Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
|||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Essays}}
}}
{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|shortcut=WT:FICT|search=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive %(counter)d
Line 10 ⟶ 12:
{{/glossary}}
{{oldmfd | date = 2 May 2012 | result =keep | votepage = Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive index
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
== More restrictions on List of fictional elements==
Line 347 ⟶ 48:
:: I agree with Masem. There are so many ambiguous lists being created by random journalists that may have zero specialty in the topic. It has to be recognized by multiple recognized media outlets IMHO.[[User:Blue Pumpkin Pie|<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Blue Pumpkin Pie|Chat]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Blue Pumpkin Pie|Contribs]]</sup> 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
::: Also, because I brought this up in the Badgers AfD, that we should distinguish fiction from folklore/legend/mythology as that is cultural that wasn't explicitly known as fictitious.[[User:Blue Pumpkin Pie|<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Blue Pumpkin Pie|Chat]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Blue Pumpkin Pie|Contribs]]</sup> 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
:::: There is a weird line between the folklore and the popular culture factors, to the point I wouldn't necessary separate these elements in different lists (unless, after all inclusion metrics are met, there is a size issue), but I would make sure they were grouped clearly to distinguish folklore from pop culture. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that we need reasonable guidelines for pruning and improving these lists, for the simple reason that they make readers happy. There is anecdotal evidence that these lists offer serendipitous delight to readers, who are charmed by the discovery that they exist.
As a first step towards a guideline, I would suggest that to be included on a list like this, each item should be a significant character in the work or receive a reasonable amount of independent coverage, to be determined during the discussion of the guideline. (Another possibility is to only include items that are notable enough to have their own page.) Each item should be supported by a 2-3 sentence explanation of their significance within the work -- not just a bare listing of "x in an episode of y". If there isn't enough to say about that item to make 2-3 sentences, then it's not important enough to be included.
As an example, the [[List of fictional pigs]] should include Miss Piggy, Porky Pig, Babe, Piglet, and Wilbur from ''Charlotte's Web'', and not the Peking Homunculus from a brief appearance in a ''Doctor Who'' story, or Little Cory from two episodes of ''Boy Meets World''.
Just in the last 24 hours [[List of fictional badgers]] closed as no consensus and [[Centaurs in popular culture]] closed as keep, which strongly indicates that there is not currently a consensus to delete these articles en masse. If folks would like to get consensus on a new guideline, then it should probably be an RfC or some formal process, rather than a brief, unheralded conversation at the bottom of this page. -- [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 14:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
===Should we start an initiative to delete the majority of these lists?===
I'm wondering if we should start deleting some of these. At least the more obvious ones that are invented topics.[[User:Blue Pumpkin Pie|<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Blue Pumpkin Pie|Chat]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Blue Pumpkin Pie|Contribs]]</sup> 17:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:No, too early. We should first establish the minimum expectations for these lists (previous section), make sure there's community consensus for those, and then give a time frame like 6 months or so for editors to clean up. THEN we can start a deletion spree as we have given editors fair warning throughout this. (Any such RFC and results would be posted to relevant wikiprojects and VP). --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
:I agree with Masem here. There's no huge rush and decency demands at least some prior warning before starting an enormous cleanup campaign. The voice of cynicism- and prior experience- says that no amount of prior warning will actually get the defenders of these lists to sort out any of the problems, or prevent them from complaining loud and long when they are nominated at AfD. But we should still behave properly. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
::True, but other editors who aren’t reflexively defending such lists would be far less likely to sympathetic to the defenders if they had fair waring and ample opportunity to improve the lists and chose not to as opposed to being seemingly blindsided.--[[Special:Contributions/69.157.252.96|69.157.252.96]] ([[User talk:69.157.252.96|talk]]) 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Comic book notability guidelines]] / [[WP:NCOMIC]] ==
This essay was created two years ago and seemingly has the same "status" (essay) as NFICTION. It is however not very well known; it is not linked from NFICTION, it is cited only in a dozen+ AfD discussions since its creation two years ago, and also seems much more inclusive than NFICTIION or GNG. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics]] links to NFICTION not to NCOMIC. It seems clear that this essay has been created by one person ([[User:Etzedek24]]) with no input or recognition from the community (I only found [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_52#WP%3ANCOMIC|this]] which does not constite any wide endorsment; I did not see any other discussion of this essay on any public project discussion space), and it can mislead good faithed editors who can cite it thinking that it is a community-endorsed viewpoint, rather than a view point of a single editor. Few months ago on its talk page an anon suggested it should be deleted/depreciated, and I concur (not to deletion, but to tagging it with {{tl|Failed proposal}}, but how to go about it? RfC? Or would a discussion here be enough? PS. For now, should it be tagged with {{tl|Proposal}}? An essay written by a single user should not give an appearance of a community-endorsed view, and clearly, an essay on notability template {{tl|notability essay}} present there is not enough, since it is also present here, and this falsely suggests NCOMIC is equal to NFICTION (which is much better known and much more widely cited). -- <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 04:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
== RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article ==
{{FYI|pointer=y}}
Please see: [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead]]
I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.
Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
: The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are {{tq|likely to vote-stack the RfC ''with a single socio-political viewpoint''}} appears to come from a place of profound ignorance, and certainly the RfC in question has nothing to do with Notability.
: But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of the article, which has seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
In wikipedia about smurf list,
numbering of episodes is quite disturbing, without any further explanation.
Why there are 75a and 75b for many seasons?
Why there is 75th , 75a, and 75b episodes? What a and b or "75" alone means?
No explanation at all! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Estatistics|Estatistics]] ([[User talk:Estatistics#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Estatistics|contribs]]) 09:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Adapted characters ==
There is a proposal to add guidance on adapted film/television characters to this page at [[WT:FILM#Survey]]. Comments are welcome, thanks. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
== Significant coverage about merchandise ==
Hi @[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]]. I saw [[special:diff/1181189800|your recent edit]] removing the word "merchandise" after [[special:diff/1181141772|my recent update]]. I definitely appreciate and agree with your edit summary indicating that merchandise alone doesn't indicate notability. My intention with that inclusion was around secondary sigcov in independent reliable sources about merchandise. For example, merchandise announcements or churnalism noting a cross-promotions and such would not qualify, but an article in a reliable source with an experienced journalist providing a few paragraphs reviewing a toy could qualify in many cases. What do you think the best way to reflect this in the text would be? —[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''χ'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 06:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
:The main problem is if the article is discussing the merchandise or the subject in question for the article in a significant manner within it, and in all honesty I have next to never seen that happen. In the few cases where merchandise has been brought up in regards to how a subject is viewed, it's mentioned in the context of articles discussing the subject where the merchandise is a lesser point overall. Do you have examples of articles focused on merchandise you think helps provide notability towards a fictional element?--[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] ([[User talk:Kung Fu Man|talk]]) 13:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
| |||