Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 17

message: Regardless of this rewrite or not, earlier discussion suggested that a list of wikis for topics may be an appropriate list to make.  The format I'm thinking of would be exampled here: User:Masem/wikilist.  --MASEM 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External wiki list 

message: I feel that this policy is evolving so that articles on fictional topics are restricted and sarcely allowed, I do not understand the problem that people have with fictional articles on wikipedia, and I have been feeling angry that editors have launched "deletion crusades" and using twinkle they have nominated hundreds of fictional articles for deletion claiming they are not notable beyond their fanbase, I see it is very unfair that an article should be deleted for this because if they have a fanbase they are notable. Blueanode (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussions - we know people are jumping the gun and sending articles to AfD before looking into ways of improving articles and moving content, but we still need to consider that notability as defined by Wikipedia is based on coverage in secondary sources and not what editors feel is important; this makes applicable to all topics including science and history topics, as well as to help to create an encyclopedia based on verifiable information that is appropriate to all readers.  There is a balance that needs to be made between a complete fan guide and no fictional descriptions at all, which is what we're working to rewrite. --MASEM 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It should also be noted that fiction-related articles in particular have a tendency to be created in mass that fail our inclusion criteria guidelines. One of the reasons people are so passionate about this issue (not saying they are right or wrong) is because this is an issue that has grown to such a large size. There are few other areas of Wikipedia were we have to worry about such things. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned, I know you said "few other areas" and you have acknowledged that there are other subject areas that have this issue.  However, I think we (those of us working on fiction-related articles or those of us who feel that there are way too many fiction related articles) are too close to the issue.  Fiction-related articles are not growing at a rate any higher than articles about bands, roads, schools, parks, etc.  There simply isn't the passion (on either the delete or keep side) in these realms of articles.  Secondly, many of these areas have already worked out a consensus.  Two or more sources (be they trade magazines or local entertainment magazines or the local newspaper) are enough to keep an article about a band.  I am optimistic that when we strike a balance, gain a large consensus, and write good guidelines, we will see far less strife in these articles.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bluenode, as I mentioned above, you need to read and comment on this page over a period of months if you want to have your opinion have an effect on our guidelines.  I hope you stick around. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't saying anything I and others haven't said for months. Yet the deletionists are still running rampant while the others cower in fear. I even know why, deletionists are using bullying tactics that go way beyond wiki lawyering: They go after a person's whole body of work and set it up for deletion, to intimidate passionate editors into silence or compliance. Got that done to me, though their tactics didn't have the desired effect with me though. I won't shut up about this Renmiri (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if you put them all together, it's not your body of work. WP:OWN. Editors who are feeling personally upset at the loss of time relating to articles can relax: This is a collaborative effort. An editor who creates an article that is later merged made a contribution, even though the content was merged; an editor who spends their time getting rid of material that shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, or merging content that should be merged, is also making a contribution. --Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: and once again, people really have a problem with WP:Plot, if you want to change policy go there. Ridernyc (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#PLOT is not the only issue.  We have WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:EPISODE.  Add to that a few editors that feel a rabid need to enforce a narrow interpretation of these policies/guidelines by redirecting and AfD masses of articles and you get us to this point.  What PF is getting at (I think) is that those that would truly like a change must make a commitment to engage in this discussion over the long haul.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No mater what any guideline says as long as there is WP:PLOT and WP:RS things will still be moving into AFD in mass. All the guidelines are just red herrings. Ridernyc (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:RS is just a guideline too.  WP:PLOT is being overused while the similar WP:BURO is not.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is why we have AFD and plain and simple these articles do not survive AFD because consensus is they do not belong on wikipedia. Again I invite anyone to go to WP:NOT and try to change policy if you think WP:PLOT is unfair or uncalled for. If consensus really is that these articles should be allowed changing policy should not be an issue. Ridernyc (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel dictating is evolving 

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: In the proposed modification, it currently reads "notability of a common group of fictional topics is better demonstrated than in individual articles for each topic (Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Carnivàle, Smallville (season 1))."  Would it also be appropriate, where secondary characters are already broken down into defined groups, to take a 'merge to group' approach, rather than 'merge every single character into a character list'? -Malkinann (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? That "merge to group" is distinguished in types of characters, e.g., major, minor, guest stars? If that's what you mean, that makes sense to me, but I think the two options you present are about the same -- "merge to group" and "merge into character list" both mean, to me, "merge into appropriate character list based on group". --Lquilter (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the idea is correct, but be aware that this does not give editors freedom to expound at length about the in-universe material just because there's more special since you have multiple lists (particularly if you are talking secondary characters.) --MASEM 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge to group, in the sense I was trying to convey, was that if you have your fictional characters being presented as parts of a team, that you could merge the individual characters of a series to "team articles" rather than a "List of X characters" article.  It just seems to be a good middle ground to me, especially if the series is so populated that a "List of X characters" might butt up against WP:SIZE. -Malkinann (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; in fact, WP:SS allows for splits for both size and style, so if it's clearer to present that way, great.  --MASEM 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers - the wording just seemed to strongly encourage the "List of X characters" format as the only alternative to individual character articles. -Malkinann (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character lists?