Archives
Until 25 June 2006 Until 3 August 2006 Until 30 June 2007 Until 5 September 2007 Until 7 September 2007

I've written a sort of policy draft based on the various points and ideas that have been brought up in the last couple days of discussion, which can be found at User:tjstrf/draft. I'm not sure that the end result is a potential notability guideline though, so much as a general fiction writing guideline that includes notability. The draft is incomplete, but far enough along that I believe a request for feedback would be useful at this point.

My main focus when writing it was to explain the reasons for things as much as possible (educate new users), as well as trying to make it balance the issue of permitting sub-articles while not permitting sub-articles to devolve into endless plot summary. Suggestions, comments, praise, and telling me that I'm a moron that managed to completely miss the point of WP:FICT are all welcome here or on its talk page, but only if those are your sincere opinions. --tjstrf talk 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple points that I see so far (but looks good otherwise).

• I would swap the accuracy and succinctness statements. Accuracy is more important that being succinct, in that we can add more words if needed to be accurate. Again, "Dorothy had a dream about her family and friends during a tornado" is succinct, but fairly unaccurate about "The Wizard of Oz"
• The succinct clause should be "should be" instead of "must" (via the MoSCoW approach); one of the complaints above is that the policy as currently written is too prescriptive, but of the 5 points, 4 of them are required by WP foundation; the succinctness is what is new to what these say, and just like above, it can be sacrificed to meet the needs of any of the four before it.
• For the accuracy statement, I would also add in that statements should be, whenever possible, supported by appropriate in-universe information, OOU information if at all possible. (direct quotes, as per the FFVIII character article, episode numbers, etc., are all appropriate. This likely means that if there's not already a page about the difference between IU and OOU, this needs to be on here).
• For all 5 statements, I would make sure that the parent policy we're citing is included in each. You've mentioned them, and the second one points to MOS, etc., but I think we need to have absolute clear showing that these aren't made up rules and follow existing, WP-wide policies on any article in the first place.
• I would put real-Wiki examples directly under the types of notability that you have. Superman and Springfield (The Simpsons)TARDIS(its FA but its a bit winded) should be examples. I think you're right to include the FFVIII character page, but I think it needs to be more clear that part of the game's OOU notability is the characters, and thus the characters themselves have notability through this (plus this demonstrates the aspect of the third case, where it would be insane to keep all the characters in their own article)
• Also think that we need a section to help the users understand how these work when they are either writing about new fiction (to do it right from the start), or revise current fiction works.

--Masem 13:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think TARDIS may not be the best example because I see a lot of issues with it. It may need to be reviewed, since it reached FA status in 2005 and a lot has changed since then regarding style guidelines. I see sources referenced in mid-sentence (not after punctuation) and a lack of citations throughout the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you're probably right - I think we want to make sure we include a non-character example (to show this policy is not just character-centric), and the ones that I thought would meet this really don't. --Masem 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need more than characters. I think we should all probably go through the FA list and find which ones best represent the most recent acceptance of what FA should be (since some were promoted awhile ago and may need some clean-up to get back to true FA quality).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(←)This is generally excellent. As Tjstrf admits, the wording needs tightening up all over, but I would support a descendent of this draft as a replacement guideline. I also have a few points:

• Move the definition of fictional articles into its own section
• I'd argue the universal use of "fictional topic" rather than "subject"
• Conditional tense used throughout - I shall be most disappointed if after getting on for a Mb of discussion we still have imperative clauses in the final wording!
• The "what to do with fictional articles" section to be prose rather than bullets - prose is almost impossible to interpret as a checklist to deletion
• I would say that the "examples" section should either be expanded or removed - a few examples are worse than none at all. I understand that a search for extra examples may be in progress, which is good to hear.

Happy-melon 14:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we use this draft as an essay that consolidates all aspects regarding fiction in great detail; and clean up the guidelines to reflect the most important content only (sort of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM). Most of my proposed changes to the guideline does exactly that; but it would allow some more trimming to the guideline to have this guideline reflect some of the similar guidelines' content. G.A.S 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this 'solution' (that is, a partially reworked guideline supported by an explanatory essay) to be a poor alternative to a guideline that is actually comprehensive in the first place. Your modifications, as you freely admitted, are the minimum acceptable to prevent gross misinterpretation of the policy. Far better that we produce a completely new wording that properly addresses the issues. I think that this draft is the best chance we've had yet: I haven't seen anything but constructive comments and support for it. I concur that the wording needs to be focused more closely on notability to the exclusion of other issues. Some of the removed content of the draft would make an excellent addition to WP:WAF. However, I think that our best chance to move this debate forward is to work on this draft, which provides an excellent starting point. Happy-melon 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading the current discussions with great interest, and I'd like to note that Spoo, an FA article about a not-so-notable fictional topic, is currently AfD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo. Maybe someone wants to comment there also. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's heading for a keep. Let's face it, admins and powerful Wikiprojects can overrule this guideline, meaning that it's only ever going to be used against under-represented fiction.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that presently it will still remain, but once we revise these guidelines, it would be easy to remove (and that's something we have to accept - many FA/GA articles are going to go bitbucket because of this.

A point that was made in there that needs to be included in these guidelines is that we are describing notability to the general inteneded (NOT CURRENT) Wikipedia readership (eg any English-literate user), and not to the fandom, even if the fandom is very large. A Star Trek PADD may be notable throughout all of Trekdom, which is a pretty large swath of the current WP readership, and if asked, would likely be notable to a majority of the current WP users. However, if we consider the population as a whole, it is not. We need to make that clear that notability is notability in the real world to the general populace. (I think someone before described this idea as "notable" verses "important"). --Masem 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment though: the idea of a notability guideline is "if you create an article about X; we will not delete it because it is noteworthy" and not "we delete (or merge/redirect) all non-notable articles. Secondly: this guideline should reflect consensus as to when articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia; not as to when a few editors think they should remain (or else). G.A.S 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like the idea of toasting GA/FAs from the project with this new guideline version. I thought we were trying to make it more logical and easy to work with, not provide more ammunition for deletion-minded editors. MalikCarr 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that we are trying to implement a policy that, based on what I've seen, is against the whims of most of the editors involves on some pages, but is right in line with what the goals of WP are; the concensus would be to keep most of what's out there already (and there's a lot of resistance to changing that). What we need to do is to make it crystal clear these guidelines are to show why editors need to understand fictional notability how it applies to their works. Now, mind you, I'm not saying we mass delete pages; its just that the bulk of that content either has to be merged into a few lines or moved to other wikis or homes; primarily, as it is, it cannot stay on here.

And because WP's criteria for FA and GA do change, we have to accept that by adapting this policy to be in line with current WP goals, current FAs and GAs will no long meet that. Recent changes in verifiability and citations have caused many GAs to become questionable and lose their GA status, so this isn't unprecidented. But, each article has to be taken on a case by case basis to make that determination. --Masem 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the main problem: People confuse policy with guideline. There is a difference. This is still a guideline. Guidelines are followed, policies are implimented.

As to why articles lose their FA/GA status: They no longer meet FA/GA criteri (including verifiability and follow the Manual of Style) a, and are demoted.

Please comment on my proposed changes to the guideline's wording below

G.A.S 23:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm starting to have second thoughts on this guideline revision. A page ago it seemed like this was an effort to create a more functional guideline, since it is difficult to write about fiction while following a guideline drafted from writing about nonfiction. Now, though, I hear talks about invalidating existing articles by cutting the founding guideline out from under them, and... well. Maybe I've misinterpreted things, but it seems like this is only going to make things worse by furthering the gulf between policy and editors. Have I totally got this back-asswards, or was that the goal all along...? MalikCarr 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even before we've touched this guideline, I would argue there's several fictional element pages that have FA/GA status that did not follow the guideline (See TARDIS for example), as the guideline might not have been as tight as it was before. Guidelines change, it would seem reasonable that articles should follows. And plus, I'm not saying we instantly take any FA/GA that fails these guidelines and take away its status, but instead push those articles that fail these new guidelines badly into the FAR/GAR review process and work with editors and reviews to make sure it should or how it can be improved with the guidelines.--Masem 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a good time to quote WP:WIARM:

2 Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)

3 Rules derive their power to compel, not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of a great many editors. (See also Wikipedia:Consensus.)

4 Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive, and they sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. (See also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy.)

Maybe it is time to get the guidelines up to date with consensus; not to get consensus up to date with the guidelines. (Which is one of the reasons I propose the changes to the guideline. G.A.S 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the kind of rhetoric that got me interested in trying to help with this guideline in the first place. MalikCarr 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm bowing out of this debate (at least for the next several days) due to busyness. There's plenty of other people with similar viewpoints, so the debate will obviously continue easily. — Deckiller 12:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(These edits refers)

Although I admire your bravery in making changes to the active wording at this stage, G.A.S, and I actually agree with almost all of your modifications; I think you're going to tread on a lot of toes in making any substantive changes until this discussion heads towards a consensus. I'd urge you to be very cautious in making changes of any sorts to the wording at this stage. Not that I personally think your edits were anything but beneficial to the wording - it's just that I'm sure there are dissenters and we're getting some nice calm discussion going now! Happy-melon 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might have helped to talk to me personally. Although I have taken great care not to change the meaning of this guideline. G.A.S 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the guideline at this point remains premature and is disruptive (although not deliberately so, of course) to an ongoing discussion. The wording as it was is useful as a stable reference point in this debate. So let's wait until a general course has emerged before taking remedial steps in altering the guideline. I suggest you revert your changes. Eusebeus 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. However, short of a complete rewrite, these are the minimum changes required to the guideline (To have it read like a guideline). G.A.S 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I would appreciate comment as to the proposed changes, as I believe it addresses a lot of the problems editors (including myself) have with the current version. G.A.S 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I agree with you in that these are excellent modifications. If this talk page weren't growing like the Incredible Hulk they would be completely appropriate. A few minor style and syntax errors, but a definite step in the right direction. Happy-melon 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the Lead to be a little more clear about the subject of this article: "This guideline defines notability for fictional things by elaborating on the above excerpts." As is, it sounds like it's talking about defining notability for, for ex, a novel rather than a character in same. And so through the article, being careful never to use "fiction" bare. Otherwise, I generally like the edits. In fact, it'd help if the actual article title reflected this. Is it too late to propose a move? —Quasirandom 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not actually thought about the title; maybe it should be recommend after the other discussions clear up. I believe "Fictional concepts" or similar would do. Unfortunately, I did not have time to tweak the lead. Thanks, G.A.S 21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I reviewed the edits and I think they are generally quite good. However, I suggest that the issue of notability be asserted more immediately and directly. What makes fictional articles notable? Real world context that is, itself, evidence of notability as opposed to importance within a notable fictional world (TV show, book, etc...). A large part of this attempted redaction is to provide better explication to contributors whose fan enthusiasm confuses them about what does and does not belong on Wikipedia. Out-Of-Universe context and content is central and should be explained with clarity right off the bat (before dealing with sources, etc...) as a matter of principle. Eusebeus 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. How about Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". in the lead?

As for Out-Of-Universe context and content is central and should be explained with clarity right off the bat: I draw your attention to WP:NNC. This should be (and is) the focus of WP:WAF.

"A large part of this attempted redaction is to provide better explication to contributors whose fan enthusiasm confuses them about what does and does not belong on Wikipedia.". Again WP:NNC. But I doubt such contributors will bother reading this guideline. WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF are sufficient.

Your comment? Thanks, G.A.S 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've been tossing "lists of characters" and "lists of episodes" around together in the above discussions but something hit me reading newer comments; we probably should treat "lists of episodes" and equivalent for serialized fictional works separately though in the same notability manner.

For any serialized fictional work (books, tv shows, comics, etc.) one could argue that a "List of (serialized elements)" is actually a non-fictional list, since each is a out-of-universe division of the in-universe story. However, this does not automatically make every such list notable. I would not want to have a "List of Sesame Street episodes", "List of X-Men comics" or "List of Calvin and Hobbes strips", as they would be super excessive. There should be some examples of where episode lists are relevant and appropriate, generally based on if the fictional work has overarching plots, reset buttons, frequency of publishing and so forth. These are not hard set, unfortunately; DragonBall Z (though still excessive) has it right in that it breaks the overall plot into the various Sagas (roughly by season) and doesn't go into episodes, but I would argue that a show like Buffy or Babylon 5 needs to have episode lists despite their being overarcing plots to the entire show (this is also likely because individual episodes are more notably than individual episodes of DBZ).

Again, I'm trying to avoid having a newer editor come along and create "list of X" just because the fictional work lacked that page; such pages should only be written when its within reason per the guidelines above. --Masem 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Not related to the other discussions) Currently a major problem with fiction type articles are that there are no suitable home should they not be notable (enough) for Wikipedia. As such, would it be possible to create a single Wikia for them (e.g. fiction.wikia.. ), instead of one for each series, and move non notable content there? Or are there already such a Wikia? G.A.S 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. The few times I've gone to a wikia link and it's not something that was just imported from Wikipedia a couple revisions ago, it's usually either dead from neglect (which means nobody's reading it) or dead from vandalism. If wikia is going to be used as the semi-official Free Encyclopedia of Fictional Universes That Anyone Can Edit, we really need to get it set up to encourage good writing quality and traffic. --tjstrf talk 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it needs more quality writing and more activity, I do not believe that it should be disregarded for that reason. The same principle is applied to articles linked in a FA article. We cannot control the sub-par quality of an article that is linked in one that is featured, just like we cannot control sub-par quality (or just inactivity) on Wikia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe tjstrf's view is if we set such a wikia up, the editing will come by itself. (As opposed to many wikias with a more norrow scope.) G.A.S 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set it up and routinely link to it, yes. This would be another advantage of having one location, since then everyone just has to remember wikia:fiction:ARTICLENAME, rather than wikia:randomcleverwikipunontheseriestitle:ARTICLENAME. Also, if such a system was set up with the same sort of rules as Wikipedia follows, only modified where irrelevant or nonsensical, the editors here would probably be much more likely to accept it as a (pseudo) sister project. (The reasoning behind this being that pointing people to another equally convenient location is probably the only realistic way of kicking our reputation as the internet's leading source on in universe information.) --tjstrf talk 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "rules" would have to be a bit more liberal, otherwise we'd just be creating a second Wikipedia. Obviously we would have to link more frequently, but that goes with dealing with articles that need to be merged with larger topics (like TV episodes or characters). Where we would normally link to a Wikipedia page, we can link to a Wikia page. But again, we cannot make people edit the pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run a single Wikia for these articles is the most viable option. I also believe that a lot of "In Universe Only" editors will follow the content. G.A.S 21:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The annex was set up for that reason: [1]. However, it still needs some establishing. — Deckiller 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the annex, but it is marked as a temporary home. I meant, as said above by tjstrf, a "(pseudo) sister project." G.A.S 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision states:
" articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources"
1) Why shoul articles on fictional material need to include real-world content. It is just putting information in that may not be relevent to the page, as it is about fictional material.
example:
List of Doctor Who items is a useful page - episode articles sometimes reference these are they are used in the episodes, and people may want to find out more about them. The page is on a fictional work, detailing fictional information from a fictional show. Why does it need real world references?
2) What counts as "substantial" anyway? If debates come down to wheter the real world content is substantial or not, the it comes down to individual points of view.
StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least on your point 1, we are trying to create a class of fictional element articles that can exist without out-of-universe information as long as they are absolutely necessary to understand the plot of the show, furthermore to understand the notability of the show. This is the "utilitarian notability" concept above which basically says that such lists would normally exist as part of the show's page, but due to WP:MOS, would make the page excessively long. Thus, they would be split off into that list, which should still use in-universe references (and any out of universe ones whenever possible).

What this does NOT do is to create fictional elements lists without reasoning each needs to be on it; these lists have to be succinct in their own way any only summarize the necessary elements to understand the plot. For your example, the TARDIS, the sonic screwdriver, and the Key to Time are relatively notably within the universe and to an extent out-of-universe, while several other elements on that list (the "VCR", the Temporal Limiter, to name a couple) are certainly not notably fro the series as a whole , and thus should not be part of the list.

What we're trying to do is define a guideline for what parts of an article about a fictional work are necessary. Every article on WP has to describe the notability of the work in question to the real world. For fictional works, it is nearly always necessary to describe the plot succinctly to make it clear how the notability of the fictional work came about. But furthermore, it is sometimes necessary to go into characters, settings, and other elements of the fictional plot in order to make the plot clear. It is NOT however appropriate to make WP a fan site. What we are doing with the guidelines is to help identify a line people can use to judge the appropriteness of their fictional element articles to WP. There are some articles that lack any fictional description of their work and really should have them, there are many more than go into excess detail on the fictional work without consideration of notability and importance. We are trying to help define a very broad line that allows people to know to what degree they need to write to or to cut back on to make the content more appropriate for WP. We don't expect that each fictional article will have the same degree of succinctness, it is going to be a function of the editors involved and all that, but the more we define the acceptable bounds, the easier job we give to the editors. --Masem 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and thus should not be part of the list."

yes I agree on that - I don't think everything in that example should be there (BANANAS!!!!!), but that is (or should be) common sense as to where to draw the line. The trouble usually comes down to techinacal definitions - e.g, the title is given based on what one person wants to include, then someone adds something silly that shouldn't be there at all, but it can't be removed because it fits the title of the page.

Stuff like that should definately be deleted.

"It is NOT however appropriate to make WP a fan site."

I agree, and am not saying that it should.

The example of deleted articles - List of Star Destroyers - should have been deleted as WP:FAN a long time ago, as it can not be considered useful to an outside reader.

I am just noting that articles to do with fiction may be useful despite not containing real world content. StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things can be seen as useful, but still shouldn't be apart of Wikipedia. From the perspective of a real world encyclopedia, real world information is very useful. For example, the time machine from Back to the Future was a car.. because it needed to go 88MPR, or because the writers wanted the time machine to be portable for plot reasons? What we want is to note both things, but avoid unnecessary details or fan speculation, like why it's 88 MPR, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that question 1 answered. Now we nee to deal with 2.

"2) What counts as "substantial" anyway? If debates come down to wheter the real world content is substantial or not, the it comes down to individual points of view."

StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note in my example that we would be talking about things like the writer's POV, which is completely appropriate for a work that they made. Basically, NPOV isn't a factor when the fact you are conveying is, why a writer did this or that. The judgement of what is relevant content or not is something that we the community basically decide, and that's partly what we are doing here (but in more general terms, rather than commenting on an individual work's real-world-information). If it's not to much of a bother, actually read WP:NPOV. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the rate of growth of this page has slowed significantly recently. In many ways this is good, as it facilitates reasoned discussion without the need for contributors to check the page every five minutes for the latest responses. However, it would be unhelpful for discussion to die down so much that consensus for any changes is not able to be established.

There appears to be considerable support, in principle, for Tjstrf's draft of what he humbly called "a draft of something, maybe this page?", tempered by comments that its tone was not currently suitable for a guideline. I have attempted to somewhat rewrite and restructure his draft with an intention to make it an acceptable potential wording for WP:FICT. In doing this I have included some pertinent sections of my earlier proposal, mainly in the "adminstrative" sections around the core clauses, which are Tjstrf's almost verbatim. I have made no effort to polish the text into a final version: several improvement tags are notably present. Instead, as a method of furthering co-operation and hence consensus, I would like to request that all editors BE BOLD and edit the wording to improve it to a guideline-standard. In the process of doing that, I hope we can agree on what, exactly, we want this wording to say. Happy-melon 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N: Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.

• Due to the above; I have removed "The guidelines set out below should be used to decide the acceptable scale and location of a topic's coverage on Wikipedia. " from the guideline. This should be added to WP:WAF.
• Principles should be moved to WP:WAF
• I have added content from the leads of Wikipedia:Notability (web) (merge and delete) and Wikipedia:Notability (films) (speedy delete) to the lead. This has to be brought under the attention of editors. For this purpose, "delete" include "redirect and transwiki" and "redirect".
• G.A.S 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent improvements. Happy-melon 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at improving the "Alternatives to.." section, adding a lead and an additional consideration, and helping with some of the layperson words you had. I am really itching to put some examples in this section (as well as more than what are presently in there), but I think we should see where this goes before filling those in, because maybe we'll pick an example that we'll later deem as poor. --Masem 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This new version does look helpful. The looser interpretation of what is and is not a secondary source makes me especially happy - as has been stated before, some copyright holders hold all reliable material pertinent to the topic in question (their property), ergo finding independent and published material can be nearly impossible at some times. MalikCarr 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments:

• A variant of the #Principles are already featured in WP:WAF as #Conclusions.
• With regard to sources, linking to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources may be a good idea. Notability guidelines cannot supersede policy, and when in doubt, editors should consult the relevant policy pages and particularly important sections.
• I'd like to hear Deckiller's opinion before agreeing to the rewrite.

—AldeBaer 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Stylistic reasons" needs some arbitrary advice or a bunch of examples, or else it will become the loop hole we've been trying to avoid. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be any more or less exploitable than the rest of the guideline already is. Remember, we want to avoid making a heavily authoritarian guideline here - in any case, if that clause gives rise to an obviously crap article, it can be dealt with in the normal fashion. MalikCarr 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? This is exactly what will be abused, and what needs some defining. To what extent do we allow these articles, what types of articles are good examples and what are not, we need to be very clear on this issue. We must be authoritarian in this guideline (to some extent, to be reasonably effective), because this is a massive problem on Wikipedia. We're not going to be taking one step forward and two steps back with this. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the wording on the third type adding in the specific example of character lists. I was also tempted to add in "setting" articles (typically which mimic real city articles).

Something that hit me while adding that, I was going to add in something about "Even if articles are split off, a brief summary of the high level details should be covered in the main fictional article"... but then I realized that if one can do this, they've just likely invalided the need for the split off article. I think it's appropriate at times, ("The main characters of 'The Simpsons' the Simpson family, comprised of Bart, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie, who interact with many other Springfield residents", with a see also link right about it), but this could be taken positively, (if you can write such , you may be able to remove said extra page. I don't know if that's a case to concern ourselves with. --Masem 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we're really going to need to spell it out for people in this guideline. We all understand what this means, and we get the context, but the ones who need these guidelines most probably won't see it like we do. Even if we have to say something like "small lists are generally acceptable, but individual character articles will require real-world information" much like the wording of the last FICT:

1. Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work. If an encyclopedic treatment (a real world perspective backed by sources independent of the work) of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article.
2. Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created.

   The difference between major and minor characters is intentionally vague; the main distinguishing criterion is how much nontrivial information is available on the character. Some works could plausibly have multiple major characters.

Although, one of Deckiller's improvements over this section was to discourage going to individual article for a main character right away. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to spell out both by descriptions and examples of what this guideline is aiming to produce. I've taken the above statements and added them (though I think there's other places for this type), outlining some examples. --Masem 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am actually quite tempted to add those parts as example to the 2nd and 3rd notability criteria. Comment?

I also believe we should integrate the examples into "Criterion" or use a note system to link them as it would be much clearer why each example is listed. (To have the specific criterion and application together.)

Regards, G.A.S 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just wanted to say "thank you" to Happy-melon for taking the initiative here and pushing "my" draft up for group editing, I just logged on to do the same thing myself but found it already done. This is great, since I'm going to be horribly busy (moving into college) for the next week, and was worried that all the efforts here might end up being futile if the discussion died. As for the newest version, it looks like you're making good progress. I'll try finding (or perhaps making) some time to chip in on it tomorrow as well. --tjstrf talk 08:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's good work - well done to all those involved. I think the explication of in- and out- of universe is excellent. However, I feel that the guideline needs to address and counter even more explicitly the fan-driven arguments of inherited notability and the often sheer incomprehension of why character articles are usually inappropriate for Wikipedia (since, from the fan perspective, main character X or Y is always Super Important to a series). I know that this is covered at WAF and even more generically an WP:N (inherited notability), but given the preponderance of such articles that we currently have, the grounds upon which a merge (to the main article/list page) are justified need to be incredibly explicit, easy-to-follow, irresistible in logic and unimpeachable in intent. To that end, I would amplify the opening section to provide an even more basic discussion of what should be considered notable within a fictional world, even at the risk of repetition and statements of the obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please make sure that whatever is added to back the inherited notability ideal is very, very clear. The above example of major characters and minor characters was one of the largest problems with the older version, as people blew right over the "encyclopedic treatment" part of it. I agree that it needs to be very authoritative or very detailed (though easy to read for skimmers). TTN 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for improvement: Unfortunately I do not have time to do so right now, but the following improvements should be done: These problems were present in earlier versions, and may have been fixed since.
  • References to the reader should be "editors", not "one"/"you" etc.
  • The text should not address the readers directly (e.g. "Please do not..."), rather as "editors should not".
  • Where the word "must" is used, the appropriate policy should be referenced; else "should" should be used.
• Regards, G.A.S 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• AldeBaer, in response to your request, I'll just say that I don't like the direction this is going. Some level of authority is needed to keep a good standard on fiction. "Should bes" lead to even more loopholes, not exceptions. But alas, I have too much in the real world to worry about, so like I said above, I'm bowing out. — Deckiller 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, in a way, with Deckiller, although not about "Should be's". In the process of being neither democratic or bureaucratic, we have agreed to surrender our right to make rules that are absolutely binding. Loopholes are an inevitable consequence of assuming good faith and that people can use common sense. However, I agree with the concerns raised several times above that the section covering "stylistic" notability should be by far the most tightly worded section, with the most 'ifs' and 'buts'. Emphasis should be placed on the facts that

• This is a particularly weak definition of notability
• It is used only on rare occasions
• Articles of this nature will be judged to the harshest possible other criteria, and should ideally be perfect in every other way

All in all, however, I think that this is developing extremely well. It is certainly keeping the discussion flowing and the improvements coming. Happy-melon 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we need to actually get an example of what qualifies as a stylistic exception before really trying to implement this at all. List of Gunslinger Girl characters is not a good example at all, as there is no valid reason behind its existence. Looking at it in general, there should be no need for it to exist assuming that a very concise characters section is written. That along with the general plot descriptions should be enough to cover it. We something like a split off article from a featured article to really dive into the issue. TTN 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect that every example we include will be tripled checked before this version goes "live". Don't want a bad example to throw this all for a loop.

I've edited this to strength the third case per the concerns above (possibly a bit too strong, but is the largest loophole so we want it as descriptive as possible). --Masem 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To step back a bit, but still on topic (hopefully), we really need to ensure language (ecoing TTN's point) that makes it crystal clear that the (much) larger community consensus on notability trumps the expression of individual assertions of notability as they may accrue in the course of a discussion on a particular talk page about a specific family of fictional articles that should be merged or redirected. Eusebeus 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there things go down that draconian road again. "This has to be authoritative" "we need to close loopholes" "this section should only be used rarely" "fans don't understand policy", etc... again, it strikes me that among the relatively small group of editors contributing to this new guideline, there exists some emphasis of using this rewrite as some kind of weapon against existing articles. I would prefer not to see this development, this paradigm, come to pass. Why was the Gunslinger Girl character list cited as being a bad example? The article is sourced, well-written and formatted, and contains some external perspectives on things such as character creation and voice actors for localized dubbing. Not a good article (some of the images are missing rationales, and we all know how the non-free image hysteria works), but there's certainly nothing wrong with it that would warrant a negative connotation based on this new guideline. Come on, people... we're trying to do something constructive here. MalikCarr 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not agree with you more Malik. It seems that some members of our community believe 99% of Wikipedia's coverage of fiction-related topics is unecessary. It has always smacked of elitism and bias. Nobody seems to be concerned about the articles on various rivers, roadways, and parks. What is the notability threshold for a particular road/highway to be included in Wikipedia, anyway? I know I appear to be getting off topic but I passionately believe that we are setting the bar too high for fiction-related articles. If Texas State Highway 6 is important information to have in an encyclopedia, then so are the characters of Gunslinger Girl. Just because it is not my thing or I think it is lowbrow does not mean it fails to be notable in general. The article appears to be sourced and I would oppose any revision of this guideline that would lead to some unnecessarily high standard for its inclusion. An article should be sourced, have "real-world" content (not all in-universe), and establish some minimal notability. It should not be required that all fiction related articles establish some arbitrarily high standard of cultural significance. Wikipedia has room for every species of snail and can still have articles on popular television shows, video games, books, and periodicals. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(←)The case that we're trying to be as assertive as possible is the case of a fictional sub-article that contains none to very very few out-of-universe references (the third case outlined above). These articles generally are excessively wordy and typically represent problems with WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, and, of course, WP:N. And because these are written typically more by interested fans who are editors as opposed to editors that are interested fans, these articles beget more articles of the same low caliber for WP. There is room for the discussion of these topics, but they need to be done in an encyclopedic manner, and thus if one is going to describe a fictional subject purely from the fictional in-universe standpoint, one has to be extremely overly careful when creating such an article. We are not banning such articles, and we are trying to highly encourage one to find as many OOU references to support the notability of the fictional subject as to place the article in the much looser first or second cases above.

Now, as for the specific case of the Gunslinger Girls character list, it hasn't been removed yet - it's still there. I'm looking at it now and it clearly falls into the third category: it lacks OOU information to describe its notability OOU (voice actors and original Japanese names are not enough to make notable OOU - I think that needs to be stated clearly in the guidelines as well for the third case). I see one line that mentions a character name change for the English manga, that itself is nowhere close to establishing notability. This article is a prime article of the third case. But this is why such articles should really only be pulled out from a main page after editors have looked at any way to keep the content within the article. The main Gunslinger Girl page shows minimal connection between characters and the plot, and it looks like the character article was created separately from the main one. I don't know the anime, but judging by the descriptions, I would think it would be entirely possible, as the main Gunslinger Girl page stands now, to condense that character list to few sentences about each of the main characters, and summarizing the "other members" and the PRF sections to a one or two prose paragraphs each, and then further have a table to list out English vs Japanese voice actors and names. This is not to say that the List of GG characters couldn't be a good example, but because of the state of the parent and how both articles came about, it's hard to use it and only remains in the description now as a placeholder until we can find a better one. Basically, if we state the GG characters as a "good" example, people are just going to copy it and assume every fictional work can have a list of characters like that. --Masem 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well put; that is the kind of unimpeachable and detailed explanation of the standard that we need in the guideline. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant here. Eusebeus 14:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the problem with finding good examples is that the examples have to actually exist. At present there probably aren't many that do conform to what this draft suggests, except by accident. I used that article as the example because it was the best one that I could recall having seen in recent memory. Remember, while we're trying to make the guideline reflect the principles that have consensus, the reason a new version is necessary to begin with is that those principles significantly differ from what's being done in practice, which is a mass of people writing fancruft and other people (often over-)correcting to fight it. --tjstrf talk 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this new guideline is coming together nicely. I do not have a lot of time now, unfortunately, so I will return to copy-edit the guideline over the weekend. G.A.S 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more concepts to the article:

• I've pointed to WP:CRUFT even though it's just an essay, it explains why editors need to be careful about fiction
• I think List of Pokemon (at least now that its revised) fits as a good example of the third case
• I added mention of using external, well-established and non-WP:EL-violating fansites as replacements for in-universe information (eg SNPP or Memory Alpha). This is likely where word of other Wikia that would be good for transwiki as well.
• Probably a few other wording changes I can't remember right now

--Masem 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see the green section above replacing what we currently have. Again, while I understand where we're going, and just about everyone on this talk page understands where we're going, it just kind of... yeah.. for everyone else. Personally, I see us simply making a small note saying (something to the extent of) "a limited scope of 'style' sub-articles may be expectable" to the current guideline, almost as it is now. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested template for 3rd case sub-articles

Thinking about the above ("is the Gunslinger Girls characters article a good example of the 3rd case?") I realized that there's a possibility of the following happening: Say main article X has by stylistic reasons a sub-article "List of Y in X" pulled out, all valid within our guidelines. If I were a casual editor and came through the "List of Y in X" page via the way of the "X" page, I would certainly understand why that page was like that, but if I came though via any different means, and saw this list of in-universe only information, I would be tempted to flag it with tags or edit it away.

I think it may make sense to provide a talk page template to help identify such pages. I'm thinking language like this:

(Article Name) contains a description of one or more fictional subjects primarily written in a fictional universe context. While this article may fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines on its own, it contains information that has been moved from (main fictional work page) for stylistic reasons by (link to talk discussion|consensus of its editors) on (date). Editors are strongly encouraged to maintain this article in high quality and provide such in-universe information accurately and succinctly, and are recommended to find appropriate secondary sources to establish real-world notability of these subjects.

(The parens indicate what would be replaced on template processing). This as written does 3 things: Identified such sub-articles to prevent people from throwing "non-notable" at them at first glance, establishes when and why the article was split off so that after some time passes newer editors can understand when and why this was done after those original editors may have moved on (and implicitly, for those list articles that lack this, we know they haven't gone through this procedure yet), and also reminds editors to try to continue to improve the article to get it out of that third case and into either the first or second. Making such a template isn't hard, the question is, is this needed? --Masem 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes eminent sense. However, on account of the increased maintenance required, it must not be a requirement. Instead, the appropriate WikiProjects should be advised and requested to add these templates to the articles under their jurisdiction. Perhaps WPP:SERIES could be resurrected for long enough to establish a taskforce to push for template addition as appropriate. However, as determination of the details of the justification will likely be time-consuming and require knowledge of the article series, it should be left to the purview of individual WikiProjects. Happy-melon 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that its not a requirement. Again, the idea is that if editors that split off a page of in-universe information, they'd likely want to add this to give their page justification for existance. (I'm also not saying that such pages that lack this template should be quickly put up for CSD, just that this should help prevent uninvolved editors from hitting the page with notability and calls for deletion or merging simply because its in-universe only). For new articles, the information required is "easy" to find, but for existing articles that still qualify after these guidelines are polished, probably need a lot of research to judge when that occurred; however, I would suspect (and hope for) that a discussion on such articles will take place, and that could be used to qualify when the proverbial split was made. --Masem 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that for this to work out, we're going to have to create some sort of fiction management project that'll work with other projects and editors to figure out if an article is necessary. It could work like the Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review, but apply to all fiction. TTN 17:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got one: the inactive WikiProject Fictional series. If we decide it'd be helpful, all the infrastructure is (in principle) already in place; just fire it back up, change its mandate to what you've described and set it loose to oversee fictional articles across Wikipedia. It'll become pretty bureaucratic given its enormous scope, but at least everything'll be centralised. Happy-melon 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as this would go beyond "series" and consider any fictional work and where there exists the stylistic split (3rd case) sub-articles. While fictional series will likely have many such articles, we can't discount a singular work would potentially have one as well. --Masem 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea with the template, something that gives a brief explanation + requests out of universe expansion from knowledgeable readers could be quite useful. As for the Wikiproject, I'm not sure it's exactly a good idea due to all the potential bureaucracy, but it might be a necessary one. I'd suggest only setting it up if the other probable venues (i.e. this page) are getting flooded with discussions about it. --tjstrf talk 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, and with Masem above. Happy-melon 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low priority, but I've gone and made Template:in-universe rationale: {{In-universe rationale|date=2007-09-10|talk=Talk:Final Fantasy VIII|main=Final Fantasy VIII}}

Template:In-universe rationale

The page name is based on where the template is placed (picks it up from SUBJECTPAGENAME), so example this would be on "Characters of Final Fantasy VIII" page. Wording can be corrected, all that jazz. --Masem 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the FFVIII page is fine as is. Wasn't the point of the template that it be used on things like the Gunslinger Girl character article? --tjstrf talk 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was just meant for example. I grabbed a page name just for example of demonstrating the template. Yes, the FFVIII page does not need this, but the question of the GG page is also in question. --Masem 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I oppose templates as a solution to deeper problems, but in this case, it seems like it's exactly what we need to avoid articles being deleted that form a greater whole with their parent article. Ideally, a sub-article should be able to stand on its own, but given the rather convoluted nature of writing about fiction within Wikipedia policies, if we were to make an allowance for a succinct and well-written article to survive on the notability of its parent article for the purposes of WP:N, then I think we've done something productive for the project as a whole.

Obviously, crap articles (unsourced or what have you) should still be nuked using the relevant policies, but this will give us a chance to keep the decent ones without having notability used as a weapon by deletion-minded editors. Nothing is more depressing than a perfectly functional article going the way of the dodo because "AfD NN", you know? MalikCarr 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I don't think is necessary, in of itself a solution, but it will help with the solution that we are suggesting to allow for such articles to exist. I think calling this a "rationale" comparable to how one needs a fair-use rationale for images and other non-free works helps to emphasis that anything editors can do to help justify why such in-universe pages can exist. (Though again, lacking such rationale here does not mean you CSD the article as you'd do with images). --Masem 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not liking this template. It seems to encourage the idea that we can split off "style" articles based on micro-consensus (popularity), which basically means nothing changes, and we get fancruft articles up the ass. People shouldn't be looking to debate the need for plot summary, and splits for style reasons need to be minimal. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh quit being such a stick in the mud. Consensus among editors is still consensus, even if we don't like them. Furthermore, "fancruft" has been such an abused term among deletion-minded editors it's practically a buzzword for "IDONTLIKEIT-ism" nowadays. This template only protects articles that have difficulty establishing independent notability - crap articles can be deleted using other, less controversial policies. In any case, if WP:N is the only criteria for deletion of an article, we shouldn't be rushing to that outcome anyway. MalikCarr 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-wide consensus trumps micro-conesnous. If we say Joe Blow is not notable, and 5 of his friends are the most active editors on the talk page and say he is, we still nuke the article. The template will just encourage wikilawering, as little clusters of editors are looking for a way to say "we think it should stay, and no one else gets a say in the matter". Hell no, not for fictional notability. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you to provide the Wikipedia-wide consensus. Furthermore, "Wikilawyering" is just a term for using guidelines in a less-mainstream fashion by people who think they're more rigid than they really are. It's not helping your argument. Furthermore, what do you mean, "no one else gets a say in the matter"? That's not consensus, that's obstructionism - we shouldn't be getting them confused based on our opinions of the editors in question. MalikCarr 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, wtf? No really, wtf? Do you even know what I'm talking about at this point, or are you just desperately looking for any tool to fight of deletionists? You don't even know what the term Wikilawyering means. I'm sorry some guys are assholes and want to delete EVERYTHING, but I'm not one of them, and I'm not willing to accept a bad template just because others are desperate. I sympathize, I really do, but this template is just stupid. It makes it sound like you only need a consensus on one little talk page, and get to reject the consensus over-all. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the overall consensus exists, it will migrate to that talk page and trump the so-called "micro-consensus". We don't need one editor who believes he's following overall consensus to haphazardly AfD, redirect, and remove encyclopedic content when the actual consensus says he's being a vandal. You might think I'm on some kind of a crusade against deletionists, but the truth of the matter is I'm simply looking to preserve articles whose only crime is being wholly owned of content by the copyright holders. MalikCarr 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the overall consensus exists, it will migrate to that talk page and trump the so-called "micro-consensus". This happens way too often for us to be running around to the thousands and thousands of discussions that happen. If it actually worked that way, we wouldn't need guidelines. The very reason we make guidelines is so we don't have to have the same discussion over and over again, so we don't have to fight the same battle all the time. We're volunteers, and we don't have the resources to put out all of those small fires. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you never get to call someone a vandal who is acting in good faith. We've banned people for being disruptive before, but that doesn't make them vandals. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way consensus is supposed to work, and in practice, the way it does. Guidelines proposed, drafted and implemented by a few editors will never replace the consensus of editors. This is why guidelines should follow consensus, not consensus follow guidelines. It's counterintuitive, a form of circular logic, and wholly ineffective. In any case, you're the only person who seems to think this is a problem, so hey, there's the consensus for you, eh? MalikCarr 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! I am putting this on my userpage. Ursasapien (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what bullshit is this? Sorry, but don't put words in my mouth. What we do on Wikipedia is develop a consensus, when it's helpful we make that consensus into a guideline, so we don't have to re-invent the wheel every week. What you are describing is not what I am talking about, at all. Trying to spin it around and make it sound like what you've described is what I'm endorsing is insulting. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I find your tone and supposition, as well as perception of ineptitude on my part with regards to knowledge of policy, insulting, but I don't bring it up like it's some kind of debate point or supporting evidence for my argument. I mean, why are you accusing me of personal attacks a few lines up from throwing the same logic at me? I haven't done anything wrong, and I'm certainly not "spinning" anything in a given direction. AGF, please.

In any case, Wikipedia is famous for re-inventing the wheel - it's just part of an open encyclopedia where everyone gets to contribute. You've been around for quite a while, why is this coming as a surprise to you? It's really pretty much SOP from my perspective. Furthermore, we're not developing a consensus here, or at least, we shouldn't be. If we're trying to make a better guideline, we should be looking at existing consensus in the relevant area and building off of that, which you -seem- to be in opposition of. It's not our job to assume bad faith on the part of editors and that they will misuse our good-natured efforts to create a better encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a reactionary body, at least in practice, and I see nothing wrong with that. MalikCarr 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the part where that's not at all what I'm talking about. Finding the consensus is what we are doing right now, and it will always be changing and rediscussed and evolving. My point is that we shouldn't have to do it every single week or day, on every single article. You might want to read up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions to understand the kinds of situations I desire to avoid. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<de-indent>First of all, exactly what relevance does the request for arbitration page have to do with this discourse? The use of disambiguation pages doesn't really seem very pertinent. Anyway, consensus exists right now - it's our job as editors working on a guideline to utilize what exists and build off it. To say the eight or ten of us actively working on this are the consensus for what should and should not be written on articles within the scope of this guideline is just daft. MalikCarr 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* The use of disambiguation pages wasn't the issue at all.... the main point of the dispute was that a few editors felt they should be allowed to develop their own micro-consensus, and not have to follow a larger (and community accepted) guideline. It's also a case where I was an involved party to the dispute, and I've had to make these points way back then, as well. *secondfacepalm* I didn't say we are the consensus, I said we are trying to find the consensus. You keep arguing with me about stuff we don't disagree about. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be vs. Must

Regarding "should bes": The use of the word "should"[2][3][4] as opposed to "must"[5][6][7] is not intended to be used as a loophole: I rather "should" be used as it recognises WP:IAR (a policy) and "WP:WIARM". G.A.S 16:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. We don't go writing guidelines to encourage people to ignore them. IAR stands on it's own, and doesn't need permission from other pages. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense to me... MalikCarr 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can just repeat myself over and over if that's what it takes to get the point through: "We don't go writing guidelines to encourage people to ignore them." -- Ned Scott 04:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They say doing the same thing over and over and expecting something different to happen is a condition of psychosis. In any case, why are you being such a pessimist about this? Assuming bad faith on the part of editors, before they even make the edit, isn't just conflicting with AGF, it's downright cynical and unproductive. MalikCarr 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. what? He already made the edits, so I understand the context he is presenting. But hey, I like how you still avoid commenting on my point, that we don't write guidelines to encourage people to ignore them. And it's not being pessimistic to say "I don't agree". If you would, please actually comment on the points being presented, instead of trying to second guess everyone. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think WP:IAR does? It encourages editors to ignore it and all other rules, if the rules get in the way of building or perfecting the encyclopedia. Of course, the rub is finding the best way to improve the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean we don't write other guidelines to ignore the rules, I mean we don't write the guideline in question to encourage people to ignore itself. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, I think you are looking for an iron-clad guideline that you can club other editors over the head with. A guideline is a suggestion. The purpose is to show other editors what we have discovered, through experience, as the best way to improve the encyclopedia. I think, when volunteer editors add articles that you feel are "fancruft," you should have a guideline that clearly shows them the best way to improve the encyclopedia. Not some "wiki-law" that you can point to as you delete/merge it, saying, "Thus sayeth consensus!" Does this take time and sustained effort? Absolutely! But I believe you have the stamina to go to hundreds of articles and dialogue/encourage until the articles are improved. Ursasapien (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. what? I'm not saying we can't soften the wording, my comments were about the logic of inviting editors to ignore the guideline (especially without context of why someone would ignore them). -- Ned Scott 05:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought this was exactly what you were saying. We can not change "must" to "should" because that will soften the guideline and prevent us from clamping down on fancruft. Apparently, I am kinda slow. Please explain your position to me again. (and BTW, stay WP:COOL. There is no need for you to use the language that you have been using. If MalikCarr is getting under your skin, take a break. Ursasapien (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not sure if "should" or "must" will make any difference for anything, and really don't have a strong stance on the exact wording. On the other hand I understand Deckiller's rationale for using more authoritative language, given the state that most of our fictional articles are in. So basically, whatever wording we use, we shouldn't just think authoritative or strong persuasive writing is bad. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's overkill, sometimes it doesn't really matter. The idea that we should arbitrarily avoid such wording is a bad mindset. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>The idea that we should arbitrarily avoid such wording is a bad mindset. - Agreed. That being said, I think there is a mindset in some on WP that if we produce a guideline of sufficient authority and clarity we will be able to always have a "black and white" answer to every editing question. No need for discussion and debate, no need for arguments presented and consensus gained. We will have it set in stone for all time. That is not my understanding of how WP works. Ursasapien (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you've yet to demonstrate how we're even communicating that intent in the first place. In any case, the act of disagreeing isn't inherently pessimistic. Automatically assuming the worst of editors is. But, it seems you've gotten the inferior language you wanted to be utilized, so this point's kind of moot now, isn't it? MalikCarr 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for you to comment on the points being presented, instead of making this personal. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making this personal, not me. Incidentally I've already commented on your points. You should peruse them. MalikCarr 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never once in this thread have you commented on the point that we don't write guidelines to encourage people to ignore them. On the other hand, you've insulted me, you've accused me of assuming bad faith, you've been flat wrong about a few things ("Assuming bad faith on the part of editors, before they even make the edit [8]"), and continue to assume I have some deletionist motive. God damn man, I'm a member of fucking WP:DIGI. I'm as far from a deletionist as you can get. All night you seem to be thinking I'm every person you've ever had to fight with over an article. The first thing you said to me tonight was that I was a stick in the mud. You've been on the war path all night, and it completely shows. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have never accused you of being a deletionist.

2. The line of logic that has resulted in the "stick in the mud" comment has been existent in this discussion for longer than just today.

3. I've refuted your point about "encourage [editors] to ignore [the guideline]" repeatedly, and you've interpreted this as a personal attack and assumption of bad faith.

4. I am not on the warpath.

5. Your citation of article history seems to imply some kind of malicious or deceitful intent on my part. Who's not assuming good faith now? MalikCarr 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<de-indent>FYI, Ursasapien, the should/must debate is simply a matter of a prescriptive vs. descriptive methodology to writing guidelines, and has already been established by consensus that descriptive is the way to go. Harsh and authoritarian language is reserved for policy, not guidelines. MalikCarr 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines, by the very definition of guideline, will be prescriptive in nature. It's also been well established that we can't use descriptive, because what normally happens with fictional articles is what we are trying to avoid. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Ned, I think you have quite a warped view of the "normal" article on a fictional subject. By far and away, the majority are well written, not just plot summaries or in-universe descriptions, and contain a number of citations. Just look at how many fictional FA articles we have. Out of the hundred thousand or more maybe 10% to 15% are really bad. That is still a lot of articles but over all I think we are doing well. Ursasapien (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.... Some very simple math shows how wrong that is. For example, A, FA, and GA combined for WP:ANIME is 52. 52 out of 6496 (less than 1%), and that's not counting many episode articles that lack the project tag. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANIME does not reflect the totality of WP's coverage of fictional topics. What about other types of comics/cartoons/animation? What about all the television projects? What about all the books, plays, radio programs, and other fictional topics? I believe that the situation is not nearly as bad as you perceive it to be. Ursasapien (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Guidelines are meant to be treated as just that: they have an intent but leave wiggle room for specific instances and differences. They are flexible, subject to interpretation, and not written in stone. Now, we just had this debate about prescriptive vs. descriptive wording, and last time I checked, we've agreed that "guideline = descriptive" owing to the very nature of it.

The reason why I keep bringing up the point about assuming bad faith on the part of editors who interpret our guideline is because we should not, and indeed, cannot, attempt to create a rigid doctrine that preempts any form of schenanigans by editors as a guideline. That might be fine logic for the powdered wig-wearing editors who personally know Jimbo that make policies, but us proles should not be prescribing the nature of articles. Is this making more sense now? MalikCarr 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying guidelines are not flexible, and no one is saying it should be written in stone. "That might be fine logic for the powdered wig-wearing editors who personally know Jimbo that make policies" Jesus Christ, is that what you actually think? And no, descriptive does not always make for a good guideline, as it's been pointed out time and time again (if it was, then we wouldn't have guidelines). We don't allow articles that are only plot, and are not needed for the understanding of the parent article, simply because a lot of other people tend to do it. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer everybody to WP:WIARM#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean — points 1, 3, 4, and 5. As such "should" is not to be interpreted as the wish of the guideline but rather as the dictionary defines "should" — "... an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory..." as opposed to must ("to express obligation"). G.A.S 05:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it makes for a good guideline. We've been over this before, you know... the simple fact that we allow room for interpretation without threatening deletion of relevant articles ought to go leagues for proving this point. Unless, of course, you'd like to see things that way? Not to make any accusations - you're the only person who's made allegations relevant to deletionist tendencies - but it's rather plain to see how the stricter wording would favor the deletionist philosophy.

Furthermore, anyone can cite statistics to say their point is correct, but as any good student of debate and communications can tell you, statistics are never an argument in and of themselves. I'd challenge that those figures are not representative of the project's overall success. How many of those 6500 articles were created by declared project members, and how many were simply stuck in by a random editor and later acquired a WP:ANIME tag by a trawling project member? Furthermore, putting the cutoff at GA-status, which is not easy to achieve by any stretch of the imagination, seems rather slanted. Why not include B-rated articles? There's a lot of those that are swell. MalikCarr 07:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]