Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Archive004

Moving forward

OK. We all have a good idea of where everywhere stands on general principle and we have a nice picture of the scope of the issue. I would encourage everyone to take the time to review "Exploring the issues" and try their best to understand where everyone else is coming from. However, let's move on to a specific example: Kender. Kender, being the main article and name of this case, seems like an appropriate place to start.

• Explain to me, and everyone else, what you would like to see eventually as a high quality version of the article. Tell us what shortcomings would be fixed and what strengths would be emphasized.
• Explain to us how you would go about that. Feel free to break it down into a few steps.

For now, please avoid the use of tags and related issues. Stay focused on purely what can be done to substantively improve the article. Vassyana (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from Gavin

I do not believe there is any content available to support a version of the article Kender that could meet the basic requirements of Wikipedia, let alone a high quality one. The reasons why are a follows:

1. The article defines Kender as a fictional race, but there is no evidence to support this in universe definition. In the real world, Kender are a type of fictional character with certain physical and personality traits. To describe them as a fictional race is a literary metaphor, known as a trope. There are no reliable secondary source cited in the article to support the notion that Kender are a fictional race. The premise that Kender are a fictional race is based on a citation from a primary source (the author). An article based on this misconseption could never be described as good quality.
2. Even if Kender where defined correctly, as either a fantasy trope or as a type of fictional character, the chances of finding reliable secondary sources provide content for this article are remote, because Kender are characters from Dragonlance, a fictional world of unproven notability, both at the level of the fictional elements within that world, but also at the level of the source novels from which this fictional element is drawn. For instance, none of the articles about related character types from Dragonlance provide any evidence of notability such as the article Gnome (Dragonlance), whilst all the other Dragonlance character types are also of unproven notability. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the assertion that any of the Dragonlance characters are notable, nor surprisingly, are there any reliable secondary sources to provide evidence that any of the Dragonlance novels are notable. The chances of finding reliable secondary sources that could provide content for the article Kender is remote to say the least, as they are a character type, whose attributes are shared by a group of fictional characters from a series of novels, all of which are of unproven notability, both jointly and severally.
3. Since this article does not cite non-trivial real-world content from reliable secondary sources, the only thing this article has going for it is the quantity of content added by enthusiastic fans of the novels. However, the lack of conent from reliable secondary sources has led to over reliance on Questionable Sources, such as content generated by the authors of the Dragonlance novels, or promotional material from the publishers, Wizards of the Coast. Of the unrefernced material, it is a mix of trivia, plot summary,original research and synthesis, probably taken from the Kencyclopedia, a source that does not cite its own sources, and is itself comprised of trivia, plot summary, original research and synthesis.

Ideally a high quality article about Kender would almost wholly be comprised of non-trivial real-world content from reliable secondary sources that would provide evidence notability of the subject matter outside the primary source material, and this would replace the all of the content which Kender is currently made up of. Since it is probable that there is no non-trivial real-world content that could be added to this article or provide evidence of notability, it would normally be appropriate for the article Kender be merged into a List of minor Dragonlance characters. However, I recognise the fact that the contributors and the fans of this article would not want this to happen, so I would request that all unsource content be repalced with sourced material, or at the very least, that the unsourced material be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from Bilby

I guess it is my turn. :) I suppose I should start with my initial design assumptions (I love design assumptions - they make me happy):

• The topic is notable and of value to Wikipedia.
• Valid references can be found to establish notability.
• The article is in need of work.
• The current aim is to bring Kender up to a "reasonable" standard.
• So called "real world" information is necessary.
• There is value in "in universe" content, although too much is a Bad Thing. "In universe" style, however, is bad.

So, what would it need to meet my assumptions? I would like to see some key sections:

1. Conception and development. This section has already been started, and I like it (noting that I helped to write it, so I'm biased here), but could do with a bit more expansion and some references from more independent sources. It has the advantage of meeting the real-world assumption, and potentially can bring in some third-party sources for the notability issue.
2. Description of Kender. (Bad title, but hopefully you'll get the idea). This is what most of the article is now. I would expect that in a better article this would be trimmed and heavily referenced, focusing on key characteristics that would be of interest to people trying to get a general understanding of the topic. At the moment a lot of this section is trivial and of limited interest - or at least, I think it is trivial. (Do I really need to know what each of the weapons are? Maybe, but it doesn't tell me why I need to know). The section would tend to draw on primary and non-independent sources, which I don't see as a bad thing for fictional characters, if used properly. As others have mentioned, the role-playing material would be useful here, and has the advantage of blatantly making statements such as "Kenders are 4 feet tall", so there is no real risk of OR (I don't see any particular risk of Synth in this section, but if there was a reliance on RPGs would probably help, too). One good source so far (which solved the "Kenders are 4 feet tall" problem) is the annotated versions of the books. Annotations are cool.
3. Depictions of Kender. Currently this is just a list of examples, which is a nice place to start, but would need to be a lot more than a list to work, and not focus so completely on the characters. If sources exist, I'd like to see some discussion distinguishing the role-playing Kenders from the book Kenders, and, if there is any difference, the movie Kender/s. (I haven't seen the film, and doubt that there will be any call for such discussion, but I've added it here just in case there is).
4. Criticism. I really like criticism sections, especially when they are more critique than criticism. They have the advantage of pulling in third party sources (indeed, they require it) and place the topic in a wider context. I would expect part of this would be in regard to the whole Kender/Hobbit/Halfling mess, but I can imagine other discussions, and have found them - just not in reliable sources yet.

I'm sure other sections would be nice, but for this I'm assuming a reasonable article, rather than a GA/FA, and they're the key areas that I like to see. As to how: one of the problems I have with this topic is that it will rely on print sources, both primary and secondary. The Dragonlance novels had their golden period pre-web, and I suspect that a lot of the good material (reviews and the like) will come from then. The trimming can be done now, but needs people (possibly others involved in this process) with a good knowledge of the topic (so as not to trim something which later proves to be essential). Thus while I know I'm not supposed to talk about tags, tagging here seems useful to me, as it might bring it to the attention of subject-area experts. Or at least more people with access to sources. At the moment, then: research older sources, find people with knowledge about the area, improve the structure so it can accept new sources and material as it is found, trim the article, remove the in-universe style, and reference the (currently unreferenced) "Description" material. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from Ursasapien

I think I will answer the questions together. What I would like to see, eventually, is a comprehensive (informative), well-written (easy to read), and well-sourced (preferably with in-line citations using ref templates) article. If the article met these standards, concerns about notability, synthesis, and other issues would be taken care of. As far as steps, I would suggest the following:

1. First, I think editors that have access to the sources should go through the article and see what other information they can cite. We may not need to trim as much as we think. However, after a reasonable amount of time and scrutiny, we should remove any specific information that can not be sourced. I am a big believer in in-line citations using ref templates to give a uniform appearance and provide more complete information.
2. Next, continue to improve the Conception and development section and develop a Reception and critical analysis section if sources can be found. These two sections will bring "real world" information into the article and make it more suitable for a general encyclopedia.
3. Next, I would improve the lead making it more of a summary of the entire article.
4. Finally, I would investigate the possibility of turning the Appearance and traits, Weapons, and Variations sections into more "list-like" entries using one of the table templates. This would add visual interest and make these entries easier to read.

Ursasapien (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from SamBC

It is true that the article has a lot of problems. As well as the longer-term steps of sourcing and reorganisation, some initial steps that may help immediately are:

1. Aggressive removal (to talk, or a talk subpage, or commenting out) of the more anecdotal-seeming points, such as "On rare occasions, Kender find cursed artifacts such as a ring that forcibly teleports them from place to place, wands with powerful spells inside, and on one occasion, a statue that can Polymorph the owner into an adolescent Bronze Dragon." That one especially seems anecdotal, taking specific events from (presumably) novels and drawing general conclusions.
2. Copyediting for tone to remove the slightly-too-inuniverse tone and make it read more encyclopaedically. This will be straightforward once the anecdotal stuff (and similar) are removed.
3. Templates aren't the solution, but they can help; specifically, I would support the use of {{fact}} tags and similar to identify specific issues.

Longer term, the goals should be:

1. Trim and reformat the sections on weapons and variations. Something less prosaic and more visual would be good.
2. Add more reception and analysis, sourced from secondary sources (preferably third-party, but that may not be possible; articles in Dragon, for example, aren't really third-party technically, but I would consider them acceptable if there aren't decent articles elsewhere).
3. Pare down the primary information in the in-universe content sections, and add analysis and feedback in-situ (should be easier when the more immediate stuff above has been done).
4. Of course, add sources and inline citations.

Still kinda vague, but indicates the general path I think we should be taking. SamBC(talk) 10:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from BOZ

Well, I’m no expert on article fixing, but here goes.

• Citations. While there are a number of citations, there are far fewer than one might expect to see on an article of this size. The “conception and development” section seems adequately sourced, but much of the rest of it could use some work.
• Sources. Dragonlance books are best-sellers, so one would expect to see reviews in major publications. Assuming that such do exist, and I don’t see why they wouldn’t, I find it difficult to believe that kender would not have been discussed somewhere in there.
• Balance. The conception section should be expanded, while the in-universe description should be trimmed. I’m thinking 1/4 minimum of this article, as an arbitrary definition, (if not half, or more) should be for the character development and publication history. I bet that the various in-universe sections, while important to understanding kenders, could stand to be cut to, say, half the length or so of what they are right now and still get the point across.
• Lead. The lead currently seems a bit schizophrenic and could use some rewriting.

BOZ (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from Jéské

As with BOZ, I'm no expert on the matter of article fixing, and most of the articles I've edited (at least recently) have been video game articles. However, after an initial readthrough, these are the issues I see:

1. Intro needs to slow down before it gets into a pile-up. The intro reads to me as if it was written at high-speed.
2. Lack of sources. It has a few inline citations, but these total out to only seven references, with the majority of the cites in the Conception and Development section. I disagree with the 1/4 minimum proposed above by BOZ as development is currently the best-cited section.
3. Confusion of the ephemeral with the corporeal. The in-universe section is a few more sentences away from gaining sentience, in a case of what I call "Stunky Syndrome". Saying it needs to be trimmed is incorrect at this point; we need to get out the chainsaw.
4. Too Much (Not-so-)Good Stuff. The lists in the article need to be introduced to Lorwynian Elves. Failing that, those eyesores need to be geeked.

That's what I see wrong. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward; part two

As people make responses above, I would like you all (especially those who would generally disagree) to point out the good ideas from the explanations of others. Let's not worry about weak points or possible mistakes at the moment. Let's just build up a good pile of good ideas for now. Vassyana (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with Gavin about the need for sourced material - I love references. :) I'm not sure that I would go so far as to remove all unsourced material, but a good trimming process by people who know the topic would be wise, and would result in a much tighter article. The advantage here, as Gavin points out, is the quantity of material, which would provide something to work on, if, as he says, it can be properly sourced, given that he is right in saying that it isn't at the moment. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly applaud both prior editors' comments regarding improving sourcing. I like the idea of having a Response/critical analysis section that Bilby called for, as well as his suggestion for enlisting those knowledgeable about the subject to provide source material. I do not see anyway that the article can be merged without losing much valuable information or unbalancing the other article. Ursasapien (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Additional sourcing would be great, of course. The idea of more response and analysis is also very good. I would also very much support the idea of lest textual, more visually striking, formatting for parts of the article, as Ursa suggested. SamBC(talk) 10:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to see more collaborating, compromise and attempts to find consensus through concessions, and a better understanding of each other's points of views. I'd also like to see a recognition that we make this up as we go along, therefore no approach is the approach. Hiding T 13:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I can’t agree on much of Gavin’s dimly negative view of the article (and most fiction-related articles in general), I do appreciate his points about making citations to reliable sources and that the article should contain more non-trivial real-world content. Bilby has some excellent ideas, particularly moving most of the current content to a “description of kender” section, expanding the out-of-universe “examples in the series” section into more information depictions of kender, and especially including information on criticism – there are plenty of RPGers who hate kender, so I’ve got to think that there must be something written somewhere about that! :) I also agree with much of what Ursasapien is saying, particularly adding reception/critical analysis to the conception section. SamBC makes some good points on removing anecdotal-sounding text from the in-universe sections, and of course copyediting. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unlike Hiding, I'm not optimistic about any collaboration as there've been drive-by reverters removing the tags without discussion on the talk page. In fact, I had to request full-protection of all the articles on the list on the front page. The only way we can get collaboration to work (as these users clearly do not believe in the assumption of good faith) is if we drag them before RfArb or an administrators' noticeboard. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Despite the optimistic suggestions for improvement, the complete dearth of reliable secondary sources citing non-trivial, real-world content suggests to me that Kender will never reach an acceptable standard of article required by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even my own suggestion that sourced content should be used to replace the unsourced material represents little more than a re-arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic; the additional citation of primary sources will not resolve the issue that this topic is of unproven notability, and that the article is destined for merger or deletion. In the meantime, I feel we are oblidged, as responsible editors, to replace or remove in universe content, so that readers of this article will not be mislead by misconceptions, original research and synthesis which make up the articles content at the time of writing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To me, Gavin does not show good faith in this mediation. He has one goal and one goal only. To remove Kender (and thousands of other articles) from Wikipedia. No other solution will ever be acceptable to him. We could demonstrate notability twelve ways to Sunday and he would say, "I simply don't see it!" This, to me, is an ominous sign that this mediation will come to naught. Ursasapien (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I can confirm that that is not the case; I am merely stating the postion as I see it with candor. Note that I have saying that Kender is of unproven notability; I am not saying it is unotable per se. If it helps, I promise never to propose Kender for deletion or merger; I hope this puts your concerns to rest. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you. That does go a long way toward reassuring me. Nevertheless, I do fear that no evidence will ever satisfy you. I get the strong impression, from observing you in many different sectors of Wikipedia, that you consider 99% of our coverage of fiction is not notable and should be removed from the encyclopedia. In fact, you have all but said that we can not cover fiction (at least any plot-based discussion) without violating policy/guidance. It is quite disheartening to see a consensus forming for moving forward and then have hopes dashed by your dismal outlook. Ursasapien (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You need not be fearful that no evidence will satisfy me. My view is that articles on fictional topics should be contain real world content from reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject matter outside the source material and support the information as it is presented. I belive this viewpoint is supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and is therefor not unreasonable. If this article were to cite real-world content from reliable secondary sources, I would be entirely satisfied with this article. As regards your impressions of me, I view them as sweeping generalisations for which there is no evidence. Please be assured that I do not subscribe to any of the viewpoints which you ascribe to me.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• On the "good ideas" front, I rather like Ursasapien's suggestion of turning parts of the current article into something more akin to lists. Other than that, it seems that the Lede is in desperate need of work. :) SamBC's suggestion of making the article more visual is cool, too. And clearly everyone is in agreement with trimming the in-universe stuff, in spite of variations in regard to degree. - Bilby (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)