Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 2

message: I'm honestly torn here. We have some major issues in policy and guidelines, especially for fictional stuff.
* Plot summaries. I agree that summaries and articles explaining the plot should go into their respective article, unless they are encyclopedic enough without cruft. Mythology of Final Fantasy X explains the fictional world of Final Fantasy X, and is essensially a sub-article of Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2. However, it encompasses a lot of topics in an encyclopedic manner without original research and excess information. In that sense, it's fine to have articles like that, as opposed to Star Wars Battle articles, which deal with conflicts from an episode of the cartoon or a scene from the book. That sort of information can easily be put into the synopsis, whereas something like Mythology of Final Fantasy X can not. There is a real fine line here; it is very hard to define it. So, in conclusion, I support a case by case basis when it's close, but not when someone goes and nominates everything for fun.
* Lists. Ah, lists. My philosophy on lists is that: "if the topic is notable to receive its own section on the main page (or emphasis in the synopsis), it can be the topic of a list of minor things." For example, Plants in star wars isn't exactly notable, but a merged article with the various ships is. In Xenosaga, the protagonists, antagonists, and minor characters each have their own list. Lists also serve as an emphasis to compress information and delete the cruft inside, since nobody wants a long and winding list with excess information. And yes, lists serve as cruft magnets. Instead of fans putting all the information into a series of 200+ lists, they can insert it into the list. This contains the cruft and allows for the future possibility of an encyclopedic article spawning (say, for example, List of terms in Xenosaga and List of star ships in xenosaga to Technology of Xenosaga).
WP:FICT number four is very important, but, let us remember that there are cases where notability allows for spider articles (as with history articles and whatnot). The key is that the spider articles must be devoid of excess synopsis and cruft, and more into a neutral look with plenty of citations and outside perspectives. That is the true test to see if something can pass WP:FICT number four. — Deckiller 22:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramblings of a burning out editor

message: This section should probably be rewritten to stress one of the more important rules about articles on fictional subjects, which is to not write the article primarily from within the perspective of the fictional world. Far too many of our articles on fictional characters are just biographies of imaginary people, which are not encyclopedia articles. 24.136.38.121 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: What is this supposed to show? There is no real consistency to it, and it seems to codify our unfortunate bias for geek-oriented texts (Star Trek) over classics (Karamazov). Phil Sandifer 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the problem is mainly IN the "geek-orineted" articles.  If "A Rose for Emily were a television drama, there would be an entire page devoted to the sexuality of Homer Barron.  It would be best to find an army of literature nerds to help type up the minutia of Tolstoy and Shaw.  --Kunzite 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples section

message: I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines is welcome and encouraged. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tag usage 

message: WHo got rid of my article on Leroy? Mr. Nobody
:Nobody deleted it, it's simply been redirected and included in List_of_experiments_from_Lilo_%26_Stitch#6-Series (look near the bottom of that section for Leroy). -- nae'blis 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did this?