Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 12

message: Now that there has been such a huge discussion of the proposal to change WP FICTION, and there is no consensus, does that mean that the proposal is rejected and WP FICTION remains as it was? I am just wondering at what point do we decide we have a resolution as to what is going to happen to this page, as, I believe I can say this without bias, there is clearly not a consensus for most of the proposed changes, if any. I am just curious. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, what is the version that was consensus agreed before there was a large number of edits in the past week?  Is it the one from a week ago, is the one from May?  I agree that the changes in the last week are disputed, though many of them are aimed at short-term alleviation of "delete first" approaches. --MASEM 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It means we're not done discussing these things yet. -- Ned Scott 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude, you're going much too fast. --Kizor (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know dude, asking questions makes me a Speed Demon! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Is the passage "For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content." intended to indicate that the very existance of merchandise confers some measure of real-world notability on the subject of the merchandise? -Malkinann (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can, though in many cases it's pretty standard to have merchandise for any given work. It depends on the context. For example, Star Wars toys becoming valuable collector items. It probably would be good to clarify this in some way. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's mostly supplemental information. It's good for it to be talked about on some level (though entire sections are a bit too much), but it cannot really assert or establish notability in most cases. TTN (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the notability of the merchandise itself needs to be considered. Nearly every anime character has some cosplay item or custom model to go along with them ... it doesn't convey much extra notability to the show. Something like Hello Kitty or Tickle Me Elmo does create notability ... probably more people recognize those two characters than have ever watched  a show with either character in it.Kww (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason why I'm asking is that WT:MOS-ANIME is attempting to establish style guidelines for anime character articles including a "Reception" section (to help establish the notability of the character), and  sales figures for character merchandise are being recommended, which will be difficult to come across. -Malkinann (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be foolish to try to make such information mandatory, but if it's available, it could go a long way to establishing notability. Whatever the yen value of Doraemon merchandise sales is, it must be astronomical, and could probably establish notability all on its own.Kww (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, though, information about merchandising for a series is conflated together - so while grand totals may be available, it's impossible to say the sales figures for items of an individual character.  What would be an acceptable alternative to sales figures of character merchandise? -Malkinann (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be veeeery careful here.  A toy line across numerous characters demonstrates notability of the characters, but not necessarily individual characters.  A specific, unique, toy (aka Tickle-Me-Elmo) may help to demonstrate individual character notability.  And I have to agree that just the existence of the toy line alone is not enough (see toyetic where toys can precede the fictional medium), info on the sales/popularity have to be taken into account.  --MASEM 02:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You have the gist of what I'm saying - mechandising is generally across the whole cast of characters and not just one (save for like Doraemon or Pikachu).  Saying that "such and such a line of toys sold well" is good to support a list of characters for notability, but it is not specific enough to support one single character, unless the info included "character X outsold the others in the line by more than double". But again, this is not alone enough to demonstrate notability.  --MASEM 02:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say that you initially only have the information that there were toys of these characters - you might have information about that the character was represented in key rings, capsule toys, plush toys, fashion dolls, T-shirts etc.  Say that the franchise is outmoded, or that the toy manufacturers were being cagey about sales figures, or both.  Is this a start on helping to provide notability? -Malkinann (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that that's not enough to demonstrate alone but is supporting for notability.  Again, the example of toyetic franchises where they make the toys and then the fictional work around it is technically all primary sources. --MASEM 00:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does merchandise indicate notability? 

message: If there is a worry that there is a lack of participants in this debate, is it worth making an RFC?  I've added a pointer at WP:VPP, but I don't know how widely read rfc and the pump is these days. Is it an idea to put pointers on relevant project pages, or even into project banners, to get the word out?  Hiding T  17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make if an RFC.  If you read some of the comments in the current ARBCom case one thing that they are pointing out is these guidelines are being written by small groups of editors and do not represent consensus of the community as a whole. Ridernyc (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but after we get a good replacement draft that we (the small group here) agree on, and then pose as an RFC to get more eyes on the subject.  --MASEM 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Read it again, Ridernyc. Only WP:EPISODE was commented on. -- Ned Scott 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it again Ned. "The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes or characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics." (my emphasis) Hiding T  00:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbcom have not made any comment on the consensus status of this guideline. From the same quote you've shown, the rest is interpretation of such guidelines, not the consensus status of it. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Be Bold. Ask for input at the Wikipedia:Community Portal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Looking through the arguments people put on this page, all of them can be summarised into one
"Many notable fictional concepts/people do not have reliable secondary sources as the only source of infomation is from the writers of the anime/cartoon/film(and that is primary)" it is the same as problem as the proposed change version 1(the one on top of the page)
the difference is solution
Now, secondary sources are used to assert the notability and because they are used ONLY to assert notability, unreliable secondary sources would still count and make the articale notable. In addition to that, popularity = notability(as discussed above) so if the articale is popular, we know its notable.
So notable fiction articales would get written from primary sources as long as they have secondary sources(reguardless notable or not) or a good popularity ranking.
This is just to discuss this change as I want to see what the community thinks of this and hopefully we will get some response from people and fix anything that isnt good and get this policy changed. Af648 09:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is supposed to mean? In what way does it contridict? *Cough* WP:VAGUEWAVE Af648 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOT#BURO, (and the related essays WP:CREEP, WP:DOSPAGWYA, and WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!, and yes, the irony is intentional). "Contradicting policy" is not in itself a sufficient argument, especially when you haven't demonstrated such contradiction, but only asserted it. DHowell (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious how such a statement directly conflicts with our core policies, which we don't ignore, nor can a consensus over ride those policies. However, I'm not sure if we have the same things in mind. Like I asked Af a little bit below, what examples do you have in mind? I'm not sure if we are on the same page here. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sorry for being so cryptic - Af proposes to take unreliable sources into account, while an encyclopedia needs reliable ones for verification. Af proposes to write from primary sources, which is considered original research. (Unless, of course, you restrict to "descriptive claims" and "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", which is then very likely a mere plot summary.) Better? --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that we dont use reliable secondary sources if we can find them, we will use unreliable secondary sources to assert notability if there are no reliable ones Af648 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "we will use unreliable secondary sources to assert notability" uh, yeah, that's not going to happen. We're not going to use forum posts or rumors to assert notability. I don't think that is what you are suggesting, though, so I must ask, what are some examples of "unreliable secondary sources" that you had in mind? -- Ned Scott 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And why are we trying to demand the same standards for "reliability" for fiction that we use for subjects such as science, history, and biography? Unlike those subjects, primary sources for fictional topics are widely available, accessible, and easily understood without specialized knowledge or training. Unlike experimental results, historical artifacts, or eyewitness accounts, which typically require specialized analysis to determine their reliability and applicability to their subjects (which is why we require secondary sources in those cases), fictional works are the most reliable and authoritative sources for information about the fictional topics and elements contained therein. Also, if there are independent sources which deal with fictional topics from an in-universe perspective (including published derivative works and published plot descriptions and analysis), why are these any less valid as "reliable sources" than sources written from an out-of-universe perspective describing "real-world information"? If there a many novels written by multiple authors about a particular fictional topic, that ought to be evidence of notability without requiring secondary sources giving "real-world information". If there are published encyclopedias or companion guides to a work of fiction which significantly cover various fictional topics in an "in-universe" manner, those still ought to be allowed to establish notability. The fact that there are many novels or guides written by several authors about a topic is real-world information which we can cite to the existence of those sources, and we shouldn't require a secondary source to say that the topic is the subject of many novels or guides in order to prove it. DHowell (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in that we are not (or we shouldn't be) treating notability in the same way as those other examples. We've never really had a problem with sourcing the plot itself with primary sources, and that isn't the intention. That's not really the point, though, rather it's that "other sources" go hand in hand with "real-world information". We want real-world information to justify additional articles beyond what is needed for a basic understanding. -- Ned Scott 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking using things such as fansites(that are not too off) to assert notability, not to use them as a source.Af648 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's going to fly. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change version 2 - One proposition to rule them all 

message: I've edited my draft to include some of the issues discussed above, to wit:
* There's almost a class of sources between primary and secondary, while I will call "1.5 sources" - these are interviews, commentaries, and other materials generally by the creators, but typically made at some point after the release of the work, and generally not self-published.  There is precedent in past consensus on AfD and other projects that these are acceptable to show real-world information and thus notability.  I've worded parts of this to allow such aspects to be included.
* I've tried to word more about deletion, being that you do NOT want to go there if you can take any other route as deletion means its gone forever.  Discuss, merge, transwiki, all good options, but deletion has to be the last resort.
* Strengthen that sub articles still need to meet V, OR, NPOV
* Added FF8 characters as example, but we still need more (both good and bad ones).
I think we're getting closer to something that will help satisfy both sides and the middle ground. --MASEM 19:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I haven't read the latest draft in detail yet, but before I go to work, I wanted to point out that I very much agree with the "1.5 sources" that Masem mentions. This is similar to the "dependent notability" that I mentioned a ways up in the discussion. -- Ned Scott 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By WP:WAF, it is a given that a good article on a fictional work will describe the plot.   This plot, of course, will discuss characters, settings, and necessary aspects, as the plot is the overall embodiment of these elements.   However, it is not always the case that it is necessary to describe the characters, setting, or the like in any depth outside of the plot - it can happen (and often does, and a case that we still want allowable by rewriting this), but not every piece of fiction (particularly one shot works like books or movies, or short lived TV shows) need to have a separate, called out character/setting/etc. section.   Also, while characters, settings, etc can all be broken out from the article, it is never acceptable to remove the plot as describing what events take place during the work from the article about the work (that is, there is no allowable plot sub-article), thus it has to be treated more importantly than the other facets of the fictional universe, which all help to support it. --MASEM 08:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Would such things as mentions in "episode guides" count as establishing notability and verifiably under this?  My position is that they should absolutely not, and only fictional topics with applicable real-world impact should have it.  For instance, Leopold Bloom is notable, as is Doctor Who, but perhaps not Gowron or Elayne Trakand, as they have not had a real world impact.  I think this is what you are trying to get at, but it could maybe be a little clearer.  Lankiveil (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An episode guide that does not point out anything else besides what happened in the episode is, IMO, not my "1.5" source but a pure primary source, even if written by a third party.  If the guide did include additional details that help with real-world impact, it falls into my suggested "1.5" category and would be suitable for the notability demonstration (assuming it also reliable). --MASEM 08:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure if his suggestion is that extreme, but I was also a bit unclear about it. I think what he means is that we don't discourage writing the proper amount of plot-summary information, which is true, but also kind of a given. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely not include the word "encouraged".  We don't want to make in-universe taboo, but we don't want these to flourish without rationale discussion and consensus by editors to make sure such articles are appropriate for the core material. --MASEM 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, DGG can answer for himself, but the statement: It is as appropriate to describe the plot of fiction as [it is] the workings of a machine. The problems come when they are written over-long and incompetently, as is usually the case here, which has given them a deserved bad reputation suggests that DGG believes the real-world significance of fictional topics is not important; hence his disagreement with my rewrite & apparent willingness to accept articles written from in-universe. I think that is a defensible position (one I disagree with of course), but it would change substantially the intent of the guideline, both as it exists now and as Masem has re-crafted it. Eusebeus (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft #2