactly the middle ground we should be aiming to it, and make sure that while it may not be the 100% solution both sides are looking for, hopeful people recognize that from this point we can go forward.  I noticed User:Hiding has opened a centralized discussion on plot summaries, and this discussion will helpfully point if there's sufficient global consensus to decide ratios of content vs context and the like, or if for now it's still rather large margin. --M ASEM  03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we want to wait for that, or do we want to try to get something written here now and put it forward, subject to amendment per any central discussion on plot coverage? If the latter, we need to find a reasonable way of phrasing this. I do feel that fictional-division lists should be discouraged, in favour of categorisation of the redirects, but not outright banned; Mandelorians shouldn't be a list, but Jedi makes sense as a list. It's hard to express how to say this, but I feel that was the intent of the old phrasing; it just came out too proscriptive. However, the DGG text is too permissive, and can easily be read as "make whichever list(s) you feel like", which is admirable in intent, but "do whatever you feel like" doesn't usually serve us well in practice (hence a number of our guidelines and policies). SamBC(talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You summarized my feelings on this matter very nicely. I don't have any solutions either but to keep the wording short and vague, although I actually considered the examples quite good. – sgeureka t•c 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a matter of wording choices here, coupled with the fact we want to see how this one sits and should expect that it may need fine tuning. "Editors are encouraged to keep such lists grouped by an out-of-universe affiliation (list examples), though grouping by a in-universe association is generally acceptable for notable fictional concepts (list good and bad examples)."  Not too descriptive, but still guiding editors towards a level of quality (though not demanding of it either - other editors can help see better groupings if at all possible). --M ASEM  13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think they were to permissive; I've replaced "appropriate" with "highly notable" as a compromise: it includes the sensible examples I can think of, and this way an editor can check whether a list is appropriate before they start an AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you have "highly notable" lists, if you have already stated that the list is comprised of fictional elements for which there is consensus that the elements themselves are of unproven notability"? This choice of wording brings into the open what I have said all along: exempting lists from GNC is the wrong way to deal with ficitonal elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, it's not "highly notable lists", it's listing by "highly notable fictional aspects", and of course Jedi is the good example of this. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Jedi does not cite any reliable secondary sources. We can presume they are notable, but on what evidence can you claim it they are "highly" notable? I think you will find that most fictional elements have little in the way of evidence to show they are notable outside their primary source, but this is a side issue and I digress. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "highly notable" this time, especially with that definition. What about "clearly notable", and maybe a new footnote to explain this. What I mean by "clearly notable" is that it should comfortably meet notability requirements. Plus, as DGG points out, there are situations where the most natural, appropriate, useful division is in-universe and not notable; that then doesn't necessarily have to give weigth to that in-universe aspect, just a matter of arranging things most usefully for readers. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree. Each step away from the parent topic reduces the notability; unless the parent is highly notable it will reduce it below the threshold at which the subtopic merits an article.  Giving a second article to a subtopic that doesn't merit it is giving it undue weight.  If describing all the characters in or episodes of a fictional work would give undue weight to a subtopic, then it's inappropriate to describe all those elements, and the best thing to do for the benefit of the reader is to describe only the more important elements.  I'm still not 100% convinced that splits should be covered by FEAPOALT at all, and it certainly shouldn't allow unduly-weighted lists.  The current wording is a compromise that describes current best practise; we shouldn't pull it away from that by giving style advice that really only applies when several lists are notable on their own terms.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's the thing; presumbly, you'd say that a "list of Jedi" would be okay due to the notability of the concept of "Jedi"; in that case, the list is directly reasonable. Perhaps FEAPOALT should make clear that lists may be justified otherwise as well. SamBC(talk) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be a bit uneasy saying that in so many words, what with WP:NOTINHERITED and all, but I'd definitely say that the reason that a list of Jedi was OK where a list of Mandalorians wasn't, was that Jedi were more notable than Mandalorians. I'd definitely support explaining that FEAPOALT isn't the only notability criterion for lists. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just fine, as long as it's clear that it's not the only one in the sense that there are alternative qualifications as well as/rather than additional restrictions. SamBC(talk) 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...all this is assuming that Jedi are "highly notable", of course. Looking at it, we'd probably have to merge the Jedi Census article in to get it up to that standard. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jedi was just by way of example, although I suspect the reason that there's no decent evidence of notability on Jedi is largely because contributors couldn't imagine anyone challenging that notability. SamBC(talk) 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but the evidence is just not there. You may recall that the only Featured Article for a Star Wars character was Jabba the Hutt, which suprised me. I was also suprised to discover that amoungst the characters from Lord of the Rings, only the article for Gandalf actually cited reliable secondary sources. I take this to be evidence that it is actually very hard to find evidence that a fictional character has notability outside the primary source from which they are derived, in fact I would say it is very rare relative to the number of fictional characters that are listed on Wikipedia. I am not sure that this has been taken into account. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of notability doesn't mean the topic isn't notable
(outdent) WP:N also says (along the lines of) "just because an article doesn't give evidence of notability doesn't mean the topic isn't notable"; I think it specifically says "secondary sources" rather than evidence of notability. We're supposed to use common sense, none of our policies, let alone guidelines, are rules to slavishly follow, nor for that matter does anything say that "articles failing to meet notability guidelines must be deleted"; WP:DP just says they may be deleted, not must. Further, I've generally seen it accepted that pervasive concepts (like Jedi) are notable without evidence, but if you want evidence, there's plenty of academic studies on the topic (not on specific works). I've already found "Jedi and jungian forces" and "A New Hope: Jedi Knights, Cyborgs and Other Educational Fantasies". However, there has not been a general requirement for people to "prove" notability on demand for such subjects, and wikipedia will be in a (very) sorry state if there ever is. SamBC(talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're looking for other highly highly notable examples, it seems like the Harry Potter editors got their act together - almost all of their character lists seem to reasonably meet the notability guidelines. Hogwarts and Hogwarts staff is an example where the concept and the character list are separate, whereas Death Eater contains both the concept and the character list. There is also a Supporting Harry Potter characters list, and the most significant characters have their own article (e.g. Severus Snape), all of them with a reasonably claim and demonstration of notability. If we want to give good guidance on how this should be done, maybe we should stop using Star Wars and use Harry Potter instead. – sgeureka t•c 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)While I think the SW stuff is better for examples in a conceptual sense, you are right that the HP articles seem to give better practical examples. SamBC(talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Your arguments in favour of this approach can be countered: the "osmosis of notability" goes against WP:NOTINHERITED, and large quantities of primary sources have never been accepted as evidence of notability, although they might be evidence of popularity. What this guideline is not getting to grips with, or is deliberately avoiding, is the need to distinguish between fictional elements of proven notability, and those of unproven notability. I think the reluctance to deal with elements with unproven notability is based on the fear that they will be deleted, but as this is just not the case; as was pointed out in a an earlier discussion, AfD protects articles from deletion if there is local consensus to do so. However, once it is recognised that an article on a popular character does not provide evidence of notability (even if the subject will do so in the future), then there is no shame in tagging for cleanup (to encource sources to be added), or merged into another article pending the day that sources will be found. The fact that there may exist articles on notable fictional characters without reliable secondary sources is not a reason to water down WP:FICT, which in my view is the situation we are in now. Lack of evidence may only be a timing issue: if the character is truely notable, then sources will be provided at some point in the future. This is why I have been arguing that underlying premise behind the section FEAPOLT is fundamentally in error: simply by creating a second class of list of fictional elements will not postpone the day until those individual elements are evidenced as notable, merged to provide context with articles that are, or deleted if consensus wishes it. I think the idea behind the creation of FEAPOLT is that it would serve as some sort of refuge for notable characters of unproven notability. However it is no such refuge, as the process of improvement, merger or deletion will continue regardless of what FEAPOLT says. I think this section is really an attempt to deny or postpone the overarching primacy of GNC over fictional elements. In my view, this section should be removed, and then we can get down to dealing with what should be the real concern of WP:FICT: identifying notable elements from non-notable elements instead of avoiding the issue of distinguishing between the two.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure the Harry Potter articles do have much in the way of reliable sources that actually demonstrate notability of those characters per se. Most of the citations are at best classed as Questionable sources; they quote content from fan sites (jkrowling.com), or quote the author directly, but most are actually citing discussions or reviews of the books and films, rather than the characters themselves, who are dealt with indirectly, or who are mentioned just in passing. I have seen two similar articles that had been classed as Good Articles, Goldmoon and Riverwind, but despite over a dozen citations in each article (mainly from the books in which they feature or intereviews with the author), neither article provides a single ounce of evidence to suggest that either character has stand-alone notability. Again, I must warn you: there are few articles about fictional characters that cite reliable secondary sources about there subject matter. I think suggesting that there is a distinction between notable and highly notable fictional subtopics is misleading; notable subtopics are so rare as to be actually exceptional. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Intuitively speaking, I think there are a great number of notable fictional elements and topics, which it to say, topics worth of notice. Because you do not find them worthy of notice does not mean they are not. Nor does failing to meet the GNC. However, even with the use of the GNC as the (apparently) only acceptable standard to apply to fictional elements, everyone except you seems to feel that there are plenty of elements that are notable. SamBC(talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am not making myself clear: I am not saying these characters are not notable. What I am saying is that there are very few fictional characters (or any other type of fictional element) on Wikipedia with proven notability, because finding reliable sources about a specific element (as opposed to the book or film it is in) is difficult. There are exceptions we have discussed before (e.g. James Bond or Tintin), but these fictional elements seem to be very exceptional, and fall into a tiny minority of articles on fictional characters that cite more than 3 reliable secondary sources. My guess is that of all of the articles about individual fictional elements in Wikipedia, less than 10% of television episodes are of proven notablity outside of their series, of fictional characters with their own article I would guess that less than 5% are of proven notability, while for all other fictional elements (such as characters in lists) I would say that less than 1% of can show any evidence notability at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I think we need to review the burden of proof. When a character like The Terminator (arguably the most reused moniker in moviedom) can't prove their notibility then we need to revisit what we are expecting in the way of proof. Padillah (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, that is what some of us have been saying for a long time. That is why 95% and 99% of those things need to be removed: no evidence of notability. No one needs to have a whole book written about them, but the character needs to at least be independently discussed. It's a shame that when it happens, it doesn't seem to be noticed. Take Pointy haired boss, for example: I know that I've read business management texts and articles that made explicit reference to him, which means that he has achieved independent notability. Not a sign of that in the article, though.Kww (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why they shouldn't necessarily be removed, certainly not post-haste. There's no need for every element in a list to demonstrate notability, and if there's a case where editors generally accept that something is notable, then that is sufficient. A demonstration or evidence may be an improvement, although it may sometimes be very awkward to add and still maintain decent prose. SamBC(talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon, few are that supine Sam! Retention should be based on whether real-world notability can reasonably be expected to be asserted. A fancrufty article about the Terminator character (cited above as an example) may make no mention of its cultural impact, but that is a fault with the article. By contrast, with many fictional characters, it will be reasonable that such a requirement remain unfulfilled according to any reasonable consideration. Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You've completely lost me, Sam ... a 95% failure rate at establishing notability is an argument for retention? Kww (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument for retention is there is a difference between meeting the GNC standard of presumed notability and establishing notability. WP's article on a species of plant or animal may not contain citations of significant coverage in reliable sources, but that does not mean the topic is not notable.  We MUST establish other criteria to determine what topics are notable and need their own article.  It seems like many editors have an anti-fiction bias.  We should have significant coverage of all notable fiction-related topics.  To Eusebeus: I am not sure that there is not a determined corps of editors dedicated to the irradication of all articles on elements of fiction.  If they get rid of Bulbasaur today, they will move to get rid of Superman tomorrow, and then our project will be incomplete and fall into disrepute.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a world of difference between Superman and Bulbasaur. Superman has coverage in hundreds of sources. Bulbasaur does not (in fact, so far as I've been able to determine, he got a single passing mention in Time magazine ... that's it). Pokemon is a notable phenomenon, and deserves coverage ... it is also mentioned in hundreds of sources. The existence of Bulbasaur is a detail, worthy of mention in the Pokemon article, but not much more.Kww (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if the Terminator article is crufty, that's a reason to fix it, not delete it. I have trouble AGFing if anyone suggests that the Terminator isn't notable, unless that person slavishly follows notability guidelines without applying a little common sense, in which case they may well be acting in good faith, but aren't working to the benefit of the project or in any way that makes sense. I mean, c'mon, the character (as well as the film and story) are a stock feature of university courses! It was one of a batch of movies (a worrying number with the Governor of California in) that my mother waxed lyrical about the postmodernism of when she was last doing an MA, and the academics talk specifically about the character. Would the article be better with information and discussion of that in? Sure it would. Is it not worth having without it? That's crazy talk. SamBC(talk) 09:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Terminator (character) is of unproven notability, so too is the Terminator (character concept) and the Terminator (franchise). Without the notability guidelines, how do you distinguish which article is worth keeping? I can't take Sambc statement at face value: what is needed is evidence of notability for this and most other articles about fictional characters on Wikipedia. Its easy to establish the notability of the The Terminator (film), but not so the character himself. In my view, unless WP:FICT stays close to the principals of GNC, it is sure to flounder.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters there's no requirement to prove notability in any case; otherwise how could the GNC talk about a presumption of notability? Secondly, notability is not defined by our guidelines, they simply give guidance in evaluating notability, and are generally acknowledged as incomplete. Of course, I can understand your attitude, given as you've refused to acknowledge (or deny) the value in including articles on any fictional concept, character, etc. SamBC(talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, the Eastern Lowland Gorilla is of "unproven notability", however we know the species deserves an article. The Terminator (character) and the Terminator (character concept) may not currently have the references, but we can make a reasonable assumption that the references exist.  See Eusuebeus, there are those that are that supine.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin, per the current wording of FICT, you are free to open a merge proposal of Terminator (character). This proposal will then either be shot down per local consensus (you can seek dispute resolution then), or someone will source/add a couple of paragraphs of real-world information, or the page gets merged. The first option will in the end lead to one of the latter two options. FICT would therefore work. – sgeureka t•c 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Terminator articles will eventually be merged into the topic which provides the most evidence of notability, but if none of them can, then my view is that a third option (merger with the over arching topic, the Terminator (film)) is more appropriate. I make no judgement to what the outcome of these articles will be, but providing them with an exemption from GNC in the section FEAPOALT is a bad idea, because it presumes notability for all of these articles is inherited from the over arching topic. However, for most fictional elements, the evidence shows that this presumption is based on wishful thinking, as the notability for the great majority of fictional elements is unproven.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FEAPOALT doesn't currently give any such exemption that I can see, so there's no problem. SamBC(talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So by way of illustration, which one of the three Terminator articles passes WP:FICT and which ones fail?--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Terminator would pass WP:NOTFILM, so FICT is irrelevant. Franchise articles like Terminator (franchise) are becoming more and more in use on wikipedia, and they serve to discuss recurring elements. Terminator (character) argues its content with an in-universe perspective and therefore doesn't really pass FICT currently, but I have no doubt that it could pass FICT like Clover (creature) does. Terminator (character concept) should be merged into either the franchise article or the character article, which is an editorial decision. – sgeureka t•c 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the above discussion illustrates my point--some of the arguments are clearly aimed at trying to find how few articles are necessary to cover a work of fiction. I do not think that view of how articles should be written has consensus at Wikipedia in any context, fiction or otherwise. We should write the number of articles that is necessary to adequately cover the topic, and how to interpret that is up to us. We make the guidelines. I point out that there is no agreement that the  general notability guideline is controlling over the consensus on a particular topic--see the discussions there. The current wording, taken literally, can be seen to imply almost anything in terms of the relationship between general notability and the specific guidelines. DGG (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See, just about the only thing most people here agree on seems to be that there are some topics (in fiction) which have more articles than would be optimal (or appropriate, if you choose to look at it like that). Quite a few such topics and articles, in fact. Trying to get a consensus guideline on what sort of coverage things should have stops us having so many discussions, or at least shortens them and gives them common terms of reference. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go down that rabbit trail here because we need to baseline FICT first, but I would argue that there are certain fiction areas that while widely notable throughout (Star Trek, Star Wars, Simpsons, and others like that), there's an imbalance in the number of articles they really merit simply due to the fact that they don't have to worry about showing notability because it clearly exists throughout the works and fictional elements. However, just because a topic is notable does not mean it needs to have its own article, and this is where (more in WAF than here) just considering the best encyclopedic approach to such works needs to be considered.  However, these are more exceptional cases to the general problem of fictional works, so I'm not as worried about it just yet. --M ASEM  23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad to concur with Masem in his view that the general importance of the fiction itself is a significant factor in the advisability and tenability of articles on the specific aspects. But I do think they're not just for exceptional cases, I think they're the basis of the distinctions that need to be made. DGG (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more with Masem. The statement that we "don't have to worry about showing notability because it clearly exists throughout the works and fictional elements" is just not in evidence - very few fictional elements can actually demonstrate any evidence of being notable at all. The exceptional cases are those that do demonstrate notability, as explained earlier: it is very unusual for an article on a fictional element to cite more than 3 reliable secondary sources. In my experience, well over 80-90% of all articles on fictional elements do not cite any real-world content from reliable seconary sources. If you think you can draft a version of WP:FICT that can accomodate all of these elements of unproven notability, it is just not going to work.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying for all works, because I agree for the bulk of fiction, the elements cannot demonstrate notability. However, when we turn to specifically cases like Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Simpsons (and likely a few others), there are volumes written about this works that do make a number of fictional elements notable.  But, this leads to two problems that I don't think we want to try to establish now in FICT (as it significant confuses the matter) but should be a consideration in WAF.  First, there is a osmosis of notability that spreads from highly notable elements to non-notable elements.  If, for example, every bridge member of Star Trek:TOS was shown to be sufficiently notable except for Chekov, Chekov would be bound to have an article anyway, justifying it on the fact that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for Trek info.  The other problem is that things that are just barely notable are given undue attention and while an article may be perfectly fine within policy and guideline for this, there is likely a better way to present the information in a more ordered fashion, merged with other notable elements of the same vein, to make the overall treatment much more encyclopedic.  Again, these are problems isolated to a few specific fictions; the average piece of fiction would not have the amount of material behind it to make these concerns a problem. --M ASEM  13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is, we can't have this guideline just ignore such cases, or it will be used as justification for a claim that such cases aren't notable at all. SamBC(talk) 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FICT would still technically apply to the Chevok article in the example above, so that still makes sense. As for the other case, that's more a writing and style approach than an issue with notability, since as I've suggested, notability's been shown, but it's just a better encyclopedia if the elements were approached in a different fashion. --M ASEM  14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Approaching fictional elements in a different fashion other than via GNC does not make sense in my view: either it is matter of opinion which can be disputed, or there is no test based on evidence than can be applied that distiguishes notable elements from ones that will never have proven notability.
 * Either I'm not clear or there's a misunderstanding, but I completely onboard the fact we don't want "notability by osmosis", but it is something that presently exists for the super-notable works of fiction like Star Trek. FICT lays out what to do with singular topic articles that fail to demonstrate notability: they should be merged along with trimming or transwiking.   However, as we've gone through already, there is support and consensus for limited cases of lists of non-notable elements that are the repository of such merges, which is necessary in the present balance of editors to not disenfranchise anyone. --M ASEM  17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Masem has the balancing point a little wrong, and I would look for a wording like "very important" or even ""very important" rather than exceptional. Myself, I think it should be anything significantly more important than the minimum for fictional notability, but I'm willing to compromise. The attitude of some of the people above that they are not willing to compromise can have only one result, which is the inability to agree on any guideline at all. How they think this will accomplish any rational end escapes me. I would think they'd want anything that provides a agreed basis for decreasing some of the coverage they object to. DGG (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I beg to differ: Notability is not transmitted by osmosis, either from "very important" or even "super-notable" works of fiction, not only because as it is impossible to define these "terms" in any objective manner, but also because this ideat goes against the Wikipedia wide consensus that notability is not inherited. There is no Wikipedia wide consensus for list of non-notable elements to be the norm, as they fail WP:NOT and they do not meet the requirements of GNC, which is widely respected. There might be local consensus for keeping the lists if there is local consensus, but WP:FICT can't cater for every instance of local consensus, not should it try to. By comparison, other guidelines such as WP:CORP don't cater for local consensus - spam is not accepted, even in lists; therefore, why should WP:FICT try to accomodate non-notable characters just because they are in lists? I don't see any evidence that other guidelines make allowance for non-notable topics and I take that to be evidence that WP:FICT is currently following the wrong path. You can pretend that non-notable elements in list receive notability by osmosis for super-notable works of fiction, but in reality they will either be sourced from secondary sources eventually, merged or deleted just like any other non-ficitonal topic on Wikipedia, because GNC takes primacy over all articles and lists without exception - that is the Wikipedia consensus as evidenced by WP:N. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to decrease coverage of fictional elements: I just want WP:FICT to clearly distinguish between a topic that can demonstrate notability and those that do not, so that editors will know that articles like Jedi need to be improved and one day reach the same Featured Article standard as Jabba the Hutt. I don't think WP:FICT should say we are satified with lists of fictional elements that are non-notable, when the rest of Wikipedia is moving towards improving an article or list such that the notability of its subject matter is evidenced in the article itself.I propose that the section FEAPOLT be dropped so that WP:FICT can be brought in line with the rest of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're convincing anyone Gavin or at least not me. Saying that SPAM doesn't cater to local consensus is way different.  People agree on it locally and globally.  Anything that isn't agreed upon locally and globally needs to be looked at, and suitable compromise needs to be found. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any other points that don't convince you and can you say why? With regards to spam, you say that there is local and global consensus that WP:CORP should prohibit it. But what is the difference between spam and an unsourced plot summary or character essay? Is it not true that they are both lacking in reliable secondary sources? I think there are strong parallels between the content of articles of unproven notability of fictional topics and non-ficitional topics. For example, why should WP:FICT have special provisions for non-notable characters when there is no precedent for lists of non-notable companies or non-notable scientific equipment? Please expand on why you think SPAM and lists of fictional characters of unproven notabality are any different. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "When there is no precedent for lists of non-notable companies or non-notable scientific equipment?"
 * Au contraire, my dear Gavin, at least in practice. There are many non-notable lists throughout Wikipedia.  This is what some editors see as anti-fiction bias.  I pointed to an article before on a particular type of gorrila.  This article had almost no citations of reliable secondary sources.  I could point you to thousands of articles on lesser-known species that are in this same sad shape.  Nevertheless, all species are automatically considered notable, flying in the face of the GNC.  I seldom see cries of "original research" on their talk pages either.  I think fiction is held to a different standard than virtually any other subject group on Wikipedia.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that the evidence is against you. WP:NOT effectively proscribe list of non-notable items, such as exhaustive lists of non-notable species, on the grounds that fail WP:DICDEF and effectively fall within the scope of other projects such as Wikispecies.If the Eastern Lowland Gorilla is of unproven notability, then I would suggest a cleanup tag will be added to the article until reliable secondary sources have been added; additional sources would not be difficult to find, as I believe this creature has been the subject of many important scientific studies. Therefore I don't understand why you would want to add an exemption from GNC to create a class of articles which could easily be sourced in this way at some point in the future. I think you will find that your assertion that "all species are automatically considered notable" is just not true: they are subject to WP:N as well. By contrast, I have noted rationalisation drives of non-notable articles, such as London streets, many of which were presumed to be notable before they were deleted. WP:UKRD has the objective to raise all articles in its remit to B-class quality, and as part of this drive has elimated many non-notable articles. In summary I would say that nowhere on Wikipedia (except WP:FICT) is there a class of article or list that is exempt from GNC, and I think Ursasapien's comments may be misleading, and underestimate the impetus to improve or eliminate article of unproven notability by various Wikiprojects. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:NOT: "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted" (emphasis in original), followed by a pointer to guidance on suitable topics for lists, which does not then require that list elements be individually notable. It does refer back to NOT, somewhat redundantly, but does not imply that NOT be taken to completely exclude any sort of list, merely that it inform the choice of when to make lists and to encourage list-makers to prepare for questions. SamBC(talk) 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say the evidence is against you, Gavin. I suppose we could expend vast amounts of time seeing who could compile a larger list of articles to prove their point, but I think that would be a waste.  There are multiple examples of exceptions to the GNC, both in practice and in guidance.  I think you are being bullheaded in your refusal to acknowledge this.  I am all for improvement of the encyclopedia, I just have a different point of view regarding how to improve it and there is nothing misleading about that.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have to compile a large list of articles, but a review of AfD debates would suggest that lists such as List of masks in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask are being deleted on the basis that they fail WP:NOT. However, if this topic was compliant with GNC, it would almost certainly be kept. I think you will find I am not being bullhead, as I agree that there are many non-notable lists throughout Wikipedia. However where we disagree is that I consider the underlying premise behind the section FEAPOLT is fundamentally in error: simply by creating a class of lists to accomodate non-notable fictional elements will not postpone the day until those individual elements are sourced, merged to provide context with articles that are, or deleted if consensus wishes it. I don't think proving them with an exemption from GNC should be the purpose of WP:FICT, whose objective should be to distinguish between notable and non-notable elements. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we are talking about two different things. The point I am attempting to make is that there are lots of exceptions to the GNC, both in practice (there are many non-notable lists throughout Wikipedia) and in guidance (WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC).  I am not speaking to whether we should make such an exception in this guideline.  All I am saying is it is not unheard of to make subject-specific exceptions.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I gotta side with Ursasapien on this one. We're looking for what works for fiction, what makes things manageable and reasonable. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be exceptions to GNC, such as notability criteria specific to certain media or people, but there are no exepemtions other than the one provide FEAPOLT for non-notable fictional elements. However, where as the notability criteria specific to certain media or people tend to support GNC (for instance, awards tend to suggest that a film has been widely covered by reliable secondary sources), the FEAPOLT expemtion fromGNC runs counter to WP:N. I don't think this section works becuase basically it is going the opposite way from the rest of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Next steps
Talk on here has been rather quiet, as well as both at WT:NOT and Plot summaries so the question to be asked is, are we at a point where what FICT is now is comfortable and agreeable to most? Or are there other discussions that we should wait to have completed before proceeding with the next steps?

My sense is that all that has been said now has been said. There is the issue of awards, but I'm thinking that that might be good to tackle better once we have established a firm global consensus foundation as otherwise we could get bogged down in details. And I expect that others will provide more possible input once we seek further global input.

I want to make sure there are no immediate issues left. I know this isn't the perfect solution for everyone (eg we have Gavin's complaints for one, but there's more than just him, dunno if Nydas is still around as well), but I think that locally we have a reasonable consensus that meets what we expect FICT to provide without imbalancing it one way or another. All that's left to do is to toss it to the masses and see how badly it comes back to us to fix.

(Mind you, this is a good time to wordsmith it, but I don't expect we're adding any major points that need to be added). --M ASEM 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's seek global input now. Most people here have said what they've had to say, and the current draft is an acceptable compromise for most; that's the best we can do for now. – sgeureka t•c 07:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whas the issue of NOT contradicticing FICT figured out? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 07:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * NOT didn't contradict FICT. Consensus was very strong to keep NOT#PLOT in some form, and the following lack of consensus about the wording kept it like it is, so there were no changes other than the creation of WP:Plot summaries, which works fine together with FICT. – sgeureka t•c 08:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, consensus was not "very strong to keep NOT#PLOT in some form." And WP:Plot summaries should be MFD'd soon anyways. --Pixelface (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take the time to note as I did in WP:NOT that I think there is a separation (a subtle one but one nevertheless) between PLOT and FICT, inso much as that FICT helps to support PLOT, but it is more specific as a subset of NOTE. Even if PLOT was removed, NOTE still exists and we need to work within that.  --M ASEM  22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need to work within WP:NOTE. For example, musicians are evaluated with WP:MUSIC, not WP:NOTE. If a musician "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", the musician is considered notable. WP:NOTE doesn't factor into it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those extra provisions exists because by achieving them, there's strong likelihood of secondary sources to exist for the album (or any other case where that occurs), thus it makes sense to allow them to be included and not challenge their notability, though ultimately the articles need to be sourced correctly. People have tried to suggest similar terms for fictional elements but there are none that readily exist where secondary sourcing is highly likely.   --M ASEM  00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Where are you getting that from? So you're saying the Thamserku article needs to "ultimately" contain evidence of notability? What do you mean by "ultimately"? By the time everyone on this talk page is dead? By our deadline? --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious Masem, how many more months will it take until we can slap rejected on this page? --Pixelface (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we take it to RFC as proposed and it is completely rejected by the community, then there's reason to do that. But even if the RFC shows disagreements pending changes, it can be fixed.  We have been instructed to work cooperatively to find some way to make this policies and guidelines work to satisfy most editors, and it is clear from the previous RFC here that some sort of FICT is needed. --M ASEM  22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pixelface, it honestly doesn't seem like you've been trying, at all, to help us with this guideline. While part of your viewpoint is shared by others, your total rejection of these pages and lack of cooperation is not. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ned, the rejected template says "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion." I've been periodically checking this talk page for a while now and in my opinion it appears to be a disaster. So how much longer do we go give this proposal time to form consensus? Because to me, it seems consensus is unlikely to form, and that's even without my participation. I'm willing to participate, but I refuse to accept that a guideline dictating whether fictional topics are "worthy of notice" is anything other than a horrible idea &mdash; especially considering it's based in part on WP:NOT (which I'm sure you already know my opinion on). --Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How much longer? The RFC to decide whether this is acceptable or not (which is currently in favor of this, and thus certainly isn't looking like a rejected more than disputed, if that at all) will end on July 3. --M ASEM 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And you think 7 million editors will have commented by then? Or did you mean something else when you said "global consensus"? How about you apply WP:FICT as it is currently written to several articles, and see if FICT actually *has* consensus? You can start with the articles Luke Skywalker, Lenny Leonard, Baldrick, Cosette, and Andrey Nikolayevich Bolkonsky. Good luck. --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What bothers me is the increasing number of people who are acting like (or actively claiming) that NOTE is a corollary of V; this was certainly not the original intent. Hence NOTE excluding sources that are perfectly acceptable in terms of V (like directories), and V stating the secondary and third-party sources are preferred (strongly preferred), but not necessarily required (at least that's what it said last I checked). And hence there being subject-specific guidelines that give criteria indepedent of the GNG. Verifiability is "what can we say", while notability is "is it worth saying anything, whether we can source it or not". There's plenty of independently verifiable information about every registered company in the UK, certainly, but that doesn't make them notable. An artist could have released two major articles, yet there be little writable about them within V; this justifies the article being a stub because of V, not deleted because of N. However, last time I tried to say this, very reputable editors outright contradicted me, without actually addressing my points of logic and history. I rather think it's getting to the point where I can't be bothered with policy anymore, give the fact we seem to have a collective memory like a mayfly, and in the world of fiction guidelines we have two extremes (statistically speaking) who have a "my way or the highway" attitude. SamBC(talk) 10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Real world
While I'm here, let me mention my perplexity at the constant references to real world in relation to this topic. When we talk of many topics such as philosophy and pure mathematics, we are no longer in the real world but in the world of ideas and abstract concepts. My impression is that this usage is mere prejudice, the philistinism of Mr Gradgrind. But I find that we have no proper article on this notable fictional character and so shall put that right... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have tried "out-of-universe" as an alternative for "real world" but the problem is that that word overlaps with the concept of "in universe" vs "out of universe" style; thus, there's an explanation of what is meant by real-world for the purposes of the guideline. If a better description of what this type of content can be calls simply to remove the possible confusion, great.  --M ASEM  10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Having gotten started on Gradgrind, I find that Hard Times is good reading:

'You are to be in all things regulated and governed,' said the gentleman, 'by fact. We hope to have, before long, a board of fact, composed of commissioners of fact, who will force the people to be a people of fact, and of nothing but fact. You must discard the word Fancy altogether. You have nothing to do with it. You are not to have, in any object of use or ornament, what would be a contradiction in fact. You don't walk upon flowers in fact; you cannot be allowed to walk upon flowers in carpets. You don't find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you cannot be permitted to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery. You never meet with quadrupeds going up and down walls; you must not have quadrupeds represented upon walls. You must use,' said the gentleman, 'for all these purposes, combinations and modifications (in primary colours) of mathematical figures which are susceptible of proof and demonstration. This is the new discovery. This is fact. This is taste.'

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I think my reference to real-world is used in the context of content that is cited in articles. As you know, the holy grail of Wikipedia guidlines is the citation of reliable secondary sources. However, there is a tendancy, when editors are under preasure (such as AfD debates), to game the system by using reliable secondary sources which only make trivial reference of the subject in passing, usually from an in universe perspective. This frequently happens to fictional elements which are often not the primary subject of reivews or academic journals, but which are mentioned in sources about an over arching topic. Say for example I was a big fan of Mr Gradgrind, and I wanted to prove he was independently notable. I would create an article called Mr Gradgrind, and cite quotations which only mentioned him passing, say by indirectly quoting from the primary source, or refer to source, such as an academic journal which discusses the book or the author. By doing this, I could pretend that Mr Gradgrind is notable, when in fact there is no real evidence that he is. However this is mistake: it is not Mr Gradgrind who is being quoted, it is the book Hard Times or the author Charles Dickens. Sometime subjects are dressed up to look as if they are notable, by quoting trivial, passing sources, or quoting portions of reliable secondary sources which quote the primary text. Nice try Colonel Warden! --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Having Pip or Thomas Gradgrind referenced in pop culture, on the Daily Show or the Gilmore Girls or just in passing by the rare bird who actually reads is a perfectly reasonable and plausible event; they are major characters of major literary works in English that tons of people are forced to read in high school and beyond (personally Hard Times is my favorite Dickens), and redirects to the main work essentially offer no practical help to the reader who says "Someone called that guy a "Gradgrind".  I wonder what that metonymy means."  Because all we'd have for that person is the Hard Times article.  The information offered must be proportional to the information sought, if it is to have any value to the seeker.  Sometimes you want to read a book on George Washington and sometimes you want to read an encyclopedia entry.  What a reader doesn't want to do is sift through Great Expectations when all they want to know wtf Pip's deal was.  That there isn't a discrete entry for each of the main characters of GE is ridiculous and acting like we're paper.  There must be a point when our contributors here must stop and ask themselves what it is, exactly, that notability guidelines are for, and why so many people take their obeisance in current form to be an end in itself; the spirit of which is I believe deeply violated by deleting Pip or redirecting it to Great Expectations.  Ford MF (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I point out that we can directly point people to a section of an article or list with redirects, so typing "Gradgrind" in the search box goes right to the character description.
 * But, there is an aspect here in that I would expect that because of the academic coverage of a work like Great Expectations, that its just a matter of finding existing sources for those characters from their academic coverage. Mind you, this may suggest that for works covered in academic sources, characters may be notable. --M ASEM  18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This also suggests that there are no television characters who are notable, as academia hasn't gotten around to TV for things other than, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And I'd say there are far, far more notable television characters than Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and yet Oz enjoys the accident of having been discussed but more than just a few scholarly articles (even if they're not reffed in the article), largely because academics who dig Buffy is kind of a thing.  This doesn't mean Buffy characters are more notable than other recurring television characters, just that academics have a hard on for them.  Ford MF (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And sometimes people claim that such references are "in passing" when they aren't (and sometimes the opposite, I'll agree); a character, element, or whatever doesn't have to be the primary focus of a piece of writing to be a non-trivial subject of it. Oh, and the "LOL" and "nice try" are testing the edges of civility a bit, there. However, more to the point, I think you'll find that Colonel Warden was actually saying that the text in question is relevant to this debate, not indicative of Mr Gradgrind's notability. Oh, and last question, if Gradgrind isn't notable, is, say, Phillip Pirrip (aka Pip)? SamBC(talk) 10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that a review does not have to about the subject matter specifically if it is to provide content that is non-trivial and real world in order to provide evidence of notbility, but I can't recall a single instance of an article "piggybacking" this way. As regards Gradgrind or Pip, I can't prove they are are non-notable, but it is usually damned hard to find evidence that fictional characters such as these (like 90% of fiction elements) are notable as most of the reliable secondary sources will relate to the over-arching work, which is usually the medium (book or film) in which they were presented. Amazingly, even David Copperfield (character) and Uriah Heep (David Copperfield) are articles of unproven notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is generally because the editors couldn't imagine anyone would challenge them on notability. Any study guide to the books (and there are plenty) will have at least a chapter on major characters, with in-depth coverage of these major characters. SamBC(talk) 17:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This example pretty clearly illustrates that AFD or merge discussions should focus on potential for in-depth coverage or whatever the hell the current wording is, not the current state of the article. The article on David Copperfield is in dreadful shape, but could clearly be improved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like Sambc, many people assume that many fictional characters are notable, or will be proven to be so over time, but the evidence is against them at the moment. However, with the availability of internet, and more museums and universities being asked to make their archives available online, maybe messrs. Copperfield, Heap, Pirrip & Gradgrind (sounds like a firm of City Lawyers) may be articles that demonstrate notability in the distant future. However, for characters from less notable works written by less notable authors, the possibility of finding reliable secondary sources is remote. Even for minor characters of major works (like The Gravediggers from Hamlet), the possibility of finding non-trial real-world content is an outside bet. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N defines notability no more specifically than "worthy of note". How then do you assert that these are not notable? The GNG gives one method of determining that something is notable, not the only method, and not a method of determining that something is not notable. Oh, and please don't amend your posts for more than typos after people have replied; I know in this case the changes weren't very substantive, but it's just not polite. SamBC(talk) 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot prove they are not notable. However, there is no evidence that they are.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noting that regardless of whatever method we're using to determine notability, the onus is on those who want its inclusion to demonstrate notability. Trying to prove the opposite is impossible - you can't prove something isn't notable, as it's a negative proof. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is supposed to be a common-sense guideline, not a matter of mathematical or legal proof. When it is suggested that Dickens characters are not notable, we are leaving the real world and going to some other place such as Bizarro world, Topsy-turvy land or the Negative Zone :). Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (No topsy-turvy land article?  Another hole to be filled...)
 * That's because, in that particular case, we can easily enough say "Literary sources most certainly exist which cover and analyze the characters of Charles Dickens in an out-of-universe, in-depth fashion." I would be willing to bet a pretty good sum of money that the preceding statement is true of all major Dickens characters and probably a lot of the less major ones. On the other hand, in terms of some random comic, manga, or TV show, we can't reasonably make such a strong assertion. There might be, but in that case, we need to see them. If there aren't, we're covering in more depth than our sources support, so we need to merge upward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to take a hardass approach for manga and comics, it should be applied equally to Dickens and Shakespeare. There is no get out of guidelines free simply because they're the product of dead old white men. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For once, Kyaa the Catlord and I agree on something. It's much easier to find sources for Dickens characters, so there is no reason to build the stub prior to having them. A root problem is that people create articles in the wrong order ... no one should create a stub and pray for sources, it should be "find the bare minimum of sources, and then create the stub." Kww (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kyaa, the whole point of the guideline is to have one set of rules for all fictional subjects. Manga is hardly being singled out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In text, I agree. In practice... I completely disagree. Manga, anime and television programs are being treated in a manner that is not being done to the characters in Shakespeare's works. There is an observable bias against "modern" pop culture. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bias issue has been brought up before (Look in the archives for Nydas' disagreements for example), and I agree, it is a bias, not only between classic and modern literature, but also between large fan base modern fiction (Star Trek/Wars, etc.) vs any other type of modern literature. However, when we look at WP as a whole, our content is always biased to the volume of reliable independent sources are behind it.  New York City is going to get tons more coverage than, say Hell, Michigan.  This is not to say that a reanalysis of what are considered reliable and/or secondary sources for modern fiction isn't a possibility as to widen what base there is for reliable sources as to reduce this bias, but we do need to be very careful that we don't weaken sourcing requires to make this approach. --M ASEM  18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are sadly mistaken if you believe that our coverage of Shakespeare is somehow a double standard. We've disproven this argument time and time again, and I'm starting to think an FAQ should be created for it. Classic works are not called classic for nothing. Things that Shakespeare did with some of his characters were the building blocks for thousands of characters for hundreds of years. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm saying this, but so what? What you're essentially saying is that we should only cover topics that would warrant a place in the syllabus of a 101-level college course, not based on what people are actually interested in?  Ford MF (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI Monty Python is now entering the academic syllabus in the UK. See The Dirty Fork.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As is Alan Moore in the U.S. That doesn't mean that Monty Python wasn't notable 25 years ago, before uppity adjunct professors thought them worthy of academic mention.  Ford MF (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it just turns into a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I haven’t bothered tagging or AfDing lots of crap articles that don’t meet notability requirements mostly because a bevy of vested interest editors come by and swamp the nom. It’s hardly dependent on what the subject is, although I never have bothered looking up any Shakespeare articles on the wiki… Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Ford) Popularity does not equal notability. Nor are we using college syllabus for our inclusion criteria. I could care less what they teach in college, because the fact is that Shakespeare's characters have large scale real world impact, far more than your average TV character today. That doesn't mean those characters won't inspire and impact just as much as Hamlet or MacBeth, but we can't predict the future. They haven't yet had the same impact, but someday they might have that cumulative impact. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Other crap exists is a great argument when it comes to whether or not to delete an article, however, we need to look at common practice when we create guidelines and policy. What WILL be used in the, forgive me, real world of article creation? Having high aspirations is commendable, but setting up rules that only lead to disappointment is somewhat... silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet the amount of GA and FA articles about fiction are growing at an increasing rate, and the number of extremely detailed plot summaries are decreasing even faster. Common practice is not what you believe it to be. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The latest Doctor Who serial was especially good and so I've been watching the relevant articles such as Silence in the Library which are quite busy. My impression is that the editors working on these articles care little about sourcing and secondary, real-world analysis.  Such analysis does exist, as I saw some good reviews in my morning newspaper.  What the working editors care about most is to record the in-universe aspects of the episode, especially the time-travel "spoilers".  My impression then is that there is still a big disconnect between the editors that work on such articles and the editors that work on guideline pages.  The effort going into this page would be better devoted to project work or the construction of better templates and other devices which prompt for material such as sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's an interesting point you raise. Initiatives to educate editors I think would be more effective and less bitey than creating new sticks with which to bash their contributions out of existence.  Ford MF (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Education is always great, though you are always going to get editors, when they learn about well-established (eg, not FICT in the present state) policy/guidelines they don't like, get all frustrated and potentially harmful (particularly if they learn IAR). However, the other thing to consider is that policies and guidelines should also reflect collected editor wisdom; if every existing WP editor today disappeared tomorrow, the policy and guidelines should continue to allow the work to grow, albeit with a small speed bump, as new editors come on board and review the records of document.  Fewer policies and guidelines are always good, but when something has been a point of contention in the past (and no question fictional articles have been) it makes sense to document how best it was resolved. --M ASEM  14:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And by that you must mean, "how nothing was resolved". Ford MF (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we all disappeared tomorrow unreferenced articles about fiction would continue to proliferate, much as they do now. We're not going anywhere, but I think we need to attempt to judge the opinions of general fiction editors and summarize them in our guidelines if we actually want something that could stand without us, although at this level at least, that has been rejected.  As an aside, someone, somewhere said that your (Masem's) work on FICT may have gone to waste.  I don't think so, it's just that actually enshrining the true consensus on fiction looks like a multi-year process.  Like the arbcom process, attempts at conflict resolution must be made before going to the next step.  It would be great if you could help guide this discussion as it progresses, hopefully to the next level.  I think the current version(s) of this page have pretty accurately described the consensus on what experienced editors such as ourselves (FICT policy wonks basically) think is best: redirect articles to lists (possibly enforced by reverts).  We're starting to see that is only one step in the process, though.  I would like to see this discussion moved up (forcibly if necessary) to the next level.  We can fight about it for a while (1 year? or maybe we're gaining steam?) and then either we attract enough attention to put the issue to bed or we do some sort of watchlist notification like WP:ATT did to basically just take a vote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lesson that I draw from the case of Silence in the Library is that the editors working upon the article do not look for secondary sources because they already have the best possible source fresh in their memory and recorders - the work itself. This is the key point: that in the case of fiction, the work itself is usually definitive.  This logically follows from its fictional nature which is sui generis, since the work is fabricated without any necessity of objective truth.  The only sources which appeal in such cases are those from the author which explain mysterious or undeveloped portions of the story.  Tolkien is the paradigm of this, since he provided abundant background material for his stories.  Critics and deconstructers of the work are of less interest as sources because their comments are secondary and usually just a matter of opinion.  We should not regard commentators upon titans like Tolkien and Dickens to be more important than the authors themselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure an almost equal amount of editors would support articles for local bands that don't have sources, or any number of topics. What editors want isn't as important as Wikipedia's core concepts. Almost any local band can get some mention in a local newspaper about an upcoming performance, and would count as a reliable source to say they existed, but you'll still have a heck of a time making an article about that band without it being brought to AfD.


 * However, for my own self, it isn't about the sources as much as it is about the real-world information. If all the information came from one source, generally I could care less. The main point is that we want something that isn't just a recap of what you see when you read or watch a work of fiction. Trying to replace that experience is not only a fools errand, but a bit insulting to the work itself. What we want is the information you don't know from just experiencing the work and a reasonable recap to put that into perspective (as well as give a fundamental background on the work). -- Ned Scott 06:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)