Misplaced Pages

talk:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:40, 17 December 2019 editTTN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,138 edits →Deletion of articles about fiction← Previous edit Revision as of 15:10, 17 December 2019 edit undoReyk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,854 edits →Deletion of articles about fiction: ... just sayingNext edit →
Line 183: Line 183:
::::: ]🐉(]) 14:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ::::: ]🐉(]) 14:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::OK. I feel his venture is ultimately fruitless because he's being extremely protectionist over a specific area of content and making broad generalizations based on what I'd say are extreme mischaracterizations. I do wish he'd just go ahead with it instead of popping up every three days to mention it though. ] (]) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ::::::OK. I feel his venture is ultimately fruitless because he's being extremely protectionist over a specific area of content and making broad generalizations based on what I'd say are extreme mischaracterizations. I do wish he'd just go ahead with it instead of popping up every three days to mention it though. ] (]) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I suspect that, if it ever did go to RfC or arbcom, the complaints would fail. And then it will be harder to go around to every AfD yelling "this guy got sanctioned one time! he's still being disruptive!". ] <sub>]</sub> 15:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:10, 17 December 2019

Skip to table of contents
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages essays Mid‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
MidThis page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (fiction) page.
Shortcut

Glossary of termsFor the purposes of discussions on this page, the following terms are taken to mean the following. This is just a glossary. Where any guideline and this conflict, please defer to the guideline or edit this glossary to bring them in line:
Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (fiction) page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Query about a history-merge

* Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has revisions. Revisions before the major change on 7 December 2010 must be moved to either WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-7-10, WP:notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal, and Misplaced Pages:Plot-only description of fictional works if possible. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What I think might have been asked is:

At least, that is what I was thinking, at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). However, I think that the MfD is headed for a straight keep, and that a few more people should be asked before going ahead with such a thing. I'd certainly wait until ofter the MfD is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


While I rather expected it to be tagged, not deleted, in the end (or moved, renamed, or the like) one has to ask, looking through the old proposals: Did anyone actually ever try to write an actual notability guideline for fiction, instead of attempting to duplicate WP:MOSWAF? Notability guidelines are not meant to be content guidelines,, they're meant to give guidance on what is notable. Frankly, I can't help but think that every proposal deserved to fail, for not actually being any sort of notability guideline. 86.** IP (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait! Let's move everything before 2008 or 2007 into WP:notability (fiction), guideline 2005. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't split this. Instead, the best idea is to give pointers to the last "best" revisions as mileposts so that users can see the past history attempts. Splitting it up - particularly with them all labeled failed, would be a problem, and will also confuse the talk page issues. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS and reviews of fictional works

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page.

It does not presently address notability-and-sourcing issues, but this may be an oversight to address.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  15:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this TV series even notable?

I am starting to doubt the notability of this TV series for a few reasons.

First of all, the author isn't even notable enough to warrant her own article. See this diff. I don't even think the book is notable because it only has one source. I am requesting a deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (book).

Second of all, even one one Misplaced Pages editor referred to Martha Speaks as "not even meet notability guidelines".

Third, it relies heavily on first-party (primary) sources for its essential (important) information. There are only three second-party sources - two of them are dead links, the third was published 10 years ago. Thus, the editor above could be right about the TV show failing WP:GNG. As an ordinary children's show, it probably would never get worldwide significance and recognition. Exponentially far more TV shows have worldwide recognition than do — and the difference between a show that gets an article and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". Unfortunately, Martha Speaks failed the test, big time.

The characters list was redirected in a deletion discussion a few weeks ago. Additionally, the characters's individual articles have been redirected for lack of notability:

Even think about it, think about more notable shows like VeggieTales and Danny Phantom. Those shows warrant articles and character lists because of their massive notability. If you even asked me, Daniel Fenton, Bob the Tomato, and Larry the Cucumber themselves would be notable to warrant their own articles. But as seen in the much above more discussions, Helen Lorraine, her Daniel Fenton-inspired father, and Mariella clearly aren't even notable to warrant any. Arthur (TV series) is much more notable and has its titular protagonist warrant an article. Just because Martha Speaks is affiliated with a notable TV show doesn't mean it is just as notable.

A search of Martha Speaks on JSTOR provides 0 sufficient results. The show is mentioned in some RS but they aren't independent of the topic in question. Zero results on Google News also.

Here are some reasons why I can argue that Martha Speaks is not notable. Being an average and now cancelled TV show, it would take a long time for it to reach notability standards, unlike VT, DP, and Arthur. 2407:7000:A269:8200:C74:70FB:2A75:F307 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

also see 2407:7000:A269:8200:68B7:FFF1:8E82:F4F1 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see that this is a RfC matter. First, have the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE been tried? Second, why was no category provided, and what is the brief and neutral statement? See WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oh, and the author, Susan Meddaugh, is notable, being the author of multiple notable books, wikiarticles just haven't been created yet. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Susan Meddaugh was redirected with the edit summary being "notable for only one work". 2407:7000:A269:8200:68B7:FFF1:8E82:F4F1 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Danielfenton got page redirected

Many television series are notable, including Martha speaks, daniel fenton, arthur, veggietales, etc. But there are many that just are as non-notable. I think we need to only have television series that you would expect to see nowadays in a paper encyclopedia. Many of the articles on TV series here have little second-party reliable sources. Even one called "Ben's City" inspired by works of François Pérusse doesn't have an article here, and it doesn't have a mention on François Pérusse's page (that's 110% fine). We need to toughen up our notability policy on television shows. 27.252.57.36 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a table on television series sorted via a notability scale I invented. The scale should not be applied to Misplaced Pages just yet and it is just for reference.
Notability of television series by level of notability
Level Notability standard Examples
4 Characters and individual episodes can warrant own standalones. Highly notable with characters and episodes being topic of independent second-party sources.
3 Characters and individual episodes cannot warrant own articles, but series is overall notable with mentions and being the topic of independent second-party sources. The show can have lists of characters and episodes.
2/1 Not notable, no lists required. Some mentions in second-party reliable sources but are not their topic. Probably does not belong in Misplaced Pages.
0 Simply not notable, does not belong in Misplaced Pages.
  • "Ben's City" (French: Perusse Cite)

2407:7000:A2AB:D00:98D0:7346:5BA8:86E3 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Streels of Urtah

At some point, someone decided an article was needed for a location of some significance which appears in two novels, Shardik and Maia. I don't think it's worth having that article which has no sources and little relevance, but I don't know how to go about nominating it for deletion and would appreciate any help that can be offered. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: If you feel that the article should be deleted, the processes are outlined at WP:DELETE. There are four main ones which may apply to articles: WP:BLPPROD; WP:PROD; WP:CSD and WP:AFD. The first of these will not apply since it is not the biography of a living person. If your concern is purely about notability (and nothing else), the third one won't apply either.
BTW when starting a new thread, it's best to use the "New section" tab, rather than editing an existing section and tacking yours onto the bottom of that. Using this tab will ensure that your new section goes at the bottom of the page (see this edit), and it also means that the edit summary is appropriate (compare this edit with this one). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

List of characters notability?

Is there any codified guidance on this? I've seen a lot of these through AfD lately, for some substantial works:

WP:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials
List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hester Shaw
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Redwall characters
Now at WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 21#List of Redwall characters

Although there has been regular discussion on this in the past, I can't see a linkable guideline, such that it could be quoted at AfD?

These are pretty major fictional series: Hollywood films on three of the four here. Surely if we're having article on series of that scale, at least one LoC article should be justified implicitly? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is none. We have tried numerous times to establish notability for fiction without success. Closest to be used is LISTN and NOT#PLOT. Some secondary sourcing should be required. --Masem (t) 12:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
What Masem said, although that was 10 years ago. The current mentality at AFD seems to be that fiction-based WP:SPINOFFs from the main article (or List of characters or List of episodes) are fine as long as there is significant non-trivial real-world coverage present in (or could be added to) the spinoff article. – sgeureka 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
If anything, the situation is less favorable for lists of fictional elements today, than it was 10 years ago. We've matured in that we generally don't want excessive coverage of fictional elements unless they can be clearly backed by secondary sources for real-world aspects (reception or development/creation). We also don't want these pages to be used to cheat NOT#PLOT and various MOS limitations on plot coverage: just because you can add one source that says a character was in a top 10 list from some random website is not sufficient allowance to create a massive plot dump. --Masem (t) 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: this page should be re-marked as a failed guideline

I've seen increased reference to this page as an essay at AFD, with no noting that it was a failed guideline - something that you need to dig into the archives to actually show. This page should be marked again as a failed guideline using the appropriate template, with links to the RFCs where it was rejected in the article history. It is ok to keep it also marked as an essay but editors should be clear on the fact that it has been considered multiple times by the community and rejected for adoption as a guideline. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

E.g.,

Red crossThis is a failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.		Shortcuts

FOARP (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'd be happy for our treatment of fiction to default to the stricter and more quality-focused general notability guideline. Reyk YO! 10:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mark as essay AND failed proposal "Failure" implies that the current text is bad, when actually it just points to other established policies and guidelines. The failure was that some thought the proposal too strong, others too weak, so we're stuck with the default "look elsewhere", which is where the essay part comes in. – sgeureka 13:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This page as it stands is a valid essay describing the treatment of notability of fiction (namely, the lack of any specialized treatment due to failed proposals). It gives no specific notability allowances for fictional elements beyond pointing right back to the GNG. To mark it failed would implied that there is a notability guideline for fiction, which is not true. I can see the value in linking back to old RFCs on this though it would take a while to dig them up, but to mark this failed would be wrong. If editors are using this essay as a rationale to keep articles on fictional topics without alluding to the GNG, they are completely misreading the essay to start with. --Masem (t) 14:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    • For example, to take a use that looked like it was a problem from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mega-City One, the first commentor there is 100% right, as mentioning "NFICT/GNG" is 100% correct - there's no special NFICT guidance so it should fall to the GNG where the topic appears to fail. The argument there where I see someone mention NFICT failed suggested that there is nothing limiting fictional notability on WP, not even the GNG, which is not correct at all; the GNG must still be followed. That's the danger in marking this as a failed guideline. --Masem (t) 14:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
None of which validates trying to rely on a failed guideline. WP:GNG is still a definite standard and I've seen no instances of anyone trying to claim that there was no limitation at all on fictional subject matter - just that this specific failed guideline should not be relied on, because it is a failed guideline. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This essay was agreed by consensus to be created in the wake of several failed attempts for a separate fiction notability guideline, as a description of what happened and reflecting practice then as well as now: fiction defaults to the GNG. It only provides relevant existing guidelines of additional advice in writing about fiction. No piece of this essay is counter to any practice, and so calling this specific text as failed is very much wrong, because it had consensus to be made in place of any iota of a specialized guideline. --Masem (t) 12:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, reducing this piece from a proposed guideline to an essay was the consensus. That does not make this something that should be relied on. Specifically, we are getting lots of "Delete per WP:NFICTION" nominations at AFD at the moment (as well as, bizarrely, WP:NCHAR nominations) and it should be made clear that, really, WP:GNG is the place where people should be looking, not this essay. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with a "Delet e per NFICT" !vote? It's a fair use of a valid essay that I read as the !voter saying "we have no notability on fiction, per several failed attempts, and use the gng instead, which this topic fails.". If it were the case that you saw several " Keep per NFICT", then I would agree there is a problem, since this essay provides no specialized guidance on notability determination, and !votes like that would question how this provides any rationale to keep. --Masem (t) 12:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with arguing that something should be either kept or deleted based on something that is prima-facie not a guide to what should be kept/deleted and, in as much as it ever was a guide, is a failed guide? This is a question that answers itself. FOARP (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This still provides consensus-agreed guidance that there are specialized allowances for topics on fiction and aligns directly with the defacto notability guideline GNG by saying "use the GNG", with the only other details being why there aren't specialized rules and where to go for more info. This text had support and was not a failed proposal; previous revisions may have b een, but not this current one. As I said, there is zero issue at ADD with delete !votes citing this essay as the reason, because this essay says "use the GNG". Arguing there is a problem here makes no sense at all, outside of the general concern that editors should try not to use only essays to support their !votes, but the is not unique to this page. --Masem (t) 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about fiction

User:JuneGloom07 left this message on my talk page:

Hi, thank you again for replying to my old message on Talk:Summer Bay. I've noticed a number of fictional characters/elements being nominated for deletion, and I was just wondering if there was a discussion about doing this somewhere, maybe at a WikiProject? As someone who edits in this area (mostly soap opera related articles), I feel like I've missed something.

@TTN:, @Piotrus:, can you answer this? JIP | Talk 10:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not much I can say since there since the question is not precise. In the past few months I just felt like enforcing NFICTION guideline more than I've been doing in the past, that probably accounts for part of the spike. I guess some other editors (TTN) felt the same. Random coincidence, and part of growing up for the project and us (~15 years ago some of my first edits here were fancruft, like articles on fictional stars and planets; now I feel this kind of content does not belong here, and the policy based consensus, i.e. this very page, seem to agree). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Coincidence, I'd say. I was very involved with NFICT 10 years ago, and following my wiki return a few months ago, I noticed that there was finally progress at AfD to reduce fancruft, largely led by TTN (whom I knew from the old days but had believed to be gone for good). This renewed my interest in cleaning up fiction articles, which was simply not possible 10 years ago when special-interest wikias were not as well-known as an alternative. – sgeureka 11:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • About the same. Looked up something here, went down a category rabbit hole, and decided to return after seeing everything was still a stagnant mess. Other than falling into a pissing contest with another user recently, this is all meant to be a personal attempt at helping clean up the space. What confuses some people is that it's easier to focus on a category at a time, so they get this mistaken idea that it's a personal crusade against "their space" rather than a broad attempt to get the fiction-based categories up to the standards of fifteen years later. It's still very 2005-2008 in these often long forgotten or heavily protected areas. TTN (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Piotrus talks of "policy based consensus" but this page isn't a policy; it's not even a guideline; it's a failure. This deletion spree is violating actual policies such as WP:ATD, which states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". As I recall, when we had a similar situation about TV episodes, the matter went to arbcom and TTN was sanctioned for being too over-zealous. Now that arbcom has been re-staffed, it might be appropriate to take the matter there again but I'm not sure whether there have been other recent discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess if you want to compare my overzealous mass redirection of thousands and thousands of articles in the space of a few months to slowly PRODing and AfDing (acts of seeking outside consensus), go ahead. Though even when I was doing some 10+ AfDs per day after the case and enforcement way back, I'm pretty sure it was deemed non-controversial. TTN (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've not been counting but my impression is that we've had "thousands and thousands of articles in the space of a few months" again. It has certainly been more than I can engage with in the time available and so seems to be a breach of WP:FAIT, which is a relevant arbcom ruling. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Only if you consider yourself the only person capable of responding to AfDs, which by far is not the case. There's also a difference in that AfDs are a consensus based system, not the whims of a single person. TTN (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not alone and the mills are turning. I already talked with a former arb about the Tolkien purge but he was too busy to do much. Now I see that Darkknight2149 has plans. Piotrus and TTN have both been sanctioned by arbcom before and so they must be familiar with the way in which their actions provoke a reaction.

    "He is plotting to become a Power. He does not care for growing things ... He and his foul folk are felling trees... Some of the trees they just cut down and leave to rot but most are carried off to feed the fires ... in the third day of their moot, the Ents suddenly blew up. It was amazing. The Forest had felt as tense as if a thunderstorm was brewing inside it: then all at once it exploded.

    — The Two Towers
Andrew🐉(talk) 14:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. I feel his venture is ultimately fruitless because he's being extremely protectionist over a specific area of content and making broad generalizations based on what I'd say are extreme mischaracterizations. I do wish he'd just go ahead with it instead of popping up every three days to mention it though. TTN (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that, if it ever did go to RfC or arbcom, the complaints would fail. And then it will be harder to go around to every AfD yelling "this guy got sanctioned one time! he's still being disruptive!". Reyk YO! 15:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Categories: