Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 3

message: In addition to this request, I would suggest a rewording of WP:FICT #1 from
:Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).
To
:Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of a major character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fairly uncontroversial, but I'd link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) behind "Encyclopedic treatment"; that page could only benefit from more eyes on it. :) -- nae'blis 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I know that it's already been added, but I also support this change. It makes it clearer that padding a character description with overly detailed plot summary is not ideal. — TKD::Talk 04:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: additional request

message: In light of the above discussion, let's try a different angle: Expaning the current WP:FICT points 1 and 2; this might be easier to evaluate than the above approaches. We currently have:
:#Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
:#Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.  The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
How about this:
:#Notable characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. Encyclopedic treatment may benefit from brief plot summary or backstory to provide context, but the majority of the article should consist of verifiable, reliable out-of-universe information. Appropriate secondary or tertiary sources that nontrivially and encyclopedically discuss the element should be cited. Although encyclopedic treatment may benefit from out-of-universe primary sources, such as audio commentary and creator interviews, secondary and tertiary sources are necessary to establish sufficient encyclopedic context of the fictional element outside those involved with the work. Nontrivial and encyclopedic discussion excludes:
:##plot summary that contains no annotations or analysis;
:##cast lists;
:##advertising materials or mere listings of merchandise based on the fictional element (however, discussion of the popularity of such advertising/merchandise would qualify);
:##in-universe "biography" or backstory; and
:##instructional material, such as CliffsNotes or game guides.
:#Non-notable characters (and places, concepts, etc.) and in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles in accordance with point #1. 
Here, I've ditched the distinction between notable major and non-notable minor characters, a deliniation that tends to be too blurry to be practical. Instead we have just notable and non-notable and the criteria for a separate article are spelled out,mostly from my above list. I've also modified point #2 slightly to emphasize that the criteria need to be met for separate articles and that descriptions should be short.
As for my advice on what to do with noncompliant articles, that would go under the "Being bold" section, but let's focus on this first. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a better draft than the current text of the guideline, but I think if a guideline called "Notability (fiction)" begins by assuming that notable character is already understood, then it begs the question. How much leeway is given to editors to interpret "notable character"? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My propsal admittedly currently doesn't make it clear, but I think what I was aiming for qwas to define "notable" somewhat it terms of what you can encyclopedically write about the subject. In a nutshell, the idea would be: Elements should be written about in the article on fiction as a first choice. If you have enough encyclopedic material for one of these to break out its own article, do so. If yuo don't, and the list(s) of fictional elements become(s) too long for the main article, break out the list(s), but don't break out individual elements unless there's a sustainable article. Is that clearer? — TKD::Talk 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer defining notability qua notabilty, rather than use the motivational device of article-writing to motivate it. In other words, notability should not emerge from the process of writing (or not writing) an article on a fictional element, but should be an intrinsic property on which the decision to write an article is based. This may be too fine a point for further discussion, as I would be more or less satisfied if you implemented your proposed change in this subsection. Certainly, a guideline should be first and foremost a guide to process. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: err, well, reading some of these ideas aren't that bad.. really.. so maybe detailed is good. I donno, something to think about. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the thing is, this guideline had examples, but there was still some disagreement about how to handle some cases. — TKD::Talk 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps some positive examples (like those found in WP:WAF) might balance it out? — TKD::Talk 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with any example-based approach is that it makes notability discretionary instead of objective, greatly reducing the effectiveness of WP:FICT as a tool to clear cruft from Wikipedia. Needless to say, the current example-based approach taken in WP:FICT admits too wide a variety of interpretations. You can think of TKD's proposal from an alternative perspective as a list of trivial external sources for a character; in that sense it is a positive list, and the double negative present in exceptions to nontrivia is easily removed. The current examples in WP:FICT can probably be annotated with why their external sources are non-trivial. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's no secondary sources, why does that character have a standalone article at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take ex. Illidan Stormrage, a major character, and the antagonist of the series is a major character. If you search for him on Google, you only get hits to Wikipedia, WoWWiki, Blizzard themselves, and some fan sites. Are these good enough sources to warrent his own article, or are more "notable" and "reputable" sources needed for his inclusion? The same goes for minor characters, but who are prominent in the Warcraft lore and even World of Warcraft, ex. Hakkar the Soulflayer. Where is the line drawn between who should be included. As you can see from both articles, they are well written, but sources are lacking. Havok (T/C/c) 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't the entirety of the content in this article part of the plot summary of (I presume) Warcraft III? Why do we need a second article recapping WC3, in greater detail? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to discuss why the article isn't a part of the WC3 plot summary. I asked how to keep his article from being nominated for deletion because it hasn't got secondary or tertiary sources, when the places where the information about him is derived comes from places which would be deemed either WP:OR or just not reputable enough. Havok (T/C/c) 11:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed wording would counsel that this article be merged into Warcraft III, as it should be. This is description of a bird based entirely on observation of a bird, and it's overdetailed plot summary bordering on novelization, all with no out-of-universe info whatsoever. It needs to be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad example then. And again, I'm not here to discuss if any articles are inn need of a clean up or not. Take your pick in any fictional character then and tell me what should be done if the only source for the information are books, the game themselves, manuals and the official site. Havok (T/C/c) 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only sources for the information are books, the game themselves, manuals, and other official materials, the character isn't notable, per above, and should have the plot summary/backstory/setting info ruthlessly cut down and merged into the article for the book/game/comic/whatever (or, less ideally, a list subarticle). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the character is the antagonist or even protagonists of the series? And the people behind the lore themselves can't be used as a source? Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Understandable enough. I will start the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Warcraft and get starting on sourcing, cutting out cruft/novelization from those articles. I'll make a category for this aswell so that we can easier deal with it. I would urge anyone to help out where possible. Thanks for clearing up my concerns A Man In Bl♟ck. Havok (T/C/c) 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've gotten a lot of experience explaining this line of reasoning, and it'll be nice to have a guideline page that codifies the reasoning and argument I've been making in a lot of places for a while. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And hopefully the quality of the Warcraft articles will increase aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A different approach

message: I like the changes propossed, as it would help make it more concise on how we deal with fictional places, characters. etc. The question I have though; when no secondary or even tertiary source can be derived, and the information which has been gathered come mostly from books, manuals etc. How do we go about verifying that information, as WP:OR is mostly what people will end up being accused of using. Also, not that many game characters have that much information, other then what is covered in the game, manual, primary website etc. I'm just concerned that a mess like the Warcraft vote will come up again because people don't read the article, or have any experience with said game, comic etc. This might be off topic, or even covered before, but I just want to hear it from you people who obviously have more knowledge of the policy then me. As soon as I know what is needed I'll start re-working the Warcraft articles atleast. Thank you for your time. Havok (T/C/c) 11:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no secondary sources, why does that character have a standalone article at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take ex. Illidan Stormrage, a major character, and the antagonist of the series is a major character. If you search for him on Google, you only get hits to Wikipedia, WoWWiki, Blizzard themselves, and some fan sites. Are these good enough sources to warrent his own article, or are more "notable" and "reputable" sources needed for his inclusion? The same goes for minor characters, but who are prominent in the Warcraft lore and even World of Warcraft, ex. Hakkar the Soulflayer. Where is the line drawn between who should be included. As you can see from both articles, they are well written, but sources are lacking. Havok (T/C/c) 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't the entirety of the content in this article part of the plot summary of (I presume) Warcraft III? Why do we need a second article recapping WC3, in greater detail? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to discuss why the article isn't a part of the WC3 plot summary. I asked how to keep his article from being nominated for deletion because it hasn't got secondary or tertiary sources, when the places where the information about him is derived comes from places which would be deemed either WP:OR or just not reputable enough. Havok (T/C/c) 11:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed wording would counsel that this article be merged into Warcraft III, as it should be. This is description of a bird based entirely on observation of a bird, and it's overdetailed plot summary bordering on novelization, all with no out-of-universe info whatsoever. It needs to be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad example then. And again, I'm not here to discuss if any articles are inn need of a clean up or not. Take your pick in any fictional character then and tell me what should be done if the only source for the information are books, the game themselves, manuals and the official site. Havok (T/C/c) 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only sources for the information are books, the game themselves, manuals, and other official materials, the character isn't notable, per above, and should have the plot summary/backstory/setting info ruthlessly cut down and merged into the article for the book/game/comic/whatever (or, less ideally, a list subarticle). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the character is the antagonist or even protagonists of the series? And the people behind the lore themselves can't be used as a source? Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Understandable enough. I will start the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Warcraft and get starting on sourcing, cutting out cruft/novelization from those articles. I'll make a category for this aswell so that we can easier deal with it. I would urge anyone to help out where possible. Thanks for clearing up my concerns A Man In Bl♟ck. Havok (T/C/c) 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've gotten a lot of experience explaining this line of reasoning, and it'll be nice to have a guideline page that codifies the reasoning and argument I've been making in a lot of places for a while. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And hopefully the quality of the Warcraft articles will increase aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Socratic discussion on why these changes are necessary

message: I very much appreciate this attempt to narrow and focus the articles on fictional characters to rid Wikipedia of fancruft and such.  However, I'm wondering about characters from comic books that appear in more than one series.  If a character appears in 20 different series of comic books, but there's little discussion on the character in secondary or tertiary sources, should we just leave the character listed as a major or minor character in the separate articles related to the books, with or without reference to the character's other appearances, or should we create another article for the character knowing that little would be in the article outside of plot summary?  I'm having difficulty coming up with examples, but I think there could be quite a few characters that qualify.  --Newt ΨΦ 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting on a character with only reference to primary source is original research.  There's a very fine line between getting it right and getting it wrong.  However, I'd be amazed to see someone name a comics character who has made so many appearances and has not been discussed in print somewhere. Hiding Talk 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comics-related question

message: Forgive me if this has been suggested or addressed before, as I have not thoroughly read through all of the discussion. I was thinking about this issue the other day, and something came to mind. Just say "describe characters only to the extent that is needed to aid in the article about the work they come from." or something like that. There's only a character because there's a story, and there's only a character section/article because there is a story article. In other words, character information exists to aid the story information.
This, of course, being for characters who are not notable outside of their work, so it would exclude characters such as Superman or Peter-Pan, who've been used in multiple works, etc.
Such a statement might not tell editors exactly how to do things, but should at least put the idea in their head of how they should approach what to include or not in fiction. This is suggested in what the guideline says, but it doesn't actually step out and say it.  It's easy to just follow the "instructions" and forget the spirit of the guideline.
Even if this doesn't address the above concerns, I think it might be a good idea to add such a statement anyways since it is good, simple, non-complicated advice. -- Ned Scott 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you're going with this, and I agree with the premise. The only thing is to ensure that it is clear that "story information" doesn't mean only the plot; it's a more general concept that can refer to information about the genesis and reception of the work, like actors' approaches, costuming, critical reception, character themes sourced from reliable analysis, etc. — TKD::Talk 05:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good point. Maybe we could say something like, info on a character / element that is not notable on it's own should be written to contribute to a parent topic(s) / article(s)? -- Ned Scott 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... still a bit vague. "... to contribute to verifiable out-of-universe topics relating to the work in which the character appears?" Although... thinking about it, I did write above: "Encyclopedic treatment may benefit from brief plot summary or backstory to provide context, but the majority of the article should consist of verifiable, reliable out-of-universe information." Implicit here for characters not notable outside their source work is that the out-of-universe information would pertain to the development, analysis, and reception of the work itself. Again, would pulling in some of the examples of these topics from WP:WAF#Out-of-universe perspective help to clarify this? — TKD::Talk 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion for character notability wording 

message: Is it me, or does the first criteria mean that none of the articles in :Category:Fictional character stubs should exist and should instead be merged?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much.  I've made one of the sub-categories into my "todo" list. --Kunzite 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be wise for article growth. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What the fuck? No, it means they should be expanded. That's the entire point of stub tags... --SB | T 06:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the purpose of the first criteria of WP:FICT, not the stub tags. --TBCTaLk?!? 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proper stubs should be expanded, but most fictional topic stubs are not proper stubs. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is policy, by the way) specifically states "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article" In other words, we should not expand on fictional summaries, recaps, write-ups about characters for the inclusion of that information alone, but only if that summary information serves an independently notable subject (usually the work of fiction itself). It is not Wikipedia's place to tell us the story, that's what the work of fiction is there for. We're only supposed to talk about the work of fiction. This is further enforced and suggested with the guidelines of WP:WAF as well. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional character stubs?

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: Hi.
I noticed this...
"Fanfiction, on the other hand, may well be considered vanity (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion. This includes anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press; information about a character in roleplaying or MMORPGs; and computer game mods or custom maps."
So what? Does this mean EVERY self-published item, even if it got really famous should not be put on WP or JUST self-published FANfiction? 74.38.32.128 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other examples of notable fan fiction include most of :Category:Machinima productions, two of which are actually featured articles: Red vs. Blue and Diary of a Camper. However, both cite several independent sources. In contrast, there are a lot of non-notable productions that end up deleted. — TKD::Talk 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If those are "pretty famous", you have low standards. 8 million hits is rather pathetic for a website. The inclusion of Vinson Ngo's works fall under the "award" clause of WP:WEB (that's what's been argued in the past) the number of clicks on a website does not indicate that a website is notable.   However, the validity of the award is in question because it's given out by a webcomic aggregation site.  --Kunzite 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood, his deviantART account got eight million hits, in two years, that's a lot for deviantART. And if you google his works, then you find that his works are pretty notable. Unless you don't consider [twenty thousand] or [thirteen thousand] hits to be notable. And as I said, it depends on cercumstance. (Justyn 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of clicks on a website or google hits still does not indicate that a website is notable. They are subjective criteria. --Kunzite 20:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Selfpublished items like blogs are deemed not to be reliable sources. That does not mean that they are un-notable. That means Fanfic can be notable depending on other criteria like outside reports about it. Then selfpublished sources can be used as reference for themselves (ilike a blog is ok to use as reference in the article about that blog) Agathoclea 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, if the blog/fanfiction/self-published itself is the only source of information available for an article, then the blog/fanfiction/self-published itself is not notable and does not warrant an article.  If there other multiple, reliable, and non-trivial sources that are independent from the item in question, then the article may be valid.  Articles in three "blogs" by Mary-Jo, Billy-Jo, Anna-Mae don't make Mary-Sue's fanfiction notable.  If Mary-Sue's fanfiction had three featured stories in Time, Newsweek, and L'Express, then it may be notable.  If a link and a line of text about  Mary-Sue's homepage was put into those three magazines, then it would not be notable because it's "trivial" coverage.  If Mary-Sue was at a murder trial and the fanfiction was used as evidence, then the article on the fanfiction should be included in her biography page, unless the fanfiction was published and made it to #133 on the New York Times Bestseller list. (i.e. it won a notable award or otherwise gained wide recognition.) --Kunzite 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-publishing? 

message: I've proposed a slight re-wording on WT:NOT#Plot summaries part 3 for our current policy concerning plot summaries (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7). Requesting comments, especially since I don't recall the original discussion regarding the wording being advertised much. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a recommendation of 500-1000 words on plot summaries, as that's what's recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot. --Elonka 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really a big fan of arbitrary numbers, but I'm undecided about this addition. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 400-1200 is a bit more flexible. — Deckiller 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be willing to support 400-1200.  The problems that we're trying to address are where there are vastly differing opinions of what "brief" means.  For example, see: Harley Cooper, Pauline Fowler. Perhaps instead of an absolute "number of words" metric, it might make more sense to list it as a relative percentage?  For example, "Plot summaries should be used sparingly, and only in the company of real world context.  If a plot summary is taking up more than half the article, it's too long." --Elonka 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that does sound better. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly support something along the lines of a proportional guideline.  Basically, if the plot summary is there in the context of critical analysis, then that's fine.  It's only when the plot summary goes on for 20 paragraphs with no discussion/analysis that it's a problem.  I think that a hard and fast line in the sand is unnecessarily limiting.Chunky Rice 06:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Wordcount doesn't solve anything. A percentage is better. Do we have a tag for "excessive plot summary" yet? >Radiant< 09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mainly I use:  ,  and . --Elonka 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A possible test-case for the guideline discussion is this article, Pauline Fowler.  She was one of the longest-running characters on the British soap opera, EastEnders, but was killed off in December 2006, after a 22-year run.  The "Storyline" section of her article was initially absurdly long, but has now been whittled down to about 2,500 characters, including real-world context.  What do you think of the plot summary for this article?  It's long, but there's a lot of story to tell (22 years) and the cultural impact was significant.  Should it be pared down further, or does it seem appropriate as-is? --Elonka 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pauline looks good, although the organization needs work; for example, the reception and criticism section should be separate from the creation section, and should be at the bottom of the article so the reader has gotten the gist of the character before reading the reaction. — Deckiller 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I dont think we should be "summarizing" a show/book in as much detail as going through it episode-by-ep or chapter-by-chapter.  Describing a TV-show or book should offer a big picture overview of the happenings and not so much on everything that happened so sequentially.   I wouldnt mind a one or two line summary per episode to illustrate guest appearances and such, but I think 100 leaves too much room to summarize.   Corpx 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on plot summaries 

message: To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New WikiProject: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction]]

message: With each new season of some reality shows (particularly but not just Survivor) we get a crop of articles for the contestants. Most of them end up deleted. I would like to suggest expanding WP:FICT to encompass contestants on reality shows. This would lead to the creation of a single List of Season number TV show contestants and would I hope prevent the sort of rancor that can develop when fans of the show clash with non-fans at AfDs. Otto4711 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I looked at WP:BIO and thought that it fit here as well because in terms of reality shows the contestants are as much "fictional characters" as those from a sitcom. Otto4711 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying WP:FICT to reality shows 

message: I think we need to make it clear that characters appearing in one episode of a TV series shouldn't get any entry (although since they're important to that episode's plot, they should be discussed in the synopsis). That'll probably reduce the length of some character lists drastically. But it's also common sense: why have the same exact information in two places when it can be put into one without an issue? — Deckiller 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so nobody cares if I add something along those lines. Then again, I will be proposing a complete rewrite of this criterion within a couple of weeks. — Deckiller 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor characters 

message: This may seem like a silly question, but why should there be a notiability requirement for fiction at all?  How exactly is contributing something that is not "notable" detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole?  I can understand the argument for articles describing non-fiction subjects, but as long as everything is categorized correctly and the articles themselves within the other standards set forth by Wikipedia, why does a work of fiction have to be notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.157.201 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Notability? 

message: The Pauline Fowler character article is now undergoing a peer review process at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2, with an eye towards a later WP:FA nomination.  To my knowledge, this is the first time that a soap opera character article is going through this process, so if successful, this article will be held up as the example that other such articles should follow. With that in mind, we would appreciate all comments and suggestions towards improving this article, at the peer review.  Thanks, Elonka 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review on soap opera character

message: I should have a sandbox set up with a reworking of this guideline within the next week or two. — Deckiller 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started the rewrite, and it's in very rough shape; it will require a lot of tweaking before I present it here for discussion/opinions. — Deckiller 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to link to it. :) GarrettTalk 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to reveal it until it received a good copy-edit, but we can take care of that as we go. — Deckiller 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite being proposed within two weeks