Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 33

Licensed vs Self-Published
This is something I've been meaning to bring up for a bit in relation to a few things, but does a character's weight in licensed material factor into their notability? To better give an example, anime based off Capcom material (for the most part) with their hand not directly in the production of said material, or even better as far as Capcom goes, the live action movie. Capcom themselves didn't publish these and only allows their properties to be used in them, so do they count outside of the material of self-published material in terms of showing a character is used as a recognizable element in the anime/film?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should look at "independent" (for the sake of argument) as it relates in Statistics; that is, one event has an effect on the other. In this case, the spinoff material would not be independent of the original product, so thus Capcom press releases on the spinoff items would not be considered fitting the GNG's secondary sources requirement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammer some changes home
Many of the opposition have rejected this version, obviously. Many opposes deal not with fiction in particular but with the very concept of notability; I'm trashing all those opposes because they can't be dealt with here; I suggest those who disagree with the guideline should bring up their points in a general notability page, because such changes dramatically affect not just fiction. However, there are some points we can address, some quite simple, of which I want to bring to the attention: Simple solution: I think it's kinda common sense, but this is what we should be doing ideally. If someone finds sources at AfD which meet WP:N, that should be the end of it, really. But at a bare minimum we should add those sources to the article, not just leave the AfD saying, "yes, someone get on this at some time." Would that assuage those who opposed based on (at least in part) the above? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 2x FICT needs to allow articles where sources exist but haven't been added to the article yet
 * "If an editor provides sources which prove notability at a talk page discussion or AfD, those sources should (at a bare minimum) be added to an external links section of the article in question. No article which meets notability criteria but whose article does not reflect this should be deleted."
 * Who ever brings up sources in an AfD and then doesn't add them to the article? Ford MF (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen a few instances where new sources are demonstrated at the AfD page, but not added to the page in question, but not frequently. I prefer using separate notes and bibliography sections, so that redundant but independent sources of information can be listed in the bibliography section, which is typically called the "reference" section by custom at WP.  However, I don't think that this needs to be handled within the notability infrastrcuture -- it can be handled in the directions for AfD procedures. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen many instances in AfD of editors claiming they have found reliable secondary sources, but they turn out to be nothing of the kind. I would oppose such a change, as it would encourage widespread gaming in AfD debates.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. It's kind of embarrassing. Fortunately, admins seem to have gotten wise and ignored these kinds of groundless assertions. Randomran (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How much of that is getting wise to gaming the system, vs. just simply assuming that those who claim to have unproduced sources are crying wolf? The latter will almost always be less frequent than the former, but not nonexistent in any sizeable sample size. Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will bring up my concept of postponed deletions again as this seems appropriate. The idea is that an editor during an AFD may request more time to find sources or whatever else cited for deletion in an article, but is given a 4 week time limit to do so.  After four weeks through a page partol, the article would either be ok'd or put up for AFD again, with no postponing period given save in some rare cases.  This helps to prevent the system from being gamed. --M ASEM  17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a really reasonable proposal. Not that it should be confined to a specific time period. There are no deadlines on wikipedia. Instead, it's simply about how sure we are that something belongs in wikipedia or not. As time goes on, we become more sure. If we're more sure it's notable, we give it more time. If we're more sure it's not notable, we give less. But I am entirely sympathetic to the notion that AFDs are sometimes put up too soon, or without fair warning to editors who might not be aware of notability concerns. Randomran (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't put a timeline, you end up back at someone playing a game. That said, all that is needed is improvements, not perfection; if you can find one good source, that should be enough and the re-AFD shouldn't be started; if you found a source but it's in a different library that you can't get to, that's good faith effort to get it, so more time should be given.  But if after 4 weeks and nothing has been done to the article towards the issue raised, well, that's a case where the original deletion was likely merited. --M ASEM  18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have encountered a number of deletionist admins (those who are in fact listed in the deletionist category) who do seem to close AfDs in part because of bias against the article, i.e. in cases where the discussions were leaning toward keep or no consensus. Just as I have seem too many groundless assertions of "non-notable".  My biggest concern with the misuse of "notability" guidelines in AfDs comes from my job as educator and historian and it is that a lot of what I see is in effect the electronic equivalent of book burning. To suggest that some knowledge is somehow not important is just unacademic and unencyclopedic. I am of course not talking about hoaxes, how tos, libel, copy vios, essays, etc., all of which I think we can agree should be deleted, but I see articles that do have reliable sources deleted under this bizarre idea that only things that pass a handful of editors' ideas of what's notable per an encyclopedic. Now those wanting to delete "in popular culture" articles, fictional characters, video game weapons, television episodes, family members of celebrities and politicians, etc. may think they are doing a good thing and have honest intentions, but the fact is that it is saying some knowledge is unimportant, which goes against everything any scholar and any encyclopedist should stand for. We discriminate against nonsense and lies, but there is no really good, logical, or valid reason why we cannot or should not cover some of these other items that a half dozen odd of the same editors in AfDs want deleted when others in the same AfDs argue to keep, plus maybe hundreds who created and worked on the article, and thousands who come here looking for the article. Some seem to think that Wikipedia will be better maintainable, but so then some just self-appoint themselves as the determiners of what knowledge is worthwhile, which is itself suspect. Some seem to think that if they delete articles that they don't like, then the editors will instead work on articles that the noms and per noms do like, which is naive and wrong. Article creators and contributors whose articles keep getting deleted will just leave the project. If we humor them, maybe they will branch off onto other "more important" articles, but if we keep insulting them authoritatively and paternalistically, they won't. As far as comedians or blogsters whose job is to be sarcastic and critical, who cares what they say about our inclusion of certain topics; after all, some of the sites I can't link to here actually mock us for deletionism. It baffles me as to why anyone would rather devote his or her energy to deleting articles that are not hoaxes, libel, essays, how tos, or copy vios, rather than trying to build up those articles he or she does believe are worthwhile. Imagine how much time spent on AfDs that end in no consensus or keep could have been spent cleaning up an article to bring it to good or featured status or protecting articles from vandalism! Sincerely,--  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any response to this that does justice to the alarmist, hyperbolic, and divisive nature of what you just said. If you start ranting about deletionists, book-burning, and how deleting things is a waste of time, consider the possibility that you're no longer talking about this guideline, but instead rehashing the ages-old inclusionist/deletionist nonsense that never really has anything to do with anything and never goes anywhere productive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Divisive is nominating and arguing to delete articles that a vocal minority of the community is against. Alamarmist is thinking there's some urgent need to do so on something that does not have a deadline.  Hyperbolic is the false and subjective claims of "non-notable" used in so many AfDs.  If we stop using overly restrictive guidelines and devoting our time to them, then we may actually be able to go somewhere productive, but so long as time is indeed wasted deleting verfiable material, we need to address this reality for what it is, because it gets to the point of this guideline, i.e. that it lacks consensus in such a clear manner that maybe we should not have a guideline that suggests we cover fiction based on notability as that is not a historically valid criteria for what an online encyclopedia is.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think divisive is not recognizing the superiority of myself, a star-bellied sneech! Clearly any guideline that does not recognize my inherent superiority is flawed and lacks consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, "sneech" is a new one to me. So, I'll internal link it in the hopes that we have an article.  :)  Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a cool story. Check it out at The Sneetches and Other Stories although I'm not sure what the critics say about it. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its useful to discuss general principles from time to time in these discussions. Otherwise we tend o stray away from the basic concepts of building an encyclopedia. It's like a US citizen should read the US Constitution every few years--it puts things in perspective. DGG (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC).


 * This is kind of like the concept of "reasonable potential" that WP:TV-REVIEW tried to use. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not ready
The changes over the first section of the article at several hands in the last day or two make a perfect demonstration that there is no real consensus on even the basics. There was a well intention insertion "must satisfy the general notability guideline" -- but this does not actually have any prior consensus at all, and is an addition at a critical place. I substituted a phrase that at least was used previously (in the nutshell). I do not agree that the general notability guideline is applicable here. This is a specific notability guideline with its own requirements. If the general guideline were sufficient, there would be no reason for the entire guideline here at all. The wording was in fact contradictory: The paragraph said first that they "should pass the general notability guideline " and then said "is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline, the guidelines presented here, or the guidelines specific to its medium.". These are completely incompatible statements. I thank Masem, Ned, and Gavin between them for demonstrating that there is no consensus for even the most basic part of this guideline. I am perhaps prepared to accept the statement that the alternatives apply for lack of any agreement on what actually does apply. Personally, though, I think its time we got rid of the general notability guideline, that 2RS=N, because it has become meaningless due to the great number of qualifications that have become needed ino order to prevent absurd results; I think the only thing maintaining it is the prospect of certain disagreement over what would replace it. At the least we should word this guideline so it is independent. DGG (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should stay "real-world context from reliable sources", which I will note is not exactly the same as the GNC. Ned introduced that in some edits, I don't know where from, but reverting it to that phrase is better.  I disagree that this is a basic disagreement because there was no edit warring over it, and the version proposed was "real-world context". --M ASEM  02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That first section is poorly developed. WP:FICT does not dictate if we make a parent article for a notable book, tv show, or video game. Notability for the work itself does not require reception and production notes. Obviously we should include that information, but we are not going to delete a parent article for lacking that information. The notability is demonstrated in other ways.


 * WP:FICT isn't about the parent/work article, it's about the sub/spinout articles. I brought this up weeks ago for this very reason. Reception, production information, and other things that give real-world context, are elements that justify further coverage in other articles.


 * I think some users are confused here. That first section does not effect the rest of the guideline, it only effects the parent article. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly am confused. You have just said that a/WP:FICT isnt about the parent article, and b/the first section only affects the parent article. Both cannot be correct. How about finding a wording that makes the distinction, that the parent article must demonstrate real world notability, but the other ones need not do so. DGG (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FICT isn't about the parent article, but some people wish to pretend that it is. From a realistic standpoint, if you want to know if a TV show, book, movie, etc, should get an article or not, WP:FICT gives no useful advice. Since some editors felt that there should be some mention on the work of fictions themselves, we are stuck with the section (for now) which is clearly marked as only pertaining to the parent article. Forgive me if I wasn't clear. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of pretense; many editors refer to WP:FICT in AFDs on works of fiction, so it needs to cover works of fiction. However, the current section could definitely use major improvement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to DGG's view that "its time we got rid of the general notability guideline", I would have to ask the question, for heaven sake, why would you want to do this? I like his maths equation (2RS=N) - I think that is really cool.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question I have, with rgards to DGG wanting to get rid of the NOTE guideline, is when? Why do we have to have a notability clause? What does it save us from? Padillah (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Break it up
Lets break WP:FICT down into sections and concepts and find out what parts have consensus. It might be helpful rather than trying to find consensus for the entire document all at once. A lot of people, both supporting and opposing, have different reasons than other editors who are supporting or opposing. A lot of people have a problem with how WP:FICT is used in things like AfDs, but that might just be unintentional. And lets find out where most of us agree at on things, kind of like setting a "minimal" for certain concepts. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your proposal seems to make sense: Might I suggest table format for this, with notes below? We really cannot afford repeating the complete argument (above) for every smaller section. G.A.S 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm throwing ideas around in my head about how we might format something like this. A table with comments sounds like a good idea. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you/we want to do that while the RfC is still running, as kind of a sub-RfC? With the recently started discussions at NOT#PLOT and NOTE and some alternate proposals here, it can be argued that we're already spreading ourselves thin. (Too many good ideas, too many opinions to consider, too few people to keep everything together and on focus.) – sgeureka t•c 07:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we've talked about what this page can say, and the end result is that this page cannnot determine what we want it to determine. Whatever will move the discussio to where it will actually matter needs to done.  We agree on anything that doesn't involve deleting/redirecting articles. We don't agree on when to delete/redirect an article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea for when the NOTE RFC is done. If someone wants to start prepping it off this page, though, that might be useful. SamBC(talk) 08:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really necessary (though I don't see harm in doing it); I think from the summaries it is clear that the section that is at issue is about non-notable elements. Some believing it is too lax, some believing it does not allow enough.  Taking either side, defining notability for works and for elements via sources seems fine and non-disputed, the primary discussion is do we or don't we allow more than that for notability evidence. --M ASEM  13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least I'd rather us show what does have support, rather than all-or-nothing. I think it would help in the short run. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1/4 of people on this RFC disagree with WP:NOTE. There's not much point on commenting on WP:FICT until we can figure out what the true consensus is on WP:NOTE. I think this is a decent idea, but not yet. Let's do a RFC on WP:NOTE for now. Randomran (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current RFC at WT:NOTE should help clarify things sufficiently, if it manages to get anywhere – and I think things look promising for that. SamBC(talk) 15:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I've never been moved much by what happens at WP:NOTE. I know a lot of people have made a big deal about how NOTE is a "higher" guideline than WP:FICT, but I've always seen it as a "general alternative" instead. NOTE was an essay when FICT was a guideline, after all. I really don't think that trying to make one-size-fits-all is the direction to take. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the assumption of NOTE that GNC is not absolute...
I realize this part hinges on the current discussion at WT:NOTE if the general notability criteria is only just one way to describe a notable topic, thus allowing for cases where fictional elements may have their own article despite the lack of secondary or real-world sources. (Thus, those that feel the GNC is absolute should realize that insisting it is for this discussion is not helping.)

First, I am also going to assume WP:PLOT remains policy, however, I would encourage that it be read "The coverage of a published work on WP should not consist solely of a plot summary." Coverage here implies that a work may have many articles underneath it as supporting the main work. Thus, if I wrote several articles about the Harry Potter books explaining the plot, the characters, the concepts, the locations, etc, but make no mention of real-world aspects about the works themselves (how they sold, their impact, etc), that would be considered a violation of plot. This does not apply to specific elements of a work of fiction, though there is no harm when such details can be applied.

That said, if it is agreed that GNC is not the only measure of notability (it is a guideline after all), then I suggest that we consider specific classes of fictional element articles that are ok to have their own article, as an alternative to the GNC for notability. These can include, but are not limited to :
 * Major and minor/recurring characters of a notable serial work/franchise
 * Episodes/chapters/volumes of a notable serial work
 * Primary/Significant locations of a notable work (eg, Springfield for The Simpsons, Sunnydale for BuffyTVS, etc.)
 * Primary/Significant objects of a notable work (the Stargate for Stargate SG-1, etc.)

Any other case should be appropriate as a list within the main work or as a supporting list (eg, characters from a single video game, cameo characters from a notable serial work), if needed at all.

However, I pose two cavaets as a way to keep these in check: First, it is expected that these articles should be written to encyclopedic standards (V, NOR, NPOV and other considerations withstanding, and if the GNC can be met, great, but not required); failure to do so is not means for deletion, but if in the long run the majority of these articles edited or created after this point turn out to be full of in-universe, "fan"-type content and fail to do a good job at educating the non-fan reader, it will be time to revisit this policy and reconsider if this is really helping to improve the encyclopedia. I would say, pending all other discussions and consensus to this, that 6 to 12 months after that point, there will be another RFC to ask "Do these guidelines help WP?". If the fact that these articles have been allowed but they have generally all been of low quality, we may need to significantly reconsider allowing these. Call this an "experiment" just to see if this really works.

The second cavaet is that though a fictional element may meet the above guidelines for its own article, this does not always mean a separate article is warranted. If all you can write about a major character in an encyclopedic manner is one paragraph, it makes more sense to merge that content to a list of major characters or to the main work itself. In other words, while such articles would be technically allowed, it would be hoped that editors can see that merging, not deletion, of the content to a larger context can provide a better encyclopedic article, and thus should not take offense when someone suggests a merge of an article of this type with others in the hopes it provided better encyclopedic content, particularly if the articles are presently in a poor state per the above. There are also cases where going into any more detail for a specific fictional element will cause it to fail WP:NOT's other provisions besides PLOT, and thus may be a case where content can be merged. Individual WikiProjects may also set guidelines that limit some of these cases, only to provide equivalent coverage for all articles of that type (the case I'm thinking of is the list of video game weapons, which the VG project has determined is not appropriate; not that weapons can't be talked about when they are notable (by GNC) or a key plot element per above, just that this is not the case for the majority of video games).

Again, all this is built on the assumption that the GNC is not absolute. If it is determined by global consensus that the GNC holds, then obviously this can't work, but given that NOTE is a guideline, I don't believe it will end up that way. --M ASEM 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if the GNG is not absolute, it's not to say it authorizes dozens of parallel guidelines that essentially circumvent it. (e.g.: one small wikiproject says "the GNG says that it's just one take notability, and we say that everything is notable".) It's possible that the GNG is out of step with the community, but a realistic solution is that we revise it at the general level. Balkanization of the guidelines into a bunch of specific guidelines should be a last resort, since it reduces clarity, and increases the possibility of contradiction and inconsistency. Randomran (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Randomran's analysis, because this proposal is flawed on two counts. Firstly, your assertion that WP:NOT "does not apply to specific elements of a work of fiction" is a complete misrepresentation of this policy. Secondly, there is no class of fictional elements that should be given an exemption from WP:N "as an alternative to the GNC for notability", because If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but that's also assuming that there is no consensus to override or change WP:NOTE from the way that it's been for years. In good faith, I invite people to really hash this out at WT:N. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We kinda are, but we need a way to completely move the conversation there. Like marking this Historical and bringing it back after we've figured stuff out at NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, as this never had consensus (it was always proposed), historical isn't right. If we simply want to depreciate it after the RFC here is up, I think the suggested essay tag like WP:ATT above is the simplest answer, as it still provides suggestions for discussion purposes without being a valid AFD reason while NOTE discussion continues. --M ASEM  19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly which tag would be best. Note that ATT is having issues with its template. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, now here's an idea, in combination with the previous section of figuring out which parts have consensus. If we just mark the non-notable section as "disputed" (which it truly is) and the rest of it (notable works, notable fictional elements, how to deal with non-notable works, and moving information) remains as it is, which, I believe, is a very accurate reflection on the RFC, that would serve the purpose I want to do: leaving the section disputed means it should not be read as the Bible come AFD discussions, and leaves sections that regardless of the NOTE discussion are still quite valid and useful to have.  What my fear is that leaving FICT marked with something like "historical" or fully "disputed" or "rejected" effectively means "ignore this completely" and will incite inclusionists/deletionists battles that are worse than we have now.  Then once NOTE is resolved, we can reopen considering of how to fix that disputed section. --M ASEM  23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll wait to hear from more people about the best thing to do. I think marking part of this disputed will just keep the conversation here, but we'll see.  If the argument "this page cannot contradict NOTE" keeps being used instead of why notability is a good way to judge fiction and has consensus, then I'll go back to advocating rejection. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, but there are so many things that have to happen and work out first (ending the discussion at NOTE, Ned's proposal) that we can't do more than keep this in the back of our brains. – sgeureka t•c 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Masem's idea that somehow WP:NOTE will change so that fictional topics can have special treatment - either I am missing some information, or it is wishful thinking on Masem's part. We have to draft WP:FICT within the bounds set by other core policies and guidelines, not change them to fit in with the latest thinking. Most of the core policies and guidelines have been around for years, but the fundamental changes to WP:FICT that have lead to the last RFC have only happended in the last 6-months. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on writing guidelines
Before we set out on redrafting WP:FICT, I would like to propose that we write the new version will be shorter and easier to understand. In my view, the current versionof WP:FICT is too long, verbose and deals with far many aspects of fiction that are not directly related to notability. I think we should consider applying the following principals to the new draft: I hope we can avoid the mistakes of the past by applying some of these points to our work going forward. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:FICT is a guideline about the notability of fiction: in order to keep it brief, we need to ensure that it is focused on notability. Topics indirectly related to the notability of fiction, such as style issues dealt with by WP:WAF, say, could be omitted altogether, dealt with in passing or an appropriate link provided. Otherwise undue weight will be given to topics that are once, twice or three times removed from the notability of fiction, which is currently obscurring the focus of the guideline;
 * 2) The practise of using footnotes in guidelines should be phased out. A guideline where the detail is in the small print is not a unified guideline, but a patchwork of statements that provide opportunity for conflict and ambiguity. In the current draft, footnotes are being used to qualify or amplify certain sentences: in my view, this is unnecessary, as this should be done in the body of the text itself. If the matter is not important enough to go in the main body of the text, it should not be in WP:FICT at all. If footnotes are used, they should only do so if an external reference is cited;
 * 3) The guideline needs to be supported by an examples page. Up to now the guidlines contain difficult to understand terminology and abstract concepts, which has lead to ambiguity about what is actually being discussed. In tandem with the guideline itself, we need to give specific examples of a "work of fiction" or an "element of fiction", so we know exactly what we are talking about in practise as well as principle. If there are any defects or ommissions in our thinking, this will become more obvious. Also, if we use a shared set of examples, this will provide us with a shared understanding of the guideline.


 * If you take a look at WP:NOTE, there's really just two meaningful sections: notability of articles, and notability of content within articles. If you take a look at WP:MUSIC, they don't go with the abstract "work of music" or "musical element" and instead get real specific: bands, writers, albums, songs. They probably don't mention anything else because articles about Mick Jagger's dancing or Jay-Z's use of the word hustler need to qualify for notability the same way as anything else. WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE are both well written because of how they're organized. My instincts tell me that WP:FICT should be organized as follows: (1) A brief section on articles about characters/factions, (2) a brief section on articles about locations/settings, (3) a brief section on content within articles. Short, sweet, specific. Randomran (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AFI 100 as an example
There's a problem with using the AFI 100 as an example: Not all the entries on it are notable, by current practice. Perhaps we should remove that footnote. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not confusing "notability" with "has a wikipedia article" are you? More evidence mounts that notability produces strange results. Catchpole (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking lack of an article as lack of consensus that that topic is notable. Why, do you think they are absent for some other reason? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The project is still a work in progress. There remain vast gaps in our coverage. Catchpole (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; some are there because we haven't got round to filling them in yet, and some are there because we've decided not to. But if the idea is to put forward a list that is definitely, definitely evidence of notability, shouldn't that list be fully populated by now?  And, frankly, I don't think that, say, Thelma and Louise do merit their own, separate articles.  So I'm not convinced that the list is a good example for us to be using.  I'm not saying it's a non-notable list, or that the entries on it aren't mostly notable; but I don't think we should be holding it up as an example. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We do also say that not all notable elements of fiction should have their own article if they can sanely be covered as part of another. There's not a perfect following of notable <=> has article normally, and with that instruction there's even less of one. Plus, there's always the instruction to use common sense. SamBC(talk) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand all that - but if we hold up this list as an example, then it will set the threshold for notability for articles of characters in future; and it sets that threshold lower than current best practise does. We're better off with no example than a bad example.  Again, I'm not saying it's a bad article, just a bad example to be using here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are any of the ones that don't currently have articles ones that have had articles that were then deleted as non-notable? As far as I can see, otherwise there's no evidence of consensus either way on the ones that don't have articles, and around 90% of them do; wikipedia being unfinished, that's a pretty good rate. Add to that the fact that consensus can change, and that awards are usually accepted, and I feel fairly safe saying that everything on the list is notable. I'd say "everyone" on the list, but not all of them are human or approaching it... SamBC(talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose we just disagree there... I could see some of them having their own articles, but not all. Also, it's not true to say that "awards are usually accepted" - most awards are trivial fansite offerings or vanity awards given by bodies in cahoots with the makers of the fiction.  Only the top awards in any given field are usually accepted.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was taking it as read that crappy fan awards and polls and so on don't count; I was referring to behaviour generally in line with the clauses on awards on other notability guidelines. SamBC(talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're major national recognition--every one of them is notable, and the award is sufficient evidence., just as for other topics. Even in well-covered fields such as this, there are a great many articles still to be written, especially for the older material. DGG (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the shark from Jaws (film)? Do you think he/she also has sufficent coverage to justify a stand alone article? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it did have sufficient coverage; even so, we already seem to have agreed on the principle (for fictional elements) of "don't give it a separate article just because it's notable". SamBC(talk) 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the same thing as winning a single award. It helps establish notability, but it does not warrant a separate article. Unless you have the information to support split, the simple fact that something has won an award does not mean that it needs its own 5kb stub of an article. If you have the information to develop an article, wonderful, but if you don't then no individual award (no matter how great) is going to change that. We don't need to split an article out for something that takes a single sentence to report.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, if this was a media guideline such as WP:BK or WP:MOVIE, an award is accepted as specific evidence of notability. So why mention awards for fictional elements at all, if they are not admitted as evidence of notability unless supported by evidence that the ficitonal element meets the requirements of GNC?--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On the grounds that awards don't contribute evidence of notability (in the same way popularity does not contribute either), I think the reference to awards of any kind or type should come out altogether. I am now of the impression that you no longer wish to consider these agruements, as you are convinced that your view is overwhealmingly the stronger, and at the end of the day you may be right. If you feel you are completely right, feel free to ignore our views and my proposal to remove the reference to awards. Leave the reference to the award in if you feel strongly about it; you are under no obligation to act on our advice. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "received significant coverage" is the most important part of the notability guideline. A single award is not "significant coverage". Further: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." This is clarified by, "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." -- In this context, a single sentence award mention of a topic would be "trivial". Now, this does not mean that the information should not be included, but that it isn't significant enough to warrant separation from the main topic.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that awards are acceptable as evidence of notability, as long as they are presented with evidence that the ficitonal element meets the requirements of GNC. So why mention awards for fictional elements at all, if like any other content, the requirements of GNC must be met first (or in tandem with) as a criteria of notability? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bignole, you seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension as Gavin has/is (I'm not sure if he's understood yet; no offence intended, Gavin). So let me set out a few points:
 * To have a worthwhile wikipedia article, a topic must (among other things):
 * Meet one (or more) relevant notability guideline (the GNC or a subject-specific one); the GNC means significant coverage in independent sources, but other guidelines do not necessarily require this. Some permit notability to be evidenced purely through a single major award.
 * Have sufficient information available in reliable sources to populate an article; an important point here is that not all sources that are acceptable for WP:V are acceptable for the GNC. Thus, an article may have enough sources available without the subject meeting the GNC.
 * If the topic is related to fiction (a work, an element of fiction, whatever), it must be possible to populate the article with a reasonable balance of real-world information, such as analysis, reception, etc etc, as well as in-universe or plot information.
 * To reiterate, many sources are acceptable for verification purposes are not acceptable to demonstrate notability per the GNC, but a subject may be notable without meeting the GNC.
 * For some information (but not usually enough to meet the requirement for real-world information), the work itself is a valid source.
 * Does this clarify the fact that sources are always needed, but not every article topic must meet the GNC? SamBC(talk) 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only two things any article needs. "Significant coverage", which I have defined already, and " Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article ." Exactly what the GNC states. You cannot bypass the GNC, it's the parent article for this guideline. When NOTE states that it must either meet GNC or the subject specific guidelines, those guidelines cannot be less than GNC. It means that if the subject specific guidelines have a more strict criteria for inclusion, then you have to follow that, otherwise just follow what is stated below. The bare minimum an article should have is significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Hell, it states it in the first section. So, the point is, debating about whether or not AFI recognition, or an Oscar that represents an award to a fictional element, proves that the topic is notable is not relevant. It shows support, but unless there are other sources that provide "significant coverage" (and since FICT doesn't define significant coverage, we have to use NOTE's definition) then it isn't worthy of its own article. Just because you cannot give something its own article doesn't mean you can use that same information somewhere else. So, to answer your final statement, no, a subject may not be notable per subject standards and not per the GNC, because all subject notability guidelines are based around the GNC. Unless the subject specific guidelines totally disregard the GNC (which this page does not), then you're going to meet the GNC no matter what. So, AFI is good information, just not going to prove that any topic needs its own article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, NOTE would say that topics had to meet the GNC and any subject specific guidelines; many of the subject specific guidelines provide criteria that allow something to qualify as notable without meeting the GNC. The GNC is a "criterion of last resort" if there are no subject-specific guidelines, or a topic doesn't meet its subject specific guidelines. It's clear as day in what's written in WP:NOTE. SamBC(talk) 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BigN, the GNC (WP:N) does not require multiple sources, it says: "Multiple sources are generally preferred" This was a hard fought compromise with the language deliberately meant to encourage but not specifically require multiple sources to establish notability.  My interpretation and intention for fighting for the inclusion of single source of notability is to allow a single source to be used to establish notability when it is supported by significant other verifiable information, especially information leading to establishing independence and credibilty of that source. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if it contradicts "other" subject guidelines, because it doesn't contradict this one as this guideline is a reflection of GNC. This guideline clearly states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as the definition of notability. Now, unless you wish to rewrite that, nothing else matters. Since we know from the GNC what "significant coverage" means, then a single award does not constitute the criteria necessary for a separate article. Plain as day.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "if an only if"; in terms of logic, that means that significant coverage is a sufficient but not necessary condition; however, it is probably worth clarifying this case one way or the other. Most opinions here would suggest that the direction to clarify is that there are other situations, but they are few and far between. SamBC(talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This page doesn't say that, and if it did then it would be a contradiction of itself. You cannot claim that notability is one thing, and then try and say it's something else later on. This page defines it as "significant coverage", and GNC defines what "significant coverage" is. So, unless you want to change this page, then AFI is not substantial enough to warrant a separate page for anything. Matter of fact, does this page not clarify that just because you meet the basic idea behind notability for fictional topics that it does not necessarily mean you need a separate page to present it all? If that's the case, then a single statement wouldn't even fit the basic criteria for notability. You cannot take the criteria from another notability (ie. Books) guideline and automatically apply it to something that falls under the jurisdiction of this guideline. Not unless you change this guideline, which would be a whole new topic of discussion and months of debate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's been months of debate, and at least one person is willing to outright contradict you on the weight of the AFI list (DGG, below, I think, might be above). Where in this guideline does it define notability as significant coverage? It quite WP:N with "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but again not the if, not if and only if; if it is defining notability as you say, then that needs to be changed, as that's contradicting rather a lot of other guidelines, and the generally agreed terms of debate at the top of this page. SamBC(talk) 15:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted, because "there may be cases where an element does not seem to have significant coverage, but that coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability," makes no sense. Exactly how does something "seem to not have significant coverage", but actually has "significant coverage"? Either it does or it doesn't. It's clear if it does, because we know what significant coverage is based on what GNC defines significant coverage as. Unless you rewrite the definition of significant coverage, then GNC is the place we look for how to establish it. A single statement, "Character John X received an AFI award" is not significant coverage. It's a single statement. So, unless this page agrees on a NEW definition of significant coverage, then you cannot plop in your own definition at will. That isn't how it works. Since this page doesn't have a definition listed, we use the GNC's definition, given that the GNC is the parent article and because even you stated above that if it isn't covered here then we revert back to what the GNC says. You stated it's a "last resort" if the subject doesn't meet the subject-specific guidelines. Well, this subject-specific guidelines does not stipulate the definition of "significant coverage", but NOTE does. Hence why we use NOTE's definition.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll ask just the simple question again; comments on my suggested change would be better in the section I started on that, below. Here's the question: where is notability defined as receiving significant coverage? SamBC(talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is defined for fiction here, which clearly states below: "Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". From there, significant coverage is defined here, which is further clarified here. This guideline (FICT) does not define significant coverage as anything other than what NOTE defines it as. You can draw this conclusion because this guideline specifically cites NOTE's definition of notability as part of the 3 excerpts we use to define notability for topics on fiction.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly; can be "presumed notable if", not "are notable if and only if", which would be a definition. The usage of "presume" means that it can be overriden; "are" instead would make the condition entirely sufficient, but the use of "if" rather than "if and only if" means that it cannot be seen as necessary. So, as written, it states that significant coverage is usually sufficient to indicate notability, but not necessary. SamBC(talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason it is "presumed" is because nothing is definite. Anything can be overridden with consensus, but it doesn't mean ignore it until consensus says to get rid of the article. The point of presumed is to follow the guideline unless you can make a case for the "exception to the rule". Since significant coverage explicitely states that a single mention is trivial, you need a pretty good reason to say an article needs to be created because of a single award given (and not just "I think it's the most important award in the world" argument). This guideline does not specify such a thing, and I don't believe that any single award that can be mentioned in a single sentence on a parent page is proof that the topic needs its own article. Based on the discussion here on this section, it seems that there isn't consensus to assume that any one award is significant enough to grant a topic its own article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the reference to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains needs to come out, as is not proof that the topic needs its own article. In addition, the purpose of the list was to provide a backdrop to a television programme which featured clips from the films themselves, which in my mind provides additional evidence that it is the films themselves are notable. Therefore the award does not establish the notability of the characters outside of the films in which they featured. It is debateable whether this example falls purely within the scope of WP:MOVIE, but I would say that as evidence of notability, it is a contraversial if not misleading example. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe there is now agreement to remove the reference to awards and reference to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains out of WP:FICT. Should this award be cited in WP:MOVIE?--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree, although the issue is quite complex; this draft states that notability doesn't mean, on its own, that fictional topics should have their own articles, so demonstrating notability does not imply demonstrating that the topic should have its own article. More to the point, I don't think that posting new comments to sections that are otherwise long-dead is the best way to ensure that people read it. You're the only one insisting that these either a) aren't really awards, but rather some sort of scheme, or b) aren't for the characters rather than the actors or the films. SamBC(talk) 09:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I think Bagnole has disscussed the point in great detail, and has come to the same conclusion as me, but by a different route. There is a lot of agreement that reference to awards must go, and not just on the strength of what I have written; sgeureka has also gone on record to say that he would rather leave awards out of FICT at this point, and Kevin Murray is also of the view that unworkable and precriptive special cases such as awards are not evidence of notability, a complete dearth of reliable secondary sources would tend to suggest that the work was not notable even if it had an award. So what do you think should be done? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having just read the (relatively) recent re-write of WP:BIO with merge of WP:ATHLETE and so on, it might be worth taking cues from there as well as WP:BK and such. Some subject-specific guidelines make exceptions with things like awards, and some don't. It would seem awkward to suggest that such exceptions are unworkable when they've worked well for other things, as there are sources acceptable to WP:V that don't demonstrate notability per the GNC, allowing articles to be written verifiably without passing the GNC. I also think avoiding any mention of awards is perilous as many users take awards to be defacto evidence of notability even when no applicable notability guideline says so. Hence my suggestion that we state that awards indicate or suggest notability, in proportion to the stature of the award, but that (other) secondary source coverage will generally be needed. It's also worth saying that awards may contribute to notability where the award is independent of the subject, as the award itself is secondary coverage. SamBC(talk) 10:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * SamBC, we have covered your arguments before, and as you know I am of the opinion that awards don't apply to elements of fiction, because they are not real-world people, and generally it is they who recieve awards in recognition of their creative abilities, either directly when the award is presented to them personally, or indirectly when their work (film or book) is singled out for an award. Kevin Murray is of the view that awards are not evidence of notability at all; Bignole is of the view that awards are not evidence of notability on their own, and that they cannot be used to justify a standalone article without coverage from reliable secondary source. sgeureka has made his view known he is uncomfortable with the idea that minor awards (such as those handed out at trade or fan conventions) contribute any notability at all, and for this reason awards should not be mentioned in this guideline at all. I have pointed out that this AFI award, created for a television special, has more do with the films that were featured in it than it does the fictional characters were "awarded" the honor of villan or hero. Even Percy Snoodle is not clear that this particular award is a good example, as not all the entries on it are notable.
 * Gavin, I wouldn't say that awards are not evidence of notability; I would say that an award when verifiable could be a building block toward cummulative notability, and a strong reason to prevent deletion of a stub. This does not need to be subject specific and could be part of a richer WP:N covering all topics equally.  I don't oppose more advanced thought at WP:N, what I oppose is fragemented standards which are perpetuated by subject specific guidelines. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Gavin has summarised my views pretty well. No single award for a fictional element is evidence of notability. This page is a reflection of WP:NOTE, in that notability is "significant coverage". A single statement of "Character X won 'Best New Character' from IGN's Comic Book Awards" is not evidence of notability. It's a simple statement that can be easily presented in a larger article. But, what you can infer from this is that if the subject has won awards (though as Gavin pointed out it's rare to every see a fictional element "win" an award itself, but Jason Voorhees did win a Lifetime Achievement Award from MTV...so there are cases) then you can probably find information on that subject to validate "significant coverage". If the notability guideline for books says that if it wins a major award that's for the book itself. If Tom Welling won an Emmy for playing Clark Kent, that doesn't make Smallville's Clark Kent notable. The award has nothing to do with the character, but the actor portraying him. The same is said for when the Academy Awards award shows for special effects. The scene itself isn't notable, it's the work that the SFX company did that was awarded. They are awarding the work that went into it, not what came out in the end. I don't not believe any single award, no matter how major one might think it actually is, asserts complete notability for a fictional element. It helps, but it's like a single lego in the entire lego castle. If that's all you got then you don't have a castle. The same goes for "rankings" for that matter. A rule of thumb should be, if you can state the fact with a single sentence and you cannot provide any context to the fact (i.e. prose that contains information about what they did that was so special that they were given an award), then you don't have enough coverage to warrant a separate article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An award could definitely suggest notability, and as such "could be evidence of notability" is a true statement. Evidence does not mean a conclusion, and can cover an entire spectrum (for a lack of better words) of possible criteria being satisfied. We should say "this could be evidence of notability, which means that editors should look at it, possibly discuss it, to see if it is or not". It's not going to be black and white, and it's not going to be the same for every award/award-winner. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned that awards suggest some kind of notability; this is common sense. I also agree with SamBC and Bignole that just because something is notable (by whatever definition), doesn't mean that it automatically deserves/needs its own article; i.e. awards suggest some notability but not sufficient notability. Receiving an AFI 100 award etc. is one sentence, and that can fit into a parent article. "received significant coverage" remains the big point for a separate article, and the article needs to to demonstrate that sooner or later (I am thinking two or three medium paragraphs at least), or we go back to "this can also fit in the parent article". I consider the current footnote about awards ("An example of a plaudit...") pointless but harmless, and I agree with the current wording of the second footnote ("It is not generally a sufficient indicator of notability for an award to be given for a fictional topic..."). – sgeureka t•c 07:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do awards provide evidence of "some kind of notability"? I think the answer must be either they do, or either they don't. I think WP:FICT needs to provide clear guidance on this issue in relation to fictional elements, or reference to them needs to come out. Would you object if it were to be removed? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice
It seems that it is difficult to settle this putative guideline because our opinions are subjective and there is no objective method of resolving the differences. Reference is made to Wikipedia policies but these are unsatisfactory because Wikipedia is not a reliable source and so those policies are themselves subjective. And we have metarules such as WP:IAR and WP:BURO which undermine the very idea of rulemaking. The possibilty that we might achieve consensus on such weak foundations seems a vain hope.

The usual method of resolving content issues in our articles to refer to reliable sources and follow them. So why are we not doing this in this case? Yesterday, I borrowed a scholarly work upon a piece of fiction from someone who has worked as a professional editor. They had a wide selection and I chose Pride and Prejudice - an analysis of the famous work by Jane Austen. This is "written by acknowledged literature experts for the specific needs of advanced level and undergraduate students. ... will also be of interest to the general reader". This then is surely a good model of how we should treat a notable piece of fiction.

The book is 136 pages long. These are divided as follows:


 * 4 - Contents
 * 3 - Introduction
 * 2 - Synopsis
 * 1 - Character list
 * 59 - Detailed summaries of each chapter
 * 17 - Characters
 * 1 - Locations
 * 11 - Themes and Critical Issues (e.g. Marriage and love)
 * 5 - Narrative techniques, style and language (e.g. the use of irony)
 * 9 - Textual analysis - a critique of three passages
 * 4 - Background: literary, historical and biographical
 * 5 - Critical history: reception, contemporary approaches and other reading
 * 5 - Chronology
 * 2 - Glossary of literary terms
 * 1 - notes on the authors

What seems noteworthy is that the bulk of this material is what would be disparaged here as plot. The amount of real world material is comparatively small and it is matched by a fair amount of opinionated analysis. The introduction seems especially useful because it instructs us on how to approach and write about such a work of fiction:


 * You will need to read the novel more than once. Start by reading it quickly for pleasure, then read it slowly and thoroughly.


 * On your second reading make detailed notes on the plot, characters and themes of the novel. Further readings will generate new ideas and help you to memorise the details of the story.


 * Some of the characters will develop as the plot unfold. How do your responses towards them change during the course of the novel?


 * Think about how the novel is narrated. From whose point of view are events described?


 * A novel may or may not present events chronologically: the time-scheme may be a key to its structure and organisation.


 * What part do the settings play in the novel?


 * Are words, images or incidents repeated so as to give the work a pattern? Do such patterns help you to unerstand the novel's themes?


 * Identify what styles of language are used in the novel.


 * What is the effect of the novel's ending? Is the action completed and closed, or left incomplete and open.


 * Does the novel present a moral and just world?


 * Cite exact sources for all quotations, whether from the text itself or from critical commentaries. Wherever possible find your own examples from the novel to back up your opinions.


 * Always express your ideas in your own words.

This seems to be good advice but is somewhat at variance with the advice of others here. But the difference is that this advice is pedagogically authoritative. If we presume to advise editors on how to write about such topics then we need such reliable sources to validate and verify our opinions. Otherwise they may fairly be dismissed as mere pride and prejudice, eh?

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have to be a reliable source for its own guidelines to matter. Even the metarules are to avoid instruction creep and to allow for exceptions when justified: not to call for the blanket abolition or circumvention of guidelines. Our guidelines are based on policies, other guidelines, and consensus. Not on what outside sources tell us to do. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)We discussed this over at WAF a year or so ago, and noted that reliable sources almost always describe plots in-universe. Some small changes were made to reflect this, but there's a large anti (popular) fiction bias held by a small number of editors, who also happen to be dispraportionately represented on the policy and guideline pages.  That's why well reasoned arguments like yours above fall on a lot of deaf ears, countered by IDONTLIKEIT cloaked in selective policy/guideline readings.  I feel that reason will ultimately win the day, but it's going to take a lot of work unfortunately. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (I just finished reading the novel, and have Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) on GAC at the moment.) The problem I see is that the listed questions are a good guide to write essays ("back up your opinions", "express your ideas"), but essays get deleted here all the time because they are by their very essense not neutral. What we can certainly do at wikipedia is to collect what literary themes authorative people have observed (and cite the people), and collect information how a fictional work has influenced other works. In turn, the plot can be summarized in more depth if need be. But this is going into WAF territory, since P&P has tons of sources for notability. – sgeureka t•c 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no problem (and really, I don't think classical literature is where FICT currently fails, just that we probably don't have editors that have made or cleaned up such articles) with having themes, analysis, and other similar secondary information that's reliably sourced serve as the means of notability; we want to have the article avoid reading like Cliff Notes, but that information is sufficient. Characters from these works likely can be treated in the same fashion. --M ASEM  19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Masem Colonel Waldren, your statement that "Reference is made to Wikipedia policies but these are unsatisfactory" is just your opinion. As regards your text book on Jane Austen, its clear the students are being asked to write an essay based on primary source, not a Wikipedia article. See if you can find a book on writing an article citing reliable secondary sources, that would be more useful.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The advice given is to write from both: "Cite exact sources for all quotations, whether from the text itself or from critical commentaries. Wherever possible find your own examples from the novel to back up your opinions."  This seems properly consistent with our general goals.  And you fail to address my central point here - what value is there in a guideline or policy if it is not backed up by some external authority? If this is not done then all we have is the opinion of a handful of editors.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably mean Colonel Warden above (the original poster), Gavin. --M ASEM 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the general advice is good for the purpose of doing an academic analysis, "to appreciate contrasting interpretations of the text and to develop their own critical thinking." The key difference is that we are not interested in the original critical thinking, at least in the article--the distinction between academic writing and writing an encyclopedia. And, some of these discussions were in fact stimulated by efforts to delete articles about major characters of great depth and complexity from central works of the classic english and russian literary traditions. When I came here in 06, people were doing that continually, while the most expansive sort of inappropriate detail about minor video episodes was tolerated--where the plot & characters, if analysed, would prove trivial to other people in the more fundamental sense of the word.  the balance has changed somewhat, but the moral is that we need to accept the different fields of interest. DGG (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would go along with DGG on this issue. The statement from the book about Jane Austen cited by Colonel Warden that students should "Wherever possible find your own examples from the novel to back up your opinions" would be described as a form of original critical thinking known in Wikipedia as synthesis. The reason why we can't allow synthesis to become the norm is that if everyone were allowed to write an article without Wikipedia guidelines, there would be continous disagreements about whose point of view should be allowed to prevail, and which ones should be discarded. Now I am not saying that reliable secondary sources are not free of opinion or bias, but at least the process of researching and writing reliable secondary sources has gone through the process of peer review. In articles where they are cited, editors and readers can indentify the source of opinions and bias in articles, and make their own judgement about Pride and Prejudice. As the Colonel points out, there is no external authority in Wikipedia to back up guidelines or policies on this matter, so we have to enforce these ourselves, but it is for our own benefit, and there is a payoff for doing so.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Failed proposal
'' A failed proposal (AKA:rejected) is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.'' Quoted from WP:Policy. After a year without consensus, and 10 days of RfC discussion we need to consider WP:Snow and call it a day. Too much energy is being expended here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a pedant here: its original acceptance to me suggests we can't tag it as failed. Historical, or disputed-and-proposed are better. Sceptre (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deprecated then proposed, thus, historical would only apply to the earlier format. If you want we could go back to the consensus version and then tag that as Historical. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it's understood it's historical - given that the old version I'm thinking off is probably very heavy in favor of one side of this dispute, but that because it's historical it should only be taken with a grain of salt, if any. --M ASEM  00:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's bad form to fail a guideline you voted on. Sceptre (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just fussing with the reality, and playing games with nuances to perpetuate a conflict. This in the end was rejected. We bury bodies so they don't continue to stink and infect the living. Since our practice at WP is to not delete failures, the next best thing is to mark this festering corpse as rejected and move our energy elsewhere. Removing the tag specifically controverts policy as it specifies that removing the rejectred tag is "bad form". --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the rejected tag. Try to have some more discussion about it first, and see if you can come to an agreement on an appropriate tag. In the mean time, nothing is hurt by keeping it the way it is. AvruchT * ER 01:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, how much more were you thinking? I'd say the discussion above indicates a pretty unambiguous failure to attain consensus.  Ford MF (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SNOW doesn't apply to 50-50 splits. Never has done, never will do. Sceptre (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to discussing the tag, not the policy itself :-). AvruchT * ER 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

People need to stop freaking out. I've said over and over, we need to stop treating this as all-or-nothing. When you've got people opposing and supporting for entirely different reasons you have to stop and think about what's going on here. We're not on a deadline, and like it or not, this is an issue we have to deal with. Moving the discussion won't change the arguments, which have pretty much gone unchanged, regardless of what the guideline actually said. -- Ned Scott 02:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
I think a better solution than rejected would be to merge the little that is uniquely useful to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), applying Gavin Collins’ three points under Wikipedia_talk:Notability (fiction). Keep it simple. Don’t repeat what is already clear in WP:N or elsewhere in WP:WAF. Give up on footnotes. Create and prominently link an examples page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with that approach is that I can see those that are against any type of WP:N requirement will start fighting over that section of WAF, and we'll end up making that disputed over that point. --M ASEM  01:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to using Joe's idea to preserve the better aspects of this, but I don't see that as being mutually exclusive to marking this as a failed proposal. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep WP:WAF out of this. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To my reading, there is a lot of WP:WAF type stuff presently in WP:FICT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more relaistic sequence is: (1) let this fail; (2) anything that is needed to complete WAF can appear in WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A poll idea
I don't know how many people saw the poll for adding a new C-class for the assessment scale that got a huge number of !votes that was added for the watchlist notification (ultimately pointing to here. I propose that we create a similar poll, basically !voting to get a !majority to determine basically where how we deal with fiction sits.  I think it's gotta be more than a two sided option, but I don't want too many options to bog down choices. Exactly what question to ask, I'm not sure, but I think this is the only way we are going to break this issue.  --M ASEM  05:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not gonna break this issue until we figure out if WP:NOTE actually reflects consensus. I think it does, but a small minority of editors don't. Maybe I'm wrong and this is actually a huge groundswell. But we won't know until they offer a proposal to change the notability guideline, and we see how much support there is for it. From there, we can start to work on WP:FICT in a way that reflects the notability guideline -- whether it's changed or not. Randomran (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We should get our ducks in a row and do some sort of watchlist notified vote. It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal lately, there's one or two of them every week. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to get the fighting started: if you ask people if they support NOTE, they'll say yes. If you ask them about actually applying it to certain articles, they'll say no.  Towns, counties, animals, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)
 * Here's a common example of why NOTE is broken, Articles for deletion/Hwang Jin-i (TV series). The actual notability of the article is irrelevant, the outcome is determined by the editors who happen upon the AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, that was snowball kept not 20 minutes after you posted. What outcome were you expecting? --Izno (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem right now is that the talk at NOTE is going nowhere, as because it applies WP-wide, they're having difficulty trying to allow for fiction to get 'special' treatment. At this point, there's now discussion of why even have the sub-guidelines.
 * The reason that I think poll on how we cover fiction would be helpful is that it breaks and/or confirms the log-jam there (possibly), by showing that, say, if the !majority want larger coverage of fiction than what the GNC allows, implying that notability (or more specifically, inclusion in WP) is not just determined by GNC, and justifying the use of subguidelines. Alternatively, it may be held that GNC may need to be strictly enforced, which basically means sub-guidelines should be minimized.  Thus, we would be, to some extent, solving two problems: how we deal with fiction, and how strict we should be to the GNC.  --M ASEM  12:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the NOTE discussion isn't logjammed, just stalled. I'm going to kickstart it again when I'm done with some stressful and intensive stuff at work, so either tonight or tomorrow (BST, aka UTC+1). SamBC(talk) 13:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)