Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

How to proceed

I'm a bit puzzled by the above discussion. A number of detailed points have been brought up, at least partially referring to notability. But actually on the core questions, I do not see so much disagreeement that we could not find consensus - apart that some have expressed that they want to abandon the WP:FICT guideline altogether.

What we can do

If somebody's honestly interested in a substantial rewrite of the guideline, I don't see why not to start now. We might set out from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07 or from a fresh copy of the current guideline, as you prefer.

I intend to help with this rewrite, but I have a more general essay that talks about the way forward here. In a nutshell, the general way forward is:
  • Good Wikiprojects
  • Time... Don't hurry people and try to remain sensitive to their feelings at all times while you discuss. If you don't, you easily offend people and then its harder to get them to listen to you.
  • Revival of the TV Review process
  • Good rules on what is simply NOT acceptable. This is where the rewrite of this guideline comes in.
  • A "new episode" watchlist/recent changes list
Ursasapien (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Good points in general - in particular, I agree with the third one, some kind of formal process is needed, only that I would see it a bit more broadly based, as mentioned below. However that will be a rather large chunk of rock to move... --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What we probably cannot do at this time

I see a few issues around the guideline, related to process questions, that are maybe too heavyweight to be dealt with at this time. Let me name them nevertheless (and please tell me what you think of them).

  • Transwiki: The current guideline emphasizes the transwiki option, but we don't have a proper process for it, neither on the technical nor on the organizational side. Additionally, the process is not really under Wikipedia's control (which wiki will accept content? in which form?). Perhaps we should emphasize the transwiki option less, for the time being.
  • AfD: Whatever we do with articles about fiction, there will be controversies. That applies in particular when reducing content, which often seems to be necesary. Currently the only reasonable procedural option we then have is AfD. But the AfD process has many shortcomings (as you all know). I honestly think that we need an "article series for discussion" process. But that's far out of scope for a simple guideline change, of course. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


While it's true that those two things will unlikely be fixed with a simple rewrite, perhaps the guideline should actually just say "the community is looking for ways to deal with these situations" so people at least know it's something we're working on fixing? Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
agreed on this one, if only to show we didnt accidentally forget about it. But we do have a article series for discussion process, as WikiProject workgroups. DGG (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the transwiki option is being considered at the Village pump in regards to the ethical issues surrounding linking from the free site to the for-profit site. Ursasapien (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no ethical issue about it. Any site meeting WP:EL can receive such a link, and by our own nature, even more so to other GFDL projects. Anyone can transwiki our content at any time, not just Wikia. Take a look at Meta:Interwiki map, where we support a very large number of external sites that meet the relevant criteria. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
However, (as you know from participating in the discussion) the ethical issue surrounds whether Jimbo Wales free, charitable site should direct increased traffic to his ad-supported sites, directly increasing revenue to him. There is also the issue of giving a PageRank boost to Wikia, again greatly increasing revenue directly to Jimbo. You can not just lightly dismiss this issue (nor is it a hugely dramatic conflict of interest). Ursasapien (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I can when the issue has been beaten to death already. Jimbo didn't make any of these templates and he didn't add any of these links. The PageRank thing seems nothing more than an oversight, and a bugfix report will take care of that. Google is for profit, IMDb is for profit, heck, we are probably helping the people who write and sell fictional works make more money by providing articles for those works. Wikipedia barely gets enough money as it is with donations, and we're a lot larger than Wikia, and better known. It would pretty much be impossible for Wikia to exist based on donations like we are.
And like I said before, Wikia is not given any special treatment for being Wikia. There are a lot of other wikis out there that we support, as seen on Meta:interwiki map. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I truly do not want to sidetrack this discussion. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that there is an inherent, though inadvertant, conflict of interest. The issue is not that Wikia makes money, but that Jimbo heads up both projects. The PageRank oversite (which is special treatment by the way) needs to be fixed and Jimbo probably needs to be made aware of the perceived COI and he can deal with it how he sees fit. I just think this needs to enter the equation as we consider how much to promote transwiking.
As a side note, your nonchalant response to this issue suprises me, considering your austere interpretation of some of the other guidelines. Ursasapien (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It can't be a conflict of interest if Jimbo doesn't have control over who is linking what and where. That simply falls outside of the definition of conflict of interest. Third parties (being us as editors) make these decisions without any incentive to support or oppose Wikia or any other site. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from. I guess I work in a field where conflict of interest can occur whether intentional or not. As a professional, I am supposed to declare any thing that even has the potential of being percieved as a conflict of interest. Again, I do not thing this is a major issue but one that must be entered into our consideration. Ursasapien (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If it means anything, both Jimbo and Wikia specifically point out that Wikia is not Wikipedia, and that the two have no official relationship. This can be seen on User:Jimbo Wales as well as on centralwikia:What Wikia is not. -- Ned Scott 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about how to transwiki material is important, I agree, but it is far from clear that we can create a specific process. It is necessary to inform editors what wikia is, but in many cases the information here already exists at wikia to one degree or another. It would be hard to create a one-size fits all solution that editors could reference. Anyone who has the time to figure out how to add material to WP can add it to Wikia after a few minutes browsing around, so I don't think we need to be overly concerned with spoonfeeding. A description of how to carry material over may be useful. The issue about conflict of interest is, in my view, a canard. It has been much rehashed at the pump and mostly what I see are a small number of editors who cannot let the issue go; consensus view currently has no interdiction on linking to wikia and arm-waving about COI is misplaced. Eusebeus (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's more or less my point - it would be rather difficult to make transwiki a proper process, for several reasons. The utterly complicated description at Meta just underlines that. And as said, it's not only our decision what to transwiki, it also depends on the target wiki's decisions. On my part, I therefore count the transwiki option as "unavailable" by default and skip that step in the "Non-notable topics" section. I just feel that we should perhaps remove it from the standard workflow, handling it in the "Relocating non-notable fictional material" section only, separate from the rest. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So the propose that we're proposing now is:
  1. If you see an article lacking notability, contact the editors by talk page or tagging
  2. If no reasonable good faith effort to correct in a reasonable time frame, then either:
    1. Suggest a merge with existing article that either already demonstrates notability, or with other articles into a list of similar topics that can be treated in sub-article context, following appropriate merge processes
    2. If no reasonable merge target is possible, present the article for AfD, with the possible suggest to transwiki the material (if transwiki is mentioned here in AfD, someone who knows the process may be able to step forward to help move things).
  3. If reasonable good faith to correct notability is shown, do nothing, check back after a reasonable amount of time.
Thoughts? --MASEM 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
With the exception that any article dealing with a single issue of a manga or comic, or a single episode of a television series be redirected as the first step. These can be presumed as being non-notable, and the onus is on the creating editor to prove otherwise.Kww (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be careful with stating redirection as a first step - this is equivalent to deleting (save that the content can be retrieved w/o admin assistance), and is partially why people are screaming "deletionists" due to this guideline. Finding an article on one episode of an episodic work that does not have demonstrated notability should follow the same route - let the editors know there's a problem, wait for good faith to improve, and in this case, merge with redirection to a (presumably existing) list of episodes for that work.
I would consider a case where WP:PROD can be invoked for patently obvious non-notable fictional elements that would even not make a merge (say "Superman's toenail"). I say PROD and not CSD because someone may be able to say why this is notable beyond what you, the PRODing editor, may be aware of, and thus step in with a hold-it to prevent its auto-deletion. But again, this needs to be patently obvious, and appropriate action would be taken against editors abusing that aspect. --MASEM 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that as fast as TTN has been shoveling, the episode articles keep piling up. An individually notable television episode is as scarce as hen's teeth, and there is no reason to bother with even a prod cycle for the overwhelming majority of them. Nothing prevents people from making an episode article without notability concerns in the rare instances that it is possible, and causing a little burden there is preferable to creating a burden on the majority case.Kww (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand, but if we're trying to write this policy to be fair and avoid cries of "deletionism" (what prompted this whole rewrite), we need to use the same procedure for any fictional element, whether it be characters or episodes. I agree the onus is on the editors that make a new article shows notability very early in the writing process, so maybe we can include that for articles created after some date (when this goes live?) such fictional articles that fail to demonstrate notability can be PROD'd immediately (pointing back to this guideline in the PROD reasoning). --MASEM 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Fairness" is a desirable goal, and objectivity goes a long way towards getting there. Series (television, comics, manga, anime, whatever) stand a very high probability of being fixable. If someone writes an article that reads "Such And Such airs on BBC One at 9pm Friday", the odds are extremely good that someone will be able to write a sourced article. Novels (excluding vanity press) stand a very high probability of being fixable. Movies stand a very high probability of being fixable. Characters are all over the map, and range from instantly recognisable (Superman) to pretty obscure, so you can't make a presumption one way or the other, and a discussion path is appropriate. Articles on single issues and episodes stand a slight chance of being fixable. If they aren't originally written with decent sourcing, they probably never will be. It's perfectly fair and rational to treat them differently.Kww (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What are the odds that the 'scarce' notable episodes will be overwhelmingly for Wikipedians' favourite shows?--Nydas(Talk) 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Masem's point above deserves attention: an effective PROD strategy would be useful for containing the inflow of non-notable fiction articles that make no claims to real-world significance; having this guideline make deletion based on that point clear would be beneficial. Eusebeus (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There actually are a lot of things we can do about transwiking even without considering who the target wiki is. Mainly exporting articles, and how to make some very basic changes so that those XML files can be imported to a wiki. At that point, any wiki running MediaWiki software can import the file and have a copy of that article, complete with full page history, regardless of what wiki it is. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
For example, these are things that Help:Transwiki don't even properly explain yet. -- Ned Scott 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to the guideline

This proposed change is to address the problem of many notable fiction articles do not have reliable secondary sources. One example of this is the Naruto Uzumaki article. Clearly notable but have no RELIABLE secondary sources what so ever. In the case of fiction articles, there is only one source of infomation - and that is the creaters and "databooks" released by them and many other secondary sources are derivitive of this(fan sites). This change aims to makes fiction articles that have been rated as high on the notibility scale exempt from deletion for the lack of secondary sources and/or secondary sources themself as obviously content relased as primary sources(ie, the databooks, from the creates) are obviously accurate. For an article to be exempt, it must be rated high on the notability scale by the wikiproject that is part of or have majority consenus(ie, a vote) Af648 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose The problem is that these ratings would give fans a blanket assurance that their favorite articles won't be deleted, and fans could (would?) tag all their articles with top-importance. It's IMO better to enforce guidelines like before with "if you can't or won't provide reliable third party sources, non-notability has to be assumed and this article will likely not be kept". If annoyed fans can find sources, great, add them to the article, improving it in the process. And I am not worried over mistakenly deleting really notable fiction articles; fans are saving them by what appears to be vote-stacking anyway. – sgeureka t•c 03:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there little or non secondary sources for notiable fiction articles. Of course the notability rating would have to just and fair. And vote stacking wont count during afds anyway. What the change is trying to protect as articles that ARE important that lack secondary sources. See the example Naruto Uzumaki article. Af648 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If a topic has little or no secondary sources, it is not suitable for a separate wikipedia article. (I just read this comment by User:Shoy, which summarizes the points quiet nicely). What I see in Naruto Uzumaki is a huge violation of Wikipedia is not a plot summary and No original research. A good rule of thumb is to have 50% plot summary (preferably less), and 50% conception/production/reception/merchandise info. Except for the shortish (and hardly sourced) Design section, Naruto Uzumaki is almost only sourced by primary sources, and anybody at WP:GA or WP:FA (what all article should strive for) would advice you to massively trim the plot. And while I do realize that manga/anime/cartoon fans have a hard time to cover their favorite subjects in detail (because there aren't that many sources to begin with), it is not impossible to write awesome articles - have a look at The Simpsons's Troy McClure. – sgeureka t•c 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
What i'm trying to say is not that articales do not need reliable secondary sources but for some there topics are none. In the case of Troy McClure, the is from the Simposons, if you do a google search, half of the results are objective, reliable secondary sources as it has many popular culture references where are there are almost none for the the character Naruto - all fan sites. Af648 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
"... where are there are almost none for the the character Naruto - all fan sites."...Which means exactly that the topic is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is exactly what WP's definition of "notability" means. "The Simpsons" has been reviewed, being a prime time American-produced TV show, much more critically in English works than the licensed, sub/dubbed Japanese produced cartoon shown on a cable network. Thus, there is precedence for having more information about The Simpsons in-universe materials than there is for Naruto's in-universe details. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and "notability" is the line that decides what is appropriate for inclusion. Note that this doesn't mean that Naruto the anime/manga is not notable - the series and its real work aspects (DVD releases, sales, etc.) are sufficient for supporting the series within WP, but because the universe within Naruto has not be critically analyzed through reliable sources, the inclusion of excessive in-universe fictional detail makes no sense. Remember, WP's definition of notability does not consider "importance" or "fame" or "popularity", so even though a character may be the favorite of millions through fan sites and forums boards, that's not reliable to include WP which is trying to build a verifiable source of general encyclopedic information.
Also, be aware that there does exist a wiki-type site that can be linked through WP where you can expand on these details without worrying about notability, through Wikia (Naruto specifically at [naruto.wikia.com naruto.wikia.com]. We encourage you to keep all the details at those sites, but the main space of WP must meet the goals of the Foundation. --MASEM 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Af648, the guideline already has a note to allow what you've proposed. "To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons)."

In a situation like Naruto Uzumaki, the title character in a series that has been going on for about 8 years, having his own article isn't that much of a stretch. I haven't seen the show or read the manga, so I don't know if the same can be said for any of the other characters, but for the main character it would not surprise me. That being said, I think it's actually unlikely that there are no reliable secondary sources for Naruto Uzumaki. There more than likely is such sources, but likely in places people didn't think to look (other than the internet, and other than in English). -- Ned Scott 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Any new media, i.e. any work that has been published or broadcast on the past 5 years will be lacking in academic coverage and reliable secondary sources. As an example, our team looked extensively for it, for months, in English, Japanese and even Norwegian for those elusive secondary sources for 10 years old game bestseller Final Fantasy X (and managed to find some[1]) but it was hard as hell. Earned us an FA, but fact remains that a fictional work needs TIME to be featured in "reliable secondary sources" no matter how popular or ground breaking it is. Should that fact keep all new fiction away from Wikipedia ? I believe it would be a darn shame. Were we printed in paper we could justify that newer works just "didn't fit the encyclopedia publishing date", but being the only real time, live update encyclopedia, Wikipedia's power to provide better coverage to new media is so great - and witnessed by us all - that I think it is almost a crime to limit Wikipedia to old moldy media. There are plenty of venues that cover old media. Wikipedia's unique nimble, agile reliable covering of newer works was one of it's powers and I will be sad to see it go just because we saddle ourselves with a self imposed demand for old moldy secondary sources that we already know won't be there for newer material Renmiri 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: There is a Final Fantasy Wiki at Wikia, very thorough and very successful, so as a FF fan I couldn't care less if Wikipedia covers the games well or not. My games are very well covered elsewhere. My vote here is as Wikipedian, as I believe not having comprehensive material on one of the top selling video game series in the past 20 years or on Naruto, a wildly popular manga, or on Babylon V a groundbreaking TV series, would make Wikipedia a poorer encyclopedia. Renmiri 06:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A damn shame indeed, and this is the fate of many topics that don't have sources. Fiction does not get special treatment when it comes to those kinds of things. But this is besides the point, in that we are looking for sources so that we have real world information. We are comprehensive with our topics in relation to the real world, not in relation to the fiction itself (that is, besides a basic understanding of the plot, etc). -- Ned Scott 06:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
PPS: Since when fans - people who care deeply for a topic and want to see it well covered here - have turned into the enemy at Wikipedia ? Amazing -and sad - how this place has changed since 2006! Renmiri 06:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be very interested in hearing an answer to this question, or further discussion on the topic. --Kizor 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the people who are behind this guideline are not fans? This has nothing to do with being a fan of fiction or not, or editors vs other editors. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just read the comments above, like these ratings would give fans a blanket assurance that their favorite articles won't be deleted, and fans could (would?).... Anti fan bias is blatant in several comments here. And it saddens me, this used to be a place that respected editors who were passionate about their topics. Renmiri 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that as soon as an editor tries to follow and enforce guidelines/policies, he (in this case I) comes across as having an anti-fan bias. I have taken my fourth fiction article to GA/FA yesterday, so I'll hardly have any anti-fan sentiments, as I am a big fiction fan myself. What I can do however is point people to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes where countless people are arguing, "But I added the Nielson rating and a TV.com review to the other 20kB of Plot, so how dare evil user [censored] merge/redirect this episode per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:QUOTE,...? Edit-warrrrr!!!" It's not far off to assume that at least some of these devoted fans would rate their episode articles with top-importance if that can save them from becoming redirects in the absense of other measures. – sgeureka t•c 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, there has always been a worthy effort to keep Wikipedia free of fancruft but the methods and attitude have changed a lot since 2006. In our team we personally took the fancrufty stuff and it's editor to Wikia or Wikbooks and helped the material get a home there. We treated people with respect, something I have not seen much of it lately, not to theres and not to me personally (not this discussion here, a prior incident). In 2006 even the word fancruft was frowned on, nowadays you see blatant stuff like above, where fans are talked about as being fanatic mobs that won't rest until they put their articles, in - gasp - a free wiki that is for billed as for anyone (lol!!!). I'm just lamenting the loss of the Wikipedia I knew and loved. This new Wikipedia saddens me, with every fictional article littered with self righteous "cleanup" tags from people who never wrote or edited.. :( < /end rant > Renmiri 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Your team? Last I checked I was an active editor in 2006, and last I checked I just spent a few hours today importing more articles to wikia:digimon. We encourage redirection over deletion so we can easily retrieve content for transwiki or article resurrection. This very guideline has a much stronger emphases on finding this content a new home than it did in 2006. I can't speak for every editor you've interacted with, the ones who really helped develop these guidelines that you are here to complain about, are not the people you think they are. You want to talk about lame ass stuff like "the Wikipedia I knew and loved" go somewhere else. Drop the drama act and think about the situation for a moment. Wikipedia has always been a harsh place, we've always had people on both extremes, and the grass was always greener on the other side. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that last comment. I think I might be missing the same thing you're missing from time to time, perspective on the situation. From your perspective things have gotten much "worse", and I don't want to argue with you, I want to show you that things have gotten better. -- Ned Scott 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Never meant to say all who oppose this proposed guideline are evil. Deckiller, who has proposed a rewrite here, for instance, was a member of the project team I was on. He is a very nice guy and I consider him a friend and a superb editor. He and I opened a wiki at wikia to be a repository of articles for transwiki or article resurrection, for places that don't have a wikia yet. But guys like Deck are leaving in droves, while jerks are staying, at least from my perspective. Which really saddens me. Relax, I'm not accusing you of anything. The very fact that you are going through the trouble of transwiking articles and caring about fangirls like me shows that you are not like the jerks I'm talking about. Renmiri 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a comparably new editor, so I have no idea how wikipedia once used to be. But what I can say with absolute certainty is that respect goes both ways. I like to think respect for wikipedia's policies and guidelines is essential to make it the best it can be. But when there are dozens of fans screaming murder at the few editors actually trying to uphold wikipedia's guidelines and policies, I am not in favor of further softening policies/guidelines just so that guideline-ignorant fans can happily run wild. (Maybe my time with the episode article discussion just gives me the wrong impression in this matter, who knows.) – sgeureka t•c 02:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
...but fact remains that a fictional work needs TIME to be featured in "reliable secondary sources" no matter how popular or ground breaking it is. Should that fact keep all new fiction away from Wikipedia ? I don't have the impression at all that new fiction is kept away from wikipedia, in the temporary absense of secondary sources or not. Creating new articles to cover the plot extensively however should be limited to providing context for information from secondardy sources. It's not important for the general reader what a character did and what happened to him, but why (intention of the writers) he/it did.
I think that if you wish to take an article to GA or FA, you'll realize pretty quickly that the plot is not important at all. For example, I'll be taking my fourth article (Characters of Carnivàle) to GA/FA in a few weeks, and although I had originally planned to take some of the plot weight off of List of Carnivàle episodes by going into more plot detail in the Characters article, I still haven't got around to do that. Several main(!) actors still have only one or two lines of plot summary, and the article already hits 80kB. Furthermore, I'll probably trim the plot (what little there is) in the Characters article before I massively add to that. Why encourage fans even more to write up the plot when it will most likely be deleted anyway when the article gets improved to GA? (Compare the article Brother Justin Crowe with the first paragraph of Characters of Carnivàle#Brother Justin Crowe; that his section may be long enough now to be spun out again is besides the point). – sgeureka t•c 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose. There is no need for a relaxing of the guideline. Obviously notable subjects like the Naruto series and Final Fantasy series are incredibly well-covered in numerous independent sources. Very often, reliable sources are difficult to find online. However, there are a vast number of periodicals that deal with anime and video games, for example. It may require a subscription to an online periodical service or a trip to the library to access the magazine stacks. However, there are certainly plenty of sources available. There's no need to weaken the guideline, just a need to use some sense and better research practices. Vassyana 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This isn't a vote, but this is the wrong place to discuss this anyway. That would be at WP:V, which pretty unequivocally states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis added) That's pretty unequivocal and very true. If you want to write long, primary-sourced plot articles, there are Wikias available for that. They don't go here. Articles here about fictional works should cover them from an out of universe perspective, and that means using out of universe sources. If there is little or no secondary material about a work, it doesn't belong here yet, it belongs on a fansite or Wikia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My advice to Af648: Learn Japanese. If you want to write about elements of Japanese popular culture, you'll have lots more luck finding useful secondary sources if you search materials written in the language of the element you're researching. — Brian (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
We had a fluent Japanese speaker / reader on our team and it was still hard to find the much vaunted reliable, third-party sources for a 10 year old game. With new media works it's like a catch 22, you find reliable sources they get tagged as much too "in universe", if you find 3rd party material it gets tagged as unreliable. People seem to forget that academic material goes through a lot of bureaucracy to get approved as course material. It is simply an unrealistic expectation to demand academic coverage for media works that are not at least 10 years old. Anime and manga periodicals are not exactly treated as "reliable" here. And when you get the Game publisher's own material you get told it's too "in-universe". Renmiri 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're one situation should not be used to open the floodgates to tons and tons of dreck sourced from fan pages. If something is notable and needs its own article, we use secondary sources to establish that that is the case. If there are no secondary sources, the item does not need its own article. I'm glad you are able to draw on a Japanese speaker's talents, but I think a great many of the people who complain about not being able to use fan sites and the like are not even trying to search in other languages. Unfortunately, it may simply be a waiting game with some topics. You just might not be able to get that FA star for your article on the series that came out last week, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for reliability. — Brian (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Or to put it more bluntly: If those sources don't exist yet, don't write the article yet. Wait until they do. If they never do, never write. That article doesn't have to happen now, or ever. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to weigh-in on this discussion, believing that Deckiller has a point when he says this is an "impossible-to-solve debate." Nevertheless, I feel compelled to object to Seraphim's line of reasoning. IMO, the black and white demand "secondary sources = article/few or no secondary sources = no article" are thoughtless. It has the net effect of a zero-tolerance policy. We don't have to think about whether a subject is notable and come up with a rationale argument, all we have to look at is secondary sources or no secondary sources. I think we apply a higher standard to fiction and fiction-related articles than any other article in WP. Many articles regarding highways have few sources, and most of the sources they do have simply say the highway exist - not comment on the notability of the highway. I think we can afford to look at fictional articles on a case by case basis. Have faith, the chaff will eventually be sifted out. Ursasapien (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. I think though that his position really goes to the core of what I'm saying here: New media, should it be covered by Wikipedia ? I believe that Wikipedia's web nature and it's "anyone can edit" policy makes it the PERFECT match to be a powerful source for information in newer works, fiction or non fiction. Yesterday's episode of CSI or Al Gore's Nobel peace prize - last week's news - can be covered in Wikipedia today, thoroughly, comprehensively and properly. What other encyclopedia or reference work can do this ? Not one. Even on line Britannica can't do it, because of all the red tape. Let's not make Wikipedia into a red tape heaven, let's use it's powerful and innovative policies to be the best source for all topics, be it new or old Renmiri 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem comes when you define what a best source for all topics actually means. As soon as someone triangulates a better position than WP:AFD from Wikipedia is not paper and Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, we'll be fine. Until then, happy editing. Hiding Talk 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason we want sources is so we have real-world information. An article about a highway is something already in the real world, so you can't really compare the two. Sourcing the plot itself is never a problem, so that is not what we are looking for. -- Ned Scott 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, Ned, in a sense. I fully support fiction being written about using an "out-of-universe" tone and being more than simply a plot summary. I just believe strongly that a work of fiction is a "real-world" thing and notability for a particular fiction-related article should be able to be established by the number of readers/viewers/purchasers. Once notability is established, a decent stub article can be made by including information about the author/producer/etc. along with a plot summary (not a rewrite of the entire fictional work). I think Renmiri has a good point about WP's ability to keep up with this information and document things in an encyclopedia that were never available before. Ursasapien (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We're mixing up issues here. Rarely have I seen an article that covers a fictional work put for deletion ("work" being book, a complete TV series, a movie, a video game, and whatnot) - there are certain clean-up aspects such as merging of individual books into a single series article, but generally it is still acknowledged that the published works are notable. The release of such a work is generally notably by itself, and particularly for modern works, its easy to find and source this information. Mind you there's still a level of notability covered by WP:N that must be met - I'm not going to put up a page about a local cable channel show, for example, unless it has earned some national coverage - but in general, "published" fictional media is notable. The other side which is the issue that we've been discussing, is the fictional elements of that work, and how notable they are to be able to merit their own articles - this is where we've been contesting this issue for several months. This is an area where some newer media may not have as much analysis or criticism or the like to support having subpages for individual fictional elements compared to older works. Notability must be demonstrated for a topic, it cannot be assumed that just because the work is notably popular that the characters or other fictional elements of the work are also notably popular. However, once notability is demonstrated, it never goes away. --MASEM 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

People are still going on about this? Here's some advice to all of you: edit some non-fiction or blatantly notable topics. Take a break from this impossible-to-solve debate. — Deckiller 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, I would say that this 'proposal' is the situation we have now. Fancruft with weak wikipojects gets deleted, fancruft with strong wikiprojects stays put.--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure how to interpret your comment. Are you saying this is a gaming-the-system kind of thing, or a we-let-it-slide-because-there's-evidence-people-are-going-to-deal-with-it-and-make-it-better thing? (don't get me wrong, as I have seen evidence of both examples) -- Ned Scott 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Gaming the system is closer to what I mean, though ultimately the only 'system' which really matters is winning AfD votes. Fancruft with powerful Wikiprojects, experienced editors and admins behind it can be kept more or less indefinitely. Look at the Spoo AfD; the keep voters are overwhelmingly experienced editors (and quite a few admins too). It's not a conscious process, just an unconscious reflection of our inbuilt bias towards certain topics.--Nydas(Talk) 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And you say there's no bias against fans Ned ? /that is just soo typical. A strong wikiproject with experienced editors tends to produce QUALITY articles, of course those articles stay. As they well should. Weak wikiprojects might be lucky enough to have one dedicate genius but odds are the articles are poorly written, poorly sourced and out of shape. Yet instead of going for the obvious conclusionm Nydas blames fans and tars all fiction articles as "fancruft". By it's nature, the current system already ensures that weak articles that get deleted merited deletion and the articles that stay deserve to be kept. Nydas seems to be looking for a silver bullet to delete all articles he dislikes the topic, be they done by experienced editors or not. How typical of a mindset that treats fans as the enemy! Renmiri 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's NOT quality which matters, but notability. Poorly written, poorly sourced and out of shape articles are not supposed to be deleted just for that. Similarly, articles with good formatting and lots of little blue numbers do not automatically entail a keep. But you seem to be arguing that this is the case.--Nydas(Talk) 08:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a dynamic project - the level of quality for articles can, will, and has changed over the lifetime - this means that some articles that were Featured or Good articles may fail the new standards and are effectively demoted; similarly articles created by large Wikiprojects of experienced editors may need to be merged, trimmed, or deleted because the guidelines and policies of WP change. Mind you, there are review procedures for all of these: not one person can mass remove large swathes of fictional element articles without either being reverted or being put through consensus.
The point I think Ned is making is that when these articles from long-standing wikiprojects are brought to light per new guidelines, there's a majority of votes to keep it because of partial ownership ideas - they've worked hard to get that article to that state prior, and in most cases don't see the need to change it to met new guidelines. However, it is necessary to point out that majority is not the same as consensus if the wider WP consensus is against that majority (eg it violates consented policies and guidelines) (Of course, that said, while a previous version of this guideline was consented, the current one is still up in the air pending several other actions).
Basically, this is not a war against fans, this is attempting to convince those dead-set in certain ways that consensus can change and that new notability guidelines make may some articles less qualified than before - this happens not only in fictional works but real-world and other more practical arts and sciences categories - its just that because of WP's unique nature, the bulk of these seem to be fans of fictional works. --MASEM 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed a very good point Masem. This newly found worshipping of Notabilty above all, for instance, wasn't here last year. I myself lost an editing discussion when (oh the irony!) I proposed to merge a marginal article about an obscure minigame. I was told that even if it wasn't notable it still was important, for completeness. I can understand and respect that, what I can't really swallow is the lack of civility and the zealot stance those disputes are taking shaoe nowadays. But meh... maybe it was just my personal experience Renmiri 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case there really wasn't a WikiProject behind the article, and Spoo is it's own weird existence. Any editor is going to hesitate on supporting deletion on something that was once an FA, and is really well written. Like I said, Spoo is just a really weird article, and an example of how we try to define notability. I think Spoo exists because we were so focused on getting real world information that when we got it, we didn't expect to have it for such a minor topic.
I do know what you mean, though, and there is always some form of bias in all of us. Surely there are many AfDs that get a lot of supporters for one way or the other based on their own personal taste, but such an issue is not nearly as extreme as the picture you've just painted. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Very true. AfD is a rather political, often arbitrary process. It makes me think of "Is This Anything?" from Letterman's show.--Father Goose 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This may have been raised previously, but I can see one potential reason to include articles on main characters in fictional works even without readily available secondary sources: elimination of redundancy. Imagine, for instance, that we didn't have any secondary sources to support an article on the fictional character Spider-Man. Without that article on Wikipedia, every article on books, comic books, television series, movies, or any other media featuring that character would have to contain at least some backstory and description of the character to give the article context, whereas now we can just link there. This may be an analogous situation to the Naruto Uzumaki article described above. Imagine The Hound of the Baskervilles, for example, if the first main paragraph of the article had to be devoted to explaining who Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were. JavaTenor 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
While eliminating redundance is of course always desirable, this doesn't mean that a separate article needs to exist. For example, Ben Hawkins (main character of Carnivàle) redirects to Characters of Carnivàle#Ben Hawkins, which works great for the article series. (FYI, he has established enough notability for a separate article, but he may not have enough material overall to become a good article, so the decision to merge him was purely editorial.) – sgeureka t•c 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly fine (and in many cases the best solution), as long as the relevant "list of characters" article is not also deleted. JavaTenor 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Non-editing users of wikipedia expect it to contain "The sum of all human knowledge" as Jimbo Whales once said. These non-contributing users of wikipedia do not care a tinker's cuss that there is a star trek wiki, and monty python wiki or whatever - they come here because they believe they can find everything they need to know about ANY topic - as it should be. They do not goto Google and search for "Naruto Uzumaki wiki" the come to wikipedia and expect there to be a consider article detailing the character: Naruto Uzumaki. Reliability? Reliable sourcing is used to provide verifiability - who better to check the facts of a fictional universe than the (rabid?) fans of said universe. Notability? Notability is not only established by the presence of reliable sources, it is pretty much accepted that all highschools are notable, because they affect the lives of many people. Fiction does this as well, just look at the star trek conventions, the people dressing up as characters from movies and they go and see them etc. Wikipedia needs to contain articles like this, people deleting apparent "fancruft" just because they personally don't believe that it "deserves" an article page, and then hiding behind bureaucratic policy quote are cowards. This is not meant to offend, but I am yet to see a reason for not including these types of articles that does not involve someone quoting WP:NOTABILITY.. I would like to quote my own, two infact - WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IGNORE. If an article is annoying you, that nice, go and make a nice cup of tea and hit the random article button again - and have a nice day while someone who wants to find out information about that topic you just left is actually able to. - Fosnez (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, if it contains the "Sum of all human knowledge", then you should really be advocating for a change to What Wikipedia is not, because it's clear there that "the sum of all human knowledge" doesn't actually include everything you can think of. There are restrictions on what can be added. Sorry, but Red #434 in Star Trek does not deserve his own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • "Sorry, but Red #434 in Star Trek does not deserve his own article" - Why not. Give me one reason why we can't have an article on every character that has ever been. If someone has the time to write them, well who are we to stop them - just because we think it is not "worthy" of an article... Fosnez (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Because Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, what would stop you from writing an article about yourself? Who are you? How are you noteworthy? Red #434 is in an episode for 10 minutes before he's killed; then he's never mentioned again. That means it isn't noteworthy. Sure, if his character received significant coverage from reliable sources, he should have an article. But simply existing is not a reason to have an article. Also, I don't believe that Jimbo meant we should have an article on everything, when he said that part about "sum of all human knowledge", I do believe there is a limit to what should be considered "knowledge" and what is down right "trivial".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Red #434 was nominated for deletion in April, but got kept (quite resoundingly). --Nydas(Talk) 09:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Firstly, as Nydas has pointed out above - Quod erat demonstrandum. Secondly, you cannot decide what is trivial, noone can. Somebody thought that Mzoli's Meats was not trivial, and other people who would have never visited the place thought it was, and there was one almighty shitfight about it. As I have said before, yes there should be limits to can be included, but we are currently FAR short of Jimbo's goal - why do you think there ARE so many "fancruft" articles, could it be, perhaps, that people think that this is knowledge that should be included? A central source of knowledge for the entire planet to refer to? Edited by people who are experts in the field? (I.E. the fans) These articles are actually FAR less likely to contain error because they are attended to by the people who love the subject. Until the recent spate or deletionism that is sweeping wikipedia like a plague, I would come here to read up on the Lore of a tv series or games, but now I have to refer to google and sort through the websites with more ads than content... If I understand Jimbo's dream, it is that if the human race were to disappear tomorrow, and an alien race were to find a complete copy of the wikipedia, they would have a complete understanding of us as a species - this HAS to include our Lore, or it is just a set of sterile bullet points, with no examples of actual culture. Fosnez (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Nice try fellas, but "Leslie" appeared in 56 episodes of Star Trek, and not the "single episode" example that I provided. Your rebuttle has not water in this case. Also, you should go to the interview where Jimbo gives that quote, because he also talks about something else, and that's sourcing. He considers it an imperative, and that we should do it more. Guess what, we have a policy here that says if it isn't sourced then it can be removed on the spot. We also have a policy on plots, so you cannot have an article that's just a plot, and nothing else. Since you cannot interpret things for the character you cannot include your own "expert" opinion. Oh, and most importantly, this is "Notability (fiction)". Nothing can be changed on this page that will contradict what is one the general notability page, which is clear that all articles must have significant coverage from reliable third-party sources to establish their notability, and inclusion on Wikipedia. Or, as has been said, what will stop every person in the world from making an article about themselves?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, and since when did Jimbo's opinion actually mean anything other than yours or mine? Jimbo doesn't dictate what goes on Wikipedia. He can pull the plug when he wants, I'm sure, but nothing on this site is on here strictly because Jimbo says "it should be". Regardless, as valued as his opinion is anyway, what you are quoting is Jimbo talking about game walkthroughs on Wikibooks, not about the inclusion criteria as it pertains to fiction on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Tall words for someone who just disputed a quote by Jimbo Wales on the prior comment. The quote in Wikibooks is very relevant here because it does show his unequivocal support for including video game information on his wikis. His problem at Wikibooks was the charter he had to abide by for Wikibooks to receive public grants, i.e., articles and topics at Wikibooks have to be part of an academic course. This is not the case at Wikipedia yet you guys seem to want to know better than Jimbo. Renmiri (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, I think you are taking his words out of context. No where in there did he say, "I love video games and I think we should have as much information about what happens in a video game with its characters." He merely stated that he wished they could have walkthrough guides on Wikibooks. In no way did that translate to fictional character histories on Wikipedia. Please re-read his statement before making grossly negligent interpretations over here. Thank you. (P.S. I like video games too, does that mean anything? No. The fact that he likes anything has no bearing on this encyclopedia. Jimbo is not God. Jimbo's opinion on whether a movie should have an article, if it fails notability does not change the fact that it fails and thus does not get an article). To better clarify my point, if Jimbo came here today and said "are fictional topic articles need to no criteria for inclusion; we should have an article on every character no matter how minor," we still would not follow his opinion. Jimbo's opinion does not dictate policy or guidelines, consensus does. On Wikipedia, he is just another editor (granted one that can pull the plug if he so chooses, but still just an editor). He has to abide by all the rules we do. That means that we respect and welcome his opinions, but they are of no more value than yours, mine, or any other editor on Wikipedia. Everyone is treated equally (supposedly, I'm sure some people get treated crappy).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Hehehe, No where in there did he say, "I love video games and I think we should have as much information about what happens in a video game with its characters." except in the second paragraph where he says I am an advocate of free culture. I love video game books. I think that people should be passionately writing books about video games in a collaborative manner. These can be walkthroughs, these can be textbooks about the sociological phenomena of games, these can be textbooks for game programming, these can be user manuals, these can be joke books, these can be fan fiction, these can be all kinds of cool and interesting things that I have not imagined, and that none of us have yet imagined,... You are welcome for the English Reading 101 lesson you thanked me for. And a piece of advice: You should respect Jimbo and his vision, without him there would be no Wikipedia for you to strut around grandstanding Renmiri (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, let's see. "I love video game books"--that's from Jimbo. Exactly where does that apply to Wikipedia? Nowhere. "I think people should be passtionately writing books about video games"--Jimbo again. Where does that apply to Wikipedia? Nowhere. Please stop confusing his discussion about Wikibooks, with this discussion about Wikipedia. They are two different locations, governed by different sets of rules. If my next statement is too difficult, please ask and I'll explain further, but: He is not talking about fiction on Wikipedia. He is talking about Wikibooks, and fiction in general. Otherwise, if he was referring to Wikipedia then his "opinion" would be in direct contradiction to the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lastly, please show me where I said that I do not respect Jimbo's opinion. I don't believe I ever said that. I have actually, carefully stated that Jimbo could close this place down if he wished, which alludes to the fact that I'm quite aware that it is because of him that we have Wikipedia. That being said, his opinion is no greater than anyone else's that edits this site, when it comes to articles in question. What I wish is that editors find real rebuttles to guidelines and policies, and not misquote or misunderstand what Jimbo says. Hell, I think there should be a rule, simply put, Don't Quote Jimbo period. Find your own arguments, because most of the time people are misusing what he says in an effort to justify what they think. We have notability requirements for a reason, because not everything in the world is worth noting beyond a couple of sentences of information. Plain and simple.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, please explain why you deliberately omitted the end of the sentence you quoted: passionately writing books about video games in a collaborative manner which is the specific mention to wikimedia venues as Wikisource, wikia and Wikipedia, as Jimbo adds in a further paragraph. He also has a comment that IMHO applies specifically to this newfound Notability fanaticism here at wikipedia: it keeps us from having to fight about whether various things are 'important enough' or 'serious enough' for Wikibooks. (A silly question, I think, because all kinds of things are important, and demeaning someones work as not being serious enough is not kind.) Renmiri (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Renmiri, I think you are misinterpreting that post on Wikibooks. But I won't engage in this kind of Jimbo exegesis. If you think it's of any relevance, why not post a message on his talk page to find out what he thinks about fiction on Wikipedia? --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I might just do that ;) If you read that wikibooks page you will see it wouldn't be the first time I engage in discussion with him. Renmiri (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
              • Answer me this then, why do you think there are so many "fancruft" articles. Fosnez (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Two reasons: first, the present version of general notability requirements ("significant coverage in secondary sources") is less than a year old; previously, it was just a concept which was very subjective, and thus easily allowed the inclusion of such fancraft articles. Secondly, it is a combination of writing by example and a certain amount of satisfaction and enjoyment for a new editor to come along and help to fill in information missing on his/her favorite show or fandom, certainly when we have a good chunk of The Simpsons information here. People want to write what they know and WP provides them that outlet. Thus, fancruft type works tends to be kudzo-like - it can grow at a much faster rate than it could be managed. Because of both of these, we are trying to help educate editors that there is a standard that pretty much pushes most fancruft to Wikias, though allows for those elements that can be described as notable to remain. --MASEM 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rejected?

Since it seems very clear that there is no consensus on multiple issues with this guideline shouldn't we change this to rejected? At this point I'm not even sure if we have a consensus on what we disagree on. The only thing there seems to be agreed upon is no one is happy with this guideline, no mater what changes are made. This discussion has taken place here, at the village pump, and at WP:N on various occasions over the past few months and the only thing I have seen is that no one can agree on anything. Ridernyc (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone involved thinks that the core of the guideline is incorrect - it's either that it needs more guidance as for its application or it needs more discussion on a rationale procedure to handle non-notable works that doesn't promote AfD as the first step. WP:N + WP:PLOT gives the core of the guideline - that cannot be changed.
I would say that those involved in trying to support articles from going to AfD to make sure to get an idea of the history of the article and bring it to light if the article was AfD'd without any warning or with minimal time to make changes, pointing out that WP:FICT does not advocate deletion unless other routes have been taken (which the present page states, and what we're trying to make crystal clear in a rewrite.
(I'd also be worried that if this was marked rejected, and other editors started noticing that, we'd have a flood of fancruft. Again, the core, being WP:N + WP:PLOT, is a logical continuation - its the details of implimentation). --MASEM 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If this guideline is rejected, then people will just go to AfD directly, citing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N, possibly also WP:OR and WP:V/WP:RS, making the goals of those who opposite its current state much harder to achieve. Finding a middleground that encourages discussion before going to AfD is wanted here, although you can never punish those who take a more direct approach to prevent gaming-the-system discussions. – sgeureka t•c 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think some sort of guidance has support, even if I don't think this page as it stands does, and I think disputed is the right tag. Most of us want to see a push towards the middleground sgeureka identifies. However, if we can't find that middleground, then an historical tag might make more sense. Hiding T 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we have tried to reach the middle ground and it never works. The main problem I have is with this guideline being changed constantly. If we want conversations to take place instead of AFD the guideline needs to be stable and stay the same for months. You can't have a guideline that changes 3-4 times a month. If anything this is forcing things to AFD. I personally have stopped citing this guideline due to the edit warring. Any middle ground will always be fought over. And as I have pointed out before most of this is and should be covered other places such as WP:WAF the sub-article argument is not a notability issue. Ridernyc (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The sub-article is made a notability issue by those people who nominate and delete such sub articles based on lacking notability. Hiding T 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand and agree that technically, there is nothing in WP:FICT that changes from WP:N. However, I strongly believe that fictional notability is an area that needs a large amount of guidance for both new articles and existing articles, above and beyond the guidance that WP:N outlines or the scope of WP:WAF (which is a MOS). We just need to start a rewrite, propose it to the community at large, and get it in place ASAP. --MASEM 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that the sub-article problem is not a notability issue. While subarticles are in principle covered by WP:SUMMARY, the summary style approach is often so much overstressed for fictional topics (dozens of plot-only subarticles for one work of fiction) that we need additional guidance here. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You say it's a notability issue but then talk about real world context of articles, notability and real world context of sub-articles have nothing to do with each other and should not be dealt with in the notability guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but WP:FICT is basically broken down to "notability of a sub-topic can be justified by real-world information". For non-fictional topics, this isn't an issue, because all of the information is in the real world, so we then define notability by reliable sources, but don't bother mentioning real-world context since it's already there. -- Ned Scott 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It is laughable to think that WP:FICT is rejected just because of the recent ranting on this talk page. Stop. and. think. A great many of you have become down right impatient, expecting instant and completely satisfactory results. Also, many of you seem to forget that a consensus does not mean getting everything your way. Most of these issues we don't have disagreement on, but we don't agree right away on how to word them. Stop freaking out and getting all over-dramatic. -- Ned Scott 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, when we do come across stuff that a lot of people can't agree on, we often counter that by giving more vague advice and letting editors sort out the details on a more case-by-case basis. Personally, this is why I think WP:FICT does look the way it does, because the more exact you try to make it the more people start to disagree with things. We don't have a rule saying what exactly you can or cannot write about, but instead we try to guide the thinking of the editors and get them to view the articles from the perspective of the real world.
I'm sorry for being a bit harsh in these discussions, but everyone needs to stop panicking and/or being so pessimistic about all of this. We all pretty much agree on is finding more alternatives to AfD for these articles, even the ones that don't really have a home here. We don't necessarily agree on arbitrary guidelines like how many articles should be made for each subject, but we can give examples and at least get people thinking of different situations. A few different times I proposed a "gray area table" example that was similar to what is seen on WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing and WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table (maybe with more than one table for more than one type of article).
This also goes back to some discussion a while ago when the "sub-article for style/technical reasons" part was added. There was a lot of talk about re-evaluating all of our fictional guidelines, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, and seeing how they relate to each other. Not to mention the current arbcom case (that I'm a party of) that talks about the community's need to find ways to deal with these articles. These are on-going issues that we are trying to figure out, and they are not disputed issues simply because we haven't figured out all the answers yet. Thinking about these things as disputes only builds up the non-existence dispute in our minds. -- Ned Scott 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the core of this guideline is good, but it has a major deficiency in its wide-open treatment of sub-articles.
As per a previous discussion in October, the sub-article issue is a problem because it provides a big loophole in the basic principles of WP:N. Para 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable_topics should simply be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You've got it wrong. Para 2 draws directly from deletion policy, and since policy supercedes guidance, WP:N must be the page which is in error and needs to be deleted. Hiding T 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Show me where a policy states you can ignore all polices if an article is a sub-article. That's basically what has been implied to varying degrees depending on which edit we look at. Also keep in mind we are talking about fiction which has it's own set of rules, where is the policy that lets people ignore WP:Plot? Ridernyc (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow that's easy. Ignore all rules. If the sub-article "improves or maintains Wikipedia", then we should ignore guidelines and policies that say we shouldn't have it. Especially as WP:PLOT is not a core "non-negotiable" policy like no original research or neutral point-of-view. DHowell (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality (and Potential) of Wikias and Episode Pages

I would like to question whether Wikias can ever be an effective solution for information moved from Wikipedia. The mere fact people have had to give me links on talk pages (in response to my complaints about the reduction of information to about three lines of text) to a Wikia (and that there were no obvious links on Wikipedia itself) proves in my mind that the Wikia system doesn't work, added to which is the fact that the Wikias are unlikely to be as updated or have such a large userbase (or quality of articles), that Wikias (in general) lack any support by Firefox search bars or similar useful apps, that the page formats are awful, and collapse completely when the page is beyond about three printer pages in length (in both Firefox and IE, the former of which is practically unusable), and the unlikelyhood of them appearing in a decent position in search engine rankings.

I find it amusing that pages such as episode pages are considered poor quality when they are far more readable than many other pages, in particular those on scientific subjects that seem to assume that (apart from the summary, in most cases, which is normally easier to read but more limited than the article) the reader has a full knowledge of every subject mentioned, which simply defies belief in terms of research. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource, but this continual deletion of information seems to be taking away its primary benefit over other encyclopedias, that being that you can type in a topic you are looking for and in 99.9% of cases there will be an article for it that at least acts as a reasonably up-to-date NPOV (which is particularly useful on subjects otherwise plagued with bias if they were to be searched for on Google) starting point for further learning.

Due to the amount of effort required (and the impossibility for those who aren't admin) to return a page from deletion, and the ease with which pages are deleted without consideration, Wikipedia is losing that usefulness. Even a single seperate (but listed at the bottom of the main page alongside Wikinews, Wikiquote etc.) wiki for TV, Games and etc. culture would've been a better move. It seems very strange that episode pages (always a useful resource for myself) are reduced to a summary, completely useless in practically all cases. I understand that articles should be merged if they do not justify their own page, but why on earth is most of the content on the merged page taken away in the process, including (ironically) real world info which is always used as an argument by those who justify the process. The Wikia argument, as I've mentioned above, holds no water in my mind. Websites such as IMDB, and TV.com have distracting adverts, or require a subscription for detailed information, or simply lack any decent information on a subject. Wikipedia, by the way it works, excels at this sort of information. Splitting people into 'fans' and 'non-fans' and labelling them will get us nowhere at all.

I suggest that either linking is improved for inter-wikia problems (which still causes problems regarding quality), or (as I suggested) a single wiki for all TV and modern media info made, or that Wikipedia should reincorporate this information and it should once again be possible for people to use Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia for finding out unopinionated and unbiased information, rather than to find three lines of text that any website on the web could write and that may as well not exist at all. Thoughts?

(I created this new section because I couldn't for the life of me figure out where this should fit in on the page itself, if there is somewhere else on this page it should be, move it.) --Riche (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For starters: "that Wikias (in general) lack any support by Firefox search bars or similar useful apps, that the page formats are awful, and collapse completely when the page is beyond about three printer pages in length (in both Firefox and IE, the former of which is practically unusable)," That is a simple CSS issue. When I took up the task of revamping Digimon Wiki I did a simple copypaste of Wikipedia's CSS, with a few minor alterations, and now Digimon Wiki gets to enjoy all the formatting perks and bug fixes that Wikipedia has. Adding search bar support for Firefox is very easy, and lot of addons simply let you add a custom search entry that is no different from the rest. I even did this on my cell phone. It's as simple as entering a url like http://somesite.wikia.com/wiki/$1 and giving it a name. Auto Wiki Browser is works on Wikia hosted wikis, as well as Pywikipediabot, software that runs a lot of our bots on Wikipedia (including my own User:NedBot).
As for the other issues you brought up, well most of these wikis are, as we are, a work in progress. You can't really make a blanket statement that "the Wikia system doesn't work". Wikia doesn't micromanage wikis, instead editing communities for each wiki pretty much run the show (with a few basic guidelines). If there are wikis that are not working, that's pretty much the fault of that wiki, and shouldn't be used to judge other wikis. I've been very surprised at the quality of some of the wikis out there, who not only produce in-depth information about a work of fiction, but also carry over values such as NPOV and verifiability.
That being said, your concern about inactivity is something I completely agree with, and I also think it would be far more efficient to just use a general "TV" or whatever wiki rather than splitting them by show. Being split and causing inactivity is an issue we even face here within the Wikimedia family, as we have eight other sister projects, but don't get nearly as much attention as Wikipedia. (One exciting thing I found out last night is that wikis on Wikia can request additional MediaWiki extensions be installed, such as the one being discussed for the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. I hope to explore that to help handle some of the issues caused by inactivity, such as vandalism reverting, or maintaining a quality version of the page by default).
There's also a lot of people who don't even know about Wikia yet, meaning we have a whole pool of potential editors for these sites that have yet to discover them (just as we have potential editors who haven't discovered Wikipedia yet).
And we should remember, these are issues facing all independent wikis, not just Wikia hosted wikis. Many of these issues are evolving, as works in progress. Not only in content, but in how the wikis themselves are managed. One of the ideas I want to explore is to not just take Wikipedia's article content for other wikis, but to take what we've learned in how we manage things. It's something not really documented outside of our own site, and simply sharing these experiences means that other people don't have to re-invent the wheel for each new wiki.
There is no doubt that we are leading the way having a successful wiki here on the English WIkipedia, but we're still far from perfect. These are new grounds we are breaking, and new lessons that we are learning. Wikipedia's co-existence with external wikis will be very important the more we grow, and like with Wikipedia itself, these things not going to be born over-night. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A solution to make Wikia's content better and more well known is simple in my mind. Rather than going through the hassle of trying to convince stoic "Policy Soldiers" to revise their views or create an entirely new sister encyclopedia, a template or something similar could be made and attached to articles that link to Wikia. Here, I drafted a prototype in MS Paint. An obvious yet unobtrusive template at the top of the page would catch the attention and attract people seeking in-universe and plot information and editors alike. Bam, the fascists are happy and so are the fans. Someone forward this idea to the appropriate discussion page. - The Norse (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how people would feel about it being presented at the top of the page (style reasons and all), but Template:FreeContentMeta seems to be what you're thinking of :) -- Ned Scott 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm, yes. I see... Well the obvious problem with such a template is that no uses it and no one ever sees them when they are used because their natural place is at the very bottom of rather long articles. These issues should probably addressed if subject-specific Wikias are ever to become as successful as they should be. I don't think them being fit snugly into infoboxes would be that obtrusive, say, compared to the (multiple) tags that are located at the tops of many articles. - The Norse (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is being used, just not directly. Most templates just copy/paste the template and make it their own, instead of transcluding it. Here are some of its offspring:
But even with that, a lot of people don't know it's an option. I personally think the idea of a top area link would be fine for a lot of situations, but not sure how others might feel about it. -- Ned Scott 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I've been trying to figure out what font they used for the Wikia "W", or at least looks like it, for use in such templates. The exact w seems to be under copyright. Although, it might technically be ineligible for copyright simply because it's a simple w, but I don't know that much about copyright law. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice fair bit to reply to, so here goes. I would like to ask why most episode pages haven't been simply transwikied? When [2] was on Wikipedia, it had a similar quantity of information to My Musical. Where has all the info gone? I know that some pages have been transwikied, but others have been straight-away deleted (last night pretty much all of the Scrubs episode articles, representing hours of work, were deleted) without any transwikification.
As for the formating problems, the main pages I seem to have the problem on are long pages on the Digimon Wikia such as [3] which just keep refreshing when they first load before finally stablising about 20 to 30 seconds later. This is in Firefox using Digimon Wikia's default template (although the problem also seems to occur in IE). Any ideas, and is this page length problem common to all Wikias?
Considering the search engine problems, could this be better explained somewhere? As far as I know, many people use search boxes such as those in Firefox for doing this, and there doesn't seem to be any really simple guides for it (beyond effectively becoming a developer and editing lines of code, which is what the particular website implies to me).
As for the more general Wikia points, it does seem odd that so many wikis were made when one single one would not only generally be simpler to manage, but also easier to incorporate and likely to have a higher quality of copychecking, alongside the info itself.
Finally, about the infoboxes, they are currently well beyond the normal reading distance of the average reader, who may not go beyond the External Links section. A box at the top of the page, or, possibly and probably better as well, a tab next to the 'History', 'Watch' etc. button at the top, would be far more ideal and far more user friendly.
Thoughts? --Riche (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The default skin of all Wikias seems to be some "quartz" thing, and I've been trying to configure it to just use monobook by default. The loading times are a technical problem, I've been told [4]. In the meantime, editors have already started to chop up those lists back into individual articles, which will also help with that problem.
The transwiki process is largely undocumented. Special:Export, for example, contains outdated instructions. It also says that a user can't export the entire copy of an article, which isn't true. (it can be done using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Export&pages=NAME_OF_ARTICLE&history=1&action=submit). After that people need to run a find/replace on the resulting xml file (find all "</username>" and replace with "@en.wikipedia.org</username>"). Many admins have been very nice about undeleting old articles so that they can be exported, for those times when they've already been deleted. Ideally, we'd eventually have some of bot that could do this in mass. It could even become a built-in feature on Wikipedia (or at least a custom added one via javascript) to make it even easier.
If articles are not actually deleted on Wikipedia, then anyone can simply cut and paste the article text and use a {{Wikipedia}} template on Wikia, which will properly attribute the article's history.
I managed to find a listing of pre-made wikia search extensions for Firefox. I'll keep looking for some simple advice on how to add custom ones (I've only added custom searches to my cell phone and to Safari, and haven't really tried it in firefox yet.)
I did find a page at centralwikia:Closed Wikia that somewhat explains the process of closing or merging wikis on Wikia. I think it will be an inevitable process in the near future, as Wikia grows. I'll try to find out more. -- Ned Scott 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the Firefox search plugin on that page I listed, the one simply labeled "Wikia" will use a Wikia search that searches all of the Wikia wikis at once. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)