Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status of this page

How is this semi-policy when this talk page DOES NOT EXIST? I'm changing it from semi-policy to not policy until someone can provide me something that shows there's been discussion about it. Cburnett 01:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

What absolutely troubles me about this is User:Radiant! has done the bulk of editting on this page and seems to be the only one using it for VFD. Cburnett 02:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The link to the page where the dicussion took place is listed on the page. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters K1Bond007 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
You know, it's funny how I missed that link on the front page. Well, with my stupidity aside: I think major consolidations (such as what Indrian has been doing) should be taken up on a talk page to gather consensus since it's considered semi-policy. He's made major races/characters into redirects and put into a list.
This policy attempts to create a line that divides black and white, and not everyone will agree where that line is. Nor is the line fixed for all fiction. Cburnett 02:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it is meant as a guideline. I clearly stated on the page WP:FICT that it isn't policy - nor does its name assert it as such. If you have counterexamples I'd be happy to hear them. Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
You clearly purported it as such in voting. Such as "Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 15:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)" on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MIPS (character) and labeling it as semi-policy (which you agree with), you're acting as if it were policy. Cburnett 08:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • That was never my intent. "Merge per WP:FICT" should be read as "I vote for this article to be merged for the reasons described in WP:FICT". Just like people say "Delete as vanity" when they mean "I vote for this article to be deleted for the reasons described in WP:VAIN". Note that merging is, according to the VfD FAQ, a form of 'keep', and that neither keeping nor merging requires a consensual vote (we have a be bold guideline for that). This is, however, semi-policy for the sheer number of people who think it's a good idea. Semi-policy means little else than that. Radiant_* 08:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
The alternative proposal listed on the page I linked (see bottom) is considered a consensus and now Wikipedia policy when concerning VFD. It's not really supposed to clarify the grey, but rather aid in determining what is notable enough for its own page since the definition of "fancruft" varies from person to person. This is my understanding anyway. K1Bond007 02:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to read this, but I couldn't find the page you linked at the bottom, please explain? Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to note that when making the redirects that I have undertaken I have been moving information mostly intact to the new page (I may have left some stuff out and anyone may feel free to add it back in). The one exception to this is the Gorn article, which was full of fanon and therefore not appropriate for a factual article on the topic in my view. The fact of the matter is that fictional concepts do not in my opinion often have enough information to justify separate articles since, by definition, these things do not exist. The best solution is to put these things in lists unless they transcend the subject matter or become too large through the addition of good additional information. I did not move Cardassian or Ferengi or Vulcan, but I have been moving a host of minor races. Anyway, this is a compromise between the fancruft and fancraft positions. No information is lost, but proliferation is controlled. Indrian 03:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. And, many fancruft articles will never be more than stubs (for instance, there are articles on Tolkien characters that are mentioned once in the series). I do NOT want these articles deleted, but I do believe they make more sense in context - e.g. a list of such characters. Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to correlate both the FICT policy and Wiki_is_not_paper. If someone is willing to do the work to write an article on, say, the Gorn -- and if others are willing to edit the article to keep fanon to a minimum, etc. -- then I see no reason why the article cannot be kept, and maybe cross-referenced elsewhere. For example, Star Trek has a list of the movies and TV series with a brief description and then a link to a main article. The idea that topics -- any topics -- are not justified for inclusion in a boundless encyclopedia simply because they do not fit a person's view as to what Wikipedia should include is, in my view, elitist. There are people who would like to see ALL articles related on fiction, whether they be articles about characters (T'Pol) or books (the dozens of James Bond novels articles K1Bond007 and myself have spent many hours working on) eliminated from Wikipedia because they feel it should all be about academia. IMO that's not what this place is all about. VFD serves a valuable purpose to identify articles that are nonsense, libellous, or violate this place's NPOV policy; I have some misgivings regarding the criteria people are using for notability -- as a book editor I recently attended a course that started off with the admonition that Google should NEVER been used as the only source for research, yet it seems to be the case when determining notability here -- but I can understand if a person is so obscure his/her very existence cannot be verified and there have been many cases of non-existent people and characters being created for articles. But unless something is so obscure that there is literally nothing to write about (a character mentioned only once in the 1000+ pages of Lord of the Rings, for example), I believe any fictional character, race, concept with substance is worthy of an article if someone is willing to invest the time to write an accurate article about it. 23skidoo 14:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I wholeheartedly agree. But what exactly is your point here? WP:FICT is about the organization of articles on fiction, and could feasibly be grounds for merging some of them, but not for deleting them. Remember that merging is a form of keeping. Radiant_* 14:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • (as a side point, both WP:FICT and WP:WINP are guidelines rather than policy). Radiant_* 14:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe I was being a little too broad. In part I am reacting to Indrian going a bit further than merging with regards to the Star Trek races articles, effectively deleting the originals and replacing them with single-paragraph write-ups in one large article, eliminating much of the detail and interesting information from the originals. Merging might be a form of keeping, but unless you want an article like List of Star Trek races to be 500Kb long, you just can't get into the level of detail that you can in a separate article -- assuming, as I say above, there is enough to write about. As Indrian correctly states, there has to be caution regarding the inclusion of fanon and/or material that's just made up by editors. But that's why this place is set up so anyone can edit. If I spot something that is clearly nonsense, I'll correct it. If Indrian had included all the information from Gorn (I use this example only because it was the first article that caught my attention regarding this issue) in the List of Star Trek races article, I might not have made such a big deal of it. But that was an article with long history and a lot of edits. I was concerned an article like Vulcans -- which is constantly evolving -- might be next. 23skidoo 14:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I have been doing no such thing, and I resent that accusation. I may have deleted a sentence here or there, but not with any particular purpose and they could easily be readded to the write-up in list form. The only article I modified significantly was Gorn, for very different reasons. If I had come across that article without any thought of merging races into a list, I still would have felt obligated to delete the fanon contained in that article (and no doubt would have had that reverted, but that is another issue). I have not been creating single paragraph articles and deleting longer ones, I have been merging small articles into a list. I also take umbrage to the implication that I would merge an article like Vulcan when none of my actions have shown a proclivity for merging an article on a major Star Trek race with a long write-up. I have merged several races so far, and the only one significantly modified was Gorn. Indrian 15:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I think WP:FICT needs to include garnishing consensus from the wikiproject (or somewhere else such as Talk:Star Trek if about ST characters) if affecting a large number of articles for a given subject. For example, Indrian and his dozens of edits for Star Trek stuff. As I said earlier, WP:FICT attempts to place a line down and divide black (minor residing to a list of minors) from white (major with own article) and that's not always the same. It's going to vary with the topic and vary with the person as to exactly where that line lies. Cburnett 14:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the line between white-and-black (as you call it) is simply on the amount of information you can write about them. I also believe (but this is just common sense) that if you don't know much about a topic, you should ask someone who does. But yes, people should take care, and if there is unclarity about this then I'm certainly in favor of adding warnings. Radiant_* 14:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Even still, you are imposing a line between how much is sufficient. It's entirely subjective and all I'm proposing is that there be a consensus drawn (I use Star Trek since that's what spurred this entire discussion here) in an area before making sweeping changes. There's Being Bold and there's working with a community. Cburnett 17:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I really do not see the problem here. If this were a matter of keeping or deleting, you would have a valid point, but this is an organizational issue. It seems to me that the policy says that fictional concepts with small articles should be merged into a large article until that article becomes to big. At that point, you either further subdivide, or separate out the article(s) that has grown too large. As the original separate article remains as a redirect, someone searching wikipedia for a particular concept will still be led to that concept easily. This is a way of improving the public face of wikipedia by eliminating short articles (often, but not always stubs) on fictional concepts, which some people do not like. No one is talking about deleting information or hiding information or constricting future article growth. You have yet to show how this is not a good compromise position between those who want lots of fiction articles and those who want virtually no fiction articles. Indrian 17:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
FOR THE THIRD TIME: THE LINE IS SUBJECTIVE. Deletion only further accentuates my point, but it still holds for merging. All I'm saying is that sweeping changes be posed first. Do you have a problem with working with a community? Cburnett 17:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
And here I thought that engaging in discussion was working with a community, just as implementing a semi-policy conceived through debate and strong consensus was also working in a community. The "sweeping changes" were posed in the discussion leading up to the semi-policy. The line is not subjective becasue it is controlled by article size, which is measureable. If a list page exceeds the recommended page size, which has been conclusively established, then the entries in said list are reorganized (without deletion of any content) so that the list no longer exceeds this limitation. The IMPORTANCE of a particular entry, which is subjective, is not the controlling factor. Rather it is the AMOUNT of information written on the subject. You still have not answered why this compromise is unsatisfactory. What compromise would you propose?Indrian 19:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
As a side point, the WP:FICT guideline does not draw a line. It merely asserts that such a line exists. The discussion on where such a line might lie for any particular topic, should be held in the talk pages related to that topic. Radiant_* 21:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if you're actually agreeing with me or Indrian, Radiant, but "discussion on where such a line might lie" is exactly what I've proposed here. If you want to merge dozens of races of Star Trek into a single list, then propose it at Talk:Star Trek (or link from there and/or the wikiproject to where discussion is) with a list and discussion. That's all I'm asking to add here: for mass changes, seek consensus first.

Indrian, I don't know what the problem is here....but I feel like I'm bashing my head against the wall here for as far as this discussion is going with you. If you bothered to read WP:FICT, you'll see it specifies Major characters and Minor characters (emphasis not mine). At NO POINT does is say "merge if less than 100 words, keep if greater than 100 words and toss a coin if it's 100 words exactly". The signifying difference is major vs. minor, which directly contradicts your point of "The IMPORTANTCE of a particular entry is not the controlling factor." Importance IS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR. I dunno, is the bold-italics making my point? Exactly who is a major or minor character is subjective (where WP:FICT draws the line (yes, I'll keep using that phrase even though the words aren't on the page, so stop reminding me please)) and is at the heart of deciding if they should have their own article or be consolidated.

Seriously, Indrian, one of us is clearly missing the boat...and I think I've already had my boat ride on this topic. Cburnett 21:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, this conversation has begun moving away from civility in quite a hurry. When it returns to this topic, I just might too. In the meantime, we will just have to agree to disagree on the finer points of the policy for now, and I will also be gracious enough to stay out of the Star Trek articles in regards to merging. Indrian 21:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Call it frustration. I've had to repeat a key point four times now to someone who also doesn't see that Major characters vs. Minor characters is an issue of importance and not amount. Come on, what am I supposed to do? Repeat everything a dozen times?
This is not a personal attack against you for your ST edits...it's merely a convenient and driving example. There's clearly disagreement about your edits and it could have been avoided if my proposal of garnering support after discussion had been in place. That's all. I don't want to drive you away from ST articles, that's the least of my goals. Cburnett 22:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the problem as I see it is this: obviously people should use all standard guidelines (such as WikiQuette) when moving/merging pages (and I've just added a warning to the FICT page for that). However, the whole point of WikiPedia is that you do not require other people's consent to make changes. The Wiki thrives because everybody can edit everything. Of course this can sometimes lead to edit wars and other frustrations, but we have processes to deal with those. But if people want to make a change in good faith, WikiPolicy is to let them. Even if that chance is perceived as radical by some (and personally, I don't find merging all that radical but that's IMHO). Since WP:FICT isn't policy, it cannot supersede the fact that anyone can edit anything, because that is beyond policy - it's one of the founding rules. Radiant_* 08:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Warning added

  • Note that I've added a warning to the WP:FICT page to not use it as grounds for deleting content. Radiant_* 14:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Would a template be useful?

Here's a first crack at a template for use on talk pages to foster discussion on whether or not the article should be merged per WP:FICT.

It has been proposed that this article on a minor character or concept be merged with [[{{{1}}}]] (which may not yet exist) based on the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Fiction. If you agree or disagree with this proposal, please participate in the discussion below. If you have evidence that the character or concept is not sufficiently minor, or have plans to expand the article to a degree such that a merger with [[{{{1}}}]] would not be appropriate, please voice your concerns.

Keep in mind that the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fiction are semi-policy and should not be taken as strict rules.

Good? Needs work? Really stupid idea? Let me know. (A category might be useful, too, but one step at a time...) android↔talk 02:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a bad idea, but people have a tendency to use WP:BOLD and start merging things right away. It depends really if you wanted to make this policy (tag, wait a couple days for concurrence, then do stuff) which imho would be instruction creep, or simply create a mechanism to alert mergists to some article (in which case it needs a cat). Radiant_* 08:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've reconsidered this. I figured a boilerplate message would be a nice way to give "fair warning," but WP:BOLD is probably the way to go... or at least to just start discussion on the talk page. android↔talk 04:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Major vs. Minor

I don't like this distinction as it ambigious. I think it would be better if we simply used "List of characters in X" instead of "List of minor characters in X" and placed all characters from the fiction in question on the list page. Those who are important enough to have their own article can be iLinked from the list page. Oberiko 16:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • But isn't "important enough to have their own article" the same as "major"? Radiant_* 16:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. Just because a character is major doesn't mean that enough text could be (or has been) written about that character to necessitate said character having its own article. -Sean Curtin 06:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case I think Oberiko's suggestion is good. I do believe most lists are already called 'characters' rather than 'minor characters'. Radiant_>|< 07:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't like it either - it's so ambiguous it's pointless. ··gracefool |☺ 03:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ultimately, what I don't get is what's the problem with having an article about...say the Changeling (Star Trek) race in Star Trek when wikipedia IS NOT PAPER. Whether or not if it's a redirect there will still be something at Changeling (Star Trek). Cburnett 05:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to change the article to remove the "minor" constraint on lists. Oberiko 15:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

merge with Wikipedia:Importance

I'd like to propose merging this with the less ambiguous and more generic Wikipedia:Importance. ··gracefool |☺ 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd still say this policy is a bit young to have established consensus. Whatlinkshere isn't a very good indicator - Wikipedia:Importance has more links to it, probably just because it's older. As for Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, like WP:FICT it's less than three months old! Has WP:FICT been featured at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Has it been voted on at Wikipedia:Current surveys? I support WP:FICT, but I'm very uneasy about labelling something as a guideline so quickly, when most of the community probably isn't even aware of it. ··gracefool |☺ 08:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To answer your concern - it is frequently cited on VFD as a reason for keeping or merging something (or, occasionally, getting rid of fanfic). It is presently used as precedent on RFC (see section on policy disputes). I'd say that does indicate wide acceptance. It has never been at WP:CS, but that's because consensus isn't necessarily established by voting on it. Arguably many editors aren't aware of it, but most editors are unaware of most policies and guidelines anyway. HTH! Radiant_* 09:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

New concern of mine

Having chosen to do some interwiki link cleanup for Star Trek article, I ran across a case I had yet to consider (and by all looks of it....no one else has either): interwiki links.

For example:

Clearly, the german WP has consolidated two races that I'd fight tooth-and-nail against consolidating on the english WP. What point this raises is that it's impossible to use interwiki links from the german page to the other language sites as intended. There were actually several incorrect interwiki links on de:Völker im Star-Trek-Universum that weren't pointing to the equivalent of list of Star Trek races.) The only way is to now create a list of interwiki links under each heading. This might be acceptable if I could spell "interwiki links" in every language I've edited under (current count is 32 languages), which I don't.

I don't have anything specific to suggest or append to the guideline, but I think discussion is warranted on this. What I'd like to see added is for authors considering to merge-and-redirect under WP:FICT to have to clean up the interwiki stuff and create a list of interwiki links or something. Just like moving a page: people expect you to clean up after your actions.

Thoughts?

I haven't even touched list of Star Trek races and the semi-recent consolidation someone attempted (stopped about at the k's) as I suspect it'll not be that much fun. Cburnett 00:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

A day-and-a-half later and no one has a comment on this? I'm...shocked.
I found another example that's not influenced by WP:FICT but poses the same problem: kilobyte and de:kilobyte (which redirects to de:Speicherkapazität which is a list of basically storage sizes: bit, byte, kilobyte, etc.). Since Speicherkapazität has redirects to it, it becomes a major hassle to want to link to bit, byte, kilobyte, kibibyte, etc. Interwiki links were not designed for this.
After further thinking, I'm at the conclusion that WP:FICT is, meh, ok for a single language but unless *all* languages follow suit (which they don't) this problem will persist and I find it livable but not acceptable. Cburnett 18:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This point of discussion is up on the village pump at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Interwiki links and lists since it's not WP:FICT specific. Please reply there. Cburnett 18:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Full discussion:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive F#Interwiki links and lists

  • Well, I'm not sure how to comment on it. You are correct that this is inconsistent. However, the problem is that most other-language wikis work differently from the English one. I'd say the solution would be to allow interwiki links to a section. Radiant_>|< 08:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Third clause meaning

Specifically or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances.

Could someone explain what it means, through use of an example because it seems to be used to justify every Pokemon having an article by dint of them appearing in video games and cartoons, whilst I would have thought that was one fictional universe, albeit a fractured one. Hiding 16:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm... well personally I don't see how that clause justifies the individual Pokémon articles, though if it's being used for that then I suppose it does need clarification or it needs to be reworked to make the case clearer either way. To me fictional universe definitely applies to Pokémon in the same way that the Star Wars omnibus articles comprise of characters from movies/books/games. The characters like Boba Fett or weapons like the Lightsaber were broken out under clauses 1 and 2 rather than 3, which I would see as more for Superman or Death. I should say however that I've always seen the Pokémon articles as a special cases overseen by their project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex - and I don't know if at this stage it would be feasible to apply WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 11:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As Lochaber says. All Pokemon episodes, games etc play in the same fictional universe; similarly, the Series Dragonball, Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT are part of the same universe, as are all different Star Trek series. It is rare for a fictional character to be used outside his own universe, but for instance Robin Hood has appeared in many places unrelated to the original story. Presently the Pokemon are all in their own article on the assumption that, for each of them, there is too much information to merge it. See Wikipedia:Pokeprosal for details - specifically, it was decided that Pokestubs should be merged, but that is deferred pending a major effort to expand them all beyond stub status. Radiant_>|< 12:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I appreciate all of that with regards to pokemon, I guess I phrased my question poorly. I guess what I'm asking is, what does the clause mean, because it doesn't make sense to me, and if no-one can explain what it means, should it be there? Can anyone give an example of where it would apply? It certainly seems to need explaining if people can't understand it. I think it's of some importance as WP:FICTION is oft-cited in WP:VFD, and it should be as clear as possible. Hiding 12:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, you do have a point - it is extremely rare for this criterion to apply anywhere, and any articles to which it applies would also fall under the first or second point. Also, you're not the first person to be confused by it. Maybe we should simply remove it then. Radiant_>|< 07:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
          • Okay, I was bold and removed , or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe from clause 3. Hiding 12:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
            • That removal looks fair enough to me, particularly if it was unlikely to apply to much. Any cases to which it might have applied can just be looked at individually. -- Lochaber 13:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Plot Summaries

I'd like some comments on the status of extremely detailed plot summaries like those at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary and Harry Potter (plot). Is it worth having if it is too long to fit on the main page for the book or movie? James 23:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Interesting point, and certainly worth a section on WP:FICT. My personal opinion would be that they shouldn't be that long; most books or movies list their plot in a couple of paragraphs, not an extensive page with an excerpt of each chapter. It may be worthwhile to get some more centralized discussion on this, though. Radiant_>|< 07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've been attempting, but people aren't responding very much. It's on talk pages at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Plot_summaries, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive I#Book_and_Movie_Summaries, and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_CliffsNotes. I'm considering just putting out a proposal. James 08:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, you didn't get overwhelming discussion, but everywhere you brought it up you got a sensible and well-founded response that stated that lengthy plot summaries are a bad idea. So yes, you are right. I'll add a paragraph to reflect such on WP:FICT, feel free to proofread or reword. Radiant_>|< 08:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The wording looks fine to me. Thanks for putting it up. James 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to say, I disagree with the recent addition of the part in section 5.
Plot summaries long enough to require creating a separate page from what is otherwise a reasonable page on a work are generally a poor idea.
I don't really think that one can generalise on this point and I don't think there has been enough discussion of that point, Wikipedia is not paper and if the summary section in a main article grows organically to the point where it can be de-merged then so be it. I don't see how this is any different from if a section on a main character needs to be de-merged. I don't think we can really say that a plot summary in particular can't expand beyond an arbitrary length.
Also since I'm on the point I'd prefer to see:
A plot summary should, if appropriate, remain part of a descriptive article....
Comments? -- Lochaber 12:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, it does say "generally" remain part of the article. I'm aware that there are going to be exceptions, but right now, I can think of no work that really needs to have that detailed a summary, aside from possibly the Bible. James 14:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lochaber, could you please give an example of when it would be appropriate to have a separate page for a plot summary? Radiant_>|< 17:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not that there is a particular example in Wikipedia at the moment (perhaps there is but I don't have time to check every work of fiction here), I'm just saying that I don't think it's appropriate to limit the contributors and the scope of Wikipedia in such a way. I believe that if, for example, someone decides to further expand the "Synopsis of the novel" section in Nineteen Eighty-Four (an article which is getting quite long) then they should be able to de-merge that section in the same way that it is appropriate to have a seperate article on Thoughtcrime. Another example would be if someone decided to expand (or write) plot sections for long running tv series like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Stargate SG-1; if anything I would think that it would be better to have a seperate plot summary article than articles detailing the plot for every episode. I just don't see why sections on plot summaries are any different from sections on major characters, which this guideline is happy to recommend separate articles for if the main article gets too long. -- Lochaber 09:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe that the difference is that descriptive analysis of characters, locations or other elements from a book has greater encyclopedic merit than summarizing its content. The latter would be more appropriate to WikiBooks, WikiSource, or Project Gutenberg. It's easy to make the summary run out of hand when writing about your favorite book, and this is simple indication of when it would be better to cut down a bit. Radiant_>|< 08:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the recent addition of the Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource section I offer the following compromise...
5. It is often informative to include plot summaries (and other spoilers) in articles on works of fiction. However, please keep them reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize it. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Please see the Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource section below for guidance and examples.
I'll go ahead and do this but it's not acceptabe please discuss... -- Lochaber 08:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Oh and btw I find Uncle G's addition very useful. Radiant_>|< 09:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, thank you Uncle G! -- Lochaber 09:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Subpages

I have just proposed, at Wikipedia talk:Subpages#Fictional Universes that articles clearly about aspects of a particular fictional universe or work of fiction be considerd an exception to the rule against subpages. Marginal articels about characters in the Foo series could exist at Foo/Character X for example. I bring this here for intersted discussion. DES (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds interesting however my initial thoughts would be that if it was strictly enforced there would be too many subpages and it could become quite unwieldy. I guess I'm not entirely sure how you evisage it. For example would Count Dooku be under Star Wars/Count Dooku or Star Wars/Jedi/Count Dooku or Star Wars/Jedi/Post-Ruusan Old Republic Jedi/Count Dooku (see Jedis#Post-Ruusan_Old_Republic_Jedi) or simply Jedi/Count Dooku or would he have his own page on the ground that he is quite a major character? -- Lochaber 16:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am merely suggesting that the option be available. Each particular fictional work/universe would need consensus on an organizational scheme, or else the Fictional Series wiki-project might formulate general organizational guidelines. In no way would I suggest mandating the use of subpages, although it might in time become a guideline/general practice that this be the usual way it is done. Obviously pages like Superman and Sherlock Holmes ought to be in the main article space, not at sub-pages, but minor characters or fictional places or the like, or pages like Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies could usefully be put on subpages. (The VfD on the latter sparked me to make this sugestion, although i have been considering it for some time.) DES (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't really like the idea. Articles cannot generally be put in a neat tree of dependencies, and it makes finding articles (and hotlinking to them) harder - and thus it would also encourage (re)creation of articles by the wrong title. If a name is ambiguous, we can always use "Foo (Bar character)" rather than "Foo". Radiant_>|< 07:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Usage of WIKIBOOKS

There has recently been considerable argument about the long plot descriptions from harry Potter. These were removed from wikipedia primarily on the grounds that they constituted copryright violations. Yet here it is proposed that they should be transferred to wikibooks. That is, to say the least, a flawed argument. Either they are violations and should not be anywhere, or they are not and can remain here equally well as anywhere else.

Next problem is that wikibooks has a policy of accepting textbooks, not plot summaries per se. The HP transfers have just resisted deletion on wikibooks on the promise that they will become something other than plot summaries. It is then rather ridiculous to suggest that long summaries should be deliberately placed there, contrary to their acceptance policy. This in fact contravenes two policies, in that they do not accept items which they regard as encyclopedic, nor items which are effectively part of something elsewhere.

I must assume that some form of moderately lengthy plot summary is legitimate. Wikibooks (and whoever is advising them from Wiki on legal issues) plainly believe that the very long chapterised summary from here is legitimate. So the question of appropriate length is a question of style and desired content. The article here on Half Blood Prince has very much become a factual description of the history of the book, rather than the story in the book. That is interesting, but very likely not what most readers want. In effect there are two potential articles. A long plot summary is very much more relevant to an article about the story in the book, wheras a short one would suffice for the history of the book. Where do you distinguish this in policy?

Further, appropriate length of any article has a lot to do with its importance and total available content. As books go, the Harry Potters have been a staggering phenomenon. The 7 books form a series in which all the characters develop. Some of them are very long books in their own right. A lot of material. Sandpiper 09:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not a flawed argument. Wikipedia and Wikibooks are sisterprojects, meant to complement one another. See the examples on the WP:FICT page - if you want to write articles about the characters, places and events in a book, that would be encyclopedic. If you want a chapter-by-chapter excerpt and analysis, that would be (mostly) a source text and/or speculative, so more appropriate in a sisterproject. There are indeed two potential articles, one in each project. And Harry Potter is a phenomenon (not to mention a great story), but not a unique case. Radiant_>|< 12:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • er, yes it is a flawed argument. Either the chapter by chapter synopsis is a copyvio and it can not be on any wiki, or it is not a violation and this is not justification for it being removed from wikipedia. The debate for deleting it mainly hinged on the issue of whether it was a copyright violation. Then this guidance was amended to suggest that very large synopses should be moved to wikibooks. That is an inconsistent argument. The vfd debate did not support this. I appreciate the argument that was being made about legalities, but the action taken as a result was not in accord with that argument.
      • This page is not the place for re-hashing the WP:VFU argument over the deletions of those articles yet again. Please stop. Uncle G 17:58:24, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
        • yes it is, when it is being suggested that this particular VFD supports a change in these guidance notes. An apparent decision on flaky grounds is hardly grounds to alter anything.Sandpiper 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • On the separate point, what was transferred was simply a synopsis, not analysis or commentary. Hence, as you say, it was encyclopedic. Wikibooks is a sister project, but exactly for that reason it insists on not hosting an encyclopedia. It only supports plot description to the extent that it necessary for analysis. Or at least that is what the policy says. References in the debate suggested that other books had been deleded for exactly this reason. Sandpiper 14:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The Wikibooks deletion discussion was talking about non-fiction books, unrelated to Harry Potter and unrelated even to annotated texts. The only annotated texts that have been deleted from Wikibooks were ones where the annotation wasn't even begun, and the book instead comprised solely the raw source text of the original work instead. Uncle G 17:58:24, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
        • The VFD regarding the muggles guide on wikibooks was talking about the articles transferred over there. The very long discussion pointed out quite plainly that a simple synopsis of plot was unacceptable according to their standards for accepting books. As is a split-site book. They want a whole book, or nothing.
  • The article here on Half Blood Prince has very much become a factual description of the history of the book, rather than the story in the book. That is interesting, but very likely not what most readers want. In effect there are two potential articles. — Indeed, and one is on Wikipedia and one is on Wikibooks. The encyclopaedic description of the cultural impact, history, inspiration, casting, publication, marketing, and so forth of the novels and films is on Wikipedia, and the detailed plot analysis of the actual stories themselves forming a full annotation of the series is (in preliminary form) on Wikibooks. We've even joined the two up with copious interwiki hyperlinks. We have multiple projects. We can put, and have been putting, them to good use. Uncle G 17:58:24, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
    • then what you are saying is that you do not intend for wikipedia to carry any articles on the fictional content of HP. I think most readers of HP, and editors of this encyclopedia who are interested in HP would find such a policy absurd. More, it implies that wikipedia will adopt a policy of not carrying articles about fiction. Again absurd. Is this encyclopedia intended to carry articles which people want to read? Sandpiper 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, that is not at all what he's saying. We already have extensive articles about a plethora of fictional characters, Potterverse or otherwise. That is good. We do not generally have extensive summaries and annotations to source texts. There is an obvious difference between describing the personality, history and skills of Hermione Granger, and reiterating what happens in Order of the Phoenix, chapter five. The former is encyclopedic, the latter is not. Radiant_>|< 07:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Radiant and Uncle G. Extensive plot summaries do not belong on wikipedia. Articles which analyse a books cultural impact are fine as long as they are not original research. Hiding talk 08:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The deal made on wikibooks was to create an entire analysis of Harry Potter. This includes individual articles on each character, if anything rather more detailed than exist here now. So the two projects would end up carrying the same content, though perhaps slightly different versions. I don't think anyone suggested that the plot descriptions here currently carry analysis. That they do not, was one of the objections to their transfer. There remains a contradiction in the stated policies of transferring only long plot summaries.
But since you mention it, why do long summaries not belong here? Sandpiper 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Because an encyclopedia doesn't contain fiction. It contains analysis of fiction. Radiant_>|< 09:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
While the book itself may be a work of fiction, its existence is a fact. Indeed, its content is such a strong fact that the author is likely to jealously guard the copyright. And many people may be interested to know in greater or lesser degree an outline of that story. An encyclopedia is all things to all men, and many times so for wiki which does not suffer from the space constraints of an ordinary encyclopedia. Why should it not contain a description of every book someone cares to include? That would in itself be quite a valuable reference book. Curiously, there seems to be quite a lot of resistance to including analysis. Maybe people do not feel that 'literature' is a suitably rigorous subject? Sandpiper 19:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge all minor characters into big lists?

I disagree with this proposition for the simple reason that there's no advantage to having a big list of characters - really, what does it do for us? - and it's counterintuitive. A person searching for information about Mr. Collins of Pride and Prejudice expects to find it under an article bearing his name. — Dan | Talk 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I oppose the idea completely. Stubs are ment to be expanded. Obviously Verdandi is a fictional char of great significance. The fact that no one is making it a complete article is bad. Merging it with Norse mythology will cause a disater. Disaster in a sense that people are less inclined to expand complete articles which apear to cover everything than stubs which have obvious need for improvement. I agree we have too many stubs that need to be expanded. Deleting them wont achieve that. --Cool Cat Talk 20:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As do I. I believe that calling a character minor is inherently point of view and requires clarification which it does not currently receive. Thus I propose the following meaning. Simply telling us that Homer Simpson is a major character and Sideshow Bob is a minor character is akin to being told every single little thing which we don't want to know because we're being told opinions, not facts.
Let's now state that Homer Simpson has (for the sake of argument) appeared on every single Simpsons episode. Sure, he gets an article, but then there's crossing the line. Sideshow Bob appears in, I think, ten episodes (with an eleventh on the way). Yeah, he gets an article, rightly. But for less than three hoursworth of television? Nobody but nobody would argue that he isn't (or wasn't) a major character in the grand scheme of things. At which point do we cross the line? Sure, by now, I'm stating the opinions of everyone's avidly hated inclusionist, but I feel it's something to be done.
So what is a minor character? What is the definition of a minor character. Probably someone along the lines of Hank Scorpio, who appeared in one solitary Simpsons episode in 1996.. but there I go. Inherent point of view, from someone whose eyes have turned square from looking at screens for ten years. Let's not go there. Let's satisfy our need to hold our heads high and shout "Salva veritate", and yet "Est omnino difficile judicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopaedia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopaediam dedecet". I do believe the two can live on side by side. Bobo192 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I can see why you're concerned however this guideline was created because lots of stubs on smaller fictional characters were showing up on WP:AFD. The idea of merging the stubs into larger articles or lists came about because we didn't want to lose the information from Wikipedia entirely. By putting smaller characters, objects &c. into larger articles it means they are less likely to be deleted and also more likely to be come across by the casual reader who might then be tempted into expanding the info. If a section on a certain character, place &c. becomes too long than that part can be de-merged into its own article. I suppose the feeling is, and the spirit of this guideline is, that if there is so much that can be written about a character that it can sustain its own relatively lengthy article then it must be a major character - Sideshow Bob is a good example of that, he's not in that many episodes but there is plenty to say about him so he gets his own article.
  • Taking the example of Verdandi, if she were in an omnibus article of characters from Norse Mythology the hope would be that while someone is browsing for Sjöfn or whoever they would find see Verdandi in the article with lots of Norse Goddesses, realise they know a little more about Verdandi than is already there and add new info. In theory this would happen enough times and eventually the Verdandi section could grow long enough to become its own article. As it is now someone has to actually be looking for Verdandi before they get to realising that they know more than is already there, esp. since there doesn't seem to be a Norse mythology stub (perhaps one is needed?).
  • I think it's also worth mentioning here that if the Verdandi article were merged with other characters into an omnibus article then Verdandi would be re-directed to that page so that people would still be able to find the info rather that deleting it altogether. So with the Mr. Collins example above they would be redirected to the relevent section of Pride and Prejudice if there is info or if there was no info about him at all then to Characters in Pride and Prejudice#Mr. Collins. -- Lochaber 17:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • But, per my objection above, what is the benefit in having a large list of P&P characters? Surely you must agree that it is less intuitive to read about Mr Collins in a list than in Mr Collins. No person unfamiliar with these guidelines is going to type "Characters in Pride and Prejudice" into a search box when he wants to read abour Mr Collins. And even if Mr Collins does redirect to the list, why should it? I have yet to see the cogent reasoning behind the implication that articles on minor characters harm Wikipedia. — Dan | Talk 16:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not a matter of 'harm', it is a matter of 1) accessibility of information, 2) providing relevant context, 3) avoiding redundancy, and 4) article quality. Stubs are not always expanded, cannot always be expanded because sometimes the information simply doesn't exist, and at any rate articles can be broken out of a list.
      • The point of this guideline is thus: people object to having hundreds of tiny articles saying "Mr. Foo is a fictional character from The Awesome Book, and is friends with Mr. Bar". Hence, these are generally merged into a section on The Awesome Book. However, if you can write a somewhat lengthy and informative article on Mr. Foo, break it out and do so.
      • Some examples? Patty Bouvier and Selma Bouvier are merged, because just about anything related to the one of them also relates to the other. Horses of Middle-earth provides some context, and not enough information exists in the books to write lengthy articles on all of them (indeed, many series and books have characters that appear only for a brief while, and have virtually no background). List of characters in the Harry Potter books is a very useful resource, and contains links to those characters that have their own article. Which isn't all of them, because there simply isn't much to say about Percy Weasly's owl.
      • The difference between a minor and a major character is simply how much information is available on the character. Information is good. Context is good. So for P&P I'd recommend to make a simple list first for organization, then create separate articles on those characters for which you can write a reasonable article. That surely aren't all of them. Use your best judgment. Radiant_>|< 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki

What should be done about pages that have their own page on the English wikipedia but are a part of a big page on another language wikipedia? Is it okay to have an interwiki link to an anchor (for instance [[de:Figuren aus Mittelerde#Gandalf]])? This is a recurrent problem with the German wikipedia where they have a different policy on Wikipedia:Importance (for instance they don't have a Gandalf article, but only de:Figuren aus Mittelerde#Gandalf). -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, I've been worrying about that just the other way. I've been doing a bunch of merges and such on en.wik, and I find all sorts of French and Interlingua interwiki links to more-specific articles on other 'pedias. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that where en has one page and de has a bunch, that each of those de pages links to that en page, and the en page links to the most important of them, or the category containing them, or a list of them, or if none of those exist the one that comes alphabetically first (but in that case, a list or cat should really be created). Radiant_>|< 22:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
So you wouldn't link to a specific heading on that bunch page? -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Linking to a specific heading risks the link breaking if the heading is edited slightly; but then it's always possible for pages on other wikis to be reordered/moved without us noticing. —Whouk (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

When to merge - don't just auto-merge minor characters

I propose to change the wording on when to have separate articles on individual characters. The litmus test, should be whether the character is notable (not necessarily major) and also, the information about them is so substantial and unique it can't better fit in a single article, other then its own. For instance, in a TV series, a one-episode character, should stay in the episode's article. A character who's signficant to only one major character, should reside in that major character's article. A minor character appearing in one book in a series, belongs in the one book's article. And so on. But, if a character has a notable impact beyond that one item, they may warrant their own article, if there is sufficient content to sustain an article. Essentially, a merge should be done if and only if there's a clear and obvious target. We shouldn't do these "List of a bunch of loosely related minor characters who happen to be in the same series" articles.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong prompted this proposal. I'm unsure of the best wording. --Rob 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in concurrence. "List of minor characters in (insert series name here)" articles annoy me, because they get long and unwieldy and frequently result in the loss of information. Sub-pages and spinoff pages are done both for emphasis and to take advantage of hypertext's ability to keep pages short and uncluttered. I think we should also clarify that in a TV series, significant discussion about the character outside of his presence is acceptable for inclusion and evidence of a character's notability.Captainktainer 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this as well. Vashti 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I made this change. If objected to, somebody may revert me, and we can discuss it further. Basically, I opened the door to "notable minor characters" who may, given sufficient content, warrant an article. Now, what makes them "notable" is something, to consider more wording on. --Rob 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it's a bit vague, I support completely. I think this will help mitigate the wikilawyering over who's minor or major within the context of the work and shift the debate to the impact of the character on human civilization, which is where the debate belongs.Captainktainer 03:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Going back to the recent AFDs, I think there's a subtle miscommunication here - the idea that characters who are not regular characters are necessarily minor. TV has the concept of "semi-regulars" who pop up frequently, but not every episode. Janice (Friends character) is one such. I would suggest that a minor character is one who appears in one or maybe two episodes and is never heard about again. Characters like Zek, Noonien Soong and Curzon Dax in Star Trek appear several times and/or are very frequently discussed by the other characters, IMO making them major non-regular characters. I wonder if we need some kind of list of what makes a non-regular character a major character - ones like the above who are the subject of frequent throwaway references seem like exactly the kind of thing people who aren't fanatic Trekkers like me might want to look up in Wikipedia. Vashti 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Subjects only existing in fictional encyclopedias

A slew of articles created from individual entries in The World of Kong, a reference companion book to the Peter Jackson film, brought up this issue again: the creatures the book describes only exist as descriptions in that book. I would like this guideline to declare that any fictional subject that does not exist outside of a fan reference book is inherently non-notable. An outside depiction in a single work of fiction would be enough to pull it out of that per se rule into a consideration on other merits in this guideline. At most, an article on such a book as The World of Kong could give some samples of its contents to describe the book, but there's no justification for independent treatment, or wholesale copying of the entries. Thoughts? Postdlf 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Movies and games

I think we need criteria for movies and games. These characters come up much more often on AFD then do book characters. I threw together a working proposal feel free to edit. I'm not really attached to any particular policy I just think we need one. jbolden1517Talk 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The existing rules were never restricted to books, so there's no need for the added section. Also, I'm unclear why movies and games go into one section. Why are movies closer to games, then TV shows? The section seems to dump on video games for being transitory/temporary, but then seems to lump films in with this, which is absurd. A film doesn't need sequels for it, or its characters, to be notable, and have a lasting effect. --Rob 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Tell me if the new version address the concerns about transitory. As for TV (and magazines) I think they don't have the same short time frame issues. jbolden1517Talk 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That just made it even worse. Saying "Computer games and movies differ from written fiction in that they can have very large audiences for a short periods of time with no sustained cultural influence." is an absurd and rediculous overgeneralization. This seems to be a bit of snobbery to me. If it's not on paper, its not serious, and just a fad. Blanket genralizations serve no purpose, and probably can't be fixed. The existing guideline was better, and already handles movies. --Rob 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments by Rob. I also think the only valid point that the new addition makes is that a fictional subject may appear across a number of works and yet not have been substantively depicted by those works. However, this may be equally true in written works, and this is better seen not as a notability concern, but as an issue of whether a topic should be merged and redirected based on the volume of independent and substantive information. Postdlf 18:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK well if you don't want to fork it. Then I still think you need a definition for notable and non notable characters. I can't find anywhere these defined in any verifiable way. For literature I can use Benet's. What should I use for characters in Nintendo games to determine if they are notable? OK you don't like my criteria of crossing genera. I think ifs fair for you guys to now come up with something. jbolden1517Talk 00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they agree that the existing guideline is suitable.--Sean Black 06:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ehm, I'm not really clear on this here jbolden1517, but you want us to assign quantable/measurable rules for movies, games, television on notability? How the hell do you envision that? Like:"If .5% of the population of A country finds this a great movie, it's notable"? I think the current approach seems quite clear. Keep everything in the article of the original fictional WORK (which almost ALWAYS is notable to some degree). If you have collected such an amount of information (without plainly summarizing the work), that is verifiable and citable, that you can create a substantional article on the topic from an out-of-universe-perpective, or if it's reasonably predictable that such an article can be written (top 100 popular fiction works or something), then you can "split" in the way described on the page. And I think that it's a good approach. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue of notability for article creation and deletion. This is about characters in movies. For example lets Star Wars. Clearly Darth Vader is notable he's a word. What about Owen Lars? What about Dodonna should he have his own article, he did have dialogue? What about Dack Ralter (he has a few words). What about the people standing in the background? Where do you draw the line?
If you look at the history what I started to create were exactly those guidelines. Clear cut ways of determining if someone deserves their own article or not. jbolden1517Talk 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But, you didn't discuss them !! I think that was the only reason Rob reverted them. You just can't create your own rules and put them in a guideline straight of the bat. I hardly see a problem here. Propose rules, discuss them, once a final set is AGREED, add them. Perhaps I'm simple, but I don't see a reason for a dispute here. I think that Rob's point was that a person without dialog might still be notable. It's not as clear cut as that, and that needs to be addressed just as well. This is the reason the guideline is worded like it is now, relying more on available "context" for a fictional element, then on wether or not a character has any dialog. Perhaps some of your rules can be used as "guidance" on wether or not such information might be available?? but 'discuss' for gods sake. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob just to make sure you see this. I've filled. I don't want to have an edit war and you've completely refused to be involved constructively. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27 Notability (fiction). Hopefully you'll have time to think of a way to address the points above while we wait for a mediator. jbolden1517Talk 02:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cultural icon"

Rather than repeat what I said before, I'll just link to the edit [1] which is being brought here because of [2].--Sean Black 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean - Given that thriver(Rob) reverts any changes based on their being no discussion and then refuses to offer anything productive you want to take this to mediation? I think we need guidelines that define what a "cultural icon" and that your problem with the section comes from the same place I'm having a problem (definition of notability) jbolden1517Talk 11:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, not really. I'd just like him to tell me why he (or anyone else) thinks the section should stay- If nobody says anything, then I suppose I'll remove it again and/or leave a message on his talk page.--Sean Black 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it creates a rule about what to do about that situation. For example Ron Jeremy has appeared as Ron Jeremy in mainstream movies. This establishes the mainstream Ron Jeremy is entitled to a separate article about all of his mainstream appearances but not at the individual movie level. I think that's reasonable. 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm, what? Ron Jeremy contains information about his appearances in films as himself, and biographical information. There isn't a seperate article, nor should they be, as far as I can see.--Sean Black 04:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need something to explain why non-major characters are sometimes notable. I'm not married to the term "cultural icon". But, I would like something else put in, if its removed again. In any event, I was mainly interested in having a discussion before the removal (of something that's been their for a year). If its removed again, I won't revert again. --Rob 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you need something.specific. If a minor character is notable enough for inclusion, that will (ideally) be explained within the article. The reason the character is notable could be any number of things—Attempting to ascertain a standard, all-purpose criterion for that just doesn't work.--Sean Black 04:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm understanding the concept. Could someone give an example of a fictional character that fits the proposed definition? I'm really confused by the use of a real person such as Ron Jeremy, so could that example be an actual fictional character? Postdlf 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That was sort of my problem with it; it doesn't add much of anything, and is largely redundant -- Superman is a cultural icon, but would deserve an article even if he were only as iconic as say, Aztek (that is, not very). If you have a minor character, for them to deserve articles of their own forces them to demonstrate their significance beyond just being a character in whatever series. As I said above, that could be so many things that its impossible to quantify it into hard and fast criteria.--Sean Black 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

TV episodes

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes has been outstanding and with consensus for quite some while now. I suggest we either link to it, or integrate it into this guideline. Especially the subsection "Creating articles on television episodes". It might be mixed into the WikiBooks section. The content section should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes most likely. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes should be merged into here. The guidelines seem reasonable to me, and match what's common practice.
I don't see the relevance of WikiBooks to TV episodes. Can you explain what you meant? --Rob 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant that "Wikipedia is not an episode guide". We have Wikibooks, TV IV and other wiki's for that this. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. I merged the most important parts of the text into it. Also, I rewrote several parts and reordered a lot of the information to make everything better readable. I also added a few more references to other related guidelines (proposals in some cases). I hope it is to everyone's liking. I know I kinda went WP:BOLD on this one, but I figured we needed an updated article here more then we needed 3 weeks of jointly doing this on the backburner. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, apparently User:Jbolden1517 disagreed, with my addition of the 4 rules from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. I don't understand why, they are almost identical to the ones on major and minor characters. I won't be making any more changes, not looking for an edit war. Someone else may give it a shot, I'll still be reading along of course. Good luck. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote going on

Proposed changes

These are some of the recently proposed changes by User:jbolden1517.

A merge of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes by User:TheDJ.

Sub-policy proposal

Please see: Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why is this a guideline and not just an article? It seems like categories to automatically add stuff to the sub articles and then the one index you created. What do you need policy for? (Not being critical just not sure of answer)? jbolden1517Talk 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Extensive and detailed notability examples

The history shows a bit of a cycle here. See [3] for example... I think the extensive guidelines being inserted may be too much for this page, and I support Sean's removal of them pending further discussion. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) because

I am thrilled to have discussion. So far the discussion has been nonexistent. So then I insert the material. Then they delete, because of unresolved issues which I gather I'm supposed to find out from the psychic friends network because I see nothing on the talk page. So then it goes to mediation and the mediator opens up a discussion on village pump. 2 people show up (not including the people who keep deleting because there is no discussion) and both like the guidelines.
So lets discuss it. I'll wait a day or two, but I'd like to see some discussion not bogus claims there is a desire for discussion. jbolden1517Talk 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please point me to this discussion that you supposedly had on the village pump, and explain why it was not brought to this talk page as well.--SB | T 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Permanently removed I guess. I don't follow village pump. OTOH I am going to start trying to get those people to come here. As for the lack of a link that's the mediator. jbolden1517Talk 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You might try searching the history of VP for where you inserted it and post the diff here. While there were proposals to archive VP, I'm not sure they've come to pass. (if you don't follow VP, you can't expect others to do so I don't think...) To the point of discussion and when to start it, in my view it is appropriate for ANYONE to start discussion. Unless we're talking vandalism here... if you get reverted, bring it up. If you revert someone else, bring it up. Don't expect the other party to raise it first, is my advice. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lar I didn't insert it, look up a little this has been going on for a month. A mediator inserted it. Now do want to continue discussing why I'm not babysitting Rayk's topic for Sean and Rob that Sean and Rob didn't bother to read (after there protestations last month that all they really wanted was conversation that so far they won't add to or read) or do you have anything to actually say about the subject matter? jbolden1517Talk 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I have anything to say? yes, I think the stuff that was reverted was too detailed. As I said above. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Lar what would you like to change/suggest? The objective here is to create a criteria such that given any article (on AFD) we can determine if the subject is notable or not. jbolden1517Talk 19:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not. You have yet to demonstrate that anyone besides you thinks that this page is not detailed enough and needs specific, hard and fast criteria. As such, there is no "objective" here that is the same for everyone. It may well be your objective to add to these guidelines, but it is most certainly not mine.--SB | T 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Stop re-adding your "guidelines for notabiltiy" until a consensus is reached—Your additions have faced considerable opposition and have gotten no support from anyone but you.--SB | T 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines sounds ok to me, and the examples are somewhat helpful. It does need to be improved, though. Past discussion aside, let us now begin new discussion about how to best word this. Better examples, better wording, trying to help guide people in figuring out what is notable and what is not. This is not the place to resolve a dispute, though. If more than one editor disputes notability then a case-by-case decision should occur on the talk pages of those articles. Note in the guideline that there is no way to really define notability, and this section is only meant to help editors consider what may or may not be notable, not as some "final say". -- Ned Scott 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally someone who wants to be productive. Please go ahead with any suggestions. That wording was always only meant as a starting point for discussion. What would you like to change? jbolden1517Talk 04:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a very good reason I don't wish to "improve the wording", because I don't believe the section should exist at all. This page is a guideline, and it should be as non-specific as possible. You cannot simply add a brand new section to a guideline and expect it to stay. The discussion is not about how to improve the section, its about whether it should exist at all.--SB | T 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Giving advice that can make a less crufty Wikipedia, I'm all for it. We can make it very clear that this is just advice, and not something anyone has to follow. I think that we can come up with something that is logical, that makes sense, that when editors read it they'll go "ok, I can see that point and now I'll consider it". We want to put it into the minds of editors that there should be a threshold of notability. At the very least we should have examples. This section? this entire guideline is about this! You are asking if should we have such a section, the answer is yes. Why else do we have this page here? Why else do we have guidelines? The only reason we don't force editors to do certain things is incase there is a better way to do it, or a factor we haven't considered yet, stuff like that. But the idea itself is still the same. There is a direction people want Wikipedia to go in. This isn't a "do anything" playground. We can word this to be general and not lock ourselves into something, but to not say anything at all is completely unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott. But jbolden1517 really needs to stop putting his ideas IN the guideline. The acceptency policy for guidelines is very clear. Lack of concensus and LACK of discussion does not allow you to promote YOUR own ideas to guidelines. This has NOTHING to do with "ownership", as jbolden1517 has suggested. It's about following protocols that say that you cannot arbitrarily come up with new content for guidelines. Propose them here, invite people to talk about it, make comments. No discussion means no new rules. It's as simple as that. Just keep them here and wait until something constructive DOES come out of it. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

to Sean I say, that I'm pro jbolden's changes in their essence, but I would like them to clearly state that exceptions are always possible. Notability is simply not a 100% rule. it's a guideline. I do not oppose the rules, but think they should have many examples, should apply to many "formats" of fiction and allow room for exceptions. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
And to jbolden1517 I say that so far, I still haven't seen your changes written down in the Talk page. Just links to your edits... you are making it yourself way more difficult then necessary. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_1&oldid=1137429222"