Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 16

< Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Dimadick in topic Preventing drive-by tagging
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Draft #5

Latest comment: 16 years ago62 comments11 people in discussion

Diff from #4 full draft

Given that I'm offline for a few days, I'll put up my current draft to solicit more comments and suggestions (and please feel free to edit despite it being in my userspace). Main changes are changing the nutshell to completely remove "deletion", adding a para on the historical nature of how fiction has been dealt with per discussion above (if only to give a perspective of what's been happening), and softening that footnote so that we don't encourage purges. --MASEM 14:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:PLOT was not based on the five pillars. It was based on the consensus that Wikipedia articles should do more than simply retell the story, and was actually based in part on the section of m:Wiki is not paper that you assert it contradicts. WP:PLOT was written to encourage editors to add the real world context. In fact, if anything, this guidance in part contradicts the five pillars, which tells us that:



  • My emphasis. When policy and guidance conflict, policy supersedes. If we all agree on the goal of Wikipedia, we should be able to work towards a guideline that supports it. Hiding T 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say (wiki is not paper) contradicted present, I just stated that the general approach has changed, but I do some of the added language that makes this stronger which I've adjusted. True, it's more that we require plot and real-world information to work side by side, not that we just get rid of plot information, but this language still means that we can only cover the details of fictional works to a degree that notability lets us.
I will argue that you need to include the world "elements" in the above - that is, we can include parts of specialized encyclopedias, but not every element. We can provide episode lists based on primary sources (a typical part of a specialized encyclopedia for a work of fiction) because we can usually also included real aspects like production codes and dates of first airings, but we can't included detailed plot information of every episode, something that would also be in an specialized encyclopedia, if the episode lacks any demonstrated connection to the real world. --MASEM 16:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You can argue that we can include parts of specialised encyclopedia, but that is a point of contention, and whilst it is a point of contention we shouldn't be writing it into guidance. It is a principle on Wikipedia that we can write articles which meet WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. When we are unsure whether they are within our remit, we debate that at WP:AFD. If that's all this page is trying to tell us, do we really need it? Hiding T 13:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Given the AfDs for the last year, and other articles that haven't been brought to AfD yet, I think we do. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we do. I'm happy to let AFD do its job. Hiding T 11:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The entire point of a guideline is to guide editors on how to do things, so they don't end up at AfD. You might be fine with wasting other people's time, but I prefer to help them out before they invest all that time. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I believe you are actually implying that you would want to waste anyone's time. I just think that we should try to help editors before AfD is needed, and that would be a more useful lesson than what would be learned at AfD (and would be a more efficient use of everyone's time). -- Ned Scott 00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere, it needs to be pointed out that TV Guide episode summaries and similar items are not independent sources. The production company releases a short summary and a long summary for use in guides, and each guide chooses the appropriate one for its own needs. The existence of a plot summary in every TV section of every newspaper in the US is not 357 independent sources, it's just the production company being parroted 357 times.
Also, I think we need to strongly discourage generating a plot summary by watching the episode and writing about it. It is easy to wander into OR with that technique (is the character a "deluded religious fanatic" or a "driven man of God"? A "street-weary police officer" or a "brutal cop"?). It is best to reference summaries written by independent sources. This not only avoids OR, it serves to ensure notability: if there is an independently created summary, there is a better chance of finding the other required information.Kww (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Somewhere, it needs to be pointed out that TV Guide and other publications receive review copies of television programs. The fact that different publications have different descriptions and reviews of the same episode is indicative of an editorial process that is the prime characteristic of reliable news sources. Press releases are sent out by production companies, Fortune 500 companies and political candidates, and are a common practice in the news media. The presence of a byline in an article should more than satisfy any concerns as would evidence of differing descriptions of the same series, episode or character across different publications. Alansohn (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't state that reviews by those organizations weren't independent. The summary listing in the program guide is not.Kww (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now independant reliable plot summaries are not counted towards notability, although I think they should be. If we could agree that they do, you would doing a lot to bring me on board. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Never going to happen. It would allow creation/coverage without context. Anyone could argue for any element, no matter how small, as long as it was also summarized by someone else. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
but that is exactly what is meant by Notability = 2 reliable sources. Anything covered by them in a substantial way is notable, unless we want to change the basic WP policy. . How important you or I think it is has nothing whatever to do with it. How small it is isnt relevant either. There are about a half-million things on which WP has articles which i think totally unimportant. We each do, but they won't overlap. As the policy wisely says, Notability is not importance. I can, do, and will continue to argue for any element that has sources. And I'm pretty open about what I mean by reliable, which i take as the meaning reliable as appropriate to the subject, to independent as meaning not prepared by the subject on his own authority--TV guide,etc. is edited, as alansohn says --their reputation depends on accurate characterisation & on including in the descriptions what is notable to the audience. . -- and substantial, which I take to indicate what is being talked about more than bare existence. DGG (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. WP:PLOT is a policy. If these other sources are commenting on the plot, that would be real-world information (reception), and that would be ok. But if we are just talking about other summaries that are nothing more than summaries, that does not justify making a summary of similar depth on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how WP:PLOT applies here. Hiding T 13:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Because even if you have an article on something, WP:PLOT will tell us to not have it simply be a plot summary. You take one problem out, and come to another one. WP:N is not a policy, as DGG said, it's a guideline. So regardless if you believe that summary of a plot indicates notability (which I certainly do not believe) you still run into the main problem, excessive plot summary. However, real-world information can be used to justify additional plot-summary. It's different from making it notable or not, but that's because we're not using the word "notability" in the correct sense in these guidelines. -- Ned Scott 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have an article on something that's all plot, you add verifiable information which provides real world context to it so that it meets WP:NOT, retaining as much information within the article as possible per editing policy. Check you aren't violating WP:NPOV, and then move on to the next article. WP:N doesn't factor into it. WP:N is just a reason for listing things at WP:AFD. Hiding T 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
To address DGG's earlier point, notability is not just "2" reliable sources. First "significant coverage" is a very nebulous term that includes the meaning "more than one". Arguably two work, but it depends on the strength of those two works. But we also have to address what is "significant", and this goes to the idea that just listing out actors that appear in roles or who produced the work is not considered "significant coverage" (and also tends to violate WP:DIR). For the same reason, even if through a reliable source, a restatement of the work's plot without added commentary or analysis falls into the same problem: it is not "significant coverage". (This does not mean we can't use that source as a source to back up the plot section). While WP:N doesn't go into a lot of detail of what "significant coverage" is, the general feeling that seems to exist is that the coverage has to include some analysis and synthesis of thought above what is present in the primary works, or information that is connected to the real-world development of the plot (why an actor was used for a specific role, how this plot appears to mirror that of another work). --MASEM 13:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
(To Hiding) That's kind of a backwards way to make an article. One can't assume that the summary, as written, is the summary you even want, and that's just assuming there are real-world things to say about that character/episode/whatever. It is not practical to assume that there is real-world information simply because someone wrote a summary about something. Even when you do have real-world information, you have to look at how it's organized. If the same real-world fact applies to a general element, like all characters, then it would make more sense to have that info on a list page, or on a section on the main article, rather than repeating the same info, as if it were unique when it's not, on each individual character page.
It's bad advice to say that to fix the problem all you do is add information, which might not even be there, and might be better presented in another format, and doesn't necessarily justify the amount of summary used on an article. -- Ned Scott 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that WP:5P is not a policy page itself, but a summary page. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the obtuseness, but I'm coming home late from a bar. What is the reasoning that keeps this page around, again? We obviously have a lot of dicusssion going on, but I would like a succinct reason. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the third time you've asked this question, and I'm not going to repeat myself. Masem had a really good response, let me dig up the diff. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
OK - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that WP:5P describes Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It is above policy. If you really want to contradict the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, I'm really going to stand here and point out the fundamental flaw in that approach. Hiding T 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not "above policy", nor is it really comparable to policy. BLP does a lot of things that conflict with the 5P, using the same logic you used for PLOT. And again, what about the travel guide example? Thousands of readers want us to have travel guide content, and yet we don't do that. Being specialized does not mean bending to any demands of the user. We're also not a directory of weblinks, and many articles are very hard on that rule, watching what links are added, and trying to make sure that some links are not in excess. But having weblinks for any and everything, like youtube videos on a list of episodes, is no doubt something a ton of readers would just love.
We're still benefiting the readers, and we're still a specialized encyclopedia wrapped in a general encyclopedia. We just don't contain complete summaries of fiction, and our content is in context to the real world. Now, if you're going to stand there and try to use a general statement of spirit to back up a specific view that it doesn't that doesn't actually conflict with this guideline, I'm going to sit here and show you the fundamental flaw in trying to use the "omg-ancient scrolls" out of context. -- Ned Scott 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is above policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself better with the way Wikipedia was built and works. The fundamental principles are upheld by the foundation, and they state that people who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project. BLP was an edict from the board and Jimbo, so they get to contradict the foundation principles. It's not best to use that as an example. As to bending to any demands of the user, I'm not sure where you get that that was my point. My point is that we build a consensus, and per WP:CONSENSUS we do that through editing. If a large number of people are editing an article to include stuff, that demonstrates a consensus that it should be included. I'm at a loss as to how you believe I am defending complete summaries of works of fiction. You are welcome to show me whatever you like, but at least do me the honour of attacking points I make, not the points you wish to make. Now my original point was this: WP:PLOT was not based on the five pillars. It was based on the consensus that Wikipedia articles should do more than simply retell the story, and was actually based in part on the section of m:Wiki is not paper that you (Masem) assert it contradicts. WP:PLOT was written to encourage editors to add the real world context. What within that do you disagree with? Hiding T 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm very familiar with the way Wikipedia was build and how it currently works, and that should be pretty obvious. I'm not saying the 5P doesn't have authority or a place, but it's not what one would consider "policy" by our own definitions. A principal is something that needs context or perspective, so just as one can assert that PLOT contradicts the 5P, someone else can conclude that it doesn't.
  • A consensus (Wikipedia's definition of it, at least) means also including the strength of an argument, and/or considering things that other users might not have considered, etc. This is why I don't think "default behavior" alone justifies consensus, so a large number of editors making an edit to a page doesn't always mean we should include what they are trying to include.
  • "You are welcome to show me whatever you like, but at least do me the honour of attacking points I make, not the points you wish to make." That was not my intention. It's very possible I've misunderstood you, but I honestly believed I was responding to the points you made.
  • The only thing I can really dispute on your original point is the last part "WP:PLOT was written to encourage editors to add the real world context". It's true that WP:PLOT was written to encourage editors to add real-world context, but that doesn't mean that all plot summary can be saved as it is written and/or organized. Sometimes this means removing some summary, re-wording it, or trimming it. I'm not really sure if you mean that WP:PLOT can't call for the removal, only the addition, of information, or if you mean something else. -- Ned Scott 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Did you find that link? Anyways, when you use this page to redirect/delete thousands of articles then say this page isn't the one that's actually being used to back up deletions, that seems like an important thing that at the least should be stated in the first sentence of this "guideline," or the quideline should just be deprecated and whatever is really being relied upon should be used. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Turns out I was thinking of his reply on WT:WAF regarding WP:EPISODE. [1] His "connecting the dots" comment was what I was thinking of. So while it turns out he wasn't talking about FICT, I think the same can be said for FICT.
As far as the mass redirect/merges, this principal looks like it will pass in the related arbcom case: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits, as well as a few editors making many edits."
And "Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes."
So it's likely that the results of the arbcom case will help with the mass actions you speak of. Making a note about this in the guidelines might be a good idea. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's ironic (or something) that the comment you were looking for was from WAF. How many of these pages are needed? It seems to illustrate my point that this page should be deprecated and WAF should be the guideline, or maybe that page should redirect here. I prefer the former, but I could be convinced of the latter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I never disputed the idea of reorganizing our fictional guidelines, and actually would like to explore that idea more. However, you clearly are not disputing the organization, but what is said on the guidelines. If we want to make the wording different, and make it on a single document, that alone is not a bad idea, and could very well be a great improvement. I'm more concerned with the advice contained on the page, and the spirit of it. -- Ned Scott 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
My argument again why WP:FICT needs to exist is that while it is not meant to change any existing guideline, the interaction of PLOT, V, RS, OR, NPOV, and NOTE when it comes to fictional topics is a very convoluted maze. A very logical person could likely figure it all out by looking at all the various pages, but (and this is by no means to slight WP editors), most editors do not take the time or have the patience to figure that logic out. WP:FICT is a transparency that goes over a complex map to help you clearly identify all routes one should take with fictional concept articles.
And do note that WP:WAF is a Manual of Style - it is meant to address how to present and organize content in articles discussing a fictional work, not a fictional element of a fictional work. (In other words, most fictional works will have plot, as well as sections for development, reception, and the like). There is convolutions between WAF and FICT by necessity, but once we polish and agree to some WP:FICT language, we can make sure that there's a bit more deferrence to this in WAF. --MASEM 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Masem: I don't think this makes it any clearer myself. It basically tells people to go read the other policies and guidelines, anyways. Less rules is better than more, in my opinion, especially if it isn't changing any rules, which is what I'm hearing on this talk page. Not sure if that's really true, since this page changes so often. We get rid of this page, and then we'll always be in sinc with what's going on if we don't add anything about notability (other than a link to NOTE) in WAF.
Ned: While it's true I don't like how this page or NOTE is written, I'm not concentrating on changing that right now. Once we each page doing what it should be doing, I can see if people actually want to change anything, and I'll abide by that decision. Until then, we should streamline our guidelines. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What I've been trying to propose is less a guideline to be used via Wikilawyers to support the inclusion or removal of pages - you are absolutely right we don't want to make this just more rules to follow and more red tape for article creation.
So let's discuss the arguments to put this into WP:WAF. I understand the intent - less guidelines is always a good thing. But the way I see it, most editors don't read the guidelines until their content is directly affected by it, and then only read the guidelines that directly apply. If we left it WAF and NOTE only, it's not very clear why certain fictional elements articles are being merged or deleted, though with more in depth reading of related guidelines, it becomes clear. But even then, the interaction of all those guidelines based on past deletion arguments, consensus, and a lot more really can't be well represented in either WAF or NOTE. (remember, WAF is designated as a MOS, and already a bit lengthy). If there was a project that covered all of fiction, this could be more a specific guideline within that project, but there isn't such.
Basically, when helping to advise a new editor when they add something that goes beyond how we want to handle plot vs real-world, it is much easier to point them to a guideline that may reiterate all the relevant guidelines than to several guidelines that may be difficult to learn at first. --MASEM 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We're not adding more rules by making a topic-focused guideline. Before we can reorganize, we need to know the direction we are heading with the spirit and advice, because that's the main issue right now. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Masem: I think it's really summed up nicely in the NOTE nutshell: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It seems like that's almost all that is needed for new users. If this page could be made much smaller saying the above, plus lists of episodes and characters are OK, I guess I could live with that. That's only a compromise I like because it says something I like, not because I think it's the best organization of our guidelines. It would make it similar to other NOTE sub-guidelines, which carve out exceptions based on consensus. If it doesn't effect NOTE or anything else, then I think it's unneeded. I think we'd be better of without this page, though, since it's just the (roughly) 10 of us debating things. If we got rid of this page and moved the discussion up to NOTE, we'd have a lot more input, and I'd personally feel any consensus' we reach would be more "true." I don't think we can decide this amongst ourselves, and doing RfCs isn't really bringing people in in droves. Let's put it on NOTE and PLOT for two reasones, simplified rules and increased participation.
Ned: I think we are adding rules when we repeat rules on a page that changes frequently, but I agree that we probably need to judge our direction. If we are loosening or tightening the rules, then I can see a place for this page. Even though I prefer loosening, tightening would be a legitimate reason for a sub-guideline. It seems like our latest direction, and a direction with a bit more consensus that usual, is to follow the rules above us, in which case I think this page is unnecessary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The rules above us don't say much about subpages. Sure, there is WP:SS, but these are general guidelines that are not clear about how they apply in certain situations. I think things would actually be harsher for fictional pages without having WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I think it would be harsher for the character pages and easier on the episode pages, but at least we'd have a larger group of editors working on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

basic disagreement with #5

Starting from the top. "The real world context of fictional topics should be the principle focus of the article. Articles written from an in-universe perspective, such as plot-summaries or character biographies are typically discouraged."

I simply disagree with this, and I think many others do also. People come to WP in particular for exactly this information. (Yes, the treatment should be from an out-of-universe perspective, making it clear these are fictional characters. not "Frodo lives in a hole in the ground' but "In the Ring, the character of Frodo is presented as living in a hole in the ground. The hole resembles...." (I oversimplify). Fan fiction is fiction written to read like fiction, and is not what we're doing here. that's what goes elsewhere. And yes, there are articles in WP written so you wouldnt guess that the characters were fictional unless you knew that previously. )
I am tired of arguments that try to evade this or make it a matter of concession. To anyone but a book-keeper or a librarian, the important thing about fiction is not whether it gets on the best-seller list, or when the parts appeared, but what happens in the fiction. The publication details are of subsidiary interest, except for people who keep box scores. The fiction is the subject of the article, not the physical objects in the bookstore. We are interested about them to a certain extent, because that's how the fiction is distributed. (I use books as the example, but the same goes for film or video. Are we writing about video series, or the production of video series? ) if it takes changing the wording of NOT PLOT to do it, let's change it. . DGG (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a place for basic plot summary, but the real world context is completely true. I very much disagree with DGG's view, and I believe most Wikipedians would as well (even many that are currently disputing this guideline). We are not an abridged version of TV shows and novels, we are not a recap episode, we are not here to fill you in on what happened last week on "Heroes" (side note, hoping that writers strike gets taken care of so there will be future episodes..), we are an encyclopedia grounded in the real world, not a fictional one. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Again if you disagree with WP:Plot go there and try to change to it. How many times do we have to go over the same points for for the same 3 people. Ridernyc (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought of WP:NOT as a page that summarizes, rather than "sets" these policies. So it's fine if he wants to discuss it here, but it's something that needs a lot of attention to change it. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's one reason why we're disagreeing. WP:NOT is not a summary page. It is the page which sets the policies. That's why it is a policy, and a lot of the sub-pages are only guidance. WP:NOT defines Wikipedia through describing the things the community agrees we are not. We have a lot of other pages that seek to expand upon those set policy wordings, but only WP:NOT has the widest consensus and is the policy. Hiding T 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. The page itself is policy, but we developed those conclusions based on things from all over Wikipedia. I was trying to say to Ridernyc that it didn't really matter what exact talk page the discussion was on (though, when it comes time to propose the more specific wording, then one would use WT:NOT). -- Ned Scott 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hiding on the relative role of WP:NOT and this page ,as currently situated. But if Ned wants to deprecate it from a policy, to a guideline, then i do agree with doing that. As I said, i think it might be the most realistic thing to do. But let's see what we can agree on here.


Actually, i agree with Ned that many of the plot summaries in the past have been over long. a frame by frame description is not a usable summary--it confuses,rather than explains, and is not useful to the ordinary reader coming to a WP article on fiction. I think, however, he has over-reacted, and the current ones in combined articles are too brief, much too far in the opposite direction. : We should be able to achieve a median. Actually, we have only two choice,agree on a compromise way of doing things, or fight this indefinitely. I do not think either side is going to be convinced, or to abandon the issue.
I also think that character is not plot. though of course the fiction connects them, they are different elements. But in the present wording as a policy, WP:NOT doesn't discuss character: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." It doesnt mention plot, or setting. So it is irrelevant to articles about characters or objects in fiction, and does not support the proposed wording. I further notice that it says what an article should contain, and I agree, it should contain information about the development impact and and significance. It should also contain plot, and the policy does not say otherwise--it says it should not only contain plot--and it says so in the content of the article on the published work as a whole, not on individual subarticles. It says nothing about setting or character. I assume then that by default they should be included to a moderate degree in the overall discussion of the fiction. Taken literally, it doesn;t say they have to be included. It certainly doesnt say they should be omitted. It doesnt even say they cant be the focus of the article.
So as a suggested rewording of the sentence quoted above:

"Articles on fiction should contain a balanced treatment of all aspects. They should include treatment of the development reception, and critical analysis, as available, with a sufficient description of the plot, characters and setting. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I think this meets a good balance that's we've been advocating. I would suggest the following rewording (plus addressing notability):
"Articles and sub-articles on fictional works and their elements should strive to contain a balanced treatment of both real-world aspects from reliable sources, such as development, reception, and critical analysis, with sufficient descriptions of in-universe concepts, such as plot, characters, and setting. When in-universe content outweighs any available real-world content, such content should be trimmed, merged, or moves to an appropriate wiki."
Same spirit, adds in the sub-article issue (which I do note that a discussion on WP:NOTE's talk page agrees are appropriate when done via summary style), and readdress the non-deletion approach to handling in-universe material. --MASEM 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(To DGG) "But if Ned wants to deprecate it from a policy, to a guideline, then i do agree with doing that." I'm not sure I understand this.. WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy. I'm also not sure why you believe I have over-reacted, since I usually trim articles little bit by little bit. But I do understand your concern, and like Masem, would not have a problem having mentioning this. I don't really see it as a big problem, but if we word it correctly, it shouldn't hurt to add a note in WP:FICT. - Ned Scott 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

no, it was not you who over-reacted. But others did. DGG (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"Articles on fiction should contain a balanced treatment of all aspects. They should include treatment of the development reception, and critical analysis, as available, with a sufficient description of the plot, characters and setting. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

This could work in making the articles contain several sections, with each editor and reader focusing on what appeals to them. But note that depending on the age and nature of a fictional work, some sections are more likely to develop further and others to be negligible. Making balance in length almost impossible.

  • Older works of fiction like Zadig (1747) will prove harder to get information on the process of their creation and much easier to find centuries-old traditions of critical analysis. More recent works like The Uncommon Reader (2007) will prove much easier to find information right from the mouth of their creators but critical analysis will be scarce and not particulably reputable on its own.
  • Massive novels like Battlefield Earth (novel) (more than 1000 pages) will need lengthier plot summaries than short stories like The Vale of Lost Women which is less than thirty pages in length.
  • Works like Shōgun (novel) rely on extensive casts of characters, several of them significant enough to have sub-profiles. On the other end of the spectrum, The Little Match Girl has only one character.
Well, first, WP is a cooperative effort - while someone may be able to fill in a lot for one specific section for a work, consensus editing will smooth out where people may have stronger emphasis over other parts. I will note that the above statement from DGG is not in the guideline, instead, because of WP:PLOT, we want more focus on notable aspects, but we're not saying that has to be 50% or more - just that too much in-universe details is not appropriate. It is better not to set any specific guidelines here because otherwise people will wikilaywer one way or another.
Also, the balance cannot be specified to be specific to certain parts of notability because, as several of your cases note, there's no way that every work of fiction ever will have development, sales, reception information. Mind you, this doesn't mean that you can still create an imbalance of notable information. If you do have development sources and reception, and you only talk a tiny bit about development but go on and on on recption, that is a problem, but that's only the case when both types exist. Again, this is something that really can't be spelled out in any detail without wikilawyering all over it.
But to the specific cases you mention:
  • Older works will not have the same type of notability information as contemporary works - but they will have most likely cited influences on culture if they are truly notable. That's perfectly acceptable.
  • Long works can go into more plot (see War and Peace), but remember that we're not to be fully describing every event in the book out in detail. There is something to be said that the plot description length is related to the work's size (see how the Films project states 100 words for every 10 minutes of filmtime).
  • We need not spell out every character in any work. We do allow for summary-style sub-articles for character lists for longer/serial works, but these should be limited to the major and possibly minor characters; listing every single character in a work if more than a handful approaches indiscriminate info.
Basically, all these cases are reflected, implicit, by the rewrite and other policies and guidelines. Spelling out any further specifics will probably lead to many many edit wars fighting the minutiae of those specifics. --MASEM 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(Dimadick) It's simply a fact of life that some things will give us easier access to sources than others. There's no possible way to change that (unless you want to go and do your own research, and get someone to publish those results, so we can use them), and Wikipedia does not see it as an imbalance, since Wikipedia is created with the idea that we have no deadline, and that we are a work in progress. That is a fundamental issue, and in no way limited to fiction-related subjects. We can't force more people to work on one area, and we can't magically make sources easier to find. We can work towards a complete Wikipedia, and maybe someday it will happen, but it's illogical to think that all articles in all areas will grow at the same rate, or at the same time. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability sections from WP:EPISODE added to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal #5

I have added some specific information on determining the notability of television episodes to the newest proposal for WP:FICT. See what you think and adjust as you feel necessary. Ursasapien (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could use some tweaking, but I think you have the right idea here. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Diff please. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: diff. I basically cut and pasted sections from WP:EPISODE. Ursasapien (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I expanded this a bit to include any episodic work - comic books would be the next that come to mind but could also include radio dramas possibly and other yet-conceived works. --MASEM 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what is trying to be done with User:Masem/wp-fict-proposed#Reasoning behind this guideline, but I can't say that I'm wild about that section.. (trying to think of a way to describe my impression of it. hmm. let me get back to you on this one.) -- Ned Scott 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like instruction creep to me. Of course I'm all about streamlining, not expanding our NOTE guidelines. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks this draft is getting way to long. If I wasa newbie I'm not sure I would get anything out of this at all.Ridernyc (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're not. It takes a long time to get anywhere. The next draft, once content is more or less agreed upon, should focus on condensing and streamlining and removing repetitions. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I see another problem with it. "Over time, you might find that some episodes or story-arcs have enough real-world information to warrant their own article. Such an episode can be broken out into its own page." Seems to ask for all real-world information to be on the article from the point of its creation. Scarcely a note on how article content and coverage may improve over time. Once more editors get their hand on improving the article. Where is the collaborative effort? What Wikipedia article was ready for featured status on the day of its creation? Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First, be aware that that is an older draft and (I'm pretty sure) that language is no longer present, but the concept is, to some extent, the same; as I'm writing this, look for Draft #9 at the bottom of the talk page. We would be ignorant to not consider that there's thousands of articles on fiction that were written before notability became a significant issue (May 2007-ish). We know articles that may or may not truely notabilty are being worked on to do something. However, when we talk about articles that have yet to be written (say, for a sitcom in 2009), such wording suggests that before we go gun-ho and create each individual episode and character page that instead we wait to see what notable information there may be for that work, and as merited, expand appropriate to do so. Otherwise, unless notability will be very likely forthcoming for a topic (the first 20 of 24 episodes of a TV series have well demonstrated notability, very likely the last 4 will too, so episode articles can be created once those air), we go back to editing wars over lack of notability and AfD and merge requests and the like; there is no point in creating a new article unless you know you have notability information for it. For new articles (which many now watch and quickly thumbs-up/thumbs-down through Special:Newpages), real world notability demonstration is strongly recommended to be in the article from the start; while lacking notability is not a CSD criteria, it should be readily expected that not showing notability will lead to other editors questioning if the article can ever show it. --MASEM 11:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fiction guidelines are not up to the task of dealing with roleplaying games

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I came to this policy page after seeing that the List of Spelljammer crystal spheres article was cited as being maybe not notable and linked to this disputed policy.

I have to firstly say that I'm a bit puzzled as to why disputed policies are being rolled out and used to justify arguments for sorting out, merging or deleting documents. I think that any disputed policies, like this one, should be put on hold indefinitely until they are sorted out. If this policy is disputed, yet used to tag articles, it spreads an unagreed policy out over the entire encyclopedia and makes it much harder for people to tell if policy is a proper policy or something that isn't ready yet.

I also find it strange that while we have Wikiprojects dedicated to tidying up specific areas of interest, people from outside those areas of interest now seem to be surfing around Wikipedia looking for random articles that need improvement and tagging articles for merger and/or deletion. I'd rather see people spend time fixing articles than cutting information out of Wikipedia. In the page I mention, there was no attempt to talk about the problems on the article's discussion page. I went on to the discussion page back in 2006 to try to solicit some help improving the article, but there seem to be a lot more people on Wikipedia trying to delete things than when I started editing.

I don't agree with the way that "agreement on policy" has apparently moved against fictional articles. I don't know when the changes occured, but wonder if fans of fiction were the people who made this decision to change Wikipedia policy. Fiction may not be a thing that we can touch, but it is a thing that real human beings think about and talk about. In that sense it is a part of our culture and understanding fiction helps us to understand how readers of fiction think. Fiction is as abstract as subject as mythology or religion. I don't think anyone would suggest deleting an article about Jesus, on the grounds that the author of the Bible hadn't done an interview about the character. When it comes to an article like that, you just have to go on the single source and accept that a lot of people have faith in the religion. While I'm not trying to elevate fiction to the same importance as religion I think that it needs to be judged in a similar way.

I think that it is especially unhelpful to make "plot requirements" when talking about role playing games. RPGs by their very nature often don't have a plot (although RPG adventure supplements do have a plot of sorts). They are games set in a fictional universe where the background is provided, but the games master (or dungeon master) and players create the plot for themselves. This makes a role playing game (like Dragonlance or Spelljammer) a much more random thing that a novel set in the same universe. You can apply a similar standard - but you can't apply exactly the same standard.

I do agree that there are a lot of dodgy Wikipedia articles out there, but I think that the solution should be to assign articles to the appropriate Wikiprojects and ask them to sort the articles out.

People that go around tagging articles often seem to make no attempt to fix the articles themselves. I think that all tagging and/or proposals for deletion should come from someone who has some form of understanding in the area of the topic.

Notability outside a role playing game, may have very little to do with the importance of a person, place or race within the game. Greyhawk, for example takes its name from the City of Greyhawk, so an expanded article on that fictional city helps to explain the game world. I would argue that the percentage of material dedicated to elements within a RPG should be part of the equation for working out what is notable to fans of that roleplaying game.

I'm sure these people are acting in good faith, but they don't seem to realise that it is far quicker to say: "this is bad - this is bad - this is bad" than to research things and fix poor quality articles. There is far too much push on Wikipedia to tag things, wait for them to qualify as "not fixed" and then tag them again for deletion.

I don't think that delitionism is helpful. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. If an article is tagged as not properly cited a reader can understand that and can look for secondary sources to confirm or refute what they read on Wikipedia. But if an article is deleted they can't find anything here. Unreliable information, that is specifically marked as unreliable, is better than no information.

I think that recruiting people for Wikiprojects and educating editors within those projects would be a far better use of time that tagging things as "bad" and then running off to tag something else. I'd like to see deletionists throw their effort into improving things. Big Mac (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All true, but figure on reading and commenting on this page every day for several months to have your opinion make any difference. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, the kind of person on Wikipedia who tags / deletes fictional articles on Wikipedia usually don't have a solid understanding of whatever fiction they are tagging/deleting. The inherent disconnect is that those who love Wikipedia polcies don't usually give a rat's ass about the article's topic, and those that love the article's topic don't give a rat's ass about Wikipedia's constantly-disputed, constantly-ignored policies. So you've got the few who can cite policies, but a swarm of those that can just restore whatever damage was done. Scumbag (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny... I can't really disagree with that classification, but my idea of the strength of those groups is inverted. --Kizor 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for writing concisely what I have been saying for months Big Mac. And yeah, the amjority of those who tag for deletion have never answered calls for content improvement, have no FA or GA articles on their belt yet take perverse pleasure in erasing other people's work. Renmiri (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"perverse pleasure in erasing other people's work." If editors on this page continue with such comments, they will be removed on sight. Assuming bad faith, making unfounded conclusions, and trying to tarnish the image of other editors simply because you disagree with them will not be tolerated on this talk page. We're having enough issues as it is without people making these childish remarks. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ned, you may not delete my comments, nor anyone else's. Report me for violating a Wiki policy if you can think you can make a case for it, but don't deleting comments in a discussion is against Wikipedia policy. Deleting comments you don't like amounts to falsifying the contents of a discussion. Please don't make threats like those, it is not WP:CIV for starters, very unbecoming, and very biased. This page has been receiving offensive comments about game fans, from people comparing them to vandals and hooligans without a peep from you, even though game fans are some of the best editors around. Guess trying to tarnish the image of other editors simply because you disagree with them can be ok if the editors write fiction articles, heh ? Renmiri (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Being a game fan and a downright anime nerd myself (and a fanboy of Scrubs, Lost, and other non-animated shows), you're way off on that. I'm sorry for being over-dramatic with my comment, and making it a threat. I just don't think it's very helpful for you to paint other Wikipedians as stereotypical evil villains. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
They might not be villains but I have to admit some of the points "User:David Shepheard" made about deletionists may be based on their edit histories. For example "User:Guest9999" has gained some deletionist momentum within the last three months for articles dealing with aspects of Kim Possible, Top Gear (current format), Spelljammer, Harry Potter and Firefly (TV series). At the same time the User has created only one article with original content, a list on the surname Francies, and his/her last major effort to improve a series of articles seems to have been a reorganization of Publishers Weekly lists of bestselling novels in the United States back in late October. Why does deletion seem to be so popular a solution instead of actively trying to improve an article first? Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot nor does not want to restrict or require an editor to perform certain tasks: any editor is free to contribute in any non-disruptive manner, whether editing, improving, or cleaning up. Mind you, when mass changes to articles are being suggested, as per TTN's actions and a recent Arbcom case, discussion and agreement with the editors of affected pages are strongly strongly recommended instead of doing so without that step in order to reduce the disruptions. --MASEM 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft #6

Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

Draft #6

As mentioned above, I think that barring any other things we want to include, we now want to trim this down - I know there's some wordy sections and probably some things that don't need to be stated.

At this point we need as much constructive criticism as possible for this guideline; I know that some have issues with larger WP policies/guidelines, but we have to assume that for the time being those are unmovable. Once we trim down, we probably then need to talk to WP:WAF to work out a better separation of these two guidelines before presenting the new version to WP at large. --MASEM 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Summary style approach and Depth of coverage sections can be shortened to summaries with a link to WP:WAF after we improve the style guideline. Those sections are more style issues, although this guideline should specifically address whether sub-articles have to cross a specific notability hurdle or if they inherit notability from the primary fictional work. Ursasapien (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed; I think I want to get this one to a trimmed point, then work out issues between FICT and WAF (that is, making sure WAF is primarily the style guide) and present both together to the community at large. --MASEM 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As an explanation of what are admitted to be perennially disputed guidelines, this will be more useful if it stays flexible. In particular, I do not think that "The real world context of fictional topics should be the principle focus of the article" is a desirable statment, or required by even the current wording of WP:PLOT. It says (my italics) "should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. " All this requires is that plot elements be over detailed, and that the article (interpreted as including subarticles as necessary) as a whole contain detail of what are conventionally "real world elements". Anything more is going beyond the necessary wording.

What NOT requires is "The real world context of fictional topics should be included in the article". If we cannot agree about changing this, we are unlikely to agree on anything. DGG (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's probably too strong, but I want to make sure editors are in the frame of mind that writing in-universe information around what exists for real-world context will likely lead to a better article than if they write out all the in-universe stuff, then seek out the real-world context, and have some disconnect between the two. Real-world context should be a focus, but not the primary focus, of the article. --MASEM 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
Well, there is similar danger the other direction, so it should not be too weak or too strong; say what you think is right, The frame of mind of people wanting to delete such articles if at all possible is relevant also. We can't work by frame of mind, just by what gets written. We want to encourage unsophisticated people to write articles, also, & working of plots is a good way for some of the younger editors to get started; we should perhaps be concerned with taking an interest in getting them to write them in a more encyclopedic manner. I totally agree that real world concerns should be a focus, and should not be omitted. The people who care more about this part of it can add it. DGG (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If you weaken that line you I will no longer support this guideline in anyway. Ridernyc (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't constructive. All parties will have to compromise, and the eventual compromise will inevitably not be what either one really prefers. DGG (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think we're still saying that a fictional topic must have some real world focus to be notable and included; lack of this is not appropriate. However, saying that it's a "main focus" may be problematic; sometimes there's enough of a disconnect of real world aspects and an appropriate plot description due to the nature of the world (Michel Gondry's works, or something like Memento, where the real-world discussion is likely going to be on the filming style, and not so much specific plot). So a real-world focus is still is needed, but a balanced focus on plot or other aspects are also appropriate. --MASEM 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The draft is still absurdly long and mostly incomprehensible. We should just restore the guideline to what it was six months ago. This won't be popular with the fiction deletionists, but they've yet to advance a strong argument in favour of their staggeringly harsh doctrines. It doesn't help that they don't apply these guidelines to their own fancruft.--Nydas(Talk) 09:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

why not restore it to what it was 8 months ago before all the fuss started. Ridernyc (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's take a look at that.
This guideline on April 25, 2006 Masem's current proposal and the difference between the two
FICT 04/25/06 Draft #6 Compare
Perhaps, you will note the statement from April 25, 2006, "If you find articles (particularly stubs) on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) you may want to be bold and merge them into an appropriate article." This non-specific admonition, in my opinion, is part of what led to our current difficulties. You may also note that the guideline did not have a nutshell and was no easier to comprehend. Rather than pine for the glory days of yesteryear, why not pitch in and work on the proposal we have before us? Ursasapien (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is the mistaken belief by editors that this guideline will ever have any effect on articles being deleted. Instead of encouraging a guideline that will help authors create good articles they think this guideline is what is causing bad articles to be deleted. I would like to point out that this article needs some clarification and the wording should be more strict, this conversation from last night is a perfect example [2] the user was given the guideline to read and still totally missed the point, people are not getting the real world context aspect of it. We need a guideline that will clearly lay out what is required of fictional articles to meet current policy, again if people want to change policy this is not the place to do it. Ridernyc (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I go back to a previous statement I made in that we need constructive criticism at this point; I would love to resolve a new community-wide consensus-agreed version by the end of January (if only to help mitigate the inclusists/deletionists editing wars as soon as possible) but I won't force the process to get there by then. Yes, my draft is wordy, but I'd rather start it wordy and cut down once we've identified what's needed - that's all editing cleanup and not so much related to guidelines. If you prefer an older guideline outside of the wordy-ness issue, please let us know what you don't like about the content of the current draft relative to that, just don't say "this version was better" as that doesn't help us know what issues concern you. And again, this is written on the assumption that WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE are fixed points we have to use; if you have an issue with one of these, this talk page is not the right place to try to fix it. --MASEM 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your belief that WP:N is a fixed point. A good guideline, like say, WP:MUSIC offers additional criteria for notability, over and above the simplistic demands of WP:N. This guideline should offer the same sort of thing. WP:PLOT is an ignorable, quick-reference list fragment, not a real policy. Using it as a basis for anything is putting the cart before the horse.--Nydas(Talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Music is probably the worst notability guideline, and saying that policy is something to be ignored is something that I will not comment on for lack of a civil comment. Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC is by far the best notability guideline we have. Has it encouraged a tiny group of self-selected people to go around wiping out music they don't like or haven't heard of? No. I repeat that WP:PLOT is an ignorable list fragment with no real weight or intellectual merit. Do you believe that other such list entries, like WP:NOT#NEWS, are similarly unimpeachable divine writ?--Nydas(Talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I did make my way through this document, but I really do think it is way too long and heads in the wrong direction.
  • too long While I recognize the large amount of work put into this, being concise is important. I'd say try to cap the length at about 1/3 of what it is at most. It's just too hard to read and understand. Editing down would be hard, but it really is needed if this is going to be adapted.
  • Wrong direction I believe, perhaps naively, that the original statements about what wikipedia should be are the right direction to head. The 5P and the Simpson comments are the "equilibrium" point in my estimation. I think things are headed that way rather than the way of the current notability guidelines. And in any case, I think fiction should have a very permissive standard for notability here. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We are heading down the rejected due to lack of consensus road again. If people can not move past this is idea of trying to redefine policy we will never get anywhere with this. Ridernyc (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Take a look at AfDs. Look at how people have not been able to dispute the advice the guideline gives. Right now, WP:FICT has consensus, and it hasn't lost that consensus for a moment. There are improvements that can be made, but do not confuse that with rejection. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the tage "disputed" does not mean it lacks consensus. What it means is that some people believe that it lacks consensus. There is a difference. The difference is, if the tag meant that it lacked consensus then we would all have to stop using it the moment the tag was placed, whereas that is not the case because any guideline or policy that is disputed must still be followed in their normal structure until a consensus of the situation (i.e. whether the guideline should be changed, removed, left alone, etc etc) can be found.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The guideline as it was eight months ago seems to have ,in practice, favored in-universe perspective in most articles. The guideline as it stands now goes a bit too far in the other direction when stating "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability". Demanding for any sub-article to have contend that should be restricted to the main article seems absurd. Particularly if the lesser article was only created to reduce the length of the main one. Maser's rewrite seems to suggest that any article should have reached its complete form on the day of its creation. Is it possible to contain phrasing that takes into account articles are works in progress and that both in-universe and out-of-universe are equally required? Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Preventing drive-by tagging

Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

I think any draft should have something that prevents a user from tagging a fictional article without doing some work on the article. Something like this - if a person tags an article for something (say, notability) but does not make an attempt to edit the article within some timespan (say, a week) voids the tag and the tag is removeable.

One of the problems right now is that Random Person can tag an article, make no effort to change the article, and then use the fact that nobody did any work to dramatically vandallize the article. Scumbag (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose such a request. That's saying "lets not remove any original research from an article unless we have taken the time to go research all possible sources to make sure someone reliable didn't actually say the same thing". The the burden of verifying information is on the editor that adds it. That goes the same for the verifying the notability of an article. If someone creates a page, it is their responsibility to provide reliable sources that assert the notability of the topic. If you want a requirement that anyone that tags an article must do some work on the article, then I want a requirement that any editor that creates a page without doing the work to find reliable sources for that page must have their page immediately deleted; that's about how absurd a request to mandate editors work on a page if they tag it for cleanup (or whatever the tag may be) actually is. You might as well require that anyone who proposes a merger or Afd/Prod/Speedy on a page do the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't be a bad idea. Editors who know how much it takes to write a good article are much better equipped to judge an article than drive by taggers and deletionists Renmiri (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that we should only allow editors who have a history of writing "good articles" to tag articles that do not assert notability? Editors who know what it takes to write a good article are not more equiped to judge the notability of any article; they are more equiped to inform editors how much effort it takes to make an article "good", but not to say what makes a topic worthy of its own space on Wikipedia (as opposed to being a subsection in a larger article). Anyone who is familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies is well "equiped" to judge any article on Wikipedia, and they are not, nor should they be required to, contribute to the article they feel fails the notability requirement. If an editor comes across an article that does not meet the notability criteria, it is their right as an editor to tag it so that the common contributing editors of that page are alerted to the problem. Now, it would be in the best interest of everyone if they explained why it was tagged on the talk page, but they shoulnd't be required to do the work of the editors who created and maintain the page, just because they find that it violates guidelines and policies. I think this page should reflect the fact that the best tagging etiquette is that of posting a reason for the tag on the talk page--and allowing for discussion to take page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think allowing anyone to tag articles they are not familiar with the subject as not notable because I never heard of it (as user pd_THOR candidly explains below) is a very wrong direction to take an encyclopedia that aims to inform and educate. Ignorance shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded, if anything, we should encourage users unfamiliar with a topic to familiarize themselves with it. Requiring that they contribute to the article they tagged is a perfect way of encouraging knowledge and learning. Also, The onus of proof usually goes with the accuser, i.e. if I want to tag something as not notable, I better be prepared to cite the top notable things in that area and explain why that particular article does not qualify. Renmiri (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That again goes against WP's policy of allowing editors to opt to decide where and how to contribute. Certainly editors that tag articls as non-notable blindly without even familiarizing themselves with the policies and guidelines should be prevented, and those that tag notability to prove a WP:POINT should also be held accountable. However, I would think it to be a good part of peer-review : say one come across an article of a work they're not familiar and, understanding notability, they see the article lacks such demonstration. As an editor for that page, seeing that tag would be a call to action to find notability. Still, there should be an urging of people that opt only to tag articles to iterate their concerns on the talk page; if the editors of the page feel the article was incorrectly tagged, they can remove it. It would also be nice if there was a fictional notability task force that would help assist editors of articles tagged as such to fix notability. --MASEM 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Renmiri, you say it's rewarding ignorance but you have no proof that any editor that tags an article is doing so simply because they've "never heard of it". If that's the case, then maybe a personal discussion with that editor--explaining notability requirements--would be necessary so that they know that just because they've never heard of something does not make it any less notable. But, and this is a big but, even if they've never heard of the topic, and that is the reason they tagged the article, if the tagging has sound basis (i.e. the article does not assert any notability) then whatever their reason for tagging the article is a moot point because the tag was still justified in that the article failed anyway. We cannot remove a tag, which was rightly placed, just because we don't agree with the reasonings of the editor (no matter how absurd or childish they are). You cannot force people to "work" on a page, especially if they have no interest in the topic. That doesn't mean that they cannot read the page and decide that it needs cleanup. I've read plenty of pages that I would have no interest in researching sources for, but I've still tagged them for general cleanup if it was needed--because most pages have a set of established editors who do have an interest in that topic and are usually better "equiped" to find the information relevant to clean it up. Notability is quite clear in its basic regard that to have it you need reliable sources. There's debate about what kind of sources you need, and how much information, but if the article doesn't have any sources then the tagging was justified no matter if it was done just because they'd "never heard of it". You cannot say the burden of proof is with the editor tagging the article, because the editor tagging the article is saying "there is no notability asserted". How does he prove that? Well, simply put lacking notability is about not having information present in the article that shows notability....if you're tagged then you don't have it, thus proving that it doesn't exist is as simple as saying "show me that it does". That is the burden of the editor(s) who started the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue with the D&D article is just as much the fault of the D&D editors who refuse to admit there are any issues with their articles. Ridernyc (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course there are issues with many articles in the D&D realm. A significant number, IMO, even have notability problems. But those that have multiple third-party reviews by WP:RS sources are notable. As an example, the above article has two reviews (White Dwarf, RPGnet) and a ranking in the only compressive review of the hundreds of modules/adventures written (Dungeon). It's notable. But people keep tagging the notable ones (over and over again) and create a "siege" mentality among the editors of those articles. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This kind of thing is the reason why I made this request. When someone randomly edits an article, doesnt use the Talk section (or, even worse, just cites a policy and makes no other argument), it makes those working on the article hunker down. Scumbag (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that suggestion goes against one of the purposes of the notice tags in the first place. I may tag an article with {{notability}} because I don't believe the subject is notable, but by doing so, I'm affording others the opportunity to provide evidences I may be unaware of or unfamiliar with. If the tag is removed because I (the instigating editor) didn't make any subsequent edits, that certainly doesn't invalidate my initial concern. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying your ignorance of a subject should prevail over someone else's knowledge ? Sounds like a very weird policy for an Encyclopedia to me. A body of work that values knowledge and aims to inform shouldn't put ignorance above knowledge Renmiri (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally don't understand what you're saying here in reply. I'm saying that: just because I don't work on an article I tag doesn't mean that the tag is invalid. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, but if you don't know anything about the area (and admit it) the you should probably defer to those that do. Calling things gameguides when they aren't is probably the most common issue on this front. And fixing 100s of them gets old quickly, preventing work on useful things. I do want any policy on tagging to include a requirement that the tagger explain the issue as they see it. Otherwise we end up guessing. "Not notable" tags when there are three clear secondary "real world" sources make it hard to figure out if they think the sources aren't secondary, independent, non-trivial or what. Hobit (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We cannot prevent drive-by tagging. We can point to the recent ArbCom case that en masse tagging without discussion is inappropriate behavior, but WP encourages people to interact and edit WP any way they feel they can without disrupting it.
The draft encourages that people take concerns to the talk page which requires a bit more work to say why they tagged the article as wel as to work with the editors to help it along, but that's all we can do. Anything else is well beyond what WP:FICT is meant for and become more a behavioral issue. --MASEM 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
if I'm not mistaken the ArbCOm was about mass redirecting not tagging. Ridernyc (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masem on this. It is perfectly OK for anyone to tag an article for deletion. If they do so inappropriately, then we should deal with that. i think arbcom could have expressed itself more strongly about that, but the place to clarify the view of the community about it is on the respective talk and deletion pages, & AN/I etc. as necessary. DGG (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From the recent ARBCom "5.1) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it." There is a reason we have tags. I would also like to know what prompted this conversation. Ridernyc (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to tell anyone to bring this up on another talk page, but this is the same issue that most clean-up templates have, and in the past consensus has been that it's perfectly fine to tag an article and not clean it up right then and there, or even not have any hand in cleaning it up. Tagging an article is not an insult to the article or to anyone, it's just a statement of something that needs to be done. Not having the tag doesn't change that, it only leaves us in the dark about what work needs to be done, and where. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will point to the recent case of Anteater Zot that was tagging 1000s of articles at a time, and while not policy/guideline/admin action, he was told to slow down or take other actions beyond simply tag-spamming articles. --MASEM 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This section of the discussion seems to be irrelevant to the guideline. Drive-by tagging is not limited to the "fictional article"s nor does it somehow single out any kind of articles. There are still a great number of well-meaning editors who spend a substantial amount of their Wikitime on locating possible "problem" articles and tagging them in hope they themselves or others will take action on improving them at a later time. For example, the users co-operating in NPWatcher. Whether you find their efforts useful or disruptive is another matter. But do not expect that any change in the guideline will serve as a way to wave them all away. Dimadick (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_16&oldid=1136421334"