Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 1

message: How is this semi-policy when this talk page DOES NOT EXIST?  I'm changing it from semi-policy to not policy until someone can provide me something that shows there's been discussion about it. Cburnett 01:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
What absolutely troubles me about this is User:Radiant! has done the bulk of editting on this page and seems to be the only one using it for VFD. Cburnett 02:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:The link to the page where the dicussion took place is listed on the page. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters K1Bond007 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
::You know, it's funny how I missed that link on the front page.  Well, with my stupidity aside: I think major consolidations (such as what Indrian has been doing) should be taken up on a talk page to gather consensus since it's considered semi-policy.  He's made major races/characters into redirects and put into a list.
::This policy attempts to create a line that divides black and white, and not everyone will agree where that line is.  Nor is the line fixed for all fiction. Cburnett 02:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
::* Well, it is meant as a guideline. I clearly stated on the page WP:FICT that it isn't policy - nor does its name assert it as such. If you have counterexamples I'd be happy to hear them.  Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::: You clearly purported it as such in voting.  Such as "Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 15:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)" on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MIPS (character) and labeling it as semi-policy (which you agree with), you're acting as if it were policy. Cburnett 08:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
::::*That was never my intent. "Merge per WP:FICT" should be read as "I vote for this article to be merged for the reasons described in WP:FICT". Just like people say "Delete as vanity" when they mean "I vote for this article to be deleted for the reasons described in WP:VAIN". Note that merging is, according to the VfD FAQ, a form of 'keep', and that neither keeping nor merging requires a consensual vote (we have a be bold guideline for that). This is, however, semi-policy for the sheer number of people who think it's a good idea. Semi-policy means little else than that.  Radiant_* 08:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::The alternative proposal listed on the page I linked (see bottom) is considered a consensus and now Wikipedia policy when concerning VFD. It's not really supposed to clarify the grey, but rather aid in determining what is notable enough for its own page since the definition of "fancruft" varies from person to person. This is my understanding anyway. K1Bond007 02:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::*I'd like to read this, but I couldn't find the page you linked at the bottom, please explain?  Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::I would like to note that when making the redirects that I have undertaken I have been moving information mostly intact to the new page (I may have left some stuff out and anyone may feel free to add it back in).  The one exception to this is the Gorn article, which was full of fanon and therefore not appropriate for a factual article on the topic in my view.  The fact of the matter is that fictional concepts do not in my opinion often have enough information to justify separate articles since, by definition, these things do not exist.  The best solution is to put these things in lists unless they transcend the subject matter or become too large through the addition of good additional information.  I did not move Cardassian or Ferengi or Vulcan, but I have been moving a host of minor races.  Anyway, this is a compromise between the fancruft and fancraft positions.  No information is lost, but proliferation is controlled. Indrian 03:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::*Exactly. And, many fancruft articles will never be more than stubs (for instance, there are articles on Tolkien characters that are mentioned once in the series). I do NOT want these articles deleted, but I do believe they make more sense in context - e.g. a list of such characters.  Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I find it difficult to correlate both the FICT policy and Wiki_is_not_paper. If someone is willing to do the work to write an article on, say, the Gorn -- and if others are willing to edit the article to keep fanon to a minimum, etc. -- then I see no reason why the article cannot be kept, and maybe cross-referenced elsewhere. For example, Star Trek has a list of the movies and TV series with a brief description and then a link to a main article. The idea that topics -- any topics -- are not justified for inclusion in a boundless encyclopedia simply because they do not fit a person's view as to what Wikipedia should include is, in my view, elitist. There are people who would like to see ALL articles related on fiction, whether they be articles about characters (T'Pol) or books (the dozens of James Bond novels articles K1Bond007 and myself have spent many hours working on) eliminated from Wikipedia because they feel it should all be about academia. IMO that's not what this place is all about. VFD serves a valuable purpose to identify articles that are nonsense, libellous, or violate this place's NPOV policy; I have some misgivings regarding the criteria people are using for notability -- as a book editor I recently attended a course that started off with the admonition that Google should NEVER been used as the only source for research, yet it seems to be the case when determining notability here -- but I can understand if a person is so obscure his/her very existence cannot be verified and there have been many cases of non-existent people and characters being created for articles. But unless something is so obscure that there is literally nothing to write about (a character mentioned only once in the 1000+ pages of Lord of the Rings, for example), I believe any fictional character, race, concept with substance is worthy of an article if someone is willing to invest the time to write an accurate article about it. 23skidoo 14:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this page 

message: I don't like this distinction as it ambigious.  I think it would be better if we simply used "List of characters in X" instead of "List of minor characters in X" and placed all characters from the fiction in question on the list page.  Those who are important enough to have their own article can be iLinked from the list page. Oberiko 16:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major vs. Minor

message: I'd like to propose merging this with the less ambiguous and more generic Wikipedia:Importance. ··gracefool |☺ 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd still say this policy is a bit young to have established consensus. Whatlinkshere isn't a very good indicator - Wikipedia:Importance has more links to it, probably just because it's older. As for Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, like WP:FICT it's less than three months old! Has WP:FICT been featured at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Has it been voted on at Wikipedia:Current surveys? I support WP:FICT, but I'm very uneasy about labelling something as a guideline so quickly, when most of the community probably isn't even aware of it. ··gracefool |☺ 08:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with [[Wikipedia:Importance]] 

message: Specifically or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances.
Could someone explain what it means, through use of an example because it seems to be used to justify every Pokemon having an article by dint of them appearing in video games and cartoons, whilst I would have thought that was one fictional universe, albeit a fractured one. Hiding 16:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Hmm... well personally I don't see how that clause justifies the individual Pokémon articles, though if it's being used for that then I suppose it does need clarification or it needs to be reworked to make the case clearer either way. To me fictional universe definitely applies to Pokémon in the same way that the Star Wars omnibus articles comprise of characters from movies/books/games. The characters like Boba Fett or weapons like the Lightsaber were broken out under clauses 1 and 2 rather than 3, which I would see as more for Superman or Death. I should say however that I've always seen the Pokémon articles as a special cases overseen by their project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex - and I don't know if at this stage it would be feasible to apply WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 11:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third clause meaning 

message: I have just proposed, at Wikipedia talk:Subpages#Fictional Universes that articles clearly about aspects of a particular fictional universe or work of fiction be considerd an exception to the rule against subpages. Marginal articels about characters in the Foo series could exist at Foo/Character X for example. I bring this here for intersted discussion. DES (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpages 

message: There has recently been considerable argument about the long plot descriptions from harry Potter. These were removed from wikipedia primarily on the grounds that they constituted copryright violations. Yet here it is proposed that they should be transferred to wikibooks. That is, to say the least, a flawed argument. Either they are violations and should not be anywhere, or they are not and can remain here equally well as anywhere else.
Next problem is that wikibooks has a policy of accepting textbooks, not plot summaries per se. The HP transfers have just resisted deletion on wikibooks on the promise that they will become something other than plot summaries. It is then rather ridiculous to suggest that long summaries should be deliberately placed there, contrary to their acceptance policy. This in fact contravenes two policies, in that they do not accept items which they regard as encyclopedic, nor items which are effectively part of something elsewhere.
I must assume that some form of moderately lengthy plot summary is legitimate. Wikibooks (and whoever is advising them from Wiki on legal issues) plainly believe that the very long chapterised summary from here is legitimate. So the question of appropriate length is a question of style and desired content. The article here on Half Blood Prince has very much become a factual description of the history of the book, rather than the story in the book. That is interesting, but very likely not what most readers want. In effect there are two potential articles. A long plot summary is very much more relevant to an article about the story in the book, wheras a short one would suffice for the history of the book. Where do you distinguish this in policy?
Further, appropriate length of any article has a lot to do with its importance and total available content. As books go, the Harry Potters have been a staggering phenomenon. The 7 books form a series in which all the characters develop.  Some of them are very long books in their own right. A lot of material. Sandpiper 09:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But since you mention it, why do long summaries not belong here? Sandpiper 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: While the book itself may be a work of fiction, its existence is a fact. Indeed, its content is such a strong fact that the author is likely to jealously guard the copyright. And many people may be interested to know in greater or lesser degree an outline of that story. An encyclopedia is all things to all men, and many times so for wiki which does not suffer from the space constraints of an ordinary encyclopedia. Why should it not contain a description of every book someone cares to include? That would in itself be quite a valuable reference book. Curiously, there seems to be quite a lot of resistance to including analysis. Maybe people do not feel that 'literature' is a suitably rigorous subject? Sandpiper 19:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of WIKIBOOKS 

message: I disagree with this proposition for the simple reason that there's no advantage to having a big list of characters - really, what does it do for us? - and it's counterintuitive. A person searching for information about Mr. Collins of Pride and Prejudice expects to find it under an article bearing his name. — Dan | Talk 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge all minor characters into big lists? 

message: What should be done about pages that have their own page on the English wikipedia but are a part of a big page on another language wikipedia? Is it okay to have an interwiki link to an anchor (for instance de:Figuren aus Mittelerde#Gandalf)? This is a recurrent problem with the German wikipedia where they have a different policy on Wikipedia:Importance (for instance they don't have a Gandalf article, but only :de:Figuren aus Mittelerde#Gandalf). -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny, I've been worrying about that just the other way. I've been doing a bunch of merges and such on en.wik, and I find all sorts of French and Interlingua interwiki links to more-specific articles on other 'pedias. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you wouldn't link to a specific heading on that bunch page? -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to a specific heading risks the link breaking if the heading is edited slightly; but then it's always possible for pages on other wikis to be reordered/moved without us noticing. —Whouk (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I propose to change the wording on when to have separate articles on individual characters.  The litmus test, should be whether the character is notable (not necessarily major) and also, the information about them is so substantial and unique it can't better fit in a single article, other then its own.  For instance, in a TV series, a one-episode character, should stay in the episode's article.  A character who's signficant to only one major character, should reside in that major character's article.  A minor character appearing in one book in a series, belongs in the one book's article.  And so on.  But, if a character has a notable impact beyond that one item, they may warrant their own article, if there is sufficient content to sustain an article.  Essentially, a merge should be done if and only if there's a clear and obvious target.  We shouldn't do these "List of a bunch of loosely related minor characters who happen to be in the same series" articles. 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong prompted this proposal.  I'm unsure of the best wording.  --Rob 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in concurrence. "List of minor characters in (insert series name here)" articles annoy me, because they get long and unwieldy and frequently result in the loss of information. Sub-pages and spinoff pages are done both for emphasis and to take advantage of hypertext's ability to keep pages short and uncluttered. I think we should also clarify that in a TV series, significant discussion about the character outside of his presence is acceptable for inclusion and evidence of a character's notability.Captainktainer 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this as well. Vashti 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Although it's a bit vague, I support completely. I think this will help mitigate the wikilawyering over who's minor or major within the context of the work and shift the debate to the impact of the character on human civilization, which is where the debate belongs.Captainktainer 03:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back to the recent AFDs, I think there's a subtle miscommunication here - the idea that characters who are not regular characters are necessarily minor.  TV has the concept of "semi-regulars" who pop up frequently, but not every episode.  Janice (Friends character) is one such.  I would suggest that a minor character is one who appears in one or maybe two episodes and is never heard about again.  Characters like Zek, Noonien Soong and Curzon Dax in Star Trek appear several times and/or are very frequently discussed by the other characters, IMO making them major non-regular characters.  I wonder if we need some kind of list of what makes a non-regular character a major character - ones like the above who are the subject of frequent throwaway references seem like exactly the kind of thing people who aren't fanatic Trekkers like me might want to look up in Wikipedia. Vashti 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to merge - don't just auto-merge minor characters 

message: A slew of articles created from individual entries in The World of Kong, a reference companion book to the Peter Jackson film, brought up this issue again: the creatures the book describes only exist as descriptions in that book.  I would like this guideline to declare that any fictional subject that does not exist outside of a fan reference book is inherently non-notable.  An outside depiction in a single work of fiction would be enough to pull it out of that per se rule into a consideration on other merits in this guideline.  At most, an article on such a book as The World of Kong could give some samples of its contents to describe the book, but there's no justification for independent treatment, or wholesale copying of the entries.  Thoughts?  Postdlf 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjects only existing in fictional encyclopedias 

message: Rather than repeat what I said before, I'll just link to the edit  which is being brought here because of .--Sean Black 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean - Given that thriver(Rob) reverts any changes based on their being no discussion and then refuses to offer anything productive you want to take this to mediation?  I think we need guidelines that define what a "cultural icon" and that your problem with the section comes from the same place I'm having a problem (definition of notability)  jbolden1517Talk 11:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. I'd just like him to tell me why he (or anyone else) thinks the section should stay- If nobody says anything, then I suppose I'll remove it again and/or leave a message on his talk page.--Sean Black 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it creates a rule about what to do about that situation.  For example Ron Jeremy has appeared as Ron Jeremy in mainstream movies.  This establishes the mainstream Ron Jeremy is entitled to a separate article about all of his mainstream appearances but not at the individual movie level.  I think that's reasonable.  01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, what? Ron Jeremy contains information about his appearances in films as himself, and biographical information. There isn't a seperate article, nor should they be, as far as I can see.--Sean Black 04:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why you need something.specific. If a minor character is notable enough for inclusion, that will (ideally) be explained within the article. The reason the character is notable could be any number of things—Attempting to ascertain a standard, all-purpose criterion for that just doesn't work.--Sean Black 04:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That was sort of my problem with it; it doesn't add much of anything, and is largely redundant -- Superman is a cultural icon, but would deserve an article even if he were only as iconic as say, Aztek (that is, not very). If you have a minor character, for them to deserve articles of their own forces them to demonstrate their significance beyond just being a character in whatever series. As I said above, that could be so many things that its impossible to quantify it into hard and fast criteria.--Sean Black 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cultural icon" 

message: * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rulers - Not sure whether present version of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) would currently encourage or discourage such lists. So inviting you all to vote. --Francis Schonken 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD vote going on 

message: Please see: Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask why is this a guideline and not just an article?  It seems like categories to automatically add stuff to the sub articles and then the one index you created.  What do you need policy for?  (Not being critical just not sure of answer)? jbolden1517Talk 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-policy proposal