Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 37

Request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

There is a request for comment at Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), regarding the inclusion of the characters surname in the lead sentence. More opinions are needed. Please read the most recent discussion, Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Name Redux, to understand why each side is opposing/supporting the inclusion of the name in the lead. Thank you. 11:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to compromise

Let us finally put an end to the back and forth in these debates and see where we can actually agree to something. I have faith that on the inclusionist side DGG and I are ready to do that, and I think Judgesurreal777 and Protonk and possibly EEMIV can do so on the deletion side. Here is what I propose as my threshold for notability. It is fait accompli that a large segment of our community comes here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. A sizable segment of these readers also create and contribute to these articles. Therefore, a fictional topic (character, location, weapon, etc.) is notable and at least worthy of a redirect without deleting the edit history if it meets under any of the following:

1. Appears in multiple major works of fiction, i.e. a character, location, or weapon that appears in a game, comic, film, television series, novel, and/or toy is notable as of the millions of fictional characters, locations, and weapons only a fraction also appear in other adaptations of the story. Only so many video game characters have been made into action figures; only so many video game weapons have been made into life size replicas.

2. Is a main protagonist or antagonist or is titular in nature, i.e. Soul Calibur the sword in the game Soul Calbur or Mad Max the character in the movie Mad Max.

3. Appears in a published encyclopedia. Only a handful of fictional franchises have achieved such a degree of notability that published encyclopedias exist specific to those franchises, although general fictional character encyclopedias also exist for the really notable fictional characters. Anything suitable for a paper encyclopedia, even if technically a primary source is technically encyclopedic and therefore suitable for the paperless encyclopedia that purports to be the ultimate general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, and almanac.

4. Lists of characters, locations, and weapons for which the individual characters and weapons may not be notable enough for their own articles but provide collective notability and serve as a compromise for those who want articles on these characters and those who do not should be acceptable as lists of characters, locations, and weapons are to fiction articles what the periodic table of elements is to the article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article on the Oscars.

5. Lists, including the "in popular culture" ones, provide a navigational function similar to a category.

6. In all of the above, so long as the material is verifiable in either although preferably both reliable primary and secondary sources, the topic is worthy of inclusion in some capacity if even only as a redirect. Multiple novels and published encyclopedias constitute considerable coverage in reliable primary sources. Usually reviews exist for such works that contain at least some mention of the fictional characters, locations, and weapons. As spinoff or sub-articles, dissertations need not be written on these specific aspects of the work of fiction to justify inclusion. Blogs and web-forums do NOT constitute reliable sources.

7. If a fictional topic is in an article title for which something with greater real world notability exists, rather than deletion editors should boldly write an article on the subject with greater real world notability and possibly move/merge the fictional content elsewhere, i.e. the example of Arathi, Abhuman, and Commander Dante.

The above would mean that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horus_Heresy would be kept, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_Lords_of_Terra would not be. I would be amendable to a compromise whereby something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_characters_in_Xenosaga_(2nd_nomination) is kept as it is covered in published strategy guides, the first discussion closed as "keep," the characters are mentioned in reviews, and the characters appear in games, anime, and manga, but something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marneus_Calgar is not as I cannot make such claims for that article. So, any wording that would allow for the above would be acceptable to me. So, I will see if I can get anywhere with A Man In Black, if I can't so be it, but otherwise, it is time we all sit down and see if we can come to a real and honest consensus regarding these fiction articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. They are therefore irrelevant vis a vie any notability guideline. The issue of when we should have a redirect boils town to if the target treats the topic. Taemyr (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't approach these issues (whether we can surpass the GNG) until we resolve that issue at WP:N (which we need to get that RFC going). Mind you, the existing version of FICT suggests all of these but was shot down by both sides; a compromise is not going to happen until we know how strong WP:N is. --MASEM 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is too shallow an approach to just try to supply the demand for people who come here for articles on fictional characters, locations, and weapons. Wikipedia is not a forum and not in information dump. We want it to be reliable, and reliablilit comes only from the sources. Explicit inclusion criteria must therefore be source-based (as per WP:V) and already written about by others, meaning secondary sources exist, as per WP:PSTS. Non-source-based criteria, such as "video game characters have been made into action figures" are the wrong way to go.

Agreed, weak material should be merged, or redirected where ever possible, and we should welcome and encourage new contributors, including the young who start by writing about what they think they know about. For this reason, where ever there isa question of dubious notability, we should direct these contributors to WP:WAF and not to any notability guideline, as notability guidelines do not teach contributor to improve content, but they provide reasons for deletion as a matter of policy. If you succeed in writing an inclusionist workable notability guideline, then all it will do is stabilise articles of dubious notability, leading to stagnation not improvement, until someone just happens to discover WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• To be blunt, that looks more like surrender than compromise to me. Only 3 and 4 strike me as reasonable, and even 4 is a bit too lenient.
  Kww (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with Kww. That isn't a "compromise" its basically allowed pretty much any character article period, which is purely the "inclusionist" side with no actual compromise, and it goes against WP:N and WP:WAF. It is basically trying to opening Wikipedia to be just like all the fan-oriented series specific wikis and wikias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the above. This isn't a compromise, it's purely an inclusionist proposal. The use of the word "compromise" in relation to this proposal is rather disingeneous. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In Le Grand's defense, this is a small step forward from "let's abolish WP:N". But there isn't going to be a real compromise on this issue until we know exactly how strong the GNG is, and how far these subguidelines can rewrite or modify the main guideline. Randomran (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between his present proposal and "abolish NOTE" is so minimal as to be insignificant. Heck, this goes beyond merely "abolish NOTE" in several cases by going against NOT, NOR, WEIGHT, and a bunch of other stuff. The use of the word "compromise" in regards to this proposal is so blatantly wrong that it leads me further to believe that he is completely incapable of seeing past his own beliefs. But yes, you are correct that any compromise is rather pointless until the strength of the GNG is assessed (although I'm inclined to believe that it will be upheld, and at best, you might get the sub-guideline clarification of what constitutes adequate coverage, something I think is a good idea). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well.

1. This would include Spider-Man's left eye, or Mr. Belvedere's bedroom.
2. This would mean nearly every work of fiction would merit two articles: one on the work and one on the titular character or object.
3. This would mean we're duplicating every licensed fanguide ever published.
4. This is reasonable, until you get to "those who want articles on these characters," opening things up to any list of three things that at least two people want. List of chairs in Superman, List of nameless stock characters in the background of Futurama, etc.
5. Three-legged chairs in popular culture. Women wearing brightly-colored shoes in popular culture. Diamond-shaped logos in popular culture.
6. This is rather confused. What exactly are you proposing with this?
7. If two things exist that have the same name, write two separate articles. If one of those articles doesn't stand on its own, delete that article. There's no need to overwrite one article with another, then merge somewhere; that's just bureaucratic nonsense.

So I don't think any one of those points is really a good idea. This is not in any practical sense a compromise; it includes almost everything anyone would care to write about, without regard for Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a "compromise", that's a carte blanche to include absolutely every single bit of fictional trivia in Wikipedia. I dare you to name anything that would not be allowable according to one of those criteria. — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Let's treat this like a negotiation starting point rather than an end result. Let's start from here, see what a "deletionist" (woooh! scare quotes) WP:FICT would look like and see if there is anything that can be reconciled between the two. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll play. Here's a good starting point: "Has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.". I'm pretty sure I've seen this around somewhere... — Coren ^(talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Right, well, joking aside, I'm trying to work with LGR to get the pissing contest over fictional notability moved from AfD (where it is unhelpful and piecemeal) to some guideline proposal. Looks to me like the only two ways to do this are to make WP:N a policy and ignore all lamentation and wailing from inclusionists or to come up with some narrow guideline on what fictional material may be included even when the GNG doesn't apply. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  The problem, and I don't think it can be surmounted, is that there are two divergent fundamental philosophies battling here; the desire that Wikipedia becomes an encyclopedia, and the desire that Wikipedia becomes a repository of everything that could be of interest to anyone. I am firmly entrenched in the former "camp", as it were, and would not be likely to support policy or guidelines that would transform Wikipedia into a Wookiepedia of everything. (And, for the record, I both enjoy and contribute to Wookiepedia— I'm rather the Star Wars fanboy myself — it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia). — Coren ^(talk) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Right, but I'm relly honestly good and tired of fighting that battle in AfD. The only really contentious AfD's are BLP's, "controversy" articles and articles about fictional subjects from notable works of fiction. Each time these come up the debate gets less and less fun to have. There are 140 articles in the Warhammer 40,000 project. Since each at least asserts notability a CSD-A7 is inappropriate. Since they are not abandoned, PROD is not helpful. That leaves (at my count), roughly 100-120 articles to send to AfD. Rather than have 120 versions of this debate I would like to establish some guideline that can help include some of the WH40K material and help redirect opposition to the deletion of the rest. Helpful, functioning daughter guidelines like WP:ATHLETE make deletion discussions easier. A clear, contextualized guideline makes judging an article's basis for inclusion or deletion much easier than the deliberately vague GNG. This isn't going to solve the inc/del debate, but it won't cure cancer, either. It doesn't need to. It just needs to offer a clear guideline that can help us make decisions on an everyday basis. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  No argument from me there; but this isn't the right way to go about it. The only reasonable first step, IMO, is to review WP:N and make it into policy. Working around it in specific guidelines just invites loosening the standards for reliable sources and OR, which are already much too weak. — Coren ^(talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe #3 touches on the irreconcilable difference. Le Roi believes that Wikipedia should include all content appropriate to specialist encyclopedias, and defines "specialist encyclopedia" to include licensed fan guides. That Wikipedia has a moral obligation to be a fan guide for every work of fiction ever is not a widely-held belief, and is very difficult to reconcile with WP:WAF without also violating WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As it appears to me, having been divorced from this whole thing for a bit, is it's coming down to sources (as AMiB states.) With respect to Roi for at least attempting compromise, we have to have the sources; some nebulous "it's here and here" is simply not what Wikipedia article should be built on. In this respect, I think WP:WAF is best off just stating as much and then axing FICT entirely, because it's not doing us any favors. As Protonk notes, I could go on sprees if I didn't have articles to write to clean out the muck-filled cesspools that are fictional walled gardens (Gundam, Warhammer are two biggies, but even Star Wars and Star Trek have their mammoth issues to deal with.) At the very least, sorting all the shit into larger 'list of' piles of shit for later perusal might be the best idea until a more concrete page can be laid down. WP:NOT, NOR, and RS are the only guidelines we need here, tempered by sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm happy that this fictional walled garden was broken open and quite a few articles brought up to par. I agree with you that I probably would go on sprees also if I didn't have article writing to occupy me. IMO, creating solid examples of how to treat fictional content (namely character pages, character lists, etc.) are probably the way to go. An optimistic approach (your article can look like this!) instead of a more downgrading approach (this article needs to be deleted because it fails X, Y, Z) might be better for cracking these walled gardens. That said, I'm probably too optimistic myself here, and I agree with Protonk that something concrete needs to be presented. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this entirely. This should be the solution. Hiding T 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I come down firmly on the side of WP:N, and it should become policy. People that want to write a massive television episode guides, video game guides, road atlases, lists of every catalogued asteroid or star, and complete directories of every habitation that has ever existed anywhere in history can do so elsewhere. That isn't what an encylopedia is. An encylopedia is not expected to be an exhaustive litany of all information without regard to importance.Kww (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. We already have a compromise, it's called WP:N, and it should become policy. As for the points above:

• point 1: no: every Smurf character appears in both the comics and the cartoons, and has been made into a PVC figurine. Individual Smurf characters (with very few exceptions) are not notable at all however, and should not have an article.
• point 2: an article on series/franchise/title X normally has a section on the main characters, including (where applicable) character X. While a titular character has more chance of being notable, the fact of it being the titular character in itself is not sufficient. The Sword of Shannara gets a short paragraph in a larger article, not its own article, even though it is also the title of the first book in a famous series. The sword by itself is not notable enough for an article.
• point 3: oh no... there are many, many franchise-specific encyclopedias, often but not always by the same people or companies that created the franchise in the first place. These do not indicate any notablity for the subjects included, but do indicate a larger notability for the franchise itself. Let these encyclopedias cater to the fans, while we are building a real encyclopedia.
• Point 4: ugh, what is collective notability? Academy Award winners are individually notable, ecah element is individually notable. Better comparisons may be historical events ,where not every individual action or battle may be notable, but the overall subject is. The difference is of course "where the overall subject is". Are the weapons in franchise X, asa group, a subject, notable? In some cases they may be, in others they won't. But there is no reason why such a list would be a priori acceptable.
• Point 5: a list should contain pointers to articles with more info on the subject of the list. However, certainly with "in popular culture" articles, the subject of the list (e.g. Pizza in popular culture) will point to a list of movies and books where these individual articles don't mention pizzas at all (since pizza is utterly irrelevant to the movie). Lists should be made for notable topics, not for interesting coincidences or minor trivialities. That the dog Rataplan confuses Lucky Luke with Jerry Spring is relevant (even though it can only be sourced to a primary source): that the pirates in Asterix are based on the comic Redbeard is certainly relevant (and easily found in secondary sources). That in many comics, a Smurf poster can be seen in the background, is utter trivia though. Making a list of Smurfs in popular culture is an exercise in futility: making a reliably, independently sourced article about the Smurfs in popular culture (with the use of it as nicknames, the discussion of the Smurf society, and so on) can be a good topic, but is not what is suggested here.
• Point 6: redirects are cheap. That doesn't mean that we need to keep the article history of course. If the consensus is that no article is needed for a subject, then the article can be deleted and a redirect created if the subject is mentioned in some other article about a mainsubject. It is no use creating a redirect that points to an article that doen't even mention the original search term.
• point 7: no. If an article is up for AfD, and a different article can be written with the same title, the the original article should be deleted (if that is the consensus for that subject), and a new article written about the different subject. You don't keep the history of an article on subject X becaus an article on subject Y is possible (where Y is written like X, but has a completely different meaning). Fram (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I entirely and strongly disagree with nearly the entirety of your statement.

"An encyclopedia (or encyclopædia) is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."

I think it's fair to say that this discussion falls under the auspices of that definition.

The main arguement that I continually see is a question of whether an individual editor (or a group of editors) subjectively considers something "notable" or not.

And that subjective "consensus" sways back and forth every time people get to gether to "discuss", which is, these days, unending.

It's a matter of the community deciding on the dividing line between being everything and nothing.

But don't try to convince anyone that disinclusion of verifiable information is not encyclopedic. That's simply not true. Something indeed may be encyclopedic and yet not be what an individual (or group of individuals) may determine to be "notable".

Notability is subjective. That's a truism. - jc37 09:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The hallmark of an encyclopedia is explanation and education. There's a very good reason that there are star catalogs and atlases: their purpose is different, and their structure is different. Exhaustive, unfiltered listings are not a part of traditional encyclopedias, and they should not become a part of this one. We actually have a fairly objective definition of notability in WP:N. The problem is special-interest groups that continuously claim that it discriminates against them. It doesn't.
Kww (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the guideline is definitely better than when I first read it way back when. but that doesn't make it any less of a subjective determination. Let's put it this way: Any premise which requires consensus is likely subjective. So the guideline is subjective. Any time one feels that they must "draw a line somewhere", the placement of that drawn line, is typically subjectively chosen.

So while at first glance, when I read "Exhaustive, unfiltered listings.. should not be a part of this one", I might agree, except that how one defines "exhaustive" or "unfiltered" may also be subjective in personal perception, application (and possibly accuracy).

There's trivia and then there's die-hard trivia. I think listing every episode of a series (TV, film, comics, whatever) should typically be fine. But in most cases, we probably don't need to know how every character styled their hair throughout each episode.

But again, even drawing that line is making a subjective determination. - jc37 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly objective standard, even if you still need to get people to agree on it having been met. The existence of multiple, independent secondary sources that have examined a topic directly and in detail is objective. The legitimate arguments come as to whether a source is independent or not, and whether the examination is detailed. Unfortunately, most of the arguments boil down to WP:N doesn't work for my pet project about Superduperman, because you can't expect me to find secondary sourcing when the literary establishment discriminates against graphic novels, WP:N doesn't work for my pet project, because you can't expect me to find secondary sourcing because the natives of Lower Mudskipistan don't tend to write down the the names of their town,and Every asteroid may be inhabited, and certainly that asteroid is notable to its inhabitants. People want to write about their own interests, and they don't want to deal with guidelines and policies.
Kww (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean that they're ignoring the guidelines in their pursuit of doing what they think is right? - jc37 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a Wikipedia parallel to Godwin's law involving mentions of WP:IAR. By definition you are doing something wrong if you invoke IAR when people disagree with you. IAR is meant to prevent a rule that's ill-fitting from hindering you from doing what consensus would agree was the Right Thing; not ignoring concensus in order to get your way! — Coren ^(talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, that was actually said with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour. Kww, obviously has a point concerning over-enthusiastic editors. (That said, that doesn't make these guidelines any less subjective. It just means that there may be reasons and rationales behind the subjective choices. And it doesn't change that I still disagree with the post I was referring to at the start. Something can indeed be verifiably encyclopedic, and yet not meet the (subjective) criteria of WP:N and/or its subpages.) - jc37 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with characterizing them as over-enthusiastic. These are people that believe that rules are intended for others, and that they have an intrinsic right to disregard them. Their enthusiasm isn't the problem.Kww (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I commented at WT:N, since having multiple venues for a single debate is a pretty good recipe for perpetuating the problem of two groups each thinking that they have the consensus on their side. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of establishing notability: I would say the GNG is pretty good at doing what it does, determining notability. While there is something of a fair point to those who say "but the traditional press ignore this" (and they often do), WP:V and WP:NOR reinforce the GNG. You simply cannot have an encyclopedic article on some subject because I saw it in a store once, therefor it has "real-world notability". This is why I suggest scrapping FICT and writing the occasional bendings of GNG for fiction at WAF, because it's going to be a lot more exceptions than a rule that allows subjects which fail the GNG.

As to the perennial "Jimbo said we're trying to be the sum of all human knowledge"-style arguments, there are major issues with that. First off, Jimbo himself has changed his tone about what he expects wikipedia to be. Two, we have the policies and guidelines which plainly spell out we aren't the sum of all human knowledge, and finally, there's the practical consideration. The more crap you have, the harder it is to find the good articles. Which is better: to have seven crappy articles or one good or featured one? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec] I agree, David, that there is legitimate debate about what constitutes a reliable source in terms of this type of content - I've said much the same to Phil Sandifer about webcomics. The existence of individual notability guidelines looks increasingly dangerous to me, as in my view all notability guidelines come back to: is this the primary subject of multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. People are constantly missing the fundamental point in the subject-specific guidelines that these criteria are simply indications that the subject is likely to have been the subject of such coverage. And then you end up with arguments about Joe Blow who once turned out for a bottom-of-the-league pro team, about whom absolutely nothing is known, but who must be notable because he played pro once.

We should be liberal in helping people to transwiki obvious fancruft to fan-wikis, and for the rest we should be polite but firm and manage these subjects down to that which is verifiable from reliable independent sources.

I'm going to mention in passing here something which really annoys me: that which constitutes fanon rather than canon. There are publishers such as Scolastic who market books to kids at school packed with made-up information about fictional topics, and these are asserted as reliable independent sources by young fans, but I seriously question their objective significance. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The existence of multiple, independent secondary sources that have examined a topic directly and in detail is objective. I'm sorry, but this sentence is demonstrably false and is the reason we are where we are:

1. Multiple: Entirely subjective, ranging from two to five in my personal experience.
2. Independent:Director commentaries, cast commentaries, press releases picked up by the news, interviews; these all walk the independent line. Beyond that, a lot of news is actually journalists writing about stuff they like or stuff they think readers will like. That's hardly independent; it is indicative of a shared dependence. Star Trek gets a lot of press because a lot of people like it and want to promote it. That's hardly independent.
3. Secondary: The nature of a source changes depending upon how it is being used and this causes a lot of arguments too. A person's words are primary source, but all secondary sources are simply a person's words.
4. Examined: Does reviewing count?
5. Directly: If they mention the show in the article title or sub-title, is that direct enough?
6. Detail: Is 500 words enough? 5000? Where's the line?

• Remind me again which part is objective? Hiding T 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Easy. Notability is a more objective guideline than competing alternatives. Also, some of those problems you listed are areas where the guideline is deliberately vague which is not the same as subjective. The GNG is deliberately vague in order to allow daughter guidelines to proscribe limits in subsections and to allow us to bend the rules in some cases. This is different from subjective, which is rooted in editor opinion. Notability is a second best solution. The problem is hard: how do we define content inclusion guidelines without just recapitulating the bias already inherent in wikipedia editors? On top of that, how do we define content inclusion guidelines that ensure articles stay within NPOV, V, and OR? The answer isn't easy and WP:N just happens to be the best solution we have so far. It offloads the determination of "significance" or "interest" to reliable sources and just allows us to include articles on that basis. And in solving that problem, we have taken pains to be (as I said) vague in the description of a subject worthy of inclusion, in order to leave judgment up to editors. Protonk (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I don't object to the GNG, I added it to WP:N. [1]. But I added it in a simpler formulation which has crufted up over the years to the point that it is now so insanely clarified it invites argument at every turn. The point of the GNG was to give us something to refer to in deletion debates, not avoid the deletion debates altogether. But the GNG is subjective. I have seriously seen people state that two reliable sources are not multiple. If that is not subjective behaviour, I don't know what is. The problem I have here is that I remember when WP:V and WP:NOR were not policy. So to me they don't really have the same flag as WP:NPOV. That was always my concern with notability. It was simply hard to remain neutral if all you had to summarise was the creators own words. And I think WP:V only calls for one reliable third party source. It's been a while since I checked. Hiding T 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it couldn't be made better, but what I am saying is that being open to interpretation isn't the same thing as being subjective. In the case of the GNG, people have reasonable differences over facts and interpretation of facts. A vague guideline invites those differences. A subjective guideline would be based on differences like that. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow you, to be honest, but if we're both agreeing it isn't the model of objectivity, then I can live with that. Hiding T 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we are too far apart. My point was more that "subjective", when referring to a guideline, means that the guideline itself is based on individual interpretation. An example might be WP:BAND (proposal): "All bands that are awesome should be included in Wikipedia". In contrast, notability has objective criteria which are open to wide interpretation. In comparison with very narrow daughter guidelines like WP:ATHLETE, it appears to be "subjective", but that isn't really the right characterization. I think we are in agreement that WP:N could be more specific and clear, though. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with Hiding. Notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. Just because there is extensive coverage in

1. primary sources (writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic)
2. tertiary sources (compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources)
3. questionable sources (sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking)
4. routine news coverage (announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism)

that does not mean that a topic is notable. I think this viewpoint is probably based on the mistaken presumption that large amounts of insubstantial coverage can make up for a lack of analysis, commentary or critisism from reliable secondary sources. You can't write encyclopedic articles without reliable secondary sources. I go along with the views expressed earlier by A Man In Black.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you do disagree with me Gavin. You never accurately record what I have stated and done, never seem to convey what I understand myself to mean, so I can't really understand what it is you are disagreeing with me over. However, I do know you've just proved my point that not everyone understands how to define sources. A tertiary source is a secondary source and a primary source and a tertiary source depending upon usage. A questionable source, per policy, depends upon context. Since I reworked WP:WEB and added the GNG to it to address your first point, I'm curious as to how you disagree with me. Are you sure you understand my position? If so, are you sure you understand yours? Hiding T 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's look at it this way. If the GNG said: "Articles are notable if and only if the subject is covered in no less than 5,000 words by a notable, published book or a newspaper of national record.", people would scream bloody murder. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• You can parody the existing inclusion criteria if you wish, but in reality fiction is the one subject area where there is a very large body of reliable secondary sources available that do not require expert interpretation (as they often do for scientific subjects for instance). I don't see what is wrong with the existing criteria, nor do I understand why WP:FICT should be closed. Its a very important subject area that is covered extensively in popular publications as well as academic circles, and the quality of existing articles can only be improved through the application of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Was that a response to me? Protonk (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• If the GNG stated that "Articles are notable if and only if the subject is covered in no less than 5,000 words by a notable, published book or a newspaper of national record." people would just argue over what a notable book was. Someone somewhere would postulate it was a book which had been covered... People argue. What we've got to do is work out how to force that arguing into constructive avenues. Arguing on this page is not constructive. Arguing in a deletion debate about a particular article, strangely enough, is; because it identifies ways to improve the article and the encyclopedia.
• I'm wondering if the way forwards isn't to reframe WP:AFD as Articles for Improvement, and list ways the articles can be improved. If after a month they haven't been, just delete them or move them into a namespace we don't allow google to trawl. We could move everything that isn't ra ted B-Class or above off to a drafting workspace... Nah, it would never fly. I've just reinvented Wikipedia. Hiding T 15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Protonk, it has never, and should never be required that sources used to demonstrate notability are themselves notable by the same standard. The consequences of that would be absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? the specific GNG was making a deliberately outlandish example to make a point in a discussion. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was making a tangential point in response to you comment ("Articles are notable if and only if the subject is covered … by a notable [source]”), in light of the fact that people occasionally do believe that sources themselves have to be notable. I know that you said people would scream bloody murder, but not everyone would. Some people do misread the GNG that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Right, but my point above was more an extension of "imagine a more specific, stringent GNG". At no point was I suggesting that current rules did or should impose that limitation. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This has kind of mired in "What is a reliable source" with some extra shouting about "We should be more/less restrictive than the GNG because the GNG is fatally flawed!"

I don't forsee anything of use coming from this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I never forsaw anthing good coming from this, but did forsee the possibility of counterproductive misguidances coming from the noise. I think it would be best if the project page were converted to a redirect to WP:WAF now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just shed an emo tear for the absolute murder of the word "compromise" that was perpetrated by this idea. Suigetsu 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my opposition to this idea as well, although some of Le Grand's points I'd be willing to agree with in their current forms (particularly #1, #4 and #7), and others I would be willing to agree to with caveats that stop them from being too wide-ranging (#3). #2 and #6 I can't see myself ever agreeing to though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Discussion points from Wikipedia Talk:Notability

As I replied in FICT, we need to determine exactly how strong the GNG is to be taken, and for that we really should present the RFC that we have been working to the community so we can establish that. But as also noted by someone else at FICT, talking about redirects and notability together is not a good approach, as redirects are cheap and we want to support those as much as possible; topics that aren't notable can be redirected freely. We need to talk about what articles should legitimately remain as articles pending policy/guideline/consensus of Wikipedia. --MASEM 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As a precisionist, I have two concerns. One is that these lead to imprecise rule where virtually anything can be considered notable, and the other is that this leads to articles that don't meet the WP:PROVEIT section of our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability.

• An article "trees in final fantasy" would become notable by your first criteria, since they appear in multiple final fantasy games. "Superman's boots" would be considered notable too, by the same rationale. Yet most people wouldn't consider that an encyclopedic article for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if someone engaged in extremely detailed descriptions of them (e.g.: the boots are about 75% of the size of Superman's head, which is abnormally large for a human being. They are blue, but in issues X and Y they appear as black).
• Trivial coverage isn't enough to satisfy notability. That's because notability isn't about "GameSpy mentioned it, therefore it's important!" Notability is "we can actually write something about this topic that can be verified in reliable third-party sources". You can't write a whole article about "the back of the Inn in Final Fantasy 6.5 Japan re-release" just because one (good) article said "if you go to the back of the Inn, you can find a lot of treasure". You need much more research, or else you end up with a stub, or a ton of original research from fan-made observations.
• A licenced encyclopedia on a fictional topic is nothing more than a fanguide. There's no criticism or objectivity. There is actually an official business relationship between the maker of the encyclopedia and the original maker of the work. It may as well be the back of the DVD, or an instruction manual. This is the exact same danger in writing an article about the government by only using research generated by the government itself: that's not an encyclopedia, it's propaganda. It's advertising. Vanity. Spam. Primary/affiliated sources can be used to fill in certain gaps in an article, but you *need* those reliable secondary sources to be able to give real context and perspective.
• In these days of cheap mass production, literally anyone can have an action figure made. And looking at the action figure still doesn't give you anything to write about.
• If "X" is the name of two topics, one notable and the other non-notable... we write about the notable one, and drop the non-notable one. Let's not complicate that, lest we start cluttering up well-written articles with a ton of original research.

I'm glad you've finally opened up to a compromise, instead of calling for a ban on a central guideline or turning it into a vote. But this isn't really the right place or the right time to propose a compromise. You're proposing a new subguideline, rather than a change to notability. Also, we're in the process of trying to figure out the actual relationship between the GNG and specific notability guidelines, and it is unclear that specific guidelines can wholesale rewrite or ignore basic notability requirements. We need to answer that question first, because the past attempt at compromise failed when nobody really even knew how far the WP:FICT guideline could deviate from the main WP:GNG. Masem is right, and any other discussion is kind of moot at this point. Randomran (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the above - I do not think that adding in a new subguideline, particularly with the ongoing discussion regarding how subguidelines related to the GNG, is really the way to go. I'd elaborate further but I think that Randomran got it about right. Shereth 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. As for the GNG - subguideline debate: subguidelines can only be more strict than the GNG, not more lenient. Fram (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be generally true that context-specific guideline is intended to be more restrictive than a general notability guideline, but as a matter of past and current practice it is not always true, and I don't believe it should be so. There are many good articles where a consensus of editors accepts content which would fail a GNG scrutiny. patsw (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets into a lengthy debate, the question of whether subguidelines are more or less strict than the GNG is one to be discussed in the RFC; it would not be a good idea to get into a long discussion about it now. --MASEM 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being dense here, but which Wikipedia:RFC/POLICY would that be? Fram (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not yet a full RFC; Randorman has been finalizing a draft that will be presented to the WP world at large (we'll watchlist-notice, for example, to get the input). It should be close to being ready to go. --MASEM 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that instead of following the general practice of starting a conversation in one place, and then point people on other discussion pages to it, the lead post on this section was posted verbatim at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Time_to_compromise, thus causing two completely parallel discussions on the same topic.Kww (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea: let's only have articles on which there are multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources. That way we can ensure we stick within policy - WP:V and WP:NPOV plus of course WP:BLP where applicable. That is, after all, what guidelines are for. You can't use a guideline to subvert a core policy, and I am sure nobody would want to do that, canning WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV would be a disaster and would destroy precisely the thing that brings the various fans here in the first place. We've had long discussions about fictional topics which result in every case I can remember in a consensus that major elements which have good sources stay, and minor elements that don't, go (or get merged to lists). If people who are obsessed with certain fictional genres don't like that, then they are probably looking for a fan-wiki, which Wikipedia is not, so going back to core policy looks like a great idea to me. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  So simple Guy... which means it'll never fly ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think Guy is right; I have yet to see a proposal for new inclusion criteria that could better WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a rename necessary/appropriate to make this point clear?

As a precisionist I generally like the notability requirement, even if I would be okay with some tweaks. It's not 100% precise, but we want to leave room for reasonable interpretation. A subject that is mentioned by a few reliable sources at least begins to be notable: then we discuss whether these sources are actually independent (or if they're just press releases or authorized fan guides), and whether there is enough coverage to write a verifiable article. And verifiability is the real issue:

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - quoted from WP:V

People get confused when you say "notable", because the gut reaction is it just means "important". "I think it's notable, so how can you say it's not notable?" But that's not the issue. The real issue is being able to write an article that can be verified by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't matter HOW important the topic is: if the only sources on it are unreliable, then you can't write a reliable article. If the only sources on it are primary sources or sources authorized by the subject, then you end up with propaganda/advertising/spam/vanity with no objectivity or critical coverage. Notability is really about this: How are we supposed to write an article that *you* say is important when there aren't any appropriate sources to write the article?

In that sense, "non-notable" really means "un-writable" or "un-coverable", or "un-sourceable", or "unsupportable". All of these would be much better names for WP:N, because they don't invoke intuitions about what's interesting or important. Arguably, "non-notable" and "unverifiable" are really the same thing: there are no reliable, third-party sources that can be found on the article topic, and so Wikipedia should not have an article on it. As much as I'd support a rename for WP:N, I might also support a merge with our verifiability policy. It's really about being able to support something with research that is both reliable and independent. Randomran (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would support an RFC to add that line above to WP:NOT, but I think that WP:N still has to deal with the vague in-between of subjects which are obviously going to be included (Cat) and subjects which are obviously not going to be included (My cat). So we can write in the CLEAR language above into WP:NOT and craft WP:N to deal with the subtler questions (Articles with near-trivial coverage, articles with one source, articles with related coverage, articles split for size purposes, etc). Protonk (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, notability (as we call it) goes beyond what the statement in V says, otherwise, a mere passing mention of a term would be used for article justification. This also points to the difference between what primary/secondary/tertiary sources are and what first/third party sources are; a reliable third-party source may still be a primary source if it doesn't going beyond just presenting facts. The concept of coverage (and what is "significant coverage") is the key part of this debate. They are still two different sides of the coin, and thus V and N should be two distinct considerations; V is the highest priority to maintain WP's mission while N helps to keep the work at a reasonable size. --MASEM 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So if we don't merge the few unique aspects of WP:N into WP:V, what about a rename that doesn't invoke this gut-feeling of "importance"? Randomran (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is just a label for inclusion criteria that ensure an article meets Wikipedia content requirements. The issue of which label should be used to describe the inclusion criteria has already beem discussed at length when the guideline WP:IMPORTANCE was replaced by WP:NOTABILITY (see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Importance for details); it was thought the label "Importance" implied that the criteria were subjective, where as notability was a (relatively) neutral way of describing the basic sourcing requirement.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe we need to go a step further, because "notability" is still misconstrued as measuring the article's value or worth. As you stated, this guideline is about the basic sourcing requirement. Wouldn't "unsourceable" be just a little clearer, even if people had to read the guideline to understand that the sources have to be reliable and independent? Randomran (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can get behind this, but then would you get people arguing, but an article on Silly-Man isn't "unsourcable", you can see him in my webstrip Silly-Man and on my Silly_man website. It's kind of back to unverifiable. Would "undocumented" be any better? Hiding T 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think any term of art we pick will have some connotation with people that we can't avoid. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I'm picking you up on a point here, that I've always wondered. What real need for "notability" is there if the relevant information could be folded into its brethren policies and guidelines, specifically NOT, RS, and V? You can easily distinguish what 1/2/3ary and 1/3rd sources are in WP:RS if you need. As you say, it is indeed the concept and depth of external coverage which is the key part of notability and which is so frustrating to console between WP:N (fiction) and WP:N. I don't think a rename can address these points either; while notability in the WP sense is often confused with notability in the real world, it quite succinctly sums up the idea of external coverage. If anything, a name I would suggest would be something to the tune of "Real world notability", but then, you're possibly further confusing the difference between WP:N and "notability". No, the simplicity inherent in Notability seems correct to me. --Izno (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Izno, not only because notability is a good label to use, but also because no one has come up with a replacement for it that is better. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

we would still have the problem of deciding what things are considered significant enough to be included, and at what depth, no matter what word we chose to use. Some of this is an artifact of being in format like a conventional encyclopedia--being divided into Articles. Topics in this or other areas do not really fit into significant/not significant, and any article/no article boundary is going to be unsatisfactory. But even if we were to agree on always merging into large articles or the revers, there is still the problem of depth of coverage. The people who do not want individual articles on most fictional characters do not want to give them extensive coverage in more comprehensive articles either. I don't care in the least whether or not they have separate articles as long as they have full encyclopedic coverage. I don't even care if individual fictional works have articles, we could combine all of shakespeare's works into one article as long as we gave the proper detailed coverage for each plot, each character, each setting element, scene by scene, each stage or cinema production by production, and each printed edition for every one of them. If however we;'re going to write a scant two two sentences about a named character it's just as wrong if it appears in the pseudo-glory of an individual article as if it's a redirect. And the proper length plot summary is the proper length no matter where it appears. There are relative degrees of importance, a continuum. Given that we do not agree on even the most basic question of degree of coverage when its yes/no notable/not notable, maybe if we bypassed it by some arbitrary decision on how big chunks to take, we could compromise by adjusting the extent of coverage of the parts. Of course, we have to be willing to compromise about that, and trust each other not to go to extremes--for it would be a succession of small decisions, not a single poll on policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

In a nutshell, the notability guidelines cannot be allowed to artificially constrict our presentation of notable subjects, which forced merges do. --erachima talk 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

oh gawd

I've been generally avoiding this discussion for a while, and I've just gotten back from a nine day break from all things internet. I decided to poke my head in here to see what the current status of everything was.. I'm getting the feeling I should run and hide, but maybe I'm getting the wrong impression. Would anyone like to do me a favor and give a brief summary, or some highlights? I'll probably attempt to follow some links and read up for myself in a little bit.., but these discussions tend to be huge.. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I started reading the seciton above, and stopped at "GNG" in the first line. OK, I now realise it is "General Notability Guidelines", but still, I'd like a summary as well! Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Best summary I can give is that LGRoC provided this "compromise" on notability on both here and WT:NOTE (after reporting about the way an AFD was going in one of the more general boards (WP:AN or ANI, I think). Of course, that split the discussion so after some time, I closed the WT:N talk and moved it here (those comments in that section all were based on the same list of compromise). Most editors disagree that this is a compromise position, as they favor LGRoC's view of a more expansive encyclopedia. Of course, this begat several different discussion (WP:N should be policy, etc., etc.,) which, at least in my case, I tried to point out that we have the no-longer-pending RFC on WP:N to hammer out core issues that we can then come back and address those questions.

So, basically, the bulk of the above few sections is that: you haven't missed much of anything new. Nothing's been decided from that. --MASEM 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise

• Note that Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise now awaits your review and response.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I know this isn't canvassing. But I'm apprehensive towards reaching out to a specialized area of interest like "fiction", because it could imbalance and skew the view of notability. I think it might be important to reach out through all other notability guidelines too, on music, history -- everything. (I haven't checked if anybody else has done so, because I'm pretty busy these next few days.) Randomran (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that most specialists in fiction are aware that WP:FICT cannot work in isolation from the rest of Wikipedia, and that the guidelines and policies must have universal application, so I don't see this as a problem. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Random, I think that the recent activity at WP:N is substantially a result of my invitation some months ago for participants here to join us there. In the past similar invitations have been posted at various subguideline talk pages to join in at WP:N and conversely posts are typically made at WP:N to encourage greater participation in subguidelines and proposals for subguidelines. I think that Gavin is quite correct in his action. Maybe you might broaden the result by advertising this at other subguidelines and the Village pump too. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I will note we're trying to get a watchlist notice for this as well, just that no one has responded there after this was posted, yet. --MASEM 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with getting feedback from here. But since this issue is bigger than fiction, we'd be better off getting a more representative class of Wikipedians from a wider variety of interests. That will reveal the true consensus, if there is any. Hopefully that watchlist notice will go through soon. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Topical

From [2]

• "reference works that share the lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled"
• "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide".

seems like this kind of debate isn't just limited to Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

{{editprotect}} Not interested in getting into the debate here, I just wanted to note that the link to gaming-wiki.com under the "Relocating non-notable fictional material" section seems to be a dead link. It's a poker spamvertising landing page now. The page is protected, so I can't remove it. 66.18.231.70 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Link needs removing. Added an edit protect request here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced with WoWWiki, which is the largest site on Wikia. Seemed like a reasonable substitution. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A minor point, but Wookieepedia is still a tad larger than WoWWiki. I am however content with WoW's link. ;P --Izno (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2008 draft

This is a draft of a survey. It is not finalized yet. I've created a survey to find out where consensus lies on various fictional topics. The first draft is in my userspace and is not ready to be presented to the entire community yet. I would appreciate any comments and criticisms and suggestions for the survey. This is an effort similar to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus which was created to discuss recurring themes regarding entire categories of articles, before it was later moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. If people think it's a good idea, I could post it to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Fiction Survey 2008 or Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Fiction Survey 2008 and spread the word about it (maybe with the centralized discussion template, at the village pump, a watchlist notice, etc). We could even contact random editors to participate. It would be nice if at least 300 to 500 people could respond to it if it goes live. I would like participation to be as wide as possible. It could get very large, so if it goes live I think there should be at least 35 sub-pages with 3 fill-in-the-blank questions each (and each subpage placed in Category:Fiction Survey 2008 to make it possible to check related changes). It may be that an inclusion guideline for all fiction is too broad and guidelines for specific subjects could be created instead. The survey is meant to generate discussion on this guideline since it seems discussion has stalled. If you think the survey is a bad idea and think something else would be better, please say so. Please tell me what you think about it here, or on the talk page of the draft. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this (generally) covered in the notability shindig they've had going? I'm not sure another poll is what we need. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No. This survey is about specific categories of articles, something that Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise does not cover. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise was created because someone misunderstood this very simple sentence in WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." WP:FICT is a subject-specific standard. I don't even know how the questions in Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise were decided upon, nor what conclusions can be made from it so far. If the arbitrators want a notability guideline for fiction, I think this is a good idea to jumpstart discussions on one. --Pixelface (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFC included how we use sub-notability guidelines like FICT; the entire course of the discussion leading up to it was about how FICT interacted, so what FICT has to become was covered by the RFC. --MASEM 01:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between "SNGs" and the "GNG" is the fourth sentence in the intro of WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." That sentence is still in WP:N, so I'm having a hard time understanding why the RFC was started. Did people in the RFC say that sentence should be removed or changed from WP:N? --Pixelface (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFC was partially there to make sure it was still valid, if SNGs were still needed, or if SNGs should have more freedom to allow topics that the GNG would not normally allow. The wording at WP:N as it reads is presently unclear and so the RFC was to try to resolve that. --MASEM 04:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To make sure what was still valid? The fourth sentence in WP:N? Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise doesn't mention that sentence from WP:N at all. Instead, Randomran wrote "To what extent can subject-specific guidelines re-write or override the General Notability Guideline?" The idea that SNGs "rewrite" or "override" the GNG seems to have been made up solely by Randomran. I think the sentence "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." is perfectly clear. How is the RFC supposed to make Randomran understand that sentence in WP:N if the RFC does not even mention that sentence? How is the RFC supposed to find out what editors think that sentence means if the RFC does not even mention that sentence? And how is the RFC supposed to see if SNGs are still needed when there is no notice of the RFC at any of the SNG talkpages (WT:PROF, WT:BK, WT:MOVIE, WT:MUSIC, WT:NUMBER, WT:CORP, WT:BIO, or WT:WEB)? FICT wasn't even considered a SNG as of July 18, 2008[3], so how does that RFC apply to WP:FICT? What wording in the intro at WP:N is unclear? Randomran created an AFD on his first (visible) edit, and linked to WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:OC, so I find it impossible to believe that Randomran does not understand that sentence in NOTE — a sentence that existed in NOTE when Randomran linked to NOTE on his first edit: "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." FICT was listed as an inclusion guideline at NOTE at the time Randomran linked to NOTE. Am I missing something? --Pixelface (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is right but the approach is not. As David states above, the RFC on WP:N makes it clear about that a topic (including fictional elements) can have its own article only when there is notability shown; the question mark we seem to be trying to figure out is when it is appropriate to have lists of non-notable elements to make sure they are not indiscriminate. Also the number of questions is going to be overly daunting to anyone coming into it; even with 10 proposals on the RFC, !voter exhaustion was apparent.

My suggestion is to focus this on two aspects: what is appropriate notability or sources that show it for singular fictional element topic articles, and to define what type of lists are appropriate when elements are non-notable. I would also avoid getting into too many subcategories - let users decide if "tv characters" need to be differently as general fictional characters in their responses, for example. The way I would do the survey based on is is two parts:

• "What sources are sufficient to show notability of the following?" and leave this to a list of 10 or 12 top level elements such as "characters" , "episodes or published serial volumes", etc. (Books and films are already covered by other sources). Let users expand if they think they need different notability requirements for various different elements (eg tv characters vs movie characters)
• "What type of lists of non-notable fiction elements are appropriate?" pointing to the same list of 10-12 elements above, but allow users to expand this as well.

Both of these would help , in light of the RFC results, to better address what FICT should look like. Mind you, while a survey, what results will have to be put to a consensus, and what may gain majority in a consensus will be vastly different. --MASEM 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

People can answer as many questions as they want in the survey. If they think one criterion should be applied to every fictional character, every fictional element, every fictional element, that's 3 answers they have to give. Of the two main questions in the RFC on WP:N, one pre-supposes that "notability" should be used when deciding whether a Wikipedia article should exist or not, and the other asks how subject-specific guidlines should be interpreted alongside WP:N. WP:N was created because "nn" was commonly used in deletion rationales. That would be like creating Wikipedia:Coolness because "lame" was commonly used in deletion rationales, or creating Wikipedia:Smart because "stupid" was commonly used in deletion rationales. "Exhaustion" in that RFC may be a result of the pre-canned statements users were asked to vote on. In the survey, editors simply answer as many fill-in-the-blank questions as they want. Where are the results of the RFC if it's not finished? As of right now, I see A1 (59 support / 129 oppose / 17 neutral), A1.2 (73 support / 69 oppose / 6 neutral), A2 (82 support / 57 oppose / 2 neutral), A3 (51 support / 48 oppose / 8 neutral), B1 (26 support / 64 oppose / 6 neutral), B2 (65 support / 17 oppose / 3 neutral), B3 (23 support / 30 oppose / 19 neutral), B4 (14 support / 62 oppose / 6 neutral), B5 (14 support / 53 oppose / 5 neutral), B6 (40 support / 21 oppose / 9 neutral), B7 (4 support / 0 oppose / 2 neutral). By my estimation, B2 appears to have the most support. But how would that change the content of WP:FICT? Will it change the content of WP:BIO? Anything in Template:Notabilityguide? --Pixelface (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are !votes. We are waiting for a second (and third, even) opinion after mine own on how to interpret all the responses, ideally from someone never involved in notability discussion, and that just takes time to find someone invested. However, I will point out that A1 - allowing any spinout without notability - is strongly opposed and perhaps the clearest one we can build from for now.

As for the length of the survey, I look at it and feel exhausted - I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to figure out how to deal with these specific areas, but by breaking it up as you have, it does bias the discussion - I would like to see input naturally develop if, say, tv characters are treated differently than comic book characters, instead of presuming a difference. Again, I'm trying to help here - I feel this is a definitely move to rewrite FICT, but we want do it right to end issues for the long future, and we don't want to invalid what global consensus has given us from the RFC. --MASEM 01:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the survey is fairly long, but fiction is a fairly broad topic. How does breaking it up bias the discussion? If an editor thinks there should be one criterion for every fictional character, every fictional element, every fictional work, they can give the same answer to those three questions or three answers to those three questions. If an editor thinks different types of things should be treated differently (like WP:POLITICIAN, WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ATHLETE, WP:CREATIVE), they can fill in the blank. The survey doesn't presume a difference. It allows for a difference of opinions to be heard. I suppose if you want, the first survey could just ask 6 questions:

• Should one and only one standard be applied to every fictional character when deciding whether or not it should have an article on Wikipedia? If yes, what should that standard be?
• Should one and only one standard be applied to every fictional element when deciding whether or not it should have an article on Wikipedia? If yes, what should that standard be?
• Should one and only one standard be applied to every work of fiction when deciding whether or not it should have an article on Wikipedia? If yes, what should that standard be?

It appears to me there already are different standards for different types of fictional works (WP:BK, WP:MOVIE, WP:WEB), different types of people, and different things (see Template:Notabilityguide), so that's why I broke the survey up. Whether different types of fictional things are treated differently is up to the community. I don't see how the survey would invalidate anything coming out of the RFC. But even if it did, consensus is not immutable. So what is the global consensus at the RFC? --Pixelface (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already described why having too questions will lead to voter exhaustion but the other point to make is that we need to avoid creating too many rules (eg WP:BURO]). FICT should be as simple as it needs to be to reflect consensus, and thus we should start on the assumption of the most simplest rules and work inwards to more specifics as they are needed, which is why starting with as few questions as possible and letting the responders reply with what they think are exceptions is better than trying to exhaust all exceptions and making the reader decide for every case. As for the RFC, while the input phase is closed we're still waiting for a second and third outside opinion to review the comments to provide what they see as the global consensus but there are a few obvious things: that SNGs are still needed though need better scrutiny, that articles on topics have to show notability with respect to the GNG but at the same time the SNGs may help to delineate sources that can better show notability for a given topic, and that there's allowances for collecting non-notable topics into lists but these must be discriminate and avoid too much cruft. Thus, in relation to the survey you are trying to write, trying to ask "when is a character article appropriate?", by its wording, bypasses some of these RFC results; instead, the question should likely be "what sources should be available for a character to have its own article?" or something of that nature. --MASEM 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with David and Masem, this seems to heavily repeat the RfC as it covers much of what was already covered there. It really seems to be trying to argue the issue again from another side when, as far as I know, the RfC is still on-going. Until that is done and the results finalized, should anything addressing the areas where consensus isn't clear be started. To do this now gives the appearance of "my point of view is not being supported, so I'll keep arguing it elsewhere" (i.e. it appears like a form of forum shopping. Let the RfC finish before arguing its results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What does the survey repeat from the RFC? The survey doesn't argue any issues. It's a survey where editors fill in the blank. The RFC is about WP:N. The RFC on N does absolutely nothing to rewrite FICT. If anything, the RFC on N is "forum shopping", because people took the conflict at WT:FICT over to WT:N. WT:FICT is the place to talk about changes to WP:FICT. I'm not "arguing the results" of the RFC on N. I don't even know what the "results" are. Four days ago the person who started the RFC, Randomran, asked "time to close?" and said "I think it might be a good idea to close up this RFC. Is there anyone who objects?" on the talk page. If you want the fiction survey started after the RFC on N is finished, that's fine with me. Right now I'm giving everyone a chance to offer up any suggestions they may have for the survey. If you don't want people to have an opportunity to review the survey before it goes live, you can keep on removing it from {{fiction notice}}. --Pixelface (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb. Break: Impact of WP:N RFC on FICT

I'm combining my comments to two of Pixelface's replies above since they're connected.

The whole issue with the failed FICT was two-fold. Inclusionists felt that FICT did not allow for fictional elements that lacked secondary sources to have articles, a statement that is in direct conflict with the basic principle of the GNG. Thus, one question raised is how immutable is the requirement of secondary sources in SNGs. The second issue with the failed FICT was the allowance for lists of characters and episodes and the possibly of spinoffs, all lacking secondary sources but supporting a notable topic; deletionists stating that it would allow for too much cruft. Thus a second question raised is exactly what is the nature of spinouts or list articles with respect to the GNG.

Those two questions, while specific to FICT, needed to be handled in the most generic manner possible as to make sure fictional elements weren't getting special treatment over other fields. Thus, this turned to WP:N, where specific guidance as listed above was found to be lacking. Thus, at the point of starting the RFC, it was considering the fact that WP:N was no longer a fixed point, and any consensus-determined changes to it would be put through another consensus process based on the results of the RFC. The lead statement of WP:N, that "topics either meet the GNG or an SNG" was found to be a point of contention in relationship to the first question above, so it made sense to verify what exactly that meant to editors. Based on my analysis (but I am not calling my analysis the authoritative one), it seems clear that "either/or" is not what people read this as, instead that "topics must meet the GNG; SNGs can define more limiting cases, cases where sources are presumed to exist, or types of sources that may demonstrate notability". So the first question, in how it reflects back to FICT, is that FICT has to support a strong assertion of the GNG - fictional element articles must be sourced, but we have a bit of leeway in what determines that sourcing. We should have the survey figure out what people believe to be appropriate sourcing or what elements presumably lead to sourcing to allow FICT to still line up with the GNG.

The second question on lists is also something not clearly lined out in WP:N nor anywhere else. WP:N applies to topics, not articles, and while spinouts were expressly disallowed by the RFC, the allowance for certain types of non-notable lists were acceptable. We know this is the case from countless AFD that merge non-notable characters and episodes into respective list articles. So while there does need to be a more firm statement that such lists are allowable when they are given strong criteria to prevent indiscriminate lists, we can safely approach FICT and determine what types of lists of fictional elements are appropriate as well, keeping in mind that consensus warns against lists that can grow crufty. This should be another point of the survey is to determine the bounds of what non-notable fictional element lists are acceptable or unacceptable.

But again, I preface all this by saying this is based on my analysis - I don't consider myself unbiased or separated from the discussion, only someone in the center that wants to get this all resolves so we can all go back to working on the encyclopedia, and thus I'm just listing out what I read to be the main points. Randoman is trying to get at least two more people to read through the comments to provide additional analysis so that we have a clear path of how to move forward on WP:N and subsequently the SNGs (including FICT). There is no reason that at the same time we cannot have your suggested survey to try to work out elements I've outlined above to be prepared for this, but the key is that FICT cannot move from essay to guideline until we've gotten WP:N cleaned up, so that there is no conflicting advice between the two. That is my primary concern (length being the other) of your current survey - it does not start from a point where the RFC leaves us but instead almost begs for allowing any and all fictional elements regardless of notability to have articles. If we start the survey from the point that we know that non-notable fictional element articles will not be allowed, and instead how to define what sources we can use for notability and what to do in cases when elements are non-notable (grouping to a list), then we're more in line with the RFC and can have a better shot at moving forward. --MASEM 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I think everyone here knows what the word "or" means. That sentence referring to the table (Template:IncGuide, later renamed Template:Notabilityguide) has existed in one form or another in WP:N since Radiant! rewrote it in September 2006. The fourth sentence in WP:N has always meant either/or. And it's never been intended to trump the results of an AFD debate. That sentence is not mentioned at all in the RFC so how could the RFC possibly be able to determine what that sentence means to editors? Your analysis is that "topics must meet the GNG"? That's obviously false. First, the GNG is not a policy and thus can only give recommendations, not requirements. Second, whole categories of topics on Wikipedia are allowed due to what they are: mountains, settlements, fish, etc. Your analysis is wrong. If that RFC has to do with all SNGs, why is there no notice of the RFC on any of the SNG talkpages? If what you're saying is true, the RFC at N affects WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, but it doesn't affect WP:FICT at all — because FICT is no longer an SNG.

You say "spinouts were expressly disallowed by the RFC", but where do you get that from? I see 63% against "Every spin-out is notable." That's like building a man out of straw, knocking it down, and claiming you've won the boxing match. I see 58% support for "Every spin-out must prove notability." I see 48% support for "SNGs can define that some spin-outs are notable." I see 76% support for "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability" and that proposal calls a gold record a "source". That just redefines what WP:N already says: "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." If an album is certified gold, that is evidence of notability. If an athlete has competed in a fully professional league, that is evidence of notability (and supposedly a "source" now?). If a film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, that is evidence of notability. So, when it comes to fictional characters, what is evidence of notability? Hence, the survey. Lists are already covered by Wikipedia:Lists and WP:CLN and WP:SAL, but the survey asks about lists too. The survey doesn't "beg" for anything. It asks editors what makes an articles on a given topic acceptable to exist. That is all. It doesn't use the loaded word "notability." Editors just fill in the blank. I suggested this to you over four months ago [4] after you asked me to participate in resolving the issue. If you want, the survey doesn't have to ask about specific categories — it could all be fill in the blank.

I would say the RFC on N has no impact on any of the SNGs, because none of the SNG talkpages even know it's going on. In my mind, it's clear that Randomran started Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise based on this conversation [5] [6] [7] me and Randomran had during the RFC in June, and Randomran's misunderstanding that SNGs "modify", "clarify", or "apply" the GNG. The GNG began as a summary of the SNGs and was later replaced by Uncle G's "primary notability criterion." There is absolutely nothing in WP:N that suggests SNGs "modify", "clarify", "apply", "override", or "rewrite" the GNG. Since August 2003, articles about people have been judged against Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, also known as WP:BIO, (later renamed Wikipedia:Notability (people) by Jiy in December 2005 after this requested move) — not WP:N. Articles about people that do not meet BIO have then been judged against N. But ultimately it is editors, and not rules, that do the judging. This is not difficult to understand.

As the editor with the most edits to WT:FICT, I think you are in the center of this — and I have no idea why. You weren't an involved party of E&C2. But I think your heavy involvement here and the lack of progress is telling. Sometimes outside parties can help resolve a dispute. But sometimes outside parties do more harm than good. I appreciate your efforts Masem, but if you've been trying to mediate this dispute, I think it's safe to say you've failed, and you should withdraw. You started an RFC on FICT in June, I participated, and I sat out the rest of it because you didn't like my tone. If you want to see this resolved, you may want to consider stepping away and letting other people try to resolve it. At this point I think a sitewide survey would be the best way of doing that. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise does nothing to unprotect this page. --Pixelface (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to help you here make an effective survey that will speedily get us to a working FICT, not trying to hinder you. I just feel that if you present your current survey as is to the same people that participated in the RFC on WP:N, there will be a lot of confusion and disagreement with the RFC results. Mind you, yes, the RFC wasn't announced on the SNGs, but it was announced via a watchlist notice and got much more input from that than the other notices; however, the RFC is technically not closed and if you feel their input is going to make a difference, then by all means post a notice there. Remember, the RFC is a discussion, not voting, so looking at the pure numbers and percentages is not a direct measurement of what consensus says. --MASEM 03:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can help by editing the survey into a version you consider an "effective survey." You've already suggested several questions. If you don't want to edit the survey, or don't think a survey would be productive, please say so. There are over 8 million registered volunteer editors on this site, and over 159,000 of them have made at least one edit in the last 30 days (according to Special:Statistics). There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to present a survey to just the people that participated in the RFC on N. I would prefer a random sample. If the RFC affects every SNG, I'm sure the people who worked on the SNGs would want to know about it. --Pixelface (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple random sample of editors will suffer from extreme (non)response bias. There's a reason that we don't do things scientifically or democratically; it's impractical and infeasible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a survey along these lines - I think the RFC showed a definite lack of consensus one way or another, and that, failing a consensus on the theoretical issues, the next logical move is to try to figure out what our actual operating procedure is and try to codify it.

That said, I think this survey is far too long, and far too demanding, and that it is not likely to work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)