Template:RFCpolicy

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should still strive to include real-world information when appropriate.

To me, this would cover most of the articles that people were worried about being deleted, but are generally allowed on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think this covers the complete problem regarding this specific issue. (The minumum changes I recommended a while back - see the project page history - should still be considered (if we are not going to rewrite the guideline). Regards, G.A.S 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if we're done with that yet (although I do favor the current guideline), but in the very least I thought it would be reasonable to include this bit. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Two things I would add, and I'll be bold with one of them, specifically that such articles should clearly identify themselves as describing a fictional work and place it in context of the main work within the lead. The other part which I'll leave for discussion is that this almost gives too much leeway for others to make any article (the "by example" issue), and thus there is need for some language in there to make this the least preferred solution and all the other points addressed by the third case in the previous green box. --Masem 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This would lead to articles that do not meet WP:NN, which this guideline is meant to be a continuation of. It would also probably cause thousands of articles that go against WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#PLOT. The topic of an article should be notable in it's own right - notability is not inherited. Editors should not have to refer to a myriad of other pages in order to deem whether an article meets the inclusion criteria or to be able to edit the article. If there is real world content available on a toipic I don't see why it couldn't be included in the article - especially as any article on a fictional concept should - in theory - be based around that information. Real world topics do not have subarticles - spouses of notable people must be notable in their own right to have an article - and I do not see why fictional topics should be any different. [[Guest9999 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • This is the point we've been arguing for the past month; I think most of us agree that a fictional element page on its own fails several guidelines. However, there are times that for stylistic reasons that including accurate but succinct fictional elements and their notable distinctions with respect to the plot will cause the article to be too long, and that it is fair to allow for in the rare case an article written primarily from in-universe to be broken out to stand on its own, as long as it satisfies all other WP guidelines. (List of Pokemon is a good example of this, but any TV/book/comic/video game series that have a reoccurring cast of characters is also fair game). The above change is not strong enough, however, to suggest that this is a rarity, which is why I suggest that this needs to be mentioned and emphasized a lot more in the changed wording if we stick to that.
  • Also, real-world topics do have subarticles: that's the whole point of summary style, see New York City for example, and is basically the point we're trying to address for fictional works too. --Masem 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes back to the old debate about sub-articles and long-articles, and is one reason why I choose the wording "technical". This really is just a technicality, if something stands in it's own document or shares another. The important part is that it would still be judged as if it were in the same document (as in, if it was an unnecessary, or an excessively (plot) detailed section, it could be cut back or redirected all together). I'm hoping we can emphasize that and limit the loop-hole risk that way. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't help but feel this would cause a lot of grief with both parties shouting "WP:FICT" at each other over a merge. Nifboy 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This already happens :\ -- Ned Scott 06:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm worried a section like this "defangs" notability by allowing a loophole. I worry that even with wording like "To a limited extent", it will abused in AFD to an extent that the entire section will be meaningless if someone can claim it is a "sub-article". I don't see why non-notable split-off articles can't be integrated into the main article in a shorter form. --Phirazo 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing notability in exactly this fashion is needed in many cases. We limit the depth of coverage Wikipedia can offer on a great many subjects by limiting the size of every Wikipedia article (which is sensible) and applying Notability on an article-level scale instead of a subject-level scale. This has a Procrustean bed effect. Article series should be considered as a whole when determining notability.--Father Goose 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phirazo, even though I proposed the wording, this is also a concern of mine. I was thinking that maybe citing some specific examples might help counter some the possible abuse in AfDs. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my reply to Phirazo above.--Father Goose 02:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Sub-articles should be judged in the sense that they could (and perhaps should) be merged with the main article. They inherit a degree of notability from the parent. Hypothetically, if the content would be expunged after a merge with the parent (for reasons other than length), then the sub-article should probably be deleted or cleaned up. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's awkwardly worded, but it's much easier to correct stylistic problems once the principle is enshrined in the guideline than to ammend this wording and have to start a new discussion. Happy‑melon 08:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This really needs to be thoroughly discussed before it is added. We need to actually go through maybe ten or so examples to see what people here think is actually necessary. Some people may think the amount that can be written equals the amount that should be written. Some people may feel that the main characters are an automatic split. There are a ton of possibilities. In the very least, there needs to be two or three detailed paragraphs under that one to back this idea. TTN 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified Support for main characters (by main, meaning ONLY the characters whose actors in the case of television are shown on the show's open). WAVY 10 Fan 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that isn't going to happen. On that note, this should clarify that only lists apply to this kind of split. There will never be a case where an actual article is required to describe the in-universe information. TTN 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this proposal is somewhat more conservative than I would like to see, but I am willing to take what I can! MalikCarr 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fair warning: as a bleeding-heart inclusionist, I plan on milking this section for all it's worth. Ichormosquito 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why we need to discuss this thoroughly before inclusion. This is not supposed to be a way to wikilawyer. TTN 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right. My conscience sometimes betrays me. Still, I've found that many established editors continue to disregard this guideline. Its current state is out of whack with the situation on the ground. The guideline as a whole has a bright future as a cattle prod, but it needs a section like this for the sake of legitimacy. Ichormosquito 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion. Maybe we should fork all unsourced character articles where there is little to no real-world information to separate Wikia's if possible. WAVY 10 15:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See annex.wikia. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a problem with this (As was done here): WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided—

"2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

"13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

--41.240.173.38 12:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we're getting muddled in several issues in with WP:WAF, we should restate what we've been trying to do and what needs to be done for updating this guideline.

The only significant addition outside of language/alignment with WP:WAF and WP:N is the issue of sub-articles containing only in-universe information. The general consensus on this page seems to agree that these articles should exist, but should be a rarity.

Ned Scott proposed language to the following:

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 might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should still strive to include real-world information when appropriate.

which many agreed with.

I will note that I still offer the suggestion of using a as-yet-to-utilized Template:In-universe rationale to be used on such sub-pages to identify when the editors decided to split it as to be able to easily identify those articles where consideration of these new guidelines has been put into place against those that are legacy or just "Well, x had it, y should have a character list too!" copycats. I think this language must be accompanied by a good deal of when and where subarticles are appropriate; the above addition is to the point, but there will be editors that just don't get it unless you provide examples and suggestions of what do to for non-appropriate pages.

If this is the only major change, we should make sure it jives first with WP:WAF and then subsequently WP:N (two very different sets of editors). I will note that we are somewhat superceding WP:N here, so we'll definitely want input there, even though fictional works come up all the time on that page. We then should likely get the various fictional projects (Films, Books, etc.) to take a look at it as well simultaneously to see how that works for them. Revise, rewrite, and reoccur the guideline to make sure all these major players are happy with it, and the release it to the world. --MASEM 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, the template proposal is still alive too. For what it's worth, I'm behind it 100% - it would cut out a lot of red tape and make creation and longevity of articles that satisfy all other policy and guideline criterion much less of a headache. MalikCarr 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the proposed rewrite of WP:WAF may lead to a cleaner WP:FICT, as a lot of information not inherent to notability would not have to be repeated here. This should make this guideline more helpful. On the other side, having 10+ notability guidelines are not particularly helpful; which might mean that merging this guideline into WP:N, along with said proposals may in fact be a good idea. (According to recent discussions on WT:N this has been suggested many times before, always to be shot down by the same group of editors.)

It may help to suspend major updates to this guideline until the above has been sorted out (Which will provide us time to help with said issues).

Regards, G.A.S 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised at the direction this has taken. It's actually even more strict now. Why aren't all the people complaining? Not that I really care, but it's still...surprising.

If I knew that the fans would eventually back off, then my original rewrite would've been similar to the current version... — Deckiller 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are, at least those that heard about it. (see, for example User:TTN's activities in striving for notability and thus removing lots of non-notable episode pages with lots of protesting of said methods, but awareness that now notability is a key issue. --MASEM 03:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deckiller, the guideline here is by no means perfect, and a lot of the original issues with it, such as the prescriptive wording thereoff, still exists. The paragraph added above is seen as a compromise, though. At most, major editing of this guideline will only be suspended until discussions at WT:N and updating of WP:WAF is complete. G.A.S 06:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think WP:FICT is in good shape right now, but I'm very interested in seeing where these additional proposals might lead us. In any case, we seem to be heading in the right direction. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One recommendation I have picked up, and seems to make sense, is to move the examples and notes to an examples and notes section (aka references section) as is done with Wikipedia:Notability#Notes. This would have the advantage of linking the examples directly with the recommendations, and "delistify" the guideline. Would there be any objections to this? G.A.S 07:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this more strict? Currently, it makes allotments for articles that, while satisfying all other criterion for inclusion, would get nixed by the secondary sources requirement for verifiability, which downright sucks (it's difficult enough to write about fiction when half the time you can't even find a reliable primary source, much less a secondary one). I'd like to think that, at the current pace of this, the guideline will actually be more inclusive to well-referenced articles than it is now, which is a nice pace of things. MalikCarr 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this new wording affect individual episodes (or similar) of a series? The reason I ask, is that a notability tag has been placed on Grand Theft Cosmos, The Skull of Sobek and Max Warp - which are individual stories as part of the BBC7 Big Finish Adventures. StuartDD _{contributions} 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, yes. You have two options in this case:

1. Find substantial real world information about the episodes, and integrate it into the article, as well as reference it.
2. Merge it into the list:

• Edit the episode article, and cut and paste the content in the list (edit description: "Merge content from permanent link")
• Replace the subarticles' content with #Redirect[[list#subsection]] {{R from merge}} (edit description: "Merge content to [[list#subsection]]")
• Convert the moved content and current list into list format using {{Episode list}}.

• If it is unpractical to merge all of the information into the list due to excessive lenght, it is likely that you can find enough real world content for a BBC7 Big Finish Adventures article, which could incorporate said list (It is also much easier to get such a list featured than it would be to get an individual episode featured).

I hope this helps. Regards, G.A.S 08:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from an above sub-section to gather more attention -- Ned Scott 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the tables found at WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing and WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table. When I saw them I thought they were a great way to express how a guideline or policy worked in situations that had grey areas. I think something like this might be just what we need. -- Ned Scott 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might work, but we would need actual borderline examples, as well as clear examples. I especially think that one like the WP:BADLINKS#Link assessment table might be useful. G.A.S 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we add the following example for To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style: —G.A.S 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is too weak. It needs to explain why the characters have enough text to require the split. Otherwise, anything will be up for the "It's too long to fit here" wikilawyering game. TTN 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please suggest a better statement, I am all out of ideas. G.A.S 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why do we always assume the worst in editors when we create guidelines like this? We shouldn't be trying to pre-empt every editor who feels like pushing the limits of the guideline and produce a sub-par rendition as a result. "Wikilawyering" as a whole is a term that just infuriates me to no end - there's nothing wrong with a creative interpretation of policy or guideline, and if it's too far out of step, it's not like it can't be pushed back anyway. Policy violations tend to go together, if you catch my meaning. MalikCarr 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just for fiction, but fans grasp anything close to a loophole and hold on very, very tight. If this is not worded properly, it will be the main point of at least half of the discussions. It needs to be very specific or just not included at all. As for wording, I have no idea. It's hard to actually get that wording in there without taking up two or three paragraphs. TTN 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more (to me) a matter of trying to create a preventative guideline than one that applies post-effects. The guideline should encourage people to strongly consider when a fictional sub-article is needed, such that when a new fictional work comes out, we don't suddendly get 100s of new articles that we have to post-manage. So the wording has to be rather strong to state that sub-article creation should be the last consideration when making an article about fiction, and should only fall "naturally" from the article style considerations assuming all other aspects are held right. --MASEM 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to preemptively punish editors because a handful of fans would rather write unsourced novels on Wikipedia about a tiny aspect of their favorite show. Delete the crap, keep the good ones and let's move on with our lives. This apparent hatred of fan editors is one of the reasons why those of us trying to enforce guidelines are often labeled as "anti-content Nazis" and nonsense like that. If anything, we should be encouraging people to write more articles, not trying to make an overly oppressive guideline to discourage such things. If editors create garbage articles, we have devices to remove them. A bunch of "fans" show up and vote keep? Oh well, that's how consensus works on Wikipedia today. We shouldn't be trying to sidestep the editing community at large in this matter, it'll only make things worse. MalikCarr 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is "preemptively punishing editors", and I don't know where you get off saying this is a hatred of fan editors. With the massive amount of new content added to Wikipedia daily, if we didn't discourage some forms of articles, it would not be humanly possible to maintain the website. Why else do we have things like WP:NOT, which has existed since Feb 2002? I don't think your negative summary accurately describes what we are trying to do with this guideline. -- Ned Scott 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to get an example out there for that section, as there is confusion out there regarding this. The two articles I listed are both featured, so it makes sense to use them. The wording I chose was adapted from WP:SS, so it is wording there is consensus on. ("When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link."). So unless someone comes up with better wording, that example should go into the guideline. It can then be edited until everybody is happy with it. G.A.S 06:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that TTN's point above, though, needs to be closely considered and that wording tightened up to reflect the specifics encountered in fict debates. Fiction fans seem particularly uninterested in asserting encyclopedic standards and any loophole needs to be very closely defined. Eusebeus 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The current wording of the guideline requires an example.
• We all agree that the guideline's wording means that lists are an acceptable split.
• That article and list are featured.
• What would a better wording be in this case? Regards, G.A.S 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you suggest that this isn't specifically targeted at "fan editors" as a preemptively offensive action, yet a paragraph later we have the exact same sentiment echoed with a broad generalization about exploiting loopholes and not following Wikipedia policies? This mentality will only create more pain for us down the line. We can't write a sensible, fair, and most importantly, effective guideline if we've already convicted the editors this guideline is meant to help of being unproductive to the project as a whole. MalikCarr 09:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]