Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 41

development AND reception vs. development OR reception
Does a notable article need both? Or can it just have a development section, or a reception section? I imagine this will be a point of contention, since a lot of people prefer the standard to be as relaxed as possible, while others want something more tight. But I just wanted to see how people felt about this. Randomran (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it's "or", at least to satisfy notability. Going forward towards GA/FA quality, usually it's "and", but we don't require that for articles in progress. --M ASEM  19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "and" is preferable and, if you've only got one of the two, it should be the reception one. In my opinion, material on how the fictional element has been received by the world is far more effective in establishing notability than details on how it was created. Reyk  YO!  19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer "and" but we also have to realize that part of what this guideline is attempting to do is allow for us to have articles on fictional elements that don't get critical reception--if they did, they would likely meet the GNG. We can say that real world information can include both dev. and reception, but we shouldn't require both for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like people are receptive to an article with "one out of two" still being notable. (Even if we all prefer both.) Randomran (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid saying "you need one of two" and instead say "these are the kinds of things we mean when we say 'real world'". That more clearly fits the examples we give for what is insufficient to establish real world context. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We're not trying to define article quality, just that an article can exist. If you show me reception, you're likely well on the way to GNG to start with.  If you show me development or other real-world aspects, and meet the other prongs, you've got a good likelihood of getting to the GNG after some time so the article should be kept. --M ASEM  20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the current wording is fine? Randomran (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sentence "Information about the development of the work can assist in demonstrating notability through the three-prong test." to the section on primary sources being insufficient for notability in order to clarify this. --Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking in with some fresh eyes
I haven't really edited Wikipedia in this last month, let alone be involved in this discussion. So with some very fresh eyes I've looked at the current proposal, and while I'm sure you've all put in a lot of hard work into it, I gotta say that I like the earlier version much better. Scanning this page I see some comments to Phil who also brought this up, and I guess people felt the old version was too verbose. Personally, I disagree with that, and found those early December/ late November versions to be some of the most helpful and easy to understand versions that I've ever seen.

I'm sure I could better expand what I mean.. but I really wanted to write this up while I was thinking about it. For what it's worth, my two cents. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like we're taking a reasonabl explanation of what goes in here, and slowly replacing it with the GNG. At which point, we're back to where we started, and I opposed FICT as being no different than NOTE, and unneeded. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear that this isn't what we've been doing at all. The substance of the guideline is essentially the same as it was at the start of December, which is a more relaxed guideline than WP:N. The main thing that's changed in the past few weeks is that we've just reduced a lot of the "this is how/why we got here", and made it more "do X, Y, and Z to prove notability". I really do think there's a middle ground. I might even support re-adding a "rationale" section. Ned, are you mostly talking about the three prong test, or do you think the whole guideline has suffered? Randomran (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy adding in a "rationale" section if that is what it will take to make people happy. I'd prefer footnotes and a supporting essay, but I can bend if enough people want some stated background.  As for the guideline itself, I don't know what to say.  If you don't want to see the daylight between FICT and the GNG, then I can't change your mind.  Ned, aside from the verbosity discussion, what do you feel is out of line with common practice? Protonk (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a "rationale" section would only get edited out over time, as it would only reflect the personal view of one or more editors, and would be open to endless dispute and revisions as the footnote will be. If we keep this short, sharp and simple then it will make it easier on editors seeking guidance. Also a short and succinct version will be less likely to invite "goldfish" editing, whereby everything gets changed over and over in little nibble sized edits. However, it you want to write a seperate essay on the subject and invite comments, I would be happy to contribute. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rationale section could likely disappear after the proposal becomes a guideline. Also, there is no reason it couldn't be an objective statement of what happens in practice. If anything, the old version from December made a pretty indisputable argument: we generally keep things if they're more like X than Y, and that's where these guidelines come from. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. My complaint about that revision was that the argument was clearly disputable.  The "common practice" asserted in the guideline was presented without evidence.  I could have easily responded by claiming that it is common practice to delete articles when they fail the GNG, but where would that leave us.  The three prong gives us an offensive argument--instead of just saying that we tend to prefer XYZ fiction articles over ABC fiction articles (where that preference alone may not tell us if we prefer it to remain a stand-alone article) we can say "these are the characteristics of a subject that is likely to receive encyclopedic coverage."  That is a far more powerful statement.  It is also a better one than "main/minor" because it allows us to say that we can have an article on main characters from a work of fiction where those characters are actually important to the presentation of the work itself.  The old FICT would not have distinguished between a list of characters on The Godfather and a list of characters in Zoids: Genesis. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs - can they be used to provide evidence of importance?
I have many objections to the suggestion that blogs can somehow be used as evidence of importance, but my main concern is that they are not a reliable medium of publication, because their content can easily be changed and they are not recogonised as publications per se. This is what footnote 2 of WP:BK means when refers to sources such as "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable". I think this needs to come out. Apologies to Phil for reverting his addition. --Gavin Collins (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs should not be used to satisfy the first or second prong, but can be used to satisfy the third. Importance of the work still needs to come from some other measure.  --M ASEM  01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs can't satisfy jack unless they meet WP:RS or WP:SPS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Developers blogs are fine. Also, yes blogs that meet WP:RS or WP:SPS or also WP:WEB are allowed. じん    ない   01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of newspapers have official blogs written by their writers. They are RSs and count towards notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I think we need to clarify that particular blogs are ok, but not ones written by Joe Schmoe.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The wording in question specifically said "developer blogs," not just "blogs." Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless Joe Schmoe's article meets those above criteria of somehow becoming notable. じん    ない   02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A developer blog or blog by a writer all fall under WP:SPS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this is all a big misunderstanding. I don't think anyone wants any old blog. We want to be specific: developer blogs. I thought that was clear? Randomran (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might have missed the point I was making. It is not who is writing them, or whether they are reliable, it is the fact that blogs are a medium that can be changed at a drop of a hat, without warning. What appears on a blog today can disapear or be changed tomorrow. Official, unofficial, certified by the pope, it makes no difference, the source can be changed (and not just by the author). We can't say that blogs are acceptable becuase that goes against the letter and the spirit of WP:SPS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any websource can change or disappear anyday, so why discourage/disallow developer blogs over this technicality? – sgeureka t•c 12:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Print mediums can also have the same thing happen as well, just not at the same pace (see, for example, Bill Gates' book way back, in how the second printing suddenly had the internet and networking as MS's top priority). Everything is moving to the electronic medium, and this problem will persist for all types of sources, if it really is a "problem" (that's why we have accessdate parameters in all citation templates). --M ASEM  12:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to look through the archive at WT:BK to see why blogs are not thought of as reliable, but I think it is because they are classed as a "continuing resource" as follows:
 * "Where a publication is available electronically (e.g., an e-book, CD-ROM, or publication available on the Internet), it will qualify for an ISBN provided that it contains text and is made available to the public, and that there is no intention for the publication to be a continuing resource".


 * I would class a blog as a "continuing resource" which is subject to ongoing revision, whereas a publication is more or less fixed and has an ISBN to identify that particular fixed version. This is not my specialty area, so don't take my word for it, but I think you get the drift of my argument. If reliable secondary sources make good building blocks for the construction of an article, then blogs are the equivalent of shifting sands. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is "old media" thinking.  Yes, print journals are great but we cannot ignore the fact that more and more information is going to be online only in the form of blogs and the like.  There are a wide range of reliability for such blogs, of course, and many online journals or sources activity encourage their editors and reporters to "blog" news outside of regular features for the source (see Wired for example).  There is still a need to through caution into the wind to use blogs without some type of editorial control as a reliable source, but this is where you then have to look at the reliability of the author to make that judgement call.
 * But this is getting a bit off track. No one is suggesting that from the GNG that blogs (particularly self-published ones) can be used as secondary sources, so that's not a concern.  For the matter of the three prongs, however, a creator's blog is perfectly fine to help with satisfying the third prong, even if that information changes - that information is at least available which means there is the real-world coverage requested.  The other two prongs have to be met via other means to prevent self-published gaming of the system.  --M ASEM  13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I must be a dinosaur when it comes to modern media. My understanding of blogs was that since they are not subject to any sort of editorial review, they are not reliable - a bit like talk pages such as WT:FICT. In effect, an example type of self-referencing. Seriously, references to blogs has to come out. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacking editorial review does not invalidate a source as unreliable, it just doesn't make it the strongest type of reliability we'd like to see. That's why they fall under the cautionary umbrella of self-published sources - they can be used, but you should be assured the person writing it is authoritative for that content.  So in the case here, the long-standing creator of a work, shown to be established in the field, writing in his blog on how a certain episode was filmed after it aired is completely appropriate for the third prong test.  --M ASEM  21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends on the circumstance. A blog like, say, is a case of a reliable journalistic source deciding to allow one of its reporters to do rapid response commentary. Perhaps his stories are vetted before they go up. Perhaps they're not. In this case, we take seriously the fact that Politico is willing to give space to him.
 * In the case of, it's more ambiguous - it's unclear to me who, if anyone, oversees that blog. But on the other hand, the writers of Grey's Anatomy talking about Grey's Anatomy is a reliable source so long as the identity of the writer is verified (which, in this case, it is). Editorial review isn't going to change the reliability there.
 * But in both cases, there's no real question of the reliability of the blog. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think people are missing an important part of our WP:Verifiability policy, particularly the policy on self published resources: I think a developer blog would represent an expert on the topic at hand: namely, an element of the fiction they created. So long as the blog is official, and we know it's actually the expert, then it would be considered reliable for the narrow topic at hand. Randomran (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.
 * It seems to me that proving a blog is (a) "offical" (as certified by whom?) and (b) written by an "expert" (by accreditation, or just because someone thinks they are an expert?) is a process too cumbersome to be accomodated by Wikipedia. Even if you could compile a list of "official" blogs written by "experts", it would have to be based purely on your point of view, and it is this aspect I dislike about where we are headed . The example of cited above clearly suffers from these problems: what is this guys qualifications? Who pays him? Who does he represent? I have really no idea, his profile reveals nothing. If blogs are not acceptable within the context of WP:BK, why should WP:FICT promote a lower standard or reliability? I don't understand why we are going down this route, because there is such a rich and wide range of sources on fictional topics to be harvested, so there is no need to promote sources that can only achieve credibility from personal recomendation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, remember, this started with the question about blogs relating to fiction articles. The only likely such blogs that will be necessary to pull from as to get the third prong covered are those of people directly involved in the creation of the fictional work.  Thus, there is the step to validate the identity of the author, but once that is shown, you have proven it being "official" and "expert" for the relevancy to the work at hand.  In the more general case, providing a blog reliable is generally shown by proving that that author of the blog is a reliable "journalist" through other sources.  The Video Games project, for example, has a number of blog-type sources (Kotaku) which have multiple authors involved, but only a few specific authors are considered to be reliable based on how their names are reported and referred to in other sources.  --M ASEM  14:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you can't validate whether a blog is "official" or its author is an "expert" - that requires a personal judgement call, and when it is made by a Wikipedia editor, such claims are just matters of opinion, and are discouraged by WP:NPOV. It is just not practicle to assemble a list of "specific authors are considered to be reliable based on how their names are reported and referred to in other sources" when writing an article. How would you do this in practise? You would have to create footnotes within footnotes: one to cite the blog, and another to provide evidence of reliablity of that blog. I can understand why Blogs are not acceptable for establishing notability of books, so I don't think they should they be used to establish the importance of fictional elements, because in practise is very hard to distinguish a blog from a fansite or webforum. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, go back to what's there and what this is about. We are only talking about "developer blogs" - those involved in the creation of a work of fiction - to use for expressing the real-world content of the third prong.  That's it.  Blogs for showing any other prong or notability in general fall into the general issues with blogs.  Developer blogs in fact should not be used for first prong demonstration since that's clearly a conflict of interest, and allowing that would also allow for gaming of the system.  (As for the other part of the question, from the standpoint of the article, we don't need to show the reliability of the references or the like, but as we do go up the article quality ladder, internally we do worry about the reference quality, and at FA, if you have blog-like references, you are expected to be prepared to defend or replace them.  At the VG project, we keep a complied list of sources, what controls they have, and in cases of blog-running sites, who the trustworthy bloggers are, so that when at FA, we can point back to this table with confidence.  We don't expect that the readers need to be aware of all that behind the scenes, and if the reader sees a blog-like entry, they can decide if they trust it or not (which is why we only resort to trustworthy blogs if no other sources gives the requested information).  --M ASEM  14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is a "developer blog"? The VG project may run a list of "developer blogs" (where?), but at the end of the day, saying they are reliable is a matter of opinion not fact. Since this is not a widely recognised or well defined term, I have only your opinion to support your argument they are reliable, which is not sufficient for Wikipedia, because making judgement calls about the reliablity of sources based on personal opinion goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV. Reference to blogs, whether they are of the "expert", "offical" or "developer" variety, needs to be taken out of this guideline, otherwise we risk creating an editorial walled garden based on hearsay. I think you will agree that this is not right path to follow. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Developer blogs are those written by someone involved with the creation of the work of fiction: the author, the actors, the director, or the like - the connection to the work needs to be obvious and significant (it can't be the blog of the key grip, for example). And developer blogs are likely the only place that some topics on fiction are going to gain real world details (and who better to report these than the developers themselves).  These are no different from DVD commentary tracks in the type of information they provide and thus are valuable to meeting the third prong and only the third prong in terms of notability.
 * The VG/blog issue is a separate concept on blogs in general - we don't track developers blogs because that's a different source for every game. We do track blogs that we have determined to be reliable for the general purposes of sourcing and the like. --M ASEM  15:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can try to differentiate them from unreliable blogs by refering to them as "a seperate concept", but there is no evidence that such a category exists. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not really here to rewrite WP:SPS. We're just saying that SPS can be used to provide real-world coverage about development (or reception). Pretty much, if there's a reliable third-party source that has quoted them or treated them as an authority on a subject, then we can use that WP:SPS -- with caution. Of course, this is challenging and requires discussion and consensus building: is Soren Johnson an authority on all games, or just all strategy games? Good question. But if you were to say he isn't an expert on Civilization 3, Civilization 4, or Spore (2008), then I'd honestly have to wonder how you have the common sense to put your pants on in the morning. Randomran (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nail, meet head. That is exactly what we are saying.  Hmm.  Another footnote!  I've always wanted to tell people they can't put their pants on in a policy page. :) But seriously now, this might do well to be placed in a dreaded footnote Protonk (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of reliable secondary sources, I have no idea if Soren Johnson really is an authority on games, or if you are just taking the piss. My point is, we don't want to go down the route of having to provide footnotes for footnotes (i.e. cite a source and cite evidence that the source is reliable). The creators of WP:BK had the sense to see that this would not work. Surely you can see that it won't work for WP:FICT either? --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Soren Johnson -- there's no doubt that he's an expert on the games he developed. With video game articles, it's already common practice to cite a developer's self-published material for reliable research about the game. Someone actually proposed the "footnotes for footnotes" idea to avoid these kinds of discussions, but we concluded that it would just be common sense. I'm totally willing to concede that maybe we wouldn't use Soren for reliable research about games he had no role in producing... but citing him to talk about Civilization IV would be pretty uncontroversial. Randomran (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I could say that about New York Times source as well, ie that I don't know who these people are and why they should be taken as authorities. It is because community consensus developed that such sources were in-fact reliable for most things. That is the same priniciple we apply to people like Soren Johnson and developer blogs, consensus has decided that developer blogs talking about what they are an expert in the field about is fine. It does not matter that every Joe Schmoe know who Soren Johnson is, just that somewhere he has ben shown to be an expert. I do not agree with Randomran that we should only use him for Civilization III and IV. His speciality is clearly AI and if somehow any fiction article deals with AI in general, he could also be a valid source there. じん    ない   23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still going on? The New York Times meets WP:RS because it is an established organization with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Blogs or similar items must meet either RS or WP:SPS. There's nothing else that needs to be said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am saying that developers blogs meet WP:SPS, atleast for their field, by their very nature as long as there is a way to identify the author as an expert. This does not need to be done in the article itself but only if someone questions the source and then they just need to cite that they have worked/studied in the field at a high level or have wikiproject consensus that the person is. It is Gavin who seems to have a problem with that and the reason I brought up the NYT as an example of something I could say I don't agree with, but consensus has said that it is because it is "an established organization with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking". That had to have come by consensus at some point during Wikipedia. じん    ない   01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to David Fuchs this debate is going on about the admissability of blogs as evidence of importance in the absence of reliable secondary sources, which is slightly different from a what WP:SPS has to say about such sources. WP:SPS suggests that blogs are fine as sources (although caution is necessary), but if a fictional element is not cited in reliable secondary sources, then it seems to me that to rely upon blogs as an indicator for article inclusion is to place undue reliance on what is a personal and ephemeral source of commentary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we remove the possible use of sources that normally are not considered pristine for reliability (blogs, and thus by extension DVD commentary and the like), this entire proposal basically defaults back to the GNG, which is not the goal. (The reasoning being, without these types of sources as allowances to meet the third prong, all that would be left are third-party, real-world sources, 99% of the time which can only come from secondary materials.  Since an article would have to meet all three prongs, and the third prong would basically require secondary material, we've just wiped out all the good effort getting to this point).  We should not be trying to use notability to ban-hammer topics off WP, we want to encourage topics that have a good likelihood of improving to be kept as articles, and for that purpose, using real-world information provided by self-published sources for the third-prong is at least a starting point to showing that there may be more that can be added to the article given time for others to talk about the content.  The RFC on WP:N definitely showed that sub-guidelines of WP:N can define alternate sources that can be used for establishing notability, and that's exactly what this does here.  The other prongs basically help to prevent abuse of this third-prong by over-reliance on SPS by making sure the work and aspect of work are important (even if that's subjective, it's a better line that no line). --M ASEM  16:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern that there would be no benefit from a compromise if entire proposal basically defaults back to the GNG. However, I see a very large difference in the reliablity of DVD commentary and blogs. For instance I would consider that DVD commentary is relatively reliable in that it is "published" (see my ISBN argument above) and that is has been vetted to some extent by the fact that the producers have made it available for public consumption after it has been checked. For sensitive topics such as the characters featured in the film Schindler's List who were based on living people, I would be uncomfortable with the suggestion that blogs should be used as evidence of importance, whereas I feel that the commentary and "making of" documentaries for the same film would have been subject to editorial oversight by the producers of the film, and is therefore reliable. I am not trying to pull the rug from under this proposal, but I do have reasonable objections to the use of blogs being used in lieu of more reliable sources, and I think these concerns are expressed elsewhere, such as note 2 of WP:BK. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs with credibility
I believe your not really understanding things here. We aren't saying just any old blog can be used, only those by those who worked on the project or who have an academic background that would give them credibility in discussions. This does not mean it will meet notability via the 3-prong test if all the blog says, "I was inspired when watching a man walk down the street." That really isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about a level of commentary equivalent to that seen on a DVD commentary. And before you say anything about vetting process, blogs have to be vetted are generally vetted in the same way as blogs; they just can't put anything they have signed an NDA for without permission and can't post anything illegal, beyond that they're basically the same. Hell, someone could just upload the commentary on their blog space with the exact same footage instead of a DVD if they wanted to do a video blog, which i forsee as probability in the future. じん    ない   18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you are saying. However, my arguement is different: blogs are not a reliable medium of publication per se. If a blogger writes "I was inspired when watching a man walk down the street", he (or his personal assistant or the blog hosting company or the Chinese government) has the option to change the entry the next day to "I deny that I ever said I was inspired by watching a man walk down the street". Blogs are not stable enough to be classed as a reliable source because they are ephemeral. DVD commentary by contrast is at least relatively stable; it is published (it has a unique identifier, an ISBN). I am not saying that all blogs are not vetted; I am arguing that as mediums go, blogs are very unreliable by nature, and although their flexibility makes them ideal for the transmission of personal views and essays, they are Questionable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why we require dating on all online sources and, if possible pointing to archived versions. We use online sites that can change, and even disappear entirely, that have the same kind of volitility concerns you address here. What you are indeed proffessing is beyond this guideline. What you are proffesing is a general dislike for online sources which strikes at the heart of WP:V and WP:N because it's not just blogs that can change day-to-day online. じん    ない   21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken that I dislike online sources, but it is not the case. I have often cited online sources myself, particularly where the source is presented in PDF format, but these tend to be accademic papers that have been peer reviewed. In contrast, blogs or internet forms are not peer reviewed, and by their nature are designed to accomodate writing "on the fly". Establishing the credibility of an unstable medium just cannot be done via Wikipedia, and WP:BK makes it clear that they are trivial by nature. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of academic blogs I would cite in a minute on a subject. Most of them are from authors who meet SPS or organizations which meet RS.  I think fighting the "the medium isn't conducive to XYZ kind of thought" fight is a losing one.  We are well past the point where it makes sense to say that a quality of information is conferred by the medium of delivery.  I can agree with you generally about the nature of blogs versus other sources (short form versus long form, spur of the moment versus edited), but that kind of thing is becoming moot.  It's almost 2009, we are looking at more and more people communicating primarily on the internet and while wikipedia is a deeply backwards facing institution (as it should be), we can and should accept blog sources under the appropriate provisos.  I think the narrow exception this guideline carves out (Calling a game dev. an expert on his own game) is perfectly reasonable. Protonk (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that you don't cite blogs at all. The situation that we discussing is focused on elements of fiction which are not the subject of reliable secondary sources; this is a different situation from where a topic's notability is already proven. What is being suggested in this guideline that that blogs could be the used as evidence of importance. Since they can't be used to establish evidence of notability (because they are trivial), I don't see why this guideline should break with current standards for admissable evidence for the test of importance. There are plenty of reliable sources already being published, so why should we promote the use of trivial sources for this test? This is not a moot point at all: If the information in question is really worth reporting, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have an objection that is unrelated to blogs or where the info comes from, but more about who says it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OOOOOHHHH. I understand you now gavin.  that is a reasonably good point.  You are saying that the medium lends itself toward a style of coverage that is trivial (vs. significant), so that we shouldn't be making inclusion decisions on that basis (since the GNG suggests significant coverage is expected).  I get it.  Well, I have a few answers:
 * While I like the GNG, no element of FICT is written to explicitly mirror it. In other words, the basis for the GNG is to make an inclusion criteria that doesn't result in articles that fail UNDUE/NOT.  In order to do that, the GNG has to demand significant coverage, because the coverage itself comprises the bulk of what we will summarize to make the article.  For fictional elements, outside coverage may comprise mush less of what we will summarize (with plot summary providing the balance).
 * I think we can let editors decide what is and is not significant--there are blog posts (take http://interfluidity.com/ or http://www.econbrowser.com/) which are significant in their coverage and there are blog posts (take http://www.marginalrevolution.com/) which are not significant in their coverage (this is distinct from the authority of the speaker). I suspect that if the creator posts a long form interview or demo of a feature or theme, we could argue that is some sign of its importance where if Damion Schubert makes a one-line mention of character XYZ on http://www.zenofdesign.com/, we can disregard it.
 * Does that make sense? If you want to edit the policy to indicate that developer commentary must be significant, please do so, but restricting it from blogs would not help. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does make sense. I think the objection I have with this guideline is the focus on "Importance within the fictional work". It is a very subjective inclusion criteria and it seems to me that the point of view (POV) of two or more editors is all that is needed to identify a fictional element as being important. My principal objection so far is that I object to trivial coverage (such as blogs) being used to justify POV. Now if you are saying that coverage has to be "significant", then we are on the same wavelength. What I am proposing in the section below is that use the three pronged test to identify "significant coverage" (i.e. non-trivial real-world content), which in turn provides evidence of importance, rather than rely on editor's POV. All three prongs of the importance test should be used to filter out the trivial stuff, and that way blogs could be used, provided their content pass the three-pronged test (and WP:SPS of course). --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have altered the section mention blogs by broadening to include all self-published sources as follows:


 * "Independent sources....may include self-published sources such as author or developer commentary which provide significant real-world content about the subject that goes beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work".


 * By referencing WP:SPS, I feel this section is no longer focused on blogs as if they were the holy grail. I think blogs may have some value, but should not be taken at face value. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance within the fictional work
In response to Randomran's comments above, my view is that the test for "Importance within the fictional work" is not a real test at all, as it is too vague and subjective to be proven or disproven, which is why I don't think this prong will stand the test of time. In my view, the real test is real-world coverage, which requires a good indicator that an element of fiction is important both within and outside of the context of a fictional work. For instance, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that all fictional characters are important within a fictional work, otherwise the author would not have gone to the effort of creating them in the first place; at the same time, it is impossible to prove that a fictional character is unimportant in the same way it is impossible to prove that character is non-notable. On top of that, the term "Importance within the fictional work" is open to personal intepretation; there are as many reasons to presume a character is important as there are editors' opnions. This is illustrated by the arguments suggested in the guideline itself, such as "it's the debut episode", "the character appears in every episode" to which you can add any number of additional assertions such as "she is the only character with red hair", "the episode starts in an unexpected fashion". My point is that any real-world statement about a fictional element can be interpreted as an indicator of importance within the fictional work. In the long run, I can forsee that the test for "Importance within the fictional work " will be edited out, as it has no practical application. Where the strength of this guideline lays in defining what is acceptable in terms of what is good quality real-world coverage. If we are going to have a three-pronged test, then it should be focused on identifying what makes for good quality real-world coverage along these lines: (1) Is the coverage non-trivial? Does the real-world coverage provide more information other than credit for its creation? Is there some indicator that the fictional element is important outside of the fictional work? These are just suggestions, but I feel they provide a more substantial test than is currently proposed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be the most vague of the three, but for purposes of what we are trying to do, that's fine. When push comes to shove when articles are brought to AFD, there will be discussion on the importance of the element (presuming first and third prong is met) and there will be more than just a few editors to talk about it.  This entire three pronged test is meant to be subjective in all three prongs because again, there is no obvious objective metrics by which certain element articles are kept outside of meeting all three prongs to some degree.   Once we've gotten community consensus to accept this as a guideline, only then can we move forward and adjust the prongs north or south depending on additional input. Maybe that means we become very explicit about what "important" means with respect to elements. --M ASEM  13:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three rather objective claims of high importance in the work of fiction would be a main character (credited in the opening titles), a series finale, or a titular fictional object or organization (e.g. Stargate (device), Order of the Phoenix (organisation)). Doesn't mean that these elements satisfy the other two prongs, but this prong works fine as a quick check. – sgeureka t•c 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I come to a completely different conclusion than that above: we need to tighten up the test for importance. I think it's going to be rather easy for someone to say "but 2-dimensional braindead enemy X appears in every stage of Mega Man (video game), so it's highly important to the series!" I'm not sure how many people would honestly let someone get away with that lousy argument, but it might lead to a walled garden if enough people say "WP:ILIKEIT thus it's important". This first prong is supposed to be a control on the floodgates, so that you can't just throw down an article for *any* element with a little info about its development. Randomran (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you tighten a test you can never fail? I don't think anyone of an article fictional element that actually fails this test, but passes the requirement for real-world coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Might one test of import be the ability to replace the figure with some random blank slate and have the impact be little or none? You could replace "2-dimensional braindead enemy X" with any blank slate and MegaMan would not suffer. If you tried to replace Stargate (device) with a doorway it wouldn't quite be the same. It's a suggestion. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoo, perhaps? :-) It's got multiple, independent, RS's, but in only one episode of Babylon 5 did it become a major plot element. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In video games, it happens all the time: a relatively unimportant character with a lot of development information. Developers would put *painstaking* thought and effort into drawing, programming, and balancing a common enemy. And someone will have the audacity to create an entire article about it, mentioning the 12 games that the minor enemy appears in, as well a ton of original research about how the graphics changed from 8 bit to 16 bit to 3D, along with slight changes in the enemy's attack/defense. And yes, there will be a few statements about "we had to rebalance the enemy" and "we change the look to make it more realistic" in an interview with a huge gaming publication. But there's no doubt that it's really just a minor enemy with no real significance to the series other than as an obstacle -- not on the level of the main protagonist or antagonist. We don't usually have articles for minor characters like this. But the guideline indicates that we might, especially if we focus solely on the real world coverage part. (I think Protonk does a good job of summing up basically the same idea below.) Randomran (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno, Gavin. Let's take Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000).  The article is a total trainwreck (just ignore that for now), but the "Space Marines" article could be considered important to the Warhammer 40,000 universe.  By this I mean that it doesn't meet the GNG (maybe) but reasonable coverage of the subject would suffer were it deleted or shoehorned into the main article.  I want a test that lets me keep the Space Marines article but delete Abaddon the Despoiler.  Also, to dredge up Phil's point from many archived pages ago: this guideline basically mirrors the process that most AfDs on marginally notable fictional characters grope toward.  Absent clear sources we delete stuff like the hundreds of Zoid articles but keep/merge an article on Yavin IV.  and, comfortingly, these prongs are exclusive.  A subject needs to meet all of them, not just one.  that will limit the ILIKEIT arguments (or at least their effectiveness). Protonk (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Central to the Warhammer 40,000 universe are the Space Marines" according to the article Warhammer 40,000. So it passes the importance test - quelle suprise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The alternative, though, would be to suggest that importance within the fictional work is irrelevant. That seems fundamentally wrong to me, both logically and in terms of AfD responses. Yes, this is by far the easiest prong to pass. But on the other hand, it does still matter - its exclusion would, I think, be rightly objected to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Phil is right here. IMO, the fundamental incompatibility of the GNG to fictional items stems from only one thing: reliable sources commenting on a fictional work generates a spread of third party coverage which is inherently arbitrary within the fictional universe.  In other words, Hakkar is not an important boss in World of Warcraft.  However, the Hakkar event (the boss fight) has received lots of critical coverage because of the Corrupted blood event (coverage in scholarly journals, even).  That doesn't sync up with the internal narrative of the fictional work.  Hakkar isn't important (in the grand scheme) to the warcraft universe.  Yet if we limit inclusion to subjects covered by third parties, he would have an article where Arthas would not (indeed he doesn't). Protonk (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way we could raise the bar for "importance"? Or at least say what "importance" isn't? Because right now it's too easy to make the case that *everything* is important. Randomran (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC) In response to Masem, even if an article is created for a 5-second character, it is still going to be important to the article's creator, and as sure as eggs is eggs they will find an argument to stop it from being merged or deleted. Or put it another way, no editor will admit to creating an article about an unimportant fictional element anymore than they would admit to clubbing baby seals. The problem with the importance test is that IMPORTANCE = WP:ILIKEIT, and debates about importance are inevidably going to boil down to contractory personal opinions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the sentence "The subject should be important to understanding the work as a whole" already accounts for that. I tried to illustrate this with an example of the time machine and the Flux capacitor of Back To The Future once. – sgeureka t•c 09:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * it can be argued that every fictional element is important to understand the work as a whole, otherwise the author would not have created it in the first place. Two interesting examples of this issue now arises at Articles for deletion/Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main article: Sora. Lets use these example as test cases. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing is we already have some consensus over at WP:VG that "stuff" usually isn't important. Items and things don't even get lists (for the most part). We have the same rough consensus for "main" characters versus minor characters, themes versus settings, and so forth. I don't think it is as bleak as you make it out to be. Protonk (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That consensus is now blown out of the water, because every fictional element is important now because it is impossible to agrue that these fictional elements are unimportant; they must have some significance, otherwise they would not have been created. I reiterate again: the only substantive test for importance is whether a ficitonal element is the subject of non-trivial real-world coverage, and this guideline needs to focus on this requirement, as the importance test is too wishy-washy to be of any practical use. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how how the second prong does any of that. If anything, it confirms the current consensus in relation to minor characters, themes/settings, et al. People can't assert that their work is "important" without real-world coverage per the third prong, and if anything, it makes it more restrictive for fictional content by eliminating random stuff like Spoo, which never really deserved an article in the first place (as it's relatively unimportant in that fictional universe save for one episode). The "it's not important in the scope of this fictional universe" argument can be conversely used to suggest that something of borderline notability that barely meets the third prong is better placed within a list or the main article. Your gloom and doom arguments on this matter aren't really helping. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point you have to assume good faith that editors are going to be able to distinguish between a character that is in 50% of all the scenes of a long running TV show, and a character that appears on screen for 5 seconds throughout the same series. Insisting that the only real test is the evidence of real world turns this back into the GNG, which it is not designed to do - instead it is meant to help define what the current treatment is for fictional elements when they are discussed at AFD.  Characters and other elements that clearly are important but are weak in the real-world discussion (but not completely lacking it) are generally kept, but as those elements slip into minor and one-shot appearances, they usually don't, so this prong is perfectly ok in the bounds of a highly-subjective guideline.  We can approach something that is objective, but to move too fast to such a point will likely cause FICT to fail again. --M ASEM  10:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Sephiroth BCR, it was argued that Spoo was an important fictional element in Articles for deletion/Spoo, which proves my point - I can't think of a fictional element for which it is possible to argue that it is unimportant.
 * Sure, an editor will define an article they created in good faith; that is perfectly reasonable and expected. But that's why this prong is judge by consensus.  Spoo is a good example of certain editors yelling until they were blue in the face that Spoo was important, but consensus eventually proved out otherwise.  And if consensus ends up saying the article stays, it stays. --M ASEM  10:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Spoo was important within B5, inasmuch as it was an aspect of the show that was latched onto by fandom as a recurring joke. Which, given that B5 was one of the first shows where the Internet became the quasi-official place for fans to be (since the creator regularly interacted with the fans online), a recurring and fan-driven joke is important to the show. While, on the other hand, I can think of numerous things I'd need to see a strong argument for the importance of - Buzzy Beetles from Super Mario Bros, the Avengers Quinjet from Marvel Comics, any of the potential slayers from Season 7 of Buffy with the possible and marginal exception of Kennedy, etc. The only point where I begin to waver on this is episodes - I'm unconvinced, as a matter of practice, that episodes do not always pass this prong, as I am not sure that we would ever delete an episode article that clearly satisfies prongs 1 and 3. This fact may be worth footnoting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We're losing the thread here, so let's get more specific. There has to be a way to specify the kind of importance we're talking about, so it's not just WP:ILIKEIT. Maybe we need to give specific examples of important versus unimportant... "Main characters and episodes in a serialized plot are generally important enough for inclusion, while minor characters and episodes that substantially stand alone are questionable." ... Go ahead, knock the strawman down. Randomran (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well one test would be by comparison vs. the main character/pilot or final episode, etc. which are the ones generally given by consensus to be more noteworthy. If they cannot at least come close to the level of importance within the storyline as what is being compared to, then they would fail the 2nd prong. This would be done by amount of time onscreen, the importance to plot (would the plot suffer if the episode/character was removed and by how much), etc. じん    ない   18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For works of fiction that have "specialized encyclopedias"/guide/derived games with many sourcebook/etc (ie Star trek, Star Wars or LOTR) maybe the deep of coverage and the number of these publications that dedicate a voice about a sub-topic can show his importance in the parents topic. For example the X-wing starfighter is described with an indipendent voice in almost every paper Star Wars Encyclopedia published in the last 20 years, in many of the game modules of the RPG, both old and new edition (dozens of books published in different languages worldwide), and in some of the Star Wars videogames guide, so it is obviously an "important" sub-topic of the Star Wars fictional universe topic.--Yoggysot (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My first stab at drafting a three-pronged test for article inclusion based on "importance" would require evidence in the form of real-world coverage that is (a) not merely a bald statement of fact, (b) contains opinions, criticism or commentary that is reasoned and explained, and (c) does not give undue weight to the ficitonal element through the creation of content forks from the over-arching work of fiction. This is just a taster, but the idea is that if a fictional element can pass the three-pronged test for non-trivial real-world coverage, then it is important enough to be the subject of a stand alone article, even if the topic's notability has not been (independently) established. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC) However, if you say that a particular element has "actual in-game importance", that is your opinion, and I can't prove or disprove it. No offence to you, but I would rather take non-trivial real-world content from a secondary source as evidence of importance even if that source is not independent. At least then we can use it to write an article, whereas your opinion cannot be used for this purpose. A better example is the article Kender, which is mainly sourced from the author of the book series from which they are derived. Someone might tell me Kender are an important fictional element, but if the author has written non-trivial real-world commentary about the creation and development of the characters, I consider that to be evidence of importance, as there is sufficient content for the article. My guess is that the author wrote the commentary as a teaching aide to encourage teenagers to read, but what ever their motivation, the commentary got written and published (not blogged). What makes this guideline a satisfactory compromise is that non-trivial real-world coverage such as this makes a reasonable substitute for reliable secondary sources. I think you see the benefit that if real world coverage = evidence of importance which satisfies the inclusion criteria, then real-world coverage = coverage that meets content policy (more or less) as well. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC) In answer to Randomran, I would rather rely on non-trivial real-world coverage from a self-published source to provide evidence of importance, rather than your point of view that a fictional element is "important to the fictional work". Reading between the lines of Footnote 1, every fictional element is important if two or more editors say it is. However, if all three prongs of the test were to be used to test the quality of real-world content, then even blogs could be used as evidence of importance, provided the three prongs are used to filter out trivial stuff and content forks, then I think we may be on to a winner. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not something capable of exact specification, for its always a matter of critical judgement. I don't think it's critical to define this, for we are talking about factors affecting notability, and this will always be a matter of degree. Myself, I prefer the world central, or even the specification that principal characters are always of importance to the work. It's easier sometimes to specify what is not important: characters that are named but take no part in the action, non-speaking characters, background elements which do not specifically relate to the plot (among others).DGG (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think DGG offers the most practical way forward at this point. Maybe we can't agree on what's important, but certainly we can build a consensus around what *isn't* important? Randomran (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is still too vague and relies on personal opinion. The idea that "background elements which do not specifically relate to the plot" are unimportant is impossible to prove in practise, because if an element is in the plot, it must be important - see Articles for deletion/Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) for the arguments that suggest such elements are important. The problem with this test is that the term itself ("Importance within the fictional work") is just too broad a category as importance is such a multifaceted attribute. The risk associated trying to establish the importance of a fictional element is that we will fall into the trap of reading more into a particular element or to give it undue weight despite the fact that it may not have any importance at all outside of the context of the over arching work. I feel this approach is fundamentally flawed, since the idea that a fictional element is "important within the fictional work" is to assume that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknoweledged in the absence of real-world evidence to suuport this assumption. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point, we need to put this guideline into the hands of the editors and assume good faith that "importance within the work" will not be used to justify a full article on a character that appears on screen for all of five seconds. At this point, this statement is well balanced with the others, but I fully expect that we may have to revisit it if it does get abused.  For example, if we find that people justify that those 5 second cameos are "important" and thus get 5000 word articles on them, we may have to add in specific cases of what is and what isn't important, which I'd rather not see us do because that starts treating editors like children.
 * Basically, the issues of "importance" that both the first and second prong have are balanced by the third prong - a work may be "important" for some but if there's no coverage of real-world aspects, elements from it will likely fail this test. Similarly a truly notable/important work may have a lot of elements that may seem important, but what real-world sources say will likely only limit the elements that can be expanded to those that are in every show or the like.  The third prong helps to indirectly state what is important because only works and elements that are important will have the real-world aspects that can be used to talk about them.  There are other cases that fall out of this general situation, but I think at this point we need to see how this is used in practical application (following global consensus) before deciding if the prongs need strengthening or not. --M ASEM  15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a potential problem from relying exclusively on "real world coverage". In a few (maybe more) game developer blogs, you'll hear a lot of information about mere weapons. "We wanted to take advantage of 3D bump mapping." "In concept art, we tried to exaggerate size for a stylistic effect." "By the end, we reduced the amount of ammo down to 2 for the sake of game balance." But in the end, it's just a darn weapon. We almost always delete these in practice. (See: Items, vehicles, aircraft, weaponry, some magical whatever, bioweapons, masks, units, ooh mystical weapons, now SUPER weapons, back to regular weapons, runes, a type of fighting style,power objects, technology, sonic weaponry, another mystical weapon, commands, more units, more items, even more items, moves, recipes, one more weapon, a suit, I lied -- more weapons, spells, more vehicles, even more vehicles, another mystical weapon, or a dagger that we merged at best) We're writing this guideline to be consistent about what we already keep, not to re-open these AFDs because someone found some information about how the game developer wanted to tone down the number of items in the latest version of Sonic the Hedgehog. Now, I'd have a *few* ideas about how to avoid opening the floodgates. But they all involve a stricter definition of "importance", or at least "what importance is not". Randomran (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the only problem with relying exclusively on "real-world coverage" is where the coverage is trivial as you have highlighted. What I am proposing is that the three-pronged test should be focused on the idea that "importance" must be established through the citation of non-trivial content. I think I have argued coherently that there is no way we can base this guideline on idea that "Importance within the fictional work" can be established through opinion, since it only takes the view of two or more editors to validate each other's point of view in order to identify a fictional element as being "important", which in my view is the achilles heal of this guideline as it stands. Some form of evidence from a secondary source is required to establish importance if this guideline is to be credible, and the form of evidence is non-trivial real-world coverage. Therefore, in my view, the three-pronged test should be focused on establishing that real-world coverage is not trivial.
 * I think you're missing the fact that developer blogs will make it *very* easy to provide real-world coverage, with very little correlation to its actual in-game importance. See here. There's certainly enough information here to provide a decent paragraph about the development of two weapons in the game Dark Sector. But I maintain that this is exactly the kind of thing we'd still delete. The point I'm making? Real-world coverage isn't enough by itself for notability -- at least if it's coming from the developer themselves. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets say for a moment that blogs are admisable as evidence of importance (although I dispute their reliability, e.g. the one cited gives no indication who is writing it as I have no idea who "Team Dark Sector" is), then that is real world coverage from a secondary source.
 * Which is why developer blogs and information can only be used to satisfy the third prong and cannot be used as either "importance" prong, since a developer will obviously think more highly of a work themselves. In the case of Dark Sector, the developer may feel the weapons are important and the like, and thus there's real-world info to meet the third prong, but, as per WP:VG guidelines, weapons are generally not important and thus would not have an article about them. --M ASEM  18:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To both Masem and Gavin, I'm not even sure the *developer* would think that the gun was important. They were just explaining the development process on something that they had difficulty with. But it doesn't mean it's particularly important to the fictional work. If we *could* come up with a way to measure importance to the fictional work, wouldn't we say that's a separate from real world coverage, but just as necessary? Randomran (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Masem, then if developer blogs and information can only be used to satisfy the third prong, then this guideline needs to be amended to say so. As it stands, it says "elements of the three-prong test may be satisfied through the use of...production blogs". We should therefore amend this guideline to show this clearly, but this matter may be irrelevant if you consider my arguments that follow.
 * I know your biggest concern is that importance is subjective. But what if we offered some kind of soft standard? For example, that importance only occurs when a character has appeared in multiple works of fiction -- otherwise it's probably the kind of thing that could be covered in the main fiction/series article? Alternatively, we could try to weed out spurious arguments by explaining "what importance is not". For example, what if we said this guideline only applied to characters and episodes? That way you wouldn't end up with articles about "Trees in Game X", based on a game developer's blog about how they wanted to use really sophisticated texture maps to achieve a level of realism, but tried to tone down the number of polygons in order for it to run on low end hardware. Again, I think there's a ton of real world information in developer diaries about trivial elements of fiction, and that's a real concern. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have a real problem with "Importance within the fictional work". If I was an editor interested in science or the fine arts, I don't think they would agree to the idea that an element of fiction is important just because one or more editors think it is. Because this test is not evidence based like the General notability guideline, it won't stand up to peer review from independent editors. However I think it possible that I could be mistaken, so feel free to ignore my concerns, and ignore my proposal to refocus the three pronged test on establishing importance via what is or is not non-trivial real-world coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

FICT currently requires/encourages a fictional subject to meet all three prongs in order to be allowed to have an article. But it ignores articles that are decently written with lots of good real-world info, but that fail WP:N because they are and can only be written with non-independent secondary sources ("1.5 sources"), and that fail FICT because the second prong ("is essential to understanding the work as a whole") isn't met either. I came up with this question in regards to one of my GAs, Radek Zelenka, which is clearly too good for an AfD, and still too much for a merger into List of Stargate Atlantis characters. Is a little more tweaking of FICT necessary, or would that hurt more than regarding such articles as an exception to the rule? – sgeureka t•c 12:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The understanding is that DVD commentary and such sources are perfectly fine for helping to support the third prong. As for the second, I find it hard that if the actor's won a notable award for the role that the role isn't important, much less appearing in half the episodes.  I think the key to remember is that all three prongs must be met to some degree, with this case being that you have a moderately weaker second prong passing with a very strong third prong passing so this should stay.  I don't know what would need to be changed to note that the three prongs don't need to be met to the same degree and that if one prong is overwhelming met while another prong is barely, but still met, that's still a good reason to keep the article. --M ASEM  13:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you are letting your personal fondness for a subject color your judgment. I would merge Radek Zelenka in a heartbeat, as it seems to have no better sourcing than Bulbasaur.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two answers, two different view points, and I am not much smarter. :-) Maybe that article will be upmerged some day, maybe it won't - I'll leave that decision to future editors. – sgeureka t•c 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How far are we from ready with this?
Just a quick poll, because reading recent discussion it's difficult for me to tell what outstanding issues are things that have to be worked on, and what outstanding issues are cases where nobody is thrilled with the wording, but everybody is at least OK with it (which would seem to me like a sign that compromise has been achieved there).

Of the people involved in the discussion, at this point, is there anyone who still has dealbreaker issues with the wording of this guideline? i.e. stuff where, if it is not fixed, they would oppose the guideline? If so, what are they?

And secondarily, if they start coming in, is there anybody who sees among someone else's dealbreaker issues something that, if dealt with to that person's satisfaction, would be a dealbreaker for you? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of my concerns (archived now) have been satisfied. I'm relatively happy with it as written. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am, for the record, satisfied with the present version. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern with the current version is still the "importance to work" issue. I don't agree with Gavin that we should remove "importance to the work" as entirely subjective and devoid of meaning. But I agree with him that it is a little vague. My biggest concern is the amount of coverage of trivial topics in a developer diary (especially games, where the technical aspects of designing a tree or a bird can be quite sophisticated). How do we tighten this up? I don't know. An example? A few suggested metrics? A statement about "what importance isn't"? But we ought to hash this out. Randomran (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are few cases where something we delete regularly (e.g. items) is discussed in such detail on a dev blog that we would be compelled to have an article on it. Most developers are aware of their audience as well.  Of course we could end up having an article on Fast Inverse Square Root (Quake) because of stuff like this :), but that might be an improvement.  Can you give me some example of a dev blog covering a subject like this? Protonk (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's anything I've learned looking over video game articles, it's that there's nothing beyond the realm of ridiculousness. I hate to repeat myself, but I think a few people might have missed some of the AFDs I pointed out to Gavin. See:
 * Items, vehicles, aircraft, weaponry, some magical whatever, bioweapons, masks, units, ooh mystical weapons, now SUPER weapons, back to regular weapons, runes, a type of fighting style,power objects, technology, sonic weaponry, another mystical weapon, commands, more units, more items, even more items, moves, recipes, one more weapon, a suit, I lied -- more weapons, spells, more vehicles, even more vehicles, another mystical weapon, or a dagger that we merged at best.
 * Would all of these have information at a developer blog? No. But some of them would. Based on this blog, I could see a good article about Baba Yetu: something that doesn't just have real world coverage, but also has some real world importance. On the other hand, I don't think this post would justify an article on Fighters (Galactic Civilizations II) or Farms (Galactic Civilizations II), even if the blog post were ten times as long. But I could see a very suspect argument of "fighters are an essential unit type in the game! they're so important that you can't go through a game without seeing one!" I honestly think the simplest way to deal with this is to say that this guideline only applies to characters and episodes. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But if we demand some coverage from the sources we outline, I think most of those AfDs would be closed the same way. Weapons don't get too much discussion, or don't get as much as we might think.  I think the current proposal is pretty concordant with the rough suggestions from VGSCOPE. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of those should be merged or redirected at worst. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here is my real question - is anyone actually going to oppose the guideline over this, or is it something that nobody is happy with, but nobody is deal-breakingly unhappy with? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough people who would say "importance is subjective!" I'm not saying we need to objectify it to the point of 2RSS=N, but I don't think people will be happy if we don't at least try to weed out the weakest arguments. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see the change I made to the 2nd prong today? Might help. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but not much. I think it would still lead to arguments like "you can't play the game without seeing at least a dozen"! I think the best route is to give an example of what's important, and what's not important. Or to go right out and say that "this guideline only applies to characters and episodes", let alone "this guideline doesn't apply to inanimate objects". If we want to have an article on the Warthog (Halo), then use the GNG. Randomran (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the only real way to go forward is to seek larger consensus, and then see how the prongs are used in practical application (maybe have people keep track of AFDs after FICT is promoted to a guideline so we can review that). --M ASEM 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have serious objections. In order to establish which elements of fiction can prove their "Importance within the fictional work", two or more editors need only rely on their point of view to identify a topic as being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand alone article. Personally, I think this conflicts with WP:NPOV, but no one else supports this view. However, I am have no objection to this guideline as drafted, provided we are all agreed that coverage from non-trivial real-world reamins one of the prongs for inclusion that must be satisfied. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I too am worried that establishing "importance within the fictional work" will end up consisting of a couple of fanboys getting together, jumping up and down going "OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!" and subjectively decreeing it to be so. I hope it won't turn out this way but... well... I've been to AfD. Reyk  YO!  23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I don't think this is something we can accomplish by just abandoning the importance requirement altogether. There's a ton of stuff on developer blogs for trivial aspects. Any game artist who has ever published a blog will tell you the painstaking efforts they went into to find a good polycount for the trees, while still preserving a sense of realism. Randomran (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement that non-trivial real-world is a must. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're all going to find a hard time with such a vague term as "non trivial real world." Who gets to define what is trivial?  Reading over it I don't get the impression that this is properly, significantly, and easily understandably defined.  You'll have diehard inclusionist all over you accusing the vagueness of it being a way to insure your ability to delete anything as "trivial."  Just thoughts from a person reading it not all ready knowing what you're aiming for the reader to understand. Hooper (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, at this stage of the discussion, using shorthand like "non-trivial real world" is pretty commonplace. Non-trivial real world roughly equates to significant coverage (as in more than a passing mention, doesn't have to be in-depth coverage, but more than a throwaway name) in independent sources (not SPS/published by the creator/etc.). This is already covered by the third prong and past that, WP:GNG. What "non-trivial real world" is has been hammered out already. What we're trying to agree upon here is how to quantify importance within a fictional work work as more than a vague parameter. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To both the issues of "importance in work" and "non-trivial real world coverage", I think the entire reason the guideline has been written to this point is that we cannot say with any certainly bright lines on what these terms actually mean based on the current way articles are handled. They set broad strokes that we are pretty confident on how some things are handled for things that fall outside these, but exactly how they are handled seems to depend on which way the wind is blowing on a given day.  By getting this into place with these aspects well known to be intentionally vague, we can come back to address them when we get more input from seeing it used in practical situations.  As consensus should be used to drive policy and not the reverse, this is completely appropriate. --M ASEM  05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say we can't come up with a bright line test we can all live with. But can't we at least do the bare minimum -- weed out the weakest BS kinds of arguments? For "real-world coverage", we say "more is required than merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff." Can't we do the same thing for "in universe importance"? Maybe we can't agree on what's important, but certainly we can agree on a few things that are obviously NOT important? Randomran (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some bright line tests (I can suggest a few), but either we have to be explicit about them or not include them. Given the emphasis during this editing to keep this guideline short and with no footnotes and the like, it seems like we've agreed to not included examples, and thus these detailed bright lines (which don't cover all situations, either) are not in there.  To the point of trying to let consensus and application drive this, I think its ok to keep them out, but be alert that if there's too much confusion when it comes to AFDs on the broadness of these prong, we add them back in.  Remember that we also have WAF that we can point folks to, not so much for notability but what fiction articles should work as, making these two guidelines work hand in hand. --M ASEM  06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have some ideas for bright line tests on importance, I'd like to hear them. Again, it only took one sentence to tighten up what we mean by "real world information", and I don't even think we set a very high bar. Indulge me, for the sake of a brainstorm. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the most generic test I typically consider for elements (not episodes or other serialized chapters) is "An element is important to the work if it is impossible to describe the work in a concise yet thorough manner without mentioning the element." Concise yet thorough is potentially tricky: it's more than a TV Guide-like description of the work, but it's also not a point-by-point reiteration of the plot, and there are certainly cases depending on one's interpretation of that phrase where a minor character may be necessary or may not be.  But this certainly outlines that major characters are always important, while brief cameo characters, certain items or locations, and the like, are likely not important; minor characters may or may not be depending on the exact nature.
 * Episodes and other serialized segments are a bit different, in that I would consider every separate episode or segment to be important (otherwise, why would the producers have split it up in that fashion), but we still don't cover them all as generally the third prong will be failed to be met. And exactly how this applies will vary on the medium; this, for example, it would be weaker or not applicable for daily works like soaps and 3-panel comic strips.  But for the most common episode type, the weekly show, all episodes are important, but they still have to demonstrate real-world aspects to be an article. --M ASEM  17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your approach. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bright-line test. But I don't think we need one. We just need something that will weed out really weak arguments, and people pushing for articles on trees and joke characters and so on. Alternatively, we could focus entirely on outcomes. "This guideline only applies to episodes and non-cameo characters." Or "Cameo characters and inanimate objects are generally considered too unimportant for a stand-alone article." What do you think? Randomran (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it in any way attempts to allow any article that the GNG would disallow, I would oppose it. In its current form, it seems to. If its intent is to require substantial multiple independent sources, that should probably be clarified. That's the simplest, brightest line we've got, and easily determines notability&mdash;has it actually been noted in non-fan, non-interested sources to a significant degree? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We currently have an article about Importance but, of course, it is now at AFD. This seemed to be an important topic so I trawled through the sources for a few minutes.  There are so many of them that it seems hard to find those which address the concept in itself and so I gave up.  But it seems telling that the concept is so vague that we are unable to sustain an article upon it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying Seph, and I understand what you're saying. What I was just trying to get across is that from someone who doesn't know what your intended point is on every detail, when reading this proposal, alot of it comes across as extremely vague regardless of how you guys have tried to label it. Just an FYI. Hooper (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Notabillity extremists are ignoring this. Why bother
Just like schools, there will be editors on boths sides of the debate. Either make all episodes and characters notable, or none at all. Remember why should donate to Wikipedia when their money will be spent on violating Jimbos dream of "the sum of all human knowledge". I wonder how many deletionists have a WP:COI in getting their own websites have all the knowledge by making things "not notable" on Wikipedia while making it "notable" on pages with adverts. Hint ,(Wikia, Bulbapedia, Mariowiki, etc. 89.240.166.198 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Short: troll elsewhere. You're not adding anything constructive here. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP editor makes valid points which should not be the occasion for incivility. I noticed this comment recently - a reader so aroused to fury that they are now declining to donate to the project.  Wikipedia depends upon good will and donations for its survival and aggressive deletionism directly hurts the project. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument works both ways. I'm sure there's people who won't donate either their time or their money to Wikipedia because of the vast amounts of shit around here. So rampant, indiscriminate inclusionism also hurts the project directly. Reyk  YO!  10:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Using curse/swear words adds nothing to the conversation. Wikipedia is built by contributors, insulting their contributions turns readers, editors, and donors away.  We're not a paperless encyclopedia.  We can do what Diderot only dreamed of and I reckon if he and the other philosophes could have done so they would have catalogged pretty much all human knowledge.  Most of these articles under discussion are improveable and a minority who do not like them should not detract from the thousands who are willing to volunteer their time to contribute to them and the millions who come here looking for this information.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That diff you noted is Cheap talk. I see no good reason to treat it as credible nor any further reason to say that if we all took it upon ourselves to ignore all notability guidelines that donations would flow in.  Neither side can make a falsifiable argument on the subject.  As for the above note, it is trolling.  Take a look at that person's contribution's.  Someone came on, reverted a bunch of redirects as "vandalism" and flamed out when there was some pushback.  The right answer is to tell them they shouldn't troll discussion pages. Protonk (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided evidence and could provide numerous examples which demonstrate that public sentiment out there is hostile to deletionism. You guys have nothing but your own opinions. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can. But since you appear to have foreclosed the outcome of the debate in your mind, I'm not interested in the slightest in participating. Protonk (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) From the bottom of this very edit page: " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (emphasis in original) Editing often involves cutting. Good editors frequently cut parts of something that don't fit or that aren't part of the scope of a project. Sometimes those who get edited get resentful of that, but it makes it no less good practice. If you really want rampant inclusionism, have a look at Special:Newpages sometime, and then imagine if we didn't get rid of all that garbage. And yes, people get upset because their article about their (brother|sister|friend|dog|garage band|what have you) got deleted. That doesn't mean we shouldn't delete them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lawl. Col., here is how that IP editor whom you were so interested from sparing from incivility decided to leave: This is NPOV! Hitler should of finished his "final solution" so the Wikijews wouldn't be fucking up knoledge! I'll be sure to give Sephiroth a warning for being a poor judge of who is and who isn't trolling. Protonk (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really, that could by a dynamic IP ;) the comments by the coherency-challenged anon here _could_ have been posted by a completely different person than the person who 'retired' that IP. Now *that* was funny. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Public sentiment" is obviously divided, on and off Wikipedia. There is more than one way to make an encyclopedia. there are going to be people offended with any direction we take. There is not going to be a resolution of this, and the only solution will be compromise. I can unfortunately not promise that every one of the many inclusionist  people, especially the naive beginners, who work on this sort of article will accept reasonably encyclopedic compromise standards, but I think that if the more experienced and reasonable ones do, the others can be persuaded  & guided. But much more unfortunately, I do not perceive that some of the experienced people who wish to remove this material altogether will stop at anything short of that; unless they can be persuaded by their more moderate sympathizers, I cannot see how a compromise can be effected.  My own position is the essential thing is not the division into individual articles, but the quality. For every episode or character article that is terribly overextended and unencyclopedic, there is a combination article that is unencyclopedically overcondensed and reduced to a teaser. There is thus no real point of having a fixed verdict either to include or exclude these articles.  opponents. I've always been willing to.  What we need is an agreement to take the material as it stands and improve it in place. DGG (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's pass this thing
OK. As I look at the preceding sections and look at the proposal, I don't see much more that is likely to change. So I'd like to get this established and done. To my mind, that will require the following:


 * Notices asking for final comments placed on the fiction noticeboard and VP a
 * Similar notifications to major WikiProjects (film, comics, video games, TV, theatre, radio, books, literature)
 * A week or two for final comments.
 * Assuming nothing major and new comes up in final comments, a thread to discuss whether this is good enough to serve as a guideline.

Any objections to this proposed process? Any discussions we want to have now about the threshold for calling it a guideline? I would suggest that in such a legendarily contested area, we need to ask not whether we're happy with every aspect and whether it advances what we want out of fiction, but rather whether it seems like a livable compromise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to the proposed process in the sense that we should look beyond the major fictional WikiProjects to all Wikipedians in general. Wikipedia is a wide community with diverse opinions, and we ought to turn over every stone in order to find if this truly has the support of the community. Randomran (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the VP notification. What other venues would you suggest? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe reach out to every WikiProject, and/or every major content policy page. We might even try for a watchlisted RFC. I don't like using these lightly. But I think we'd be justified, since we could show that the previous RFC failed to attain consensus, and that there are even a few ArbCom cases that are unfortuntely related to this dispute. Randomran (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that, were I an editor on the military history WikiProject, I'd just be annoyed at such a move. A watchlisted RFC is possible, but on the other hand, one extremely frustrating part of this process has been the way in which we have plenty of editors willing to toss out opinions on up/down votes like the last RFC, but far fewer willing to spend, what, the better part of a year now hacking out the disputes and working to fix them. I think we need wider input, but there is a balance to be had. I think another watchlisted RFC, or spamming WikiProjects and policy pages unrelated to this would be a mistake. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting this watchlisted likely won't happen - fiction's major, but it doesn't have a wide impact and people are hesitant about adding pet requests there. However, besides VPP, there should also be a CENT discussion as well, and also mention at WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:WAF, among other fiction-related wikiprojects. --M ASEM  17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would think this page would be the centralized discussion N, NOT, and WAF are good places, though - though WAF is, I believe, by default covered by the fiction noticeboard. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand what you'd mean about the Military WikiProject being all "WTF?" for asking their input on WP:FICT. I still think our best alternative is a watchlisted RFC. I know it's a small area of focus, but I think we can show that any normal avenue of discussion has failed to produce a consensus, and we need a wider cross section of opinion. If they should reject the guideline, I don't think we should take that as a failure -- so long as we can know if they're rejecting it because it's too strict, or rejecting it because it's too loose. That will let us know the next step. Randomran (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend notifying the participants of any active fiction related AfD by placing a notice in the AfD as well as the article creators of articles currently under discussion by placing a notice on their talk pages. Other groups notifying would be the Article Rescue Squadron and the Popular Culture project.  I am willing to help in that effort as we need to make sure that whatever we have is really what the community as a whole wants.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to such wide attempts to garner comment - it simply does not seem to me to be normal practice for proposals, and I don't think that setting a precedent for such a dramatically high bar is a good idea. For reference, the last time a notability guideline was passed - the film guideline in June of 2007 - the discussion consisted of an unpublicized thread in which two people said "Yes, let's make it a guideline," then did so without rancor. Now obviously we want something more rigorous than that, but let's not get out of hand - a watchlisted RFC, spamming every fiction-related AfD, or other attempts to garner extremely wide comment seem to me misguided. We should make an effort to get the input of those who have expressed some tendency to be interested in fiction issues on a policy level. But on the other hand, policy formation should not become a process of people working very hard for months and then throwing a proposal up to a crowd of people who vote it up or down having ignored the entire process.

We should pick places to invite comment from that are relevant and related. The WikiProjects make sense - and I'm happy to go to more specific ones like Doctor Who and Star Trek as well. The related policy pages like NOT, N, and WAF make sense. All WikiProjects, watchlisted notices, and other things that are unprecedented in guideline formation do not make sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you don't want a vote at all. I think it's a little weird. But then, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. My question is under what circumstances you would consider this guideline rejected? Or would you ever consider it rejected -- instead relying upon the WP:BRD process to change it, or leave it exactly as it is? Randomran (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am generally hesitant about votes, as I think vote + the extremely high threshold we tend to associate with consensus (70%+) is a lot of why our policy formation has stalled for the last few years.
 * If we do a call for final comments and get a significant strain of opposition (as opposed to one or two extremists on either side saying no) I would say we don't have it solved yet. I wouldn't want to abandon it, because I think we can already see that it's the best stab we've got yet, since we've got agreement from a pretty diverse set of views. But that would be enough to convince me that the current version is not there yet, and, if it went badly enough (more opposition than support on final comments) I'd say that it was rejected.
 * If soliciting final comments fails to raise any significant objections, I think we can tag it as a guideline at that point, add it to the inclusion guidelines template, and see if it sticks (again allowing for the possibility that a hardline partisan or two are going to rage against the dying of the light - after all, there are those who want to de-tag WP:N). If there's no real pushback against tagging it as a guideline after all of that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have a strong point. If we just tag it as a guideline, we're more likely to get specific comments than "oppose: too weak" or "oppose: too strict". And we can evaluate those comments on a case by case basis. Thus far, we've been able to evaluate and respond to specific criticisms using our pretty diverse little group here. I think I can agree with you. We shouldn't kill this guideline because of a thousand different paper cuts from all different angles. If that's the worst that people can do, then that means people implicitly agree that the core is a good compromise. So maybe a watchlist RFC and posting it at every AFD is inappropriate. Soliciting comments at relevant WikiProjects and related guidelines/policies would probably enough. (But let's see what other people say.) Randomran (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate... if people feel like it's been forced upon them by a small group of editors, won't this be all for naught? We already get people ignoring our other guidelines and inventing their own compromises ("Guideline X has no consensus, and I think most people would agree that ...") out of thin air. What's the point of making a proposal that people will continue to ignore? Randomran (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * God only knows, but it seems no more foolish than any of the other policies we have on Wikipedia these days. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Well at least you're a realist. Thanks for getting us away from abstract philosophies and personal likes/dislikes. Randomran (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to say that the widest net is the best here. Alterations to Notability in half of wikipedia's potential content (Fiction/nonfiction) deserve the widest review possible. Especially given that many editors, like myself, have little use for WPs. I edit a lot of comics articles, but I never joined WP:COMIC, because of prior experiences with the editors there. If there were a way to get a bot to autonotify every Wikipedian, this would be optimal. Frankly, I don't understand why it's not used more often. I never check the Village Pump, I get to work on editing and such. Many other editors are similar. I think we ought to have a straight up 'TownCrierBot', who can be dispatched for jsut this sort of occasion. ThuranX (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I should note, part of my issue here is also precedent. It's very, very easy to decide that your preferred area of editing is really important. If we decide that the fiction notability guideline is watchlist-notice worthy, then we set the precedent that notability guidelines are watchlist-notice worthy. And then next time someone tries a porn stars guideline... well. You see the problem. I don't want a town crier bot who notifies me of everything somebody thinks is important. Because that turns into being notified about everything, and suddenly all the notifications become useless. We have to make sure we preserve the wiki-wide methods of contact for the most vital of issues. And this probably doesn't qualify. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the precedent wouldn't be "a bunch of people think it's important. The precedent would be that the dispute has actually become notable off Wikipedia in major publications such as the economist, that the dispute has hit ArbCom a few times with the "Episodes and Characters" stuff, and that the dispute reached no consensus with an RFC the last time. In other words, the "watchlisted RFC" would be the last resort after numerous efforts at dispute resolution. That said, I'm willing to appreciate that there are some drawbacks to casting such a wide net, and holding this guideline to a higher standard than most others. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see that argument. I just suspect that it would, whether intended or not, become a precedent. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

independence clause
I don't like the Independence Clause. Too often, a company's own history glosses over the faults and problems, belittling or ignoring them. Consider Marvel Comics. Most of their histories say very little about the falling out of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko over the direction of Spiderman, or about Jim Steranko's problems in the industry, despite both being huge names Marvel has no problem 'claiming' as their own for the good stuff.

The independence of sources, of course makes it tougher to substantiate the Real World notability of a fictional subject. However, it also means that information is far more likely to be balanced and objective. While editors look for good, solid sources, there are easy parent articles for editors to build up. We don't need 6000 articles on each pokemon, but articles on Pokemon - the game, series, movies, merchandising, controversies, can all be made. The 6000 animals are simply unimportant, because they're nothing but merchandising, and where are they covered? In the books published by the company that makes the game. But the results of that merchandising in sales and so on are important and notable and have a lot of independent coverage.

Similarly, I don't think all the Comic book characters need articles. If we just had a 'List of minor Marvel villians' article, we could eliminate tons of pretty useless characters, Porcupine_(comics), to name one, among many. It happens that comic books is becoming an area of pop culture with more and more scholarship, and so more characters are gaining RS and NOTE, but those that arent' can be herded into lists.

Further, cases where there's only the slightest sources, isntaed of breakign out articles, should instead bolster the main article, pushing it higher and higher on the quality scale.

We don't need a waiver in the Independence of RS to allow more fiction articles to be considered passing. There is nothing wrong with less articles which are of higher quality. I would certainly rather have 500 articles, 100 lists, and know that 400(80%) or more are A, GA, or FA, than to see 500 articles plus 5000 more instead of lists, and know that 400 (7%) are A, GA, or FA. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your concerns. But this is one of the big concessions to "soft" inclusionists, in order to attract their support. If we drop this, we're pretty much back to strictly applying WP:N. I also think Phil Sandifer has made a strong case that this reflects actual practice -- there are lot of articles on Simpsons episodes that don't really have reliable third-party sources, but have a pretty tight summary of the plot, along with some information about development/importance from the DVD commentary. Randomran (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How very un-eventualist of you. :) To my mind, the issue here is that a notability guideline should not be about ensuring that an article is A class - it should be about ensuring the possibility of an article becoming A class. To go with a comics article, Batman, a featured article, began as this: . Fun Home was "Fun Home is the name of a graphic memoir by Alison Bechdel. It chronicles the authors childhood and youth in rural Pennsylvania focussing on the relationship with her father, Bruce Bechdel."


 * Which is to say, keeping a crap article around for a while produces very good results some of the time. The issue is isolating articles where it's probable that such a turnaround can and will happen, and distinguishing them from lost causes. And I think non-independent sources do help there - especially in the area of fiction, where copyright concerns are a major issue with secondary sources. The question, for an inclusion guideline, shouldn't be whether an article can be GA quality with just non-independent sources - it's whether an article that has substantial real world content from non-independent sources can likely be improved to GA quality. And the answer to that, I think, is yes.


 * Does that make sense? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your argument is coherent and clear, and yes, in that way 'makes sense'. You explained yourself well. However, I disagree with your contention. Consider some internet memes. They may get many bloglinks and such, but little to no real-world content, and, as we see more of them, a rate of declining returns on the reporting of such things. Under this new form of the guideline, they would be legitimate. (Yes I'm aware they aren't fiction, but this lesser standard will spread, faster than it can be reined in with ArbCom and so on.) Similarly, consider the world of fanfic. There's an awful, and i mean AWFUL, amount of the awful crap out there. It's my understanding that some of it's got big followings. However, it's also all copyright infringement and unlikely to get any sort of reasonable coverage beyond the 'arrested for' variety, and articles decrying the dilution of Intellectual Property(wherein the use of any story as an example is not notable coverage of it, but the results of some basic Google searching). In short, beyond the 'lots of people talk about liking it so it must be important', I simply can't see this being at all valid. There are plenty (and the numbers are still growing) of reasonable sites about Fiction and pop culture. AICN and Newsarama both go out and do interviews. While these are the soft interviews that let artists speak freely about their own works, they are legit interviews which I wouldn't generally object to as sources. However, these sites generally operate with some understanding of Journalism and the related ethics, whereas many blogs do not. There are blogs which may be notable, or be notable, reliable sources for other cases and articles. I just last night heard about an anonymous blogger who has been writing, from the inside of a wall street firm, about the financial mess (it was on NPR). Her works had been cited by news organizations and so on. She's probably good enough. What I would say is that IF a blog itself merits an article here, then there are probably reasons to consider what is said there as possibly being WP:RS, but that 'Tommy's house of StarWars:CloneWars Love n Worship' isn't going to pass muster. Neither is Stormfront. Blogs and websites are great at demonstrating that people love a thing. But love alone isn't enough for an encyclopedia, we need sources, reliable, outside ones. And I can't really see budging form that and maintaining the goal of writing articles of a quality I expect. (For the record, I view writing here like a collaborative Term/book/research paper. None of those would use blog popularity checks as sources.) ThuranX (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we're not talking about using random forums and blogs here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But we are. Take a theoretical piece of fiction. It appears, self-published on the internet. The author then goes out to half a dozen fiction forums, posting links disingenuously, about how great this 'thing he found', is. Then he creates a Wiki-article on it, and sources it to the bloated 'about my fiction' page on his own website. He points to 6 different forums where people are talking about it. Under the new rules, he's substantiated that it's important in fiction, and he's got a non-independent source, his site, and 6 'independent' sources, the forums, to bolster his claim. No thanks. WP:N is fine as is. Scholarly examinations of pop culture are out there for fiction which really has had a cultural impact, or the potential to. We allow Critic reviews to substantiate notability quite often. Why should we allow self-published or ghost-written materials about a person's own work to be allowed in? ThuranX (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments based on primary sources
Arguments based on primary sources are not an indicator of importance, that is like saying the opinion of two or more editors is an indicator of importance. I propose that the statement "Arguments based on primary sources can also help satisfy this prong, though they are inferior to external sources" be struck out from footnote 1 on the grounds that it conflicts with the section Primary sources are insufficient for notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a contradiction - the "primary sources are insufficient" notes that the reason they are unsuitable is they provide no real-world perspective. They cannot satisfy the third prong - they can, however, be used sensibly for the second prong - arguments like "the character appears in every episode" are both sane and have appeared persuasive on AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Gavin here - primary sources cannot be used to show importance otherwise I can assert my fanfic (with commentary I wrote later) is notable for WP (too easy to game the system). The aspect of a character appearing in every episode, that type of importance is common sense, or as I noted earlier, has to be mentioned as part of a concise but thorough plot summary. --M ASEM  23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me like your fanfic, even if you could get it to pass 2 and 3, would fail 1. Can you think of an example of an article that the allowing of primary sources for prong 2 would cause to be kept undesirably? Would it help if we limited primary sources exclusively to prong 2? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it's not so much using the primary source, but that the fictional elements has to be significant enough to the work to be in a "concise but thorough" summary. A character may appear in every episode for example, but if they don't actually do anything to merit description, they're not important.  --M ASEM  23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it would still be vague... but I think we'd get rid of some of the most trivial cameo characters by changing the wording from "importance to the fictional work" to "essential to the fictional work". And I think it would reflect actual practice of what we keep/delete. Again, there are some parts that we'd have to trust to reasonable AFD discussion, but maybe we can weed out the most absurd kinds of arguments. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm on the flip side, a hair worried about "essential," because it remains by sense that episode articles that clearly pass prongs 1 and 3 will not be deleted (while extremely minor characters who meet 1 and 3 will probably be deleted unless they clearly pass WP:N). And I'm not sure how "essential" plays well with that. What about "central to understanding," which I think hits a middle ground between importance and essentialness? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe "essential" raises the bar too high, but then "central" is too vague. The goal isn't so much raise the standard as find a way to be clear about what we're excluding. We're trying to exclude cameos, minor characters, other nouns and verbs that we usually delete/redirect... I wish I could just say "important = not crap", but I don't think that's really helpful unless we define what crap is. Randomran (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to define but I know it when I see it. Reyk  YO!  05:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's some old language in the narrative complexity section that might help here. I'll have a look tomorrow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Phil Sandifer, I think the conflict between footnote 1 and Primary sources are insufficient for notability is obvious; on the one hand the footnote says "Arguments based on primary sources can also help satisfy this prong", i.e. the point of view of two or more editors can be used as evidence that a fictional element is important within the fictional work, whilst the last section makes it clear that "Original research and original analysis of primary sources...should be avoided. The conflict arises in the fact you can argue that a particular character is important on the talk page, but you can't write those arguments into the article itself. In practise, we will end up with talk pages that are longer than the articles they support, filled with arguments and hearsay that a topic is important, but not supported by any real-world content that could be cited in the article itself. I don't see why we have to accomodate the statement "Arguments based on primary sources can also help satisfy this prong, though they are inferior to external sources" when in fact only external sources are the only evidence of importance. This statement needs to come out in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, though, it seems to me that arguments like "the character appears in every episode" and the like are both useful and regularly employed, and that forbidding primary sources for the second prong is going to be spitting into the wind. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that straight forward - you still need to have non-trivial real-world content to write the article itself. Opinion's expressed on a talk page provide no useful purpose unless they can be mirrored by substantial coverage on the article page. Sure you can win the battle of words on the talk page by arguing that a fictional element is important within the fictional work, but if you can't write anything that does not fail WP:OR. What is the point of saying "Arguments based on primary sources can also help" in the absence of any real-world coverage? Arguments based on primary sources are of no help, as the only ticket to article inclusion is the non-trivial real-world coverage that can be used to write it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to seem pedantic, but I think you've confused necessary and sufficient conditions. Primary sources aren't sufficient by themselves, but they can help fulfill the second prong. So there's no contradiction. I understand your other arguments, but I think we've been over this a few times. You need real-world information, but it's not enough by itself either. Not everything with real-world information in a developer blog is important enough for a stand-alone article. Many game developer blogs will make the occasional rant about how they had to rebalance a special move, or redraw a part of the landscape. And even though that would help fill the third prong of the test, it's not to say that the special move or landscape is important to understanding the fictional work. We'd probably delete it in practice. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clarify this issue, making it clear that an article with just primary sources can never pass this guideline, but that primary sources can work on the second prong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, but "The work itself can also indicate importance to some extent" does not work: this is an example of Assuming the obvious, which might not be the case. It still conflicts with the inclusion criteria Primary sources are insufficient for notability; you can't on the on hand say that "original analysis of primary sources is to be avoided" in writing articles, but it is alright for inclusion of articles. The two statements and this approach are not compatible, even if qualified by the phrase "some extent". --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not see how there is any conflict between "primary sources can help satisfy one of the three criteria for notability" and "primary sources cannot help satisfy the other two criteria for notability." Perhaps this is, as Randomran suggested, falling into a necessary/sufficient confusion. I'll rename the "Primary sources are insufficient" section to make this clearer. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. I don't subcribe to the view that "Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work". I think this approach implies that synthesis is somehow encourged. Can you give an example of what you mean by this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't remember writing that line. Lemme think about it for a bit. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On that point, I think there's are some facts which the fictional work can be used. We need no source other than Crime and Punishment to state that Raskolnikov is the central character, or that "the bureaucrat and he have a discussion about government and ethics in the tavern." We would, however, need a source to state that "the bureaucrat and he have a crucial discussion about government and ethics in the tavern, which was Doestoevskii's way of being tacitly critical of the real Tsar's behavior." Simple, straightforward matter of presence, timeline and so on... the facts of the plot, if you will, those can be sourced to it. Likewise, if a character's physical appearance is important, the source can be cited for the appearance, the critic for the importance thereof. There are dangers in this ,but they relate to poor writing and building SYNTH in that matter, not in the direct stuff - example "In 'Borg go surfing the multiverse', an episode of Star Trek: The Greedy Generation, The good Borg have goatees. (cite episode). IN other star trek episodes, goatees mean evil (cite old shatner star trek), therefore it is plain that the borg are really opposites of the normal borg.(cite episode again)" In this case, the appearance of multiple cites for the goatee facts, and then the borgsurfing episode, cited again at the end, fails SYNTH, because it jsutifies a conclusion about the writers' intent with a citation that's really using plot. So while the work can be used ,we'd need language which plainly makes it about things plainly stated within the text. Allusions, subtexts, themes and such, though clearly in the book, aren't verbatim there, and thus cannot be sourced to it. ThuranX (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Separately from my above comment, I like the idea of Essential. Essential to the concept can be demonstrated by trying to write the article without mentioning the aspect, and showing that without that element, the reader's understanding is crippled. "In Star wars, a young man goes flying through space, on an adventure against an evil person. He meets some allies, and they have some narrow escapes, but then he blows up the bad guys and goes home a hero." Whiel this plot is not unlike numerous bad sci-fi films, the elimination of mention of the Force does great disservice to the reader, who is rather lost when discussion about Joseph Campbell and a hero's journey and so on, seem hollow and detached from the story. the mythological component of 'otherness' and discovery of specialness in the hero is essential to understanding the critically reviewed aspects of the story. You can';t discuss religious, spiritual, and mythological implications of star wars, for which there are ample citations, without including the Force, so it's clearly essential. Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen are his surrogate parents, and like many families, they aren't always happy' isn';t so essential; one could dryly write ' after running errands to town, luke returns home to find his family killed', and get the basic point, so a character sketch of Beru and Owen is less important. ThuranX (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where to notify
I'm going to post the requests for final comments either tomorrow evening or, if I don't get to it then, Tuesday (I'm traveling all day Monday). Here's where I'm definitely posting them. Please let me know of any others that people think I should hit. After looking at the norms for passing similar guidelines, I am going to restrict this to relevant pages. But if there are pages people think this should go, name them and I will, unless they're very much off-topic or overly and intrusively spammy, hit them.


 * Village Pump
 * Fiction noticeboard (Which gets WAF and other fiction policy pages)
 * WP:N
 * WP:NOT (I'm debating this one - the vast majority of the page does not relate to this issue)
 * WikiProjects film, comics, video games, TV, theatre, radio, books, and literature

Anything else? Do people want me to hit some of the larger fictional universe WikiProjects? (Doctor Who, Star Trek... what else is big?) Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CENT should also be tagged. And the only reason I suggest WP:NOT is due to WP:PLOT. --M ASEM 04:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know about WP:PLOT. But it seems to me like WP:PLOT is a small part of that page. But if there's a wide view that it should be tagged, I'll tag it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What else is big? Star Wars, possibly Dungeons & Dragons. Reyk  YO!  04:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel like it would be a good idea to notify people at WP:OR and WP:RS because of how much we go into both of those in this guideline. Maybe even WP:V, because we do spend some of time on self-published sources. Randomran (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hit WP:NOT/NOTE. Is there a Westerns fiction group? Romance? Historical Fictions? sci Fi? Anime? ThuranX (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

while you were out...
Sorry to drop this on you all while you're busy hammering out where to post a RfC or notices, but I noticed the footnotes were still in place and so I removed them and merged the content into the major prongs, per concerns on shifting wordiness and redundancy. As far as I could tell, I mostly just tightened language, removed redundancy between the body text and footnotes, and calls to the GNG and other policies which should be redundant with everything else as set out (the guideline doesn't trump policies, et al.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea, but I think too much got lost here. I've reverted. I'll take a crack at a footnote merge before I put the final comment requests up, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think you're aiming in the right direction, but didn't quite the target. So I'd encourage someone to take another stab at cleaning up the redundant parts of the footnotes, but maybe not gutting them / merging them completely. Randomran (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I support David's action in principle for three reasons. Firstly I think footnotes should only be used where we are citing external sources; secondly if any statement is worth making, it should be put in the body of the guideline, or if not, it should go elsewhere (such as in an essay); and thirdly they can give rise to conflict between the body of the text and foonote. Although some editors are fond of footnotes on the grounds that make guidelines look more grandiose and self-important, I think they are pretentious if not used a method of citing external references. I would encourage merger of the foonote with the body of the guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I also hate semi-colons. (Not being facetious.) Randomran (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a crack at merging these. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went and removed some of the redundant stuff I was talking about (multiple links to the GNG, and not linking to it at the first occurrence, and minor mentions to policies which we emphatically state elsewhere should be followed.) There's less there now, but more than my initial revert trimmed. As of Phil's revision here, I'm happy with the guideline, I believe. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's one thing that's missing from the guideline now, it's evidence. I'm not sure if it's appropriate here, in footnotes, or in an essay. But one of the most persuasive things I saw was when Phil Sandifer showed me some solid articles that are pretty darn unlikely to get deleted, despite failing WP:N in the strictest sense. I think it's pretty persuasive, and should be mentioned somewhere. Randomran (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see if anyone calls for it in final comments, and if they do, we'll figure out how to provide one. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a single representative article, as long as we clearly stated how it met all three prongs, but I wouldn't put that up with the 3 Prong test itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What could demonstrate things best is a now-GA (or higher) article about a fictional subject from its article creation where it should have been redirected or deleted, up to the high-quality it is now. One of the first examples I could think of was:
 * The Beginning of the End (Lost) - an unsourced CRYSTAL episode article, passes prong1, but pretty much fails prong2 and prong3 - was prodded and then redirected to Lost (season 4) (its parent article)
 * recreated with sources - passes prong1 and prong3, prong2 unclear - could be suggested to be merged back to Lost (season 4) at the time
 * the same article with overlong plot summary (cleanup issue), but prongs 1 through 3 are satisfied for a stand-alone article, improvement possible
 * the same article more than satisfies prongs 1 through 3, becomes an FA and is unlikely to be considered for mergers or deletion
 * – sgeureka t•c 10:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's an example of don't frag idly, which we advise against in the guideline, not "this meets the prongs, so it may be kept". The featured product more than meets the GNG, so I don't think it's that great an example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be hard to find a single article that passes all three prongs but fails the GNC, and where even deletionists agree that it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil? I can't remember, but you pointed me in the right direction before. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in Sept. 18 2006 the [Goldmoon] article was a good article. It's since been delisted but that might help. Padillah (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reduce the number of run-on sentences, including sentences with semi-colons. I think these kinds of sentences interfere with readability. What might be more controversial is that I removed sentences that say "we are more likely to X than Y" or "we usually do X". These were descriptions that usually justified the prescription: "do X". Without real evidence, they're redundant. On the other hand, I think adding a few example articles would accomplish more than just saying "we're more likely to keep an article like this". If people can actually see a kept article that fails WP:N, but passes this guideline, they're more likely to swallow this guideline as a reflection of actual practice. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Referring to what Padillah pointed out above Goldmoon might be a decent piece of evidence. I think mentioning this somewhere would be more valuable than saying "we usually keep this kind of thing". WP:PROVEIT is a good principle to use here. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

After 9 months of being proposed, what is the conclusion?
Since this article was demoted to a proposal, 9 months ago, there seems to have been no consensus on this article. Since editors don't like the or historical tag, I suggest the same tag as is being used on Notability (criminal acts). travb (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus? I'd re-read the very long talk page and the archives. There hasn't been a consensus discussion as of late. Everyone has been fine-tuning the page to get it just right, and only just recently have there been talks about where to post announcements so that a formal consensus can be determined. This page stands no where because there hasn't been a consensus discussion started yet.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a new proposal from the last one - so this one has only been a proposal for... a month and a half right now, and seems near consensus. If you look at this talk page, we're going to be soliciting final comments, and hopefully rolling this out as a guideline in a week or two. So, actually, there's nothing like the sort of stalling you're suggesting. We're doing pretty well, all told. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it works, and I believe we are agreed that in its current state, it will be acceptable. My outstanding concern relates to the fact that the first two-prongs of the test don't work because they are based on personal opinion, but even if you ignore them, the real-world test seems to provide a way forward by widening the inclusion criteria for articles on fictional elements without a complete loss of content quality. In answer to travb, I think we are very close to making this a guideline once again, even if we are taking our time, that just reflects my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving prior to final comments
I'd like to do a manual archive of this talk page just before I make the call for final comments (which I'm currently planning on doing late Monday or early Tuesday after I get done traveling tomorrow). My goal here is not to hide past discussion (since I think the past discussion has been extremely harmonious) but to make the page clean and inviting, and try to make sure nobody gets driven off by a sense that they have to read through 12 sections of discussion before they comment. But I don't want to do it if anyone feels like it would be at all problematic. Any objections? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. Reyk  YO!  04:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ok. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. This is already an automated process, and I don't think there is any need for you to intervene in the process if you don't mind. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I can see the benefit of not wanting to overburden newcomers and potential !voters, but some of the old threads are still active and shouldn't be closed just yet. Maybe a light manual archiving. – sgeureka t•c 10:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sgeureka; archive the old ones manually, leave the two or three threads still generation discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Significant"
This word is debatable and should be removed. "Real world information in reliable sources" is sufficient as it suggests that the article needs out of universe context as covered in multiple reliable sources. Adding "Significant", which can be interepreted subjectively, just creates problems. What is significant, ten dissertations? Are two scholarly journals significant? Or say something like "Real world information from reliable sources that can be used to write Reception and/or Development sections." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like we can link directly to the footnote in WP:N talking about significance. That's what we mean.  As for your last suggestion, if a fictional subject is covered by a reliable source it doesn't need to appeal to this guideline to be included. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be clunky, but this is the link. The addition of the phrase came out of an earlier dispute over use of "developer blogs", where Gavin suggested that the medium itself might result in trivial coverage (it took a while before we saw eye to eye on that).  We decided that allowing dev blogs specifically was important but that some statement had to be made regarding the depth of "coverage". Protonk (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, say you have a review of a game or film in a magazine that devotes a whole paragraph or two focusing on a character, and you have another published review that does so, i.e. you have the articles that are about the work of fiction as a whole, yet within the reviews spend a good deal of time on characters or weapons or what have you and as such you can compile from multiple of these reliable secondary sources enough information to construct a Wikipedic reception section and in some instances even development sections, even if it's from general reviews of the game or movie, if that counts as significant, then okay, that's fine. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that will always be up for discussion and the nature of the reviews will vary considerably, but if we have reviews of Game XYZ that mention character ABC, we should be ok for keeping them as a standalone article. That all depends on the substance and nature of the review.  There are an awful lot of reviews out there that say "Character XYZ is a plucky sidekick" or words to that effect and little else.  The result on those kinds of articles is pretty mixed.  But once something has gotten coverage enough to meet the GNG, its inclusion is out of the remit of this guideline. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the term is well-understood - the point is if the source is really talking about the element rather than talking around the element. A review that dedicates a paragraph to one character is sufficient for the character's real-world significance.  A review that lists mentions the character in passing is insignificant.  --M ASEM  22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is always going to be a point of contention, the same way as "important to the fictional work" will be a point of contention. There's no bright line test and people are going to have to discuss it. To me, it's "more than a stub section". I think other people put more emphasis on the quality of the information. But in general, we know it's more than one or two sentences. From WP:N: ""The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial." It's going to be easy to decide if there's a whole book, and easy to decide if there's only one sentence. Everything in between will be subject to consensus. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I fail at grammar

 * "Significant real-world information must exist on the subject's development and reception beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work."

Should there be a comma between "significant" and "real-world" since significant describes the information and not the world? Protonk (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I learned that there should only be a comma if you can replace the comma with an "and". However, "Significant and real-world information must exist" sounds wrong. – sgeureka t•c 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought commas were only needed when you had three adjectives. Will ask a grammar expert on this. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Diana Hacker's A Pocket Manual of Style, Fourth Edition (Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004), "Use a comma between coordinate adjectives, those that each modify a noun separately." The example she gives is "Patients with severe, irreversible brain damage should not be put on life support systems."  Notice the comma between "severe" and "irreversible".  See pages 65-66 of her book.  Yes, I actually keep grammar books on hand... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A comma would be required. "significant" seems ambiguous. Do you mean significant as in a notable fact (as opposed to trivial ) or in the amount of information (as in, "He found a significant amount of money in is bank account")? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the section immediately preceding this one. Like "notability", "significant" is a term on wikipedia that has evolved to have a specialized meaning.  Here we mean that a more than passing reference has been devoted to a subject--the exact definition is left ambiguous on purpose.  Significant obviously includes book or monograph length mentions and obviously excludes one-line mentions but what is in between is a grey area. Protonk (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have dug into my style guides, but I think most of them are about MLA/APA/Chicago technical nuances. although in retrospect they might have mentioned it. That's a yes on the comma, right? Protonk (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a comma is needed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the new discussion?
I arrived here from cent ready to comment on this proposal (I like it), but there is a lot of old discussion here. Could someone tidy up the talk page and update the links so that people arriving here are directed to a section where new discussion can take place? Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By your command. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh. Still a lot to read. Thanks. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias
I just noticed that this section has dropped out somewhere along the line. No idea when or where. Does anyone happen to remember who cut it and why? I'd forgotten all about it until I went to answer the question above about a couple of AfDs, and was going to point to it because it dealt with the issue that characters from works of fiction with dedicated fandoms are disproportionately (and inappropriately) likely to survive AfDs, and that this is not desirable. I suspect it should go back in, as it provided a really useful hedge against presentism and sci-fi bias, but I have no idea when or why it got cut, so I don't know if we've discussed this. But without it, I'm hard pressed to come up with a convincing answer for why this policy stands up to a complaint like Jules's above. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha. Found the old language. It had some obvious problems that were going to be jumped on, so I took one pass at it. I think something along these lines is needed - both to remind people that a Google Search is not sufficient to decide that real-world perspectives do not exist, and to remind people that sci-fi topics have devoted fans who will show up en masse and skew AfD results. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was probably removed because it was too much like an essay, and too long. But I agree we should say something here. Let me take a stab at a more concise version. Randomran (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I removed it. I don't have a problem with it going back, but it is sort of a non-binding statement. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the new version looks better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Phil, I think the section on Systematic bias reads like a personal essay, not like a guideline, and you might wish to reconsider your approach of inserting long personal statements into the guideline without canvassing support on the talk page before hand. In my view, statements of opinion not supported by facts should not be added to guidelines, e.g. "If one were to judge purely based on the availability of secondary sources, one could be forgiven for thinking that science fiction is by far the most important fictional genre in existence". This might make an intesting topic for personal research, but in my view, it is just not suitable for a Wikipedia guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It could use a trim, sure, but it seems to me that it was added back and multiple editors then cut it to pieces. The part you're objecting to came in along the way somewhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Real-world coverage 2
This section needs to be bold, underlined, italic, red, big, and flashing. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Imagine a box with a thick dashed border, too ;) Jack Merridew 12:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pity we can't incorporate the sound of an air raid siren for even more emphasis. Reyk  YO!  21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify first prong
Looking at the three-pronged test, the second and third prongs give a succinct explanation immediately after the introductory phrase: What does "Importance within the fictional work" mean? The subject should be an episode or non-cameo character that is important or central to understanding the work as a whole. What does "Real-world coverage" mean? Significant, real-world information must exist on the subject, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. That's great. The first prong, however does not. What does "Importance of the fictional work" mean? It doesn't really say. A statement like "The subject should have cultural or historical significance" is needed, or whatever phrase is deemed appropriate. I'm not trying to change the intent of this section, just clarify it.  Pagra shtak  21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we might want to re-arrange it so that "more than notable" becomes the crux of the test. E.g.: a notable work will have an article... but a "more than notable" work might support some spinoffs. Randomran (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of three prongs...
How does this proposal apply to the article King Triton? I would say since the character has appeared in three notable films and two notable videogames, the character is well-known &mdash; so an article about the character is fine.

The problem with the "new" FICT is that it's the same as the old FICT &mdash; this bizarre demand of "real-world coverage." All these arguments at FICT seem to stem from Deckiller's proposal that was created June 5, 2007. Later, in July 2008, Deckiller said "I created a monster!" If you compare User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) as it looks now, to FICT as it looks now, you are left with the same result &mdash; editors looking at FICT and redirecting/merging/nominating for deletion everything they can find "lacking the necessary real world coverage" &mdash; which nobody ever agreed was a requirement for an article in the first place.

If the goal is to get the Valen article deleted or merged into a list with no pictures or transwiki'd to babylon5.wikia.com, I would say this proposal does a good job &mdash; but I don't agree with any of those goals and I don't see how that makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find you are in the minority in describing a requirement for "real world coverage" as bizzare. As for the subject itself, it may be a good example of an article that FICT would keep but the GNG would not.  I'm sure that someone, somewhere has made some connection between the king triton of Little Mermaid and various greek mythic figures (even if only to say that Triton is a disneyfied amalgam of them), that would certainly satisfy a connection to the outside world. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pixel, if you don't have anything positive or constructive to add to the guideline... -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read my second sentence again. When I think prongs I think tridents; who carries a trident? Poseidon, Triton &mdash; both arguably fictional characters. King Triton is a fictional character and a spin on Triton, and has appeared in multiple fictional works. Don't act like there's no dispute about "real world coverage." Look at Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet, it was snow kept. Look at Articles for deletion/Black Mesa Research Facility, which you nominated for deletion. It closed as no consensus. S@bre later redirected it. Now there's no article on Black Mesa, and yet we have the article Halo (megastructure)? What's the logic in that? Look at Articles for deletion/Hazardous Environment Combat Unit, which you nominated for deletion. I provided "real-world coverage" there, which you can see here. I agree, a character article is more likely to be kept if it provides real-world coverage. But it's never been a requirement to have an article. --Pixelface (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Black Mesa merge is actually a good one. It discusses the important parts of the concept/facility without getting into minor things, like what jobs go there or what the different departments do. Sceptre (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Locations of Half-Life is okay I guess, but there was no consensus to delete the standalone article even when it had information about personnel. Masem suggested a merge, S@bre agreed, Masem changed to keep, and after there was no consensus to delete (or merge) the article, S@bre s'merged it months later. The location is the primary setting of four Half-Life videogames, the first of which won over 50 game of the year awards. The setting was revolutionary at the time. The article should answer the question "What is the Black Mesa Research Facility?" That fictional location is well-known enough to stand alone; it's just easier to persuade people to keep when it's presented alongside other locations. --Pixelface (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should be more encouraging for people to delete problem material (synthesis, original research, etc, and not just in fictional articles) instead of letting it stagnate. To be honest, I actually kind of trust S@bre's judgement on this; he (along with Gary King) did get quite a lot of the HL articles they could to FA/GA. Maybe as the main setting of the original, it could do with another paragraph or two, but it does look a lot better. Sceptre (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument: King Triton - passes prong 1, may pass prong 2 (I have only seen the movie and can't comment about his involvement in the series), fails prong 3 left and right. I think the FICT sentence "Editors may consider whether the fictional subject could be treated as a section or part of a parent article or list instead of a standalone article" applies, as this character can nicely be covered in a List of characters. I'll also note that while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the rest of your comment is similar in style as the second and third points of concern in your RFC. – sgeureka t•c 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's the key thing that we need to walk away with here: failure to meet FICT (the three prong test) does not mean we cannot cover that topic at WP, it just should be part of a larger coverage that reflects the limitations that failing to meet the three prong implies (eg if prong 3 is failed, then we only can cover from the primary source, which means a short summary on a character list or the like). --M ASEM 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I think Species of StarCraft is quite good, but I could understand a reader wanting 3 separate articles for Terran, Zerg, and Protoss. I mean, articles for those were created over 6 years before the species article. But merging them just means there's a stronger chance of the information being kept &mdash; which is what people wanted anyway at Articles for deletion/Protoss and Articles for deletion/Zerg.
 * Just because one approach works well for some articles, that doesn't mean we need to replicate it sitewide. Larger coverage can mean separate articles. If people want separate articles on Wolf and Sheepdog, or Beaky Buzzard, or Witch Hazel, that's fine. We shouldn't be forcing short summaries in List of Looney Tunes characters on editors and readers via this (potential) guideline. Same with Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings.
 * But then you have List of Pulp Fiction characters. I maybe would have argued merge or redirect in Articles for deletion/Vincent Vega because the character only appears in one film, but it's a well-known role of John Travolta, the role revived his acting career, and there are plenty of film reviews that have analysis of the character.
 * I think the number of fictional works a fictional topic appears in, how well-known the fictional topic is, if a character is a main character, if an actor is well-known for portraying the character, if an actor won an award for portraying the character, if other fictional works make references to the fictional topic, if a list would be too long &mdash; all matter, or should at least be considered.
 * FICT should just say that articles are more likely to be kept if the article cites real-world coverage, not say that real-world coverage is a requirement for an article. --Pixelface (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think folks are missing the WP:POTENTIAL here, not just the current state. There's DVD commentary on this guy, even if there isn't very much in the article. Given some time and effort, we'd have a solid section on reception and development. In practice, there's a good chance we'd keep it. And we'd probably keep it according to this guideline. I'd say this guideline is a pretty accurate way of describing the kinds of things that escape deletion, despite failing WP:N on a strict basis. Randomran (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That I agree with, and in terms of practical application of FICT, the situation (presuming this got to AFD) is that someone would just have note that the DVD commentary exists and talks about the character in more than just passing, as to satisfy the third prong and thus allow this article to be retained and expanded. (Which is why, I think, we need to remember that AFDs need to assume good faith that sources can be filled in if someone says they exist and shows likely evidence of such.  We don't need to add this explicitly to the draft as this is just part of the AFD process in general). --M ASEM  00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Having listened to countless DVD audio commentaries to get something juicy about a character for a wiki article, I can just say that you're putting too much hope in such a source. :-) But I agree that if this article was AfDed right now, the most drastic I would !vote in this case is keep to consider merging. But not because of FICT, but because there is a huge amount of character articles with way less notability to be deleted/redirected/merged first. – sgeureka t•c 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect this would help too. We can all rejoice that the guideline and current practice aren't too far apart. Randomran (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB i have just been told is not generally a reliable source... so I'm not sure on that last one. じん    ない   05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He means the movie documentary, not the IMDB page. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the real-world test, the only content worth considering is the statement cited from the DVD commentary, namely "The reason for his constant clashes with Ariel, according to the film's directors Ron Clements and John Musker, is that both he (Triton) and Ariel are strong-willed and independent". I am not sure that this statement can be considered sufficient on its own to pass the real-world test, because it does not reveal any significant real-world information...beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Pixelface's original question, I would say that as it stands, the article fails the Real-world coverage test out of the three prongs. In every instance, you can ignore the other two prongs, as importance = WP:ILIKEIT, and any arguements for or against a work or element being important/unimportant is just POV, and cannot be proven or disproven without the evidence provided by an article's content passing the real-world test.
 * I agree that this statement, by itself, wouldn't be enough. But the fact that there's an entire documentary about the film and that there *is* DVD commentary means that there would have to be at least a hand full of sentences of real world information. In fact, there is probably a hand full of real world information on trivial characters and inanimate objects as well, hence the need for the other two prongs. Randomran (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the very end, Gavin is right that all that matters is evidence, not presumption. The DVD commentary and supplemental material could be really resourceful, or not at all, no-one knows without checking (at which point the evidence can as well be provided in the article). At the moment when someone announces his doubts in good faith that the third prong can ever be satisfied, it is time for interested editors to provide that evidence over the next few weeks/months, or accept the merger. Most stand-alone fiction articles need a good trim for fancruft anyway, and merged articles can always be spun out again if sources are found later on, so no harm done. – sgeureka t•c 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface - I would point out that the threshold is not "real-world coverage in the article" as such, but rather that it be possible to write real-world coverage. Finding sources that can be used to establish real-world coverage is and ought to be sufficient to avoid deletion. A lousy article on a topic that we can write a good one about should stay to be expanded.
 * That 19 minute documentary probably has some development information. But that information is a bonus, and probably just consists of "Well, we took The Sea King and altered the character for dramatic effect." King Triton is well-known (notable) because he's a main character in a film that was the 13th highest grossing film in North America in 1989 -- which grossed even more money internationally, the film became the highest-grossing animated film at the time, and the character has appeared in two additional films, two videogames, a television series that ran for 3 seasons, a Broadway musical, and the character is probably the most well-known adaptation of The Sea King from Hans Christian Anderson's The Little Mermaid. Then you have Characters of Disney's The Little Mermaid for minor characters. He's a major character that appears in multiple notable fictional works. People create articles for well-known fictional characters. --Pixelface (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why the first and second prongs are just as important as the third. A major work or franchise, or a key character that cannot be excluded from a plot summary of the work, weight heavily on keeping an article on a fiction character.  The fact that the commentary adds the character's influences (the real world aspect), even if it is just a brief mention of its influence, seals the deal. --M ASEM  21:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cited game reviews during Articles for deletion/Hazardous Environment Combat Unit and that didn't "seal the deal." If people think a fictional work is important, and people think a character is important within that work, and there's coverage of that character, the probability of the article actually being deleted will decrease. But I think that this proposal requiring coverage is a bad idea.
 * If someone reads this (potential) guideline and starts going through Category:Looney Tunes characters and starts nominating them all for deletion for "lacking the necessary real world coverage", I'm guesssing they'd all be kept, especially if it's a group nomination. If they're nominated for deletion separately, forcing people to research all of them in five days, the probability of a few of them being deleted increases. That's why people who want to remove stuff from Wikipedia make salvos like that, to overwhelm people and create a timesink so they can divide and conquer. This (potential) guideline should not encourage that sort of behavior, as it has in the past. --Pixelface (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To Pixel's above rather pointless arguments: Halo (megastructure) meets all three prongs of WP:N. There is scholarly work on the subject, specifically how such a ringworld would function, how it would be constructed, and where it would orbit a gas giant on the magnitude as the one seen in the games. There's scholarly discussion on the comparisons to other fictitious ringworlds such as those by Larry Niven. There's developer discussion on how it evolved from a massive hollow planet to a ring-shaped installation. As the settings of three bestselling video games, it is important. Just because I've been busy working on improving other articles doesn't mean that it doesn't meet this guideline or others. Elements in the Halo universe that did, for example Forerunner were merged into Factions of Halo as only the Flood and Covenant from the universe met the GNG and had sufficient content for a featurable article. Can you please stop the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting that this proposal is similar to past FICT proposals that have failed is not pointless. And noting that people create articles for well-known fictional elements is not pointless. We have the article Halo (megastructure) because Halos are well-known (notable) fictional locations, like you said, the settings of three bestselling videogames. It's obvious that Bungie was influenced by the novel Ringworld. And Halos are well-known ringworlds. The Black Mesa Research Facility is a well-known fictional location as well. There are over 55,000 articles in Category:Fictional, some of the over 750,000 articles in Category:Fiction. And yet the Fiction article has no sources whatsoever; Wikipedia is a work in progress. If this guideline is grouping fifty-five thousand or three-quarter-of-a-million articles together and saying they all should be dealt with in a similar fashion, why is talking about articles in that group considered a bad thing? Isn't this proposal trying to enforce consistency? --Pixelface (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the proposal is trying to enforce consistency. It is just trying to find some reasonable ground that describes best practice relatively well.  David is upset because much of your original post had to do with your repeated demand that "real world coverage" requirements be removed.  That theme in policy discussions involving you is ongoing and I think David wanted to forestall a repeat of the NOT/PLOT/N/WAF discussion here.  In my opinion he was right do stop it though I disagree that you are trolling--I don't think you are at all.  My position is that "real world coverage" or "real world connection" of the subject (as phil notes below) is easily the most acceptable prong of the three.  Of the small set of people commenting on this proposal so far, it has been almost unanimous in support of requiring some real-world connection.  I can imagine (but cannot speak with certainty) that this would extend were the guideline proposed to a wider audience.  Also, I don't think that "real world" requirements are as onerous as you suggest.  We don't demand that some character influence the course of history, just that verifiable evidence exists on the subject beyond what can be gleaned from summarizing the plot.  Developer commentary, thematic connections, and so forth all meet that.  And, frankly, it provides a much better decision rule than describing a fictional element as "well known".  Who knows of Black Mesa?  How are we to use that assumed common knowledge to determine if a subject is fit for inclusion without extending wikipedia's already significant systemic bias? Protonk (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The third "prong" says "Real-world coverage: Significant, real-world information must exist on the subject, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work." That's not reasonable ground, that's the same warmed over FICT from the past. I know you mean well, but you didn't comment at the RFC on FICT in April, and the RFC on FICT in June. The requirement for "real world coverage" in this proposal makes this FICT the same as the old FICTs that failed. How does this proposal differ from those past proposals?
 * Real-world information is not the same as real-world coverage. Alec Guinness portrayed Obi-Wan Kenobi; that's a fact. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a well-known (notable) fictional character &mdash; so well-known in fact, that Alec Guinness hated all the attention he got for the role. Alec Guinness also protrayed Herbert Pocket and Fagin and Henry Holland (a role he was nominated for Best Actor for) and Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson (a role he won Best Actor for) and Gen. Yevgraf Zhivago and George Smiley and the Earl of Dorincourt and the Charles Dickens' characters Jacob Marley and William Dorrit (a role he was nominated for Best Actor for).
 * Real-world coverage is considered strong evidence of notability. Pointing to real-world coverage is used to persuade people who have never heard of a topic that the topic is notable. But if I've heard of Chaos Space Marines or Genestealers, and I have (and I've never even played the tabletop game or any of the videogames), I don't need to be persuaded with "real world coverage" that they're notable. People didn't need "real world coverage" to think that Wikipedia should have an article on Ego the Living Planet.
 * Requiring real-world coverage is biased against non-English fictional works, when English-speaking users don't know the language where the coverage exists. Inclusion guidelines shouldn't describe best practice &mdash; they are the lowest bar. Say "Articles are more likely to be kept if they cite real world coverage" &mdash; okay. Say "Real world coverage must exist..." &mdash; not okay. You'd keep out some comic book character drawn by a teenager where people would say "non-notable" anyway, at the expense of thousands and thousands of articles people would never say "non-notable" unless FICT was telling them to. This is a guideline. It should list evidence of notability for fictional topics. Developer commentary doesn't make a fictional element notable. It's just background information for something they made up.
 * Who knows of Black Mesa? Oh, probably anyone who bought one of the 9.3 million copies of Half-Life that have been sold. The content disclaimer says: "Wikipedia's coverage is based on the interests of its volunteer contributors. Readers should not judge the importance of topics based on their coverage in Wikipedia, nor assume that a topic is important merely because it is the subject of a Wikipedia article." And here we have this proposal telling people to judge the importance of the fictional work, and the importance within the fictional work. Is Black Mesa "important" in the game Half-Life? In my opinion yes. Is Black Mesa "important" in the history of first-person shooters? IMO yes. Is Black Mesa important in the history of Valve Corporation? IMO yes. But is Black Mesa important in the grand scheme of things? No, not really. But the location is well-known. Is there a reason to believe that someone would ask "What is Black Mesa?" Yes. Topics on Wikipedia aren't required to be well-known, but excluding well-known topics for lack of coverage doesn't do anything to counter systemic bias. The WikiProject on countering systemic bias focuses on adding omitted things to Wikipedia, not removing other articles. And regarding bias, the results of UNU-MERIT survey on users may become available sometime in January. --Pixelface (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, on the other hand, a subject about which there can be *no* significant real world coverage? That probably should be deleted. Why? Because it will never be good enough to meet basic content standards in the area of fiction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC) In fairness to you, I can understand why you have such strong views about the importance of this character, and I admit many editors share your commonly held view that a character that features in a famous film, play or video game (or all of these), or may have been adapted for the screen by a well known author (although we don't know who in this case) or film production company (Disney) should automatically presumed to be important or notable. However, in the absence of non-trivial real-world sources we cannot presume this because importance, like notability, cannot be presumed to be inherited. Consider why your opinion may turn out to wrong about this character, in the sense that he may not be notable or important: it may turn out that the commentators and critics of the film might not share your view. For instance, King Triton might appear in several scenes that are notable or important, such that the important ficitional element in the film might be a particular scene, rather than the character. Only evidence in the form of non-trivial real-world sources can determine this - sometimes the obvious assumption may not turn out to be the case at all. As Phil Sandifer correctly points out, there is no point in having articles about King Triton or any of the scenes he appears in, or any other fictional element he is associated with unless there is sufficient coverage from commentators or critics to write a decent encyclopedic article. If we ignore this concern, we risk creating hundreds of content forks that either duplicate the same information (at best) or collectively provide little encyclopedic coverage (worst case). Despite the fame or notability of the film, I stick by my view that, at this time, the article King Triton does not provide any significant real-world information...beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. For this reason, I believe a merger with the article The Little Mermaid (1989 film) would be appropriate until such time as the more content can be found, as there would be no loss of encylopedic coverage if the article was merged. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Pixelface, the arguments you make are justifable, but consider the possibility that just because a character such as King Triton features in multiple versions of the The Little Mermaid, it does not make him important or notable per se, and your assertions that he is are your point of view. Some evidence that he is notable may be added to the article at some point in the future, but in the absence or non-trivial real-world commentary about the character, you have to admit this is a presumption on your part, and as such, think it possible you may be mistaken.
 * I agree with Gavin here, at least for individual fictional items (I would not say the same for lists, but this proposal is not currently covering them anyway). Give a reasonable time for anyone to come up with real world coverage, and if not articles such as this should be merged back into a list or main article. There they may warrant anything from as much to their own section to 1 line. In this case, without the commentary from the DVD, I'd say 1 line would suffice....maybe a bit more up to short paragraph at most. じん    ない   22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The importance or unimportance of King Triton is an opinion, and everyone's entitled to their own. But one synonym of notable is well-known. I think it's safe to say that King Triton is a well-known fictional character, recognizable by many, many people &mdash; in the millions. There are 509 articles in Category:Disney characters; the articles are already here. And I've never created an article for any fictional character. Now, someone may hate Disney movies, but I think they'd have to agree that many of those characters are well-known. All of the fictional works that King Triton appears in have been reviewed, and I'm sure reviewers made note of King Triton. I don't see why a film or game review would be uncitable in a character article. The information in the King Triton article could be put in the The Little Mermaid (1989 film) article, but then the information about where else the character appears would be out of place. The information could be put in the Characters of Disney's The Little Mermaid article, and it looks like it even was on January 16, 2008, but another editor expanded the King Triton article, and it was recreated August 11, 2008. Editors designated Characters of Disney's The Little Mermaid for minor characters, probably because the information about King Triton, Ursula, Ariel, Prince Eric, and Sebastian made the article too long. The information could be put in Characters of Kingdom Hearts (and the link to King Triton there even points to Characters of Disney's The Little Mermaid but that link is no longer good) but again, the information about the other fictional works King Triton appears in would be out of place. A separate article doesn't mean King Triton is more important than another topic without an article, or as important as another topic with an article, the article is just a way of organizing the information pertaining to that specific character. I don't think I've ever supported having an article for a character that has appeared in one film, unless the film is an adaptation of a novel or previous work, or unless the character is particularly iconic. Two films or more, and I'm more likely to support an article. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I didn't look until now, but searches on Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar turn up several sources that mention King Triton. But those sources aren't why King Triton is well-known; I think you'd be pressed to find people familiar with any of those sources. Those sources exist because King Triton is well-known, having been a major character in the highest grossing animated film at the time, having appeared in multiple fictional works, and even having an eponymous carousel at Disney's California Adventure Park. I'll leave whether The Church of Goofy is the root of all evil to Kathleen Madigan. --Pixelface (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about King Triton, but I agree with Pixelface that the real-world tine of the putative fork is bizarre. I just looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica's article about the play Macbeth and there's little about the real world there - it's mostly straight plot.  So far as I can see, this real-world requirement has been added simply to exclude coverage of fiction as a matter of prejudice and dislike.  It therefore fails our policies WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTLAW and so must be stricken.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no sneaky conspiracy to prevent fiction being covered, just a fairly open and transparent discussion on how to do it well. Accusing people of being motivated by dislike and prejudice just because you don't like the way consensus is going is pretty poor form. Your example of MacBeth is a bad one anyway because it tremendously easy to find substantial proof of real world significance. It's the existence of such proof that is the requirement whether the sources are currently incorporated in the article or not.  Reyk  YO!  23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not use the word "conspiracy" &mdash; especially if someone has not claimed one. There is no question that some editors who try to remove fictional topics from Wikipedia are motivated by dislike and prejudice. Macbeth is a well-known fictional character &mdash; that is why Wikipedia should have an article about him. You could make an argument that there should be no separate article for the character Macbeth because the character should be covered in the play article, but the Lady Macbeth article looks decent, and the article for the character Macbeth could be improved in a similar way. You could put analysis of the play in the play article, and analysis of the specific character in the character article. You could also list all the notable actors who have portrayed Macbeth, or at least the ones who are most well-known for portraying Macbeth. --Pixelface (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Copy what Reyk said. And I'd add a reminder to WP:AGF. People are working hard on this compromise, and accusing them of censorship is pretty rude. Randomran (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not hard work of the sort required to create an article - research, balance, sourcing and the like. From what I've seen, it's just the self-indulgent expression of personal opinion by the usual suspects who represent no-one other than themselves.  This is my point: that when people such as Gavin endlessly demand real-world content, they are just stating their own opinion - there is no objective or NPOV basis for this requirement.  What you have to do to make any of this stand up is demonstrate how requiring real-world content improves the encyclopedia.  Without such support, the rule-making collapses per WP:IAR.  Now, I have produced some objective evidence by referring to an independent and encyclopedic source.  I do this because it is what one is constantly called upon to do when writing articles - find sources to back up one's statements.  So, where is the source to support this three-pronged test?  I was flipping through a Christmas book of mnemonics when shopping and one of them was a mnemonic for the important features of fiction - setting, character, plot, theme, etc.  The real world did not feature in this list and this is another objective, real-world demonstration of the point.  Moreover, I'm not the only person who opposes the real-world requirement - I'm just chipping here to support the indefatigable Pixelface.  Phil Sandifer seems like-minded too and I especially respect his opinion because he actually works with this stuff and so has an objective real-world requirement for fiction :). Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just reminding you to assume good faith, and to not attack people. The real-world requirement isn't based on "prejudice", or "censorship". It's based on good faith efforts to find a compromise to WP:N that lets us achieve the same spirit of reliable, independent secondary sources without actually having reliable, independent secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonel, if you're going to appeal to an authority like the Encyclopedia Britannica to support your personal opinions, you'd better be sure it backs you up. Encyclopedia Britannica has articles like MacBeth but you'll never find them including the sort of article on minor aspects of fiction which you are so fond of. Do you know why? You'll probably say it's because the Encyclopedia Britannica has space constraints that don't apply to Wikipedia, but that's only part of it. The paper encyclopedia is run by a group of expert editors whose task it is to carefully decide what subjects to write about and which not to write about, and undoubtedly real-world importance forms a large part of their considerations. So that claim that real-world relevance doesn't matter to Encyclopedia Britannica is false. It's all irrelevant anyway. We are not the Encyclopedia Britannica: we are an encyclopedia that is written by the readers, we have issues of quality and credibility unique among encyclopedias precisely because we don't have an oligarchy of experts to tell us what to do- so we need to make those decisions ourselves through discussion, compromise and consensus. And that is what this discussion is doing. You are welcome to speak your mind; what you may not do is attempt do derail a productive conversation just because you don't like the direction it's going or accuse people of having the wrong motivations just because their idea of a good encyclopedia differs from yours. Reyk  YO!  01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, again you are ignoring policy - in this case WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Establishing consensus for a guideline is not a matter of establishing a tiny plurality of opinion by "expert editors".  The only test for all this work is: does it improve the encyclopedia?  I have yet to see any objective evidence presented that a "real-world" test has any objective claim to do this.  I contrast this with the other two prongs of the fork.  These are both based upon the idea of importance.  Now we might have trouble agreeing upon what's important but these are both reasonable guidelines in that important topics, by definition, are important and so focussing upon them may reasonably be said to improve the encyclopedia.  So, if we have an important work of fiction and a character is important to it because he is the protagonist, say, then nothing further need be said.  Of course, real-world evidence will be required to establish importance if this is challenged but this is a matter of verifying the first two tines of the fork, not a separate, independent fork.  Perhaps this is mainly a matter of presentation.  I suggest that the real world point be rolled into the first two forks as a matter of verification. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a work is important and the character is important does not mean an article that has the potential to be encyclopedic can be written; such an article doesn't have to start off super polished, but if one cannot find anything else besides what the primary source says about the character, these articles tend to attract original research in the way of theories, speculation, trivial references, and the like that are inappropriate for any WP article and make them look like fandom pages. The presence of real world or out-of-universe context helps to establish more than just primary sourced information and makes for a read that will be more useful to a reader that may never encounter that work of fiction but has to know what a certain character is for research purpose.  If this can't be done, that doesn't mean we can't cover that element, just that we restrict our coverage to brief summary in the context of the larger work itself with redirects for searching. Nothing is lost in terms of the breadth that we cover, only the depth to which we cover it to, and that's because we are not an collection of indiscriminate information. --M ASEM  07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has a policy against "original research." Every article tends to attract "original research" &mdash; that's the result of Wikipedia letting anyone on the planet with access to the Internet contribute to Wikipedia. And don't throw the word "encyclopedic" around. I don't know of anyone here who writes encyclopedias for a living. So we're all pretty much making it up as we go. No encyclopedia I know of has an article on Pinky and the Brain or Elmyra Duff or Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. If Wikipedia volunteers decide that since the characters in Guitar Hero have no real backstory and so there shouldn't be a list of those characters on Wikipedia, fine. King Triton is a major character in multiple fictional works. You can find analysis of the character (Inventing the Child: Culture, Ideology, and the Story of Childhood by Joseph L. Zornado (2001), page 163: "King Triton's "correction" of Ariel with his fire-throwing trident is, in some respects, a rape scene.") &mdash; but to include that in the King Triton article would be ridiculous. Who is Joseph Zornado and why should I care what he thinks about King Triton? When people look up "Winston Smith" on the Internet, they want to know "Who is Winston Smith?" Not, "What did Erika Gottlieb write about Winston Smith?" What did George Orwell write about Winston Smith? Jimbo Wales did say "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." But that's a plain truth. All kinds of decisions are made about what information to include and what not to include in Wikipedia. That heading in WP:NOT used to say "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", but that was changed because Jimbo says. If one of Wikipedia's strengths is the breadth of topics it covers and the depth of information it contains &mdash; and I think it is &mdash; why should we limit the depth of information in an article? Different readers desire different levels of detail. "It is up to the reader to choose how much detail to which they are exposed." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The UNU-MERIT survey on users asked about breadth of topics and depth of information, and I would be very interested to see the answers to those questions. We are not here to decide if subjects are important or not. But if Les Miserables is a well-known novel and Cosette is a major character in Les Miserables, and there's a good chance that someone would ask "Who is Cosette?" &mdash; that is why Wikipedia should have an article on Cosette. Does the Cosette article look like a "fandom page"? I don't even know what that means. I don't see drawings of Cosette by fans in the article. I don't see Cosette fan fiction in the article. I don't see photographs of fans dressed up like Cosette in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDEMOCRACY says consensus should be established through editing and discussion. Since that is exactly what I advocated in my earlier post, and since it is what we are doing here now, it is obvious that I am not ignoring it. You, however, are in clear violation of WP:READANDUNDERSTANDTHEPOLICIESYOUINVOKEBEFOREUSINGTHEMINANARGUMENT (if there was such a thing). Reyk  YO!  07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The objective basis is right out of POLICY. We're documenting an actual practice here, not the practice as any of us would prefer it to be. You're here advocating for a standard that would not reflect the current deletion practices. We delete/redirect/merge main characters all the time. Randomran (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the real-world test is currently significant in places like AFD. All that matters is notability per the GNG (i.e. good sources) and importance (i.e. support from numerous editors who consider the topic to be important).  So, this test does not represent current practise.  I'm speaking here from my personal experience of debating numerous AFDs such as Thumper, Zuckerman's Famous Pig and Teletubbies say Eh-oh!. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the GNG is much stronger than what this proposes? The GNG requires significant coverage in secondary sources; all this asks is for some tidbit of real-world info that could come from the creator/developer themselves alongside assertions of importance in the work.  I can't tell the case with Thumper (which one, that's a disambi).  The other two are musical songs, not elements of fiction, and thus would not be covered, save for the weak case of ZFP, which the version that was merged shows coverage of the song but not the fictional concept.  Note that we've not wiped WP of the coverage of it, it's got its own section which probably can be expanded some, but that's definitely the case of a topic that yes, we should cover, but will never reach the quality standard we are looking for, and thus should be described as part of a larger topic. --M ASEM  14:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, most of the Thumpers have been deleted/redirected. The only one that hasn't is Thumper (Bambi), and that one not only meets this guideline... it meets WP:N. Colonel Warden will be pleased to know that anything that meets WP:N is still notable. This just offers an alternate way to assert notability without reliable, independent secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the GNG is inclusionary, not exclusionary? The GNG does not require significant coverage in secondary sources. It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It says "If a topic", not "Only if a topic...." There's a difference. "If a man is the richest man on Earth, then he is presumed to be notable" &mdash; not &mdash; "Only if a man is the richest man on Earth, then he is presumed to be notable." You do realize that you've been an administrator for over a year now? Find an admin coach Masem, please. I beg you. Do you realize that the "GNG" is made up out of thin air and should be treated with common sense? What is the "quality standard" we are looking for? The quality of an article about a topic has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should or should not have an article about that topic. --Pixelface (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Colonel Warden, the need for real-world coverage is absolute. Remember, the three-pronged test has been developed as an inclusion criteria for topics that don't pass WP:N on the first pass. Normally topics that fail to meet the requirements of WP:N usually fail one or more of Wikipedia content policies, and in the case of fictional topics, this means that they usually fail WP:NOT. In order to provide guidance that steers editors away from creating plot only articles, WP:FICT needs to emphaise non-trivial real-world content is the key to writing articles about fiction that are encyclopedic. Remember, articles that are comprised of plot summary or in universe speculation are not encyclopedic, and WP:FICT needs to focus on encylopedic content, and to discourage fancruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No Gavin, it is not "absolute." When you write an article, cite your sources, don't include your personal opinions, and present the information in a fair and neutral way. What articles about fiction have you written? Drow &mdash; which you called "the Norse Scottish term for a Troll" Interesting... --Pixelface (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of writing articles about fiction, the need for real-world coverage is absolute if you don't want the article to be deleted. You can cite as many sources as you like, but if they don't provide any real-world coverage, then the article is not encyclopedic and probably fails WP:NOT. I have seen many articles merged or deleted despite the fact that they pass WP:V because they fail WP:NOT. The only way to avoid this outcome is to cite real-world coverage. In answer to your question, I don't think I have ever written an article about a fictional topic, but I have changed the perspective of the article Kender from in universe to real world, and it is much improved as a result. Although the notability of this topic is debatable, I doubt it whether it will be deleted in my lifetime. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Several combined replies to PF and others
This may be a tangent, but I strongly feel that while the way we've come to the various guidelines that deal with notability and the like, while set by what's been created in the past, needs a massive tear-down and rebuidling to account for what we (all of WP) know better. Policies and guidelines convolute terms and meanings that can lead to numerous different interpretations that lead us to problems - "notability" more than any other. It's a combination of inclusion and style, and that is very very wrong.

I'm trying to figure out a way to get us to a point that all topics, though primarily fiction, can be treated in a fair and reasonable manner that seems obvious without creating a massive ruleset, yet still accomplishing the goals of WP. Stepping back, if WP was actually a printed work, limited by the same basic tenets specifically by WP:IINFO, then one can imagine that an article on a work of fiction (say a TV show) would include: overall premise, list of characters, including details on the main characters, a list of episodes with a description of each episode (including any specific creation and reception for an episode), the concept and development of the show, public reception to the show, and the legacy of it; all details of what I think most would agree is comprehensive coverage. Subtopics of that show such as characters, major concepts, and episode titles would be crosslinked from the index to make finding them easier. Of course, for most TV shows, there is no way all this information would fit onto a single electronic WP page, so we should have a way to be able to split this coverage across numerous pages. The problem is is that between all the various policies, there really isn't. Sure, we do have WP:SS, but then you run into problems with the convolution between "article" and "topic" with areas in WP:NOT and WP:N. Sure, our article on this TV show can be broken down, but because of how some of the policies are presently interpreted, not all parts would necessarily survive. We can strive to find ways to justify supporting all parts, which is one aim of this FICT, as well as the effort to make sure that non-notable lists should be acceptable, but that's bandaids on top of bandaids.

We need a major restructuring of alot of our policies to support this type of approach better. We need inclusion guidelines to tell us the broad range of topics we want to cover, which does include every major and minor fictional character and every episode. At the same time, we have to be practical that we want to maintain WP's mission to be verifiable and avoid indiscriminate information, meaning that just because we are including every character and episode doesn't mean we're going to give them each their own article - but we do need an established and accepted means of making sure these are fairly covered in the larger context of the work and using redirects as our crosslinked index to make discovering this information better. Unfortunately, this job to decide this is being done by WP:N which is being used as both inclusion and article delineation guidelines. To correct this is no simple policy change but instead has to be something propagated through a large number of policy pages, so it is not going to happen overnight. That is what we collectively should be aiming for given the past two years of discussion on fiction - the same concept can be applied to nearly every other field, so it's certainly not treating fiction as a special case.

So ultimately, FICT in the present form is going to attempt to do the job desired: help to define cases for fictional elements that allow them to have articles if they have a chance to develop further. We obviously still need to figure out the case when we cannot develop the fictional element further beyond from the primary sources (aka the non-notable lists), but that's a separate goal to be handled at a different time. We want to make sure characters and episodes are included but only when there's more than just the primary source to talk about them as to help us aim towards a high quality encyclopedia. --M ASEM 12:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to restructure Wikipedia policies and guidlelines at all, because they are designed to facilitate the creation of articles that contain encyclopedic content that is more than just "verifiable and avoid indiscriminate information". Also you are mistaken that WP:N is being used as both an inclusion and a deletion policy; what goes on at AFD is basically an assessment of what is or is not encyclopedic. We can only develop articles on fiction if there is significant overage (i.e. the source address the subject matter directly and without recourse to original research) and real-world coverage (that offers more than just details of the plot of a fictional work); this is the only way forward to a uality encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)