→Is plot summary "significant content"?: - It's one or the other. |
Diego Moya (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 735: | Line 735: | ||
:That's why articles like "List of characters in X" for serial works are readily accepted as means of summarizing the characters on their own. This would be perfectly appropriate for these Dragonlance characters for example. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
:That's why articles like "List of characters in X" for serial works are readily accepted as means of summarizing the characters on their own. This would be perfectly appropriate for these Dragonlance characters for example. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Well, there is a [[List of Dragonlance characters]], and I'm fine with having the sourced content from Camaron Majere preserved and merged there (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dragonlance_characters&diff=532579439&oldid=532441837 how it was done]), actually there's already a [[Talk:List_of_Dragonlance_characters#Should_the_main_Dragonlance_characters_remain_unmerged.3F|multi-character merge discussion]], but a user has objected the merge of this particular character by arguing that sourced plot summary would make it meet the GNG. That's what prompted me to open this thread.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 22:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
::Well, there is a [[List of Dragonlance characters]], and I'm fine with having the sourced content from Camaron Majere preserved and merged there (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dragonlance_characters&diff=532579439&oldid=532441837 how it was done]), actually there's already a [[Talk:List_of_Dragonlance_characters#Should_the_main_Dragonlance_characters_remain_unmerged.3F|multi-character merge discussion]], but a user has objected the merge of this particular character by arguing that sourced plot summary would make it meet the GNG. That's what prompted me to open this thread.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 22:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Is that support for keeping around plot details under lists of fictional characters? Because those are also regularly nominatd for deletion under NOTPLOT. If merging the plot of characters into a list under [[Wikipedia:CSC]]#2 or #3 is suggested as the preferred solution, count me in. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 07:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* Plot summary is fine as significant coverage. An example, Encyclopaedia Britannica on Macbeth (character): "''Macbeth, a general in King Duncan’s army who is spurred on by the prophecy of the Weird Sisters ... The ultimate hopelessness of his position becomes clear to him at last, and he spells this out in two poignant speeches in Act V ...''". Or Medusa: "''Medusa, in Greek mythology, the most famous of the monster figures known as Gorgons. She was usually represented as a winged female creature having a head of hair consisting of snakes ... The severed head, which had the power of turning into stone all who looked upon it, was given to Athena, who placed it in her shield ...''" . Such summaries are fine. Literary criticism and reviews are mainly opinion and so not so significant. We're here to report facts, not opinions. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
* Plot summary is fine as significant coverage. An example, Encyclopaedia Britannica on Macbeth (character): "''Macbeth, a general in King Duncan’s army who is spurred on by the prophecy of the Weird Sisters ... The ultimate hopelessness of his position becomes clear to him at last, and he spells this out in two poignant speeches in Act V ...''". Or Medusa: "''Medusa, in Greek mythology, the most famous of the monster figures known as Gorgons. She was usually represented as a winged female creature having a head of hair consisting of snakes ... The severed head, which had the power of turning into stone all who looked upon it, was given to Athena, who placed it in her shield ...''" . Such summaries are fine. Literary criticism and reviews are mainly opinion and so not so significant. We're here to report facts, not opinions. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
** Wrong. A plot summary is acceptable as part of the coverage of a character but cannot be the only aspect of a notable character. The reason that Britannica has articles on characters like Macbeth or Medusa is that because literary experts have analyszed these characters as part of the body of human literature; but before they can talk about that, they have to identify that character in the primary works, hence the appropriateness of plot summary as part of a stand-alone article. But plot summary alone doesn't give any indication of notability. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
** Wrong. A plot summary is acceptable as part of the coverage of a character but cannot be the only aspect of a notable character. The reason that Britannica has articles on characters like Macbeth or Medusa is that because literary experts have analyszed these characters as part of the body of human literature; but before they can talk about that, they have to identify that character in the primary works, hence the appropriateness of plot summary as part of a stand-alone article. But plot summary alone doesn't give any indication of notability. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:01, 21 January 2013
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
New section: "Notable topics do not require a separate article"
While it is clear that once a topic is presumed notable per GNG or an SNG that we allow it its own stand-alone article, we should have advice that it is not required that a notable topic have its own stand-alone article.
The reasons for not making a stand alone article include if a topic just passes notability and is better discussed in the context of a larger topic; if multiple notable topics together form a collection that is notable of itself, or as a means of putting together very notable (clearly have own topic), weakly notable, and non-notable topics of the same type/categoriation into a single list (ala the Pokemon lists).
I think the advice is common sense, but it is also not documented anywhere that I'm aware of. It should be said as what can sometimes happen is where SNGs insist that a separate article is necessary when the overall topic area is better served by collective articles of the semi-notable topics, until such a time that more notability can be demonstrated. Redirects and disambiguation pages are cheap so we should not be scared of these. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this covered in the lead? "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
- I don't object to an expansion; if you search the archives for
european chicken
you'll find some related discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to offer more advice with examples to give reasons for not creating a new article. Yes, it's in the lead, but I see it get ignored all the time because "Oh, this topic MUST have a new article." mentalities. Probably moreso at something like NEVENT or BLP than other areas. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to a new section on this. Are you thinking of something like this?
Not all valid topics result in a separate article Notability (qualifying for a separate, stand-alone article) requires more than sufficient independent sources. Topics must also comply with WP:NOT and editors' judgement about what best serves our readers. Common reasons for merging topics together include:
- if editors believe that the topic is better discussed in the context of a larger topic;
- if multiple notable topics together form a collection that is notable of itself, or
- as a means of putting together very notable (clearly have own topic), weakly notable, and non-notable topics of the same type into a single list.
- It might also be worth looking at WP:WHYN to see whether we can better address this issue there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled on that approach. I want to make it's clear that we are talking about an option to creating a stand-alone article, already based on the presumption that the topic is notable. It is important to touch/remind about other content policies preventing standalones but for purposes here I also assume that those other content policies aren't an issue. Something more like While presumed notability is a requirement for a stand-alone article, not all topics that are presumed notable need to have a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Not required" if taken at face value is a pretty silly restatement of the obvious. I'm assuming that what we really mean is "not necessarily a good idea" , or "might be a bad idea due to other considerations". If so, we should probably say what we mean. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, is "presumed notability" really a requirement? It seems to me that once you've demonstrated notability (that a topic qualifies for a separate article), then you no longer have "presumed" notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We presume notability because it can be challenged later, reflecting how consensus can change. Articles that have sourcing that just puts them into the GNG today may not be considered appropriate years later. Passing an SNG criteria presumes notability for that facet, but if no other details can be located, having a stand-alone article can be challenged. We never bless a topic as being "notable", though there are certainly topics that far far far demonstrate their notability and likely will never be challenged. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm probably just not understanding something, but it would be helpful to me to see some sort of examples or explanation of potential kinds of pages that would be covered here: those that pass notability and do not run afoul of other policies or guidelines, but for which it just wouldn't be a good idea to have a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- One example is Music of the Final Fantasy VII series (and the others in the series). Every album on that list is likely notable for its own article but the set is better discussed as a whole. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that describes something that can be characterized in a specific way: subjects that are specific examples of a larger subject, where it may be sufficient to cover them in a page about the larger subject. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe an addition to the page that is framed that way could be something to work with. Are there other examples that would not fall within that characterization? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite example is Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming. There are dozens or hundreds of sources, but it's really more suitable in Poultry farming#Antibiotics or a similar article, or (if you wanted to have a whole article on a narrow subject) in an article that discusses worldwide practices rather than specifically European ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm relieved to see that it's a red link! The pattern that I'm beginning to see is that a page can satisfy notability, satisfy the other policies and guidelines, but still be treated better as a section of an existing, broader-topic, page, rather than be given its own standalone treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we are talking about topics that shouldn't even be covered as parts of other pages, right? Near the top of this talk thread, WhatamIdoing quoted (in green) two sentences from the existing lead. How about inserting, after the first of those sentences and before the second, a new sentence: "Some topics that satisfy this guideline are better suited to being covered as sections of existing pages that cover broader topics."? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- We're talking about good, appropriate, encyclopedic information. It's stuff that belongs here at Wikipedia, just not necessarily in its own article (or in some cases, in its own doomed WP:PERMASTUB). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm relieved to see that it's a red link! The pattern that I'm beginning to see is that a page can satisfy notability, satisfy the other policies and guidelines, but still be treated better as a section of an existing, broader-topic, page, rather than be given its own standalone treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we are talking about topics that shouldn't even be covered as parts of other pages, right? Near the top of this talk thread, WhatamIdoing quoted (in green) two sentences from the existing lead. How about inserting, after the first of those sentences and before the second, a new sentence: "Some topics that satisfy this guideline are better suited to being covered as sections of existing pages that cover broader topics."? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite example is Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming. There are dozens or hundreds of sources, but it's really more suitable in Poultry farming#Antibiotics or a similar article, or (if you wanted to have a whole article on a narrow subject) in an article that discusses worldwide practices rather than specifically European ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that describes something that can be characterized in a specific way: subjects that are specific examples of a larger subject, where it may be sufficient to cover them in a page about the larger subject. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe an addition to the page that is framed that way could be something to work with. Are there other examples that would not fall within that characterization? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- One example is Music of the Final Fantasy VII series (and the others in the series). Every album on that list is likely notable for its own article but the set is better discussed as a whole. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm probably just not understanding something, but it would be helpful to me to see some sort of examples or explanation of potential kinds of pages that would be covered here: those that pass notability and do not run afoul of other policies or guidelines, but for which it just wouldn't be a good idea to have a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We presume notability because it can be challenged later, reflecting how consensus can change. Articles that have sourcing that just puts them into the GNG today may not be considered appropriate years later. Passing an SNG criteria presumes notability for that facet, but if no other details can be located, having a stand-alone article can be challenged. We never bless a topic as being "notable", though there are certainly topics that far far far demonstrate their notability and likely will never be challenged. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, is "presumed notability" really a requirement? It seems to me that once you've demonstrated notability (that a topic qualifies for a separate article), then you no longer have "presumed" notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Not required" if taken at face value is a pretty silly restatement of the obvious. I'm assuming that what we really mean is "not necessarily a good idea" , or "might be a bad idea due to other considerations". If so, we should probably say what we mean. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- "judgement about what best serves our readers"? That means people would just argue to eliminate things they don't like, despite them meeting all requirements for an article. Against any such addition. Dream Focus 10:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... the lead does state: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Since this is mentioned in the lede, I think it might be helpful to expand on that statement somewhere in the main body of the guideline... to include some advice as to when using discretion to merge or group would be appropriate (and when it would be inappropriate). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been mulling this issue, and I increasingly think it's actually a very important one. But of course we have to get it right, and if we do get it right, it won't be CREEP. Above, WhatamIdoing replied to me that we are talking about "good, appropriate, encyclopedic information... that belongs here at Wikipedia", and we are, indeed. So the question is how to differentiate between:
- (A) "good, appropriate, encyclopedic information that belongs here at Wikipedia, and merits a standalone page" and:
- (B) "good, appropriate, encyclopedic information that belongs here at Wikipedia, but that should be a section within a broader page, rather than a standalone page by itself"
Above, examples cited have been Music of the Final Fantasy VII series that contains sections about individual albums, and Poultry farming#Antibiotics in lieu of individual pages about antibiotic use on each continent. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that we wouldn't gain much by having separate pages on each continent. But on the other hand, we have President of the United States, but we also have individual pages about each President, and we have Nobel Prize, but we also have individual pages about individual Nobel laureates. And no reasonable person would argue that we shouldn't have those individual pages!
I realized that, at the same time as this discussion, I've been in a discussion about a neuroscience-related page, where there is a question about having individual standalone pages on each of about a half-dozen theorems about how that topic works. None of the theorems is accepted by the source material as proven, but each gets plenty of source material. I think the consensus view has been that each theorem should be a section of the broader topic page (and that's what I think), but there's a significant minority view that each theorem should have its own separate page. And as I think about it, this issue is really what went on in the early (before my time) epic discussions about how many Pokemon pages we need. So it's an issue that really does keep coming up.
So, is there a straightforward way to distinguish (A) from (B), that we could put here without it being CREEP? In a way, it goes to WP:Content forking, in that it's a question of whether or not giving each sub-topic its own page improperly gives rise to giving each sub-topic its own... what? POV? Turf? UNDUE weight? Maybe it's just "editorial judgment", but if there is something more objective and definable, it might be very useful to define it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- A key thing is that this is not meant to be a hard line test. It is a suggestion and should not be taken as any rule or whatnot, in addressing points raised by DreamFocus and Warden. What it should be taken is that if I see a situation where I think smaller article B can easily fit in larger A, a merge suggestion should not be treated as a slight against the article's creator (as I have seen happen at times). Redirects to specific sectors or anchors are cheap and can be used plentifully to locate the merged article. This situation should never cause an AFD to be started to remove the weakly-notable article (though if a merge does occur and the smaller page is not an effective search term, a XFD for the redirect page should occur, but that's just maintenance). Partial guiding focus can be had from Summary Style, which does balance all the issues raised. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK then, that takes the discussion in a somewhat different direction. Are we, then, talking about a sort of behavioral guideline, one that points to specific kinds of situations where editors should not ABF or be offended by suggestions that notable topics not be given standalone pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessary say behavior, because I cannot see how this advice would incur disruptive behavior. I would consider it a counterarguement in merge discussions when someone tries to argue "but it's notable!", as well as passing advice to new editors that create a lot of short articles that could be better as part of a larger one. But the advice does need to be given in light of notability in general as a metric for stand-alone articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- How then would we articulate that advice? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessary say behavior, because I cannot see how this advice would incur disruptive behavior. I would consider it a counterarguement in merge discussions when someone tries to argue "but it's notable!", as well as passing advice to new editors that create a lot of short articles that could be better as part of a larger one. But the advice does need to be given in light of notability in general as a metric for stand-alone articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK then, that takes the discussion in a somewhat different direction. Are we, then, talking about a sort of behavioral guideline, one that points to specific kinds of situations where editors should not ABF or be offended by suggestions that notable topics not be given standalone pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this would be a perfect place to introduce the concept that a specific notability guideline for a topic area can include guidance on when not to create an article. Such things as not including high-school athletes despite the fact that you can find regional coverage, excluding businesses that only have coverage in local papers, song articles when the song has never charted or won an award, etc. The use of subject-specific notability guidelines to preclude article generation has always existed, but never explicitly spelled out in this guideline.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just making a timestamp here for the archive bot, because I don't want this discussion thread to disappear. I'm not sure where we're at now, in terms of practical/concrete improvements to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
To restart this based on the discussion:
- "A notable topic does not require a separate article" seems acceptable advice, and a natural extension of what we already state at the top of WP:N.
- The rationale suggests that there may be two main reasons: to have one smaller notable article be described in the context of a larger notable article as to provide better context and comprehension of both topics, or where several smaller notable articles (and perhaps non-notable topics) are discussed as a natural group where the notability of the group improves the article.
- Advice given should point to any existing applicable guidance like summary style.
- Advice should be given to look towards specific SNGs (and possibly specific Wikiprojects) when not to create articles on notable topics.
I think all that's left is a matter of wording for this. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, I agree with that. I'd add that it might be worth saying that an editorial decision not to have a separate article is not the same thing as casting aspersions on the importance of the subject. I'm thinking that we could cover all of this in a single section, as opposed to spreading it over multiple places on the page. Does that seem right? Any thoughts on where, on the page, we should add it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, that's another point to add, that the mere suggestion of a merge of a notable topic to a larger notable article should be in no way taken to disparage the smaller topic. And yes, this should be a single section beyond the current existing summary at the top of teh guideline. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good! I'm thinking that we could insert it after "Why we have these requirements". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, that's another point to add, that the mere suggestion of a merge of a notable topic to a larger notable article should be in no way taken to disparage the smaller topic. And yes, this should be a single section beyond the current existing summary at the top of teh guideline. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, I agree with that. I'd add that it might be worth saying that an editorial decision not to have a separate article is not the same thing as casting aspersions on the importance of the subject. I'm thinking that we could cover all of this in a single section, as opposed to spreading it over multiple places on the page. Does that seem right? Any thoughts on where, on the page, we should add it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Drafts
Here is my attempt at a first draft. We can work on it here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required (Draft 1)
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that passes the notability requirement. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject guidelines may provide information on how to make these decisions in particular subject areas.
- I would see if we can find strong examples of the two cases ( I pointed to the Final Fantasy VII albums as one case of the latter). Also, "passes the notability requirement" should be instead "presumed notable" - I have a feeling saying "requirement" will make people treat this (Better or worse) like a policy with that langauge. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Those are good ideas. Here is my stab at addressing them. I used a slightly different wording for "requirement", so please see if that works or not. (My reasoning is to make it more reader-friendly for users who get stuck on the concept of "presumed".) I came up with a quick example for the first case, but I have a feeling there are loads of better examples, so suggestions would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required (Draft 2)
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that passes satisfies the notability requirement guideline. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#PETA Asia-Pacific, for example). Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject guidelines may provide information on how to make these decisions in particular subject areas.
- Instead of the PETA example, would Plant perception (physiology)#Plant intelligence be a better example? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- What I think may be a better idea just occurred to me. I think I'd much prefer to use, as a pair, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip. Taken together, they more clearly illustrate notable topics within a larger page, and how the larger page provides better context. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of the PETA example, would Plant perception (physiology)#Plant intelligence be a better example? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just to throw a wrench into this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Episode VII (2nd nomination) is an interesting thing to consider. The film (announced yesterday as part of the Disney buyout of Lucasfilm) clearly is presumed notable, but there's so little information on it as to make a new article a poor choice. This is where something like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER (an essay! be aware!) comes into play. I think this adds a third case, where "A future event or an occurrence may clearly be notable before it happens such as the 2020 Summer Olympics, but otherwise if information is scarce at the time, discussion may be suited to a larger encompassing article."
- Also, I would add something like "Redirection pages and Disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them." --MASEM (t) 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Overall this looks okay to me. I've been happy talking about "the notability standards" recently, which avoids the whole policy/guideline/requirement/rule language. I think I'd put this above WHYN, rather than immediately after it. What do you think about adding potential length (avoiding doomed WP:PERMASTUBs) as a reason for choosing a larger subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required (Draft 3)
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability standards. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). A future event may clearly be notable before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics), but if information is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). Also, a subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub. In each of these situations, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas.
- Here's a revision, in which I've tried to incorporate everything so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- In re the first sentence: is editorial judgment not part of the notability standards? I thought that notability = sources X NOT X judgment, and so when editorial judgment opposed a separate page, it didn't qualify for a separate page.
- Otherwise, it looks good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have rarely seen "editorial judgement" used as a reason to declare an article non-notable. In fact, the way the logic should go is:
- 1) Determine presumption of notability from sources - at which point we believe that the topic can merit its own page
- 2) Determine if that standalone page would fail any NOT clause (this is not about notability anymore)
- 3) Determine if there is a better way to present the information in an existing or a larger article (again, not able notability anymore).
- In other words "ability to have a standalone page" = sources + NOT + editorial judgement. But notability is only taken from reviewing the sources. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno about that: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It seems to me that "ability to have a standalone page" == notability, and that therefore notability == sources × NOT × editorial judgement, not just sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, by logic, meeting wp:notability is A condition for having a stand alone article. Since it is the most often-invoked/reviewed condition, I think that some folks loosely think of meeting wp:notability being synonymous with overall "able to have a separate article" but that is not precisely correct. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I think we want to avoid is having "editorial judgement" become a guideline that can be evoked at AFD, as that is going to upset a lot of people (see previous comments by DreamFocus). The only two facets that should be used to start an AFD that involve notability are the lack of significant coverage/failure to meet an SNG, and falling under what we are NOT - both suggesting page deletion. Editorial judgement is most likely meaning a merge and not an aspect to be approached at AFD (though a well-intended AFD for deletion can end up as as a consensus to merge, it just shouldn't start off as such). Thus, why this section is meant as advice and not direct guidance. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Although I understand the points about where editorial judgment comes into play relative to where notability is assessed, I don't really see (maybe it's just me, maybe I'm missing something) how the wording of the second sentence of Draft 3 is a problem, or what anyone is suggesting as a different way to say it. (After all, that sentence is taking it as a given that the "topic" has already been presumed to be notable, but editors are considering not making a standalone page about the "topic".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I think we want to avoid is having "editorial judgement" become a guideline that can be evoked at AFD, as that is going to upset a lot of people (see previous comments by DreamFocus). The only two facets that should be used to start an AFD that involve notability are the lack of significant coverage/failure to meet an SNG, and falling under what we are NOT - both suggesting page deletion. Editorial judgement is most likely meaning a merge and not an aspect to be approached at AFD (though a well-intended AFD for deletion can end up as as a consensus to merge, it just shouldn't start off as such). Thus, why this section is meant as advice and not direct guidance. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I figure I'll wait another day or two for any further comments, and if there are no objections I'll go ahead and add Draft 3 to the guideline page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. If it needs tweaked later, then we can do that later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. If it needs tweaked later, then we can do that later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Reverted
- You had two people clearly state they were opposed to this already. You need more people to participate before adding that in since it changes things so greatly. Mention it on the village voice or somewhere to get more participates. What you are basically saying now is "Meeting the notability requirements doesn't matter, you can still have whatever random group of strangers shows up to participate, decide to eliminate something anyway because they don't like it." Every notability guideline page should have its talk page mention this discussion for more participation, since it basically lets people ignore all of them at will. Dream Focus 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- But that's not what it says, you're misreading it, and it already reflects standard practice. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The top already says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." You don't need any more than that. Dream Focus 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're not changing anything from that, we are only adding advice as to when to consider it, which as best as I know doesn't exist in any form in WP policy. That's completely reasonable and within standard practice. Since we're only expanding without changing whatever is already on the page, your opposition to it is pointless. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- No need adding that much text to something unrelated to an article page that exist to explain what notability is and how it is determined. They can link to the page on mergers if they want to learn about doing that. Dream Focus 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're not changing anything from that, we are only adding advice as to when to consider it, which as best as I know doesn't exist in any form in WP policy. That's completely reasonable and within standard practice. Since we're only expanding without changing whatever is already on the page, your opposition to it is pointless. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The top already says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." You don't need any more than that. Dream Focus 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- But that's not what it says, you're misreading it, and it already reflects standard practice. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Dream Focus, I know from previous discussions that you feel very strongly about inclusion criteria, but please give me a little more credit for good faith than what you have been saying here. You and one other editor made very brief negative comments about Masem's early suggestions on the topic a couple of weeks ago, and the discussion since then was entirely supportive until just now, when you reverted the addition and said these things here. This page is a guideline, not a policy. I very deliberately let time go by before implementing anything, and neither you nor anyone else objected then. At this point, you, a single user, have reverted a change that was supported by multiple editors. I've read your comments here, and it seems to me that you overstate what the addition would do, and you basically are opposed to any kind of language that acknowledges that there are, sometimes, situations where a standalone article is not needed. You would like to have broader discussion? That's fine with me. I'm going to start an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you expect people to repeat themselves constantly for weeks? I'm opposed to anything that will be quoted in AFDs as an excuse for people to delete articles they don't like. There is no reason to have all of that here on the notability guideline page, instead of the merge page where it belongs. "and the discussion since then was entirely supportive", by four people, with only two people against it. That's not really a proper consensus. Dream Focus 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Repeat themselves constantly for weeks? No, of course not. But a little AGF would always be nice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I see edit warring over the paragraph, so I've requested that the page be full-protected. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- How is that edit warring? Stop being all melodramatic. Dream Focus 23:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you gotta ask... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on standalone pages
Should the following section be added to Wikipedia:Notability, after "Notability is not temporary" and before "Why we have these requirements"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm temporarily stopping the RfC. Please see #discussion of draft 4, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability standards. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). A future event may clearly be notable before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics), but if information is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). Also, a subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub. In each of these situations, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas.
There is discussion about the question directly above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support addition. Reyk YO! 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- A well written explanation of a complex issue... well done. Support addition. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, as I've said above. This should promotes mergers rather than deletions in borderline cases and more complete, contextually appropriate, non-WP:Content forked articles in all cases. It should also reduce confusion among less experienced editors, who frequently believe that if we don't want an entirely separate, very narrow article, then the subject can't be mentioned anywhere at all. We might not want an article about Antibiotic use in European chicken farms, but we can certainly discuss all of that information in our articles on Poultry farming, antibiotic use, and other relevant articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you made a very good point: that this addition will tend to encourage merge over deletion. I hadn't thought of that, but it's definitely true. (I think it's already obvious, but I support the addition.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if we can include something that strongly warns against deletion to handle such pages (per Dream Focus' concern). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm biased at this point, but I think the concerns are unfounded, and the existing text does, as I just said, actually help in this regard. I'm also disinclined to "warn" editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if we can include something that strongly warns against deletion to handle such pages (per Dream Focus' concern). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you made a very good point: that this addition will tend to encourage merge over deletion. I hadn't thought of that, but it's definitely true. (I think it's already obvious, but I support the addition.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, looks good, makes sense, will be helpful. J04n(talk page) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose the current text, although it got me thinking for a while. Even if I sympathize with the goal (I've written an essay myself about the subject), the approach is misguided and it will encourage removing information from WP: either by people insisting to delete the article instead of merging, or because the content in the merged target article is prone to be removed as WP:UNDUE weight (I've seen this too often).
- If something along this lines is added to the guideline, it must be much less idealistic and well-meaning and much more practical, describing exactly how and when a single article is to be merged; "editorial judgment" is utterly useless in guidelines to guide discussion, so this paragraph does nothing to help those mergers and a lot to undermine the GNG. As a collection of advice on when to merge, I agree with DGG that it would be better added to the Merge guideline, not in notability.
- I'm also concerned that the text describes when a notable article should not have an article, but does nothing to explain when it should have a short article as the better outcome, instead of being merged. As such, the guideline is imbalanced and at the very least it requires further tweaking before being admissible. I think it's time to create a new guideline for "stand-alone articles" that is separate from WP:N describing the best practices for short articles, and the best way to merge them when the best outcome is to have them grouped. Diego (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Except, when is a small stubby article better than merging the content into a larger more comprehensive article? There never really is a time for this - stubs are okay in some cases, but as articles mature, there are always better options. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- When is it better? 1) When the short article is not stubby and 2) when there isn't a larger, more comprehensive article covering the topic. Never and always are such strong words...
- I've recently defended an article for a classic game that achieved short but reliable coverage, enough to create a well-balanced article. It was suggested at AfD to merge this game with other similar games for the same computer to have a more solid article with respect to notability; but since that encompassing article doesn't exist, and creating it was out of scope for an AfD, that wouldn't be a viable outcome for the deletion discussion, and the article is likely to be deleted even if it satisfies GNG to the letter.
- I never understood the widespread hate towards short NPOV articles, really. Merging them is an option sometimes, but not always. If there are too many of them in the same class, the best solution is having many short articles and a category and/or navigation template to find them and provide context. The guideline should highlight a short article as the preferred option in some cases. Diego (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the text does not say "short articles must be merged", I'm not seeing the problem outside a lack of explicitness. Also, in the case of that AFD, note that this is going on regardless if this proposed text is present or not; regardless of what WP:N says, it will always come down to consensus, so that's a non-starter as an argument against this. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You and I know that "a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability" will be used at AfDs to defend "a standalone page is not required at all" - thus Delete the poorly written article. At least if it stated "short articles should be merged if they're otherwise going to be deleted", that would be an improvement over the current version. Diego (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense, it's talking about mergers. If a parent article already contains all the information of the stub, that leads to the question of why you would want to keep the stub which provides less context. Is it about keeping the information or some meta concept about article existence? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You and I know that "a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability" will be used at AfDs to defend "a standalone page is not required at all" - thus Delete the poorly written article. At least if it stated "short articles should be merged if they're otherwise going to be deleted", that would be an improvement over the current version. Diego (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the text does not say "short articles must be merged", I'm not seeing the problem outside a lack of explicitness. Also, in the case of that AFD, note that this is going on regardless if this proposed text is present or not; regardless of what WP:N says, it will always come down to consensus, so that's a non-starter as an argument against this. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Except, when is a small stubby article better than merging the content into a larger more comprehensive article? There never really is a time for this - stubs are okay in some cases, but as articles mature, there are always better options. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The top of the guideline already says This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. You don't need any more than that. This addition at the very start that even if it meets the GNG, it doesn't matter, its up to "Editorial judgment" to determine if it should be an article or not. So whatever random group of people notice and show up to comment, will determine whether an article stays are not, and people who just don't like something, such as articles of a certain type, will just rampage around wiping out articles they don't like in hordes. "I don't like it" will become the only reason necessary for deletion. This happens too often already in AFDs, we certainly don't need to be encouraging it to happen even more so. It'll come down to some saying "It meets the general notability guidelines clearly" and others saying "that doesn't matter, since my friends and I don't like it, so we'll delete it anyway". Dream Focus 08:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you're opposing the expansion of something that WP:N already says, and that we've already said that actions relating to this article do not involve deletion, the opposition here makes no sense. Further, to complain about a group of editors showing up to AFD to delete articles they don't like is no different than something like the Article Rescue Squadron propping up articles to be kept. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- See my comments above. Notability is not the place to expand whether a topic merits a stand-alone article or a merger; the arguments introduced in the new paragraph are orthogonal to having enough sources, and should not be conflated. And the current wording leaves lots of cases that haven't been tested (such as not having a proper place to merge the content). In articles with marginal notability, it's easy to see how the proposed section could be used to support deletion even if that's not the intended goal; because "notability is not clear", "there isn't a good place to merge the content" AND "a standalone page is not required for every topic". That last bit is dangerous material to fuel AfDs, and accepting it as a guideline before its effects are tested in the wild is a no-no. Let's have a separate essay for stand-alone articles where all these concerns can be properly explored. Diego (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your last point, that "a standalone page is not required for every topic" being a problem at AFD, is nonsense because WP:N has already said this forever as Dream Focus points out in their opposition; if it was going to be a problem, it would have reared its head by now. In fact, to me, I find that the opposite is true, that people insist that one you show an article is notable, it must have a standalone article, making it difficult to rationally discuss merge options even though the merge would not lose any content and would be better for all content/articles involved. Again, I stress that we're not creating any new practice here; this is documenting what already is done, but stressing that this options should not be considered "evil" as some would take them. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- True, WP:N has always said that. Then consider that the problem is not that it adds something new, but that it's stressing that idea (not having the article) without considering the alternatives, in a way that wasn't highlighted before. The whole proposed section (at least as you defend it) appears to me as implying the notion that short articles are bad, and I strongly oppose that idea. Thus, the section must fairly balance when to keep and when to merge, or not exist at all. Diego (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your last point, that "a standalone page is not required for every topic" being a problem at AFD, is nonsense because WP:N has already said this forever as Dream Focus points out in their opposition; if it was going to be a problem, it would have reared its head by now. In fact, to me, I find that the opposite is true, that people insist that one you show an article is notable, it must have a standalone article, making it difficult to rationally discuss merge options even though the merge would not lose any content and would be better for all content/articles involved. Again, I stress that we're not creating any new practice here; this is documenting what already is done, but stressing that this options should not be considered "evil" as some would take them. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, there is no reason to expand that on this page. The way it is worded is far different, and will be used differently. And this is quite different than what the ARS does, we finding reliable sources whenever possible that cover subjects, and prove they are notable. You shouldn't try to delete something because you don't like it, that has never been an acceptable reason. And even articles that are long and well referenced, people still try to delete because they don't like the subject. Proving that they meet the notability guidelines, is what convinces a closing administrator to keep the article. Saying meeting the GNG doesn't matter at all, and you can have people nominating the same article time and again until they get enough random people to notice and participate who think the way they do, in order to get articles they don't like deleted, is going to cause all sorts of problems. Dream Focus 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are the only one saying deletion here. If someone tries to use the suggested advice to nominate an article they think should be merged at AFD, that AFD should be immediately closed as a speedy keep and the nominator trouted for not using the merge process to discuss that. On the other hand, with or without this advice, we are not going to be able to stop an AFD nomination where the editor insists that deletion needs to happen when notability is weak - this already happens now. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- See my comments above. Notability is not the place to expand whether a topic merits a stand-alone article or a merger; the arguments introduced in the new paragraph are orthogonal to having enough sources, and should not be conflated. And the current wording leaves lots of cases that haven't been tested (such as not having a proper place to merge the content). In articles with marginal notability, it's easy to see how the proposed section could be used to support deletion even if that's not the intended goal; because "notability is not clear", "there isn't a good place to merge the content" AND "a standalone page is not required for every topic". That last bit is dangerous material to fuel AfDs, and accepting it as a guideline before its effects are tested in the wild is a no-no. Let's have a separate essay for stand-alone articles where all these concerns can be properly explored. Diego (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you're opposing the expansion of something that WP:N already says, and that we've already said that actions relating to this article do not involve deletion, the opposition here makes no sense. Further, to complain about a group of editors showing up to AFD to delete articles they don't like is no different than something like the Article Rescue Squadron propping up articles to be kept. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to me like useful guidance. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Merging topics in stubs into larger articles ensures what otherwise might have been a stub is presented in a larger context. To make a good encyclopedia editorial judgement is required, creating stubs willy nilly doesn't help anyone when the same information can be put into an existing article in a way that makes sense.
- rant: We have over 4 million articles on wikipedia, of which 2 million are stubs (from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_type_sizes/data and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Statistics). We have a relatively fixed number of editors. On wikipedia, articles about villages, hamlets are usually kept WP:OUTCOMES. There are an estimated 2.7 million villages in the world (src Bank, World (2006). 2006 world information and communications for development report : trends and policies for the information society. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. p. 127. ISBN 0821363468.). There are around 30 million species Species#Numbers_of_species, around 2 million ([1][2]) of those are described and named and thus are kept at AfD WP:OUTCOMES. So we have a possible amount of intrinsically notable articles as 4.7 million just considering towns and species, most likely doomed to eternal stubdom. Species which have no coverage beyond confirmation etc belong at species:Main_Page. There are people who get lists of villages, and then create each and every single one, what is wrong with simply just tabulating the info in a list of villages? We don't need all these stubs that will never be expanded and only face possible vandalism; we can have the exact same information but just organized in a different way. We are still growing by 30,000 articles a month (commons:File:Enwikipediagrowth6.PNG), while the number of editors stays about the same.
- IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: For two reasons, 1) this language
a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability standards.
is very misleading as there is no Requirement to have an article on a notable subject anyway. So, how can we say an article is not required. If this effort succeeds, I would strongly suggest the wording be changed toa standalone page
2) I find the words editorial judgement in this language to be problematic. Whose editorial judgement? The editors who think they own articles and suppress any addition they don't agree with, or the judgement of new editors who might be bringing new insights into stubs, etc. I think this opens up a potential minefield, especially in topic areas where there are social, political, geo-political and cultural battlegrounds already. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)ismay not berequiredjustified for every topic that satisfies the notability standards.- On the first, the wording change is fine. On the second, it doesn't matter who, it just that the end result should be supported by consensus discussion. There's no can of worms here because MERGE already allows editors to engage in this if in article areas that are battlefield-like in nature. Again, to stress: what is being added documents existing practices already, and does not create any new suggested practice. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, the current guideline refers twice to editors' judgment, and twice to editors' discretion; I think it's a pretty common theme in guidelines, and I don't see how it could reasonably be interpreted to mean anything other than "editors should do what seems best to them, in light of Wikipedia guidance, and if there's disagreement, they should talk about it until a consensus develops." Unless you categorically disapprove of any guideline or policy that doesn't offer 100% ironclad rules about what to do in any given situation (which would seem to include any guideline, because guidelines aren't policies, and also any policy, because WP:IAR exists, and also WP:IAR), your second objection doesn't make much sense to me. (The first sounds like a good change, and I'd be surprised if anyone strongly disagreed with it.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support All too often I see editors at AFD that seem to believe that once notability is demonstrated, a standalone article is inevitably justifiable, to the point where you get editors screaming that no deletion is possible under any justification once they have come up with two reliable sources for the information. A standalone section of WP:N that emphasises and explains why that isn't true would be useful.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support trivially true. We merge somewhat notable articles all the time. A good barometer, IMO, is if an article has sat around in stub form for a long time, or if people have tried to find reliable information and couldn't get too far beyond the stub stage. That, of course, is just a rule of thumb that I've seen several editors use. And it's always an editorial decision. But those are details that can be added and worked on through the WP:BRD process. I think the overall wording is a good starting point, and worth inserting into the guideline for clarity and common sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support in principle. There's extensive current practice in this area, but it isn't really codified at all, so having something for editors to refer to seems like a positive step forward. I am, like some others, nervous about the potential for this to become ammunition for imposing "cleanup" in marginal topic areas, but I'm at least satisfied that it shouldn't be AfD fodder. (Whether "propose merge" becomes the new "nominate for deletion" is another matter, and I'll be profoundly displeased if that happens.) —chaos5023 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC extended discussion
I think it might be helpful to create this space for more extended discussion of the issues that come up in the RfC. It seems clear to me that, so far, quite a few editors like the proposal. For the moment, I want to continue here the discussions that already have begun above, with the two editors who have, so far in the RfC, opposed the proposal.
I know Dream Focus feels very strongly here, but I'm not finding your arguments very persuasive. Yes, people show up all the time at AfD, making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. The right way to counter their arguments is to point out that they are arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is widely regarded as an argument to avoid. Yes, those people will then try to bulk up their weak arguments by misquoting or cherry picking quotes from various guidelines, and yes, it is possible to misrepresent what the paragraph proposed here says. But the right way to respond is to point out that they have misrepresented what it says here. Quote this proposal accurately, and you make the point that merging is better than deletion, and the AfD should be closed as keep.
Diego, you have raised some very thoughtful and astute concerns, and I want to explore whether this proposal can be improved accordingly. I'm receptive to making these ideas part of WP:MERGE, with a link from here, but let's first explore whether we can make something work here. You point out that leaving everything to "editorial judgment" is dangerously vague, and that we should try to make things more specific and instructive. I think that's a good idea, and I'd like to explore whether we can do that. You also point out that we should (in effect, my words not yours) present both POVs, by giving due weight to cases where short pages should be kept as short pages. Again, I think you are right about that, and I'd like to explore revising the proposal accordingly. I can assure you that I, for one, am not what you call a hater of short NPOV articles, and I hope that we can explore, here, these ways of improving the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking of proposing a new draft along those lines and see if the added terms get traction. I'm glad you're open to that possibility. I'm not really opposed to the advice in the RfC draft as such, only to the way it was presented and included in the guideline. I'll try to add tomorrow some new points for consideration (mainly that the content shouldn't be merged to an article with undue weight, that collecting several related notable topics only work when the number of items is not too high, and that a short article sometimes can provide better context for the topic than a merged section in a longer article - and thus be preferred). Diego (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can't reason with these people. You tell them they are misreading what it says, and they'll just say the same about you. You have to have things specific. Such as "Saying you don't think it belongs in the encyclopedia because you don't like that sort of thing or don't find it encyclopedic, is not a valid reason to eliminate something that passes the notability guidelines. If you believe the article's content is perhaps better suited in another article, then go to WP:merge and follow the instructions there. You should not call something a "merge" as an excuse to delete it, and just put a token amount if anything at all in the other article." Had an editor posting all over the place and arguing nonstop trying to get rid of the article for Pizza cheese for instance, just wouldn't let it go, dragging things out, despite all the protest against him. You add this long new section as it is currently written on this guideline page, then it'll just be more difficult to shut people like him up, and more will be hollering the same ridiculous argument of "just because it meets the notability guidelines, doesn't mean we should have an article for it", whenever they really mean is "I personally don't like it, and want it gone." Dream Focus 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's simply not a compelling argument because that advice has been part of WP:N for a long time. Does it enable something like the pizza cheese AFD? No - because again, if someone wants something deleted, they will ignore the new advice, just as much as they ignored the original WP:N statement. No one questions that merge discussions are very different from deletion discussions, and that a proper merge shouldn't cause the information in the article being merged to disappear. But all of this exists now without the new paragraph, and that the new paragraph won't change anything in this area. The argument that this paragraph will cause massive change in AFDs is pretty much bogus. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If its already here, then why stretch things out? There is no possible justification for having that on this page. Put it on the merger page instead, where it belongs. Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because we have the problem in the other direction, editors extremely resistant to merging content, typically on articles they've created or that they have a strong interest in, despite when others point out that there's net benefit to covering a smaller topic within the context of a larger one. Even the suggestion of a merge has been taken as a slight against their work and themselves. But it's also not just about merging, it's about creating articles too so sticking the advice on the merge page isn't appropriate. People need to use more common sense before rushing to creating new articles, when there is definitely an appropriate larger topic to include that information in. Ergo, we can't just toss this advice on the merge page; it is appropriate here to the concept that the presumption of notability allows but does not require a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, that's a good point, about WP:MERGE. Part of what we are trying to address here has to do with creating new pages, and putting it on MERGE would lose that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because we have the problem in the other direction, editors extremely resistant to merging content, typically on articles they've created or that they have a strong interest in, despite when others point out that there's net benefit to covering a smaller topic within the context of a larger one. Even the suggestion of a merge has been taken as a slight against their work and themselves. But it's also not just about merging, it's about creating articles too so sticking the advice on the merge page isn't appropriate. People need to use more common sense before rushing to creating new articles, when there is definitely an appropriate larger topic to include that information in. Ergo, we can't just toss this advice on the merge page; it is appropriate here to the concept that the presumption of notability allows but does not require a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If its already here, then why stretch things out? There is no possible justification for having that on this page. Put it on the merger page instead, where it belongs. Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Diego, thanks, that's great. I look forward to seeing what you present, and I'm pretty confident that it will work. Dream Focus, I find that I can reason with most users who are willing to engage in good faith with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you imagining "bad faith", that I'm somehow against you, or is that just an excuse to dodge responding to what I said? Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not imagining anything, really. You said that you find that there are people you just cannot reason with. I said that I find it generally possible to reason with the people I come across on Wikipedia, and I'm involved in lots of disputed issues. I don't think that you are against me personally, although I think that you disagree with me on the proposal here. And I'm not against you personally, either. If you are not finding my reply to you satisfactory, I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to dodge anything, nor to make any excuses. It does appear that you and I have different discussion styles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think whether other people can be reasoned with is largely a matter of perspective. Note DF's contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. (2nd nomination), with the associated accusations of bad faith and the insistence that "Notable albums get their own pages". The article (which I could temporarily resurrect as a user page, if necessary), is a poster-boy for the issue we have here, with the reasoning explained in detail at Talk:N.I.N.A.#Redirect discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing you could dig up was from over two and half years ago? An article ended in "No consensus", and then you try to replace it with a redirect and when you fail you send it to AFD a second time, only a day after the first. You also apparently removed much of the original content before the second AFD, and since the article isn't there anymore, I can't really judge that though. Don't really care since it happened so long ago. I argued to keep it since the article clearly passed the guidelines, and at the time it seemed like a really lame "if I don't get my way, I'll just keep on nominating it until I do" bit seen too often in AFDs. Nothing gained by deleting it. Out of the 4 million Wikipedia articles on the English language Wikipedia, about 3 million of them are of stub size according to a guy posting recently on Jimbo's talk page who had checked all the sizes with a bot. Of course, as I have said, it was two and a half years ago, so I don't remember how much content was left in the actual article, so merge might've made since in that case. If so, it should've just been a merge discussion, and there was never a reason to delete the history of the article when a redirect was placed there. Dream Focus 00:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was just the first example of you dealing with this kind of problem that came to mind, and it was a completely on-point demonstration of the "there's a source, so there has to be a stand-alone article too!" line of reasoning. All the facts necessary for you to revisit your decision are there if you read the large and detailed analysis of why the remaining material was unsuitable instead of dismissing it as "lame".—Kww(talk) 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing you could dig up was from over two and half years ago? An article ended in "No consensus", and then you try to replace it with a redirect and when you fail you send it to AFD a second time, only a day after the first. You also apparently removed much of the original content before the second AFD, and since the article isn't there anymore, I can't really judge that though. Don't really care since it happened so long ago. I argued to keep it since the article clearly passed the guidelines, and at the time it seemed like a really lame "if I don't get my way, I'll just keep on nominating it until I do" bit seen too often in AFDs. Nothing gained by deleting it. Out of the 4 million Wikipedia articles on the English language Wikipedia, about 3 million of them are of stub size according to a guy posting recently on Jimbo's talk page who had checked all the sizes with a bot. Of course, as I have said, it was two and a half years ago, so I don't remember how much content was left in the actual article, so merge might've made since in that case. If so, it should've just been a merge discussion, and there was never a reason to delete the history of the article when a redirect was placed there. Dream Focus 00:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think whether other people can be reasoned with is largely a matter of perspective. Note DF's contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. (2nd nomination), with the associated accusations of bad faith and the insistence that "Notable albums get their own pages". The article (which I could temporarily resurrect as a user page, if necessary), is a poster-boy for the issue we have here, with the reasoning explained in detail at Talk:N.I.N.A.#Redirect discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not imagining anything, really. You said that you find that there are people you just cannot reason with. I said that I find it generally possible to reason with the people I come across on Wikipedia, and I'm involved in lots of disputed issues. I don't think that you are against me personally, although I think that you disagree with me on the proposal here. And I'm not against you personally, either. If you are not finding my reply to you satisfactory, I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to dodge anything, nor to make any excuses. It does appear that you and I have different discussion styles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you imagining "bad faith", that I'm somehow against you, or is that just an excuse to dodge responding to what I said? Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's simply not a compelling argument because that advice has been part of WP:N for a long time. Does it enable something like the pizza cheese AFD? No - because again, if someone wants something deleted, they will ignore the new advice, just as much as they ignored the original WP:N statement. No one questions that merge discussions are very different from deletion discussions, and that a proper merge shouldn't cause the information in the article being merged to disappear. But all of this exists now without the new paragraph, and that the new paragraph won't change anything in this area. The argument that this paragraph will cause massive change in AFDs is pretty much bogus. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on a new, expanded draft including the concerns expressed at the opposition to the version in the RfC. I'm trying to emphasize actionable measures and decision criteria over subjective measures (whether a topic "merits" an article or not) that will always be a matter of personal opinion and are prone to produce division. I believe the opening sentence ("having a standalone article on Wikipedia is a matter of style") is safer than the previous proposal ("a standalone page is not required for every topic"), which was geared towards not having the article.
In addition to the previous ideas for when a notable topic should still be merged, I've added a new section with reasons for keeping the standalone article. I hope that all these criteria, listed as bullet points, should encourage direct discussion and thus facilitate agreements and consensus-building.
I'm not sure how to proceed to introduce a new draft, given that the previous one is the basis for the RfC and it's already showing some support (as well as opposition). I think it's common to first refine the new proposal to a sensible middle ground and then start a straw poll for each proposal so that clear preferences can be stated. Diego (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Draft 4
- Standalone pages for notable topics
When a topic satisfies the sourcing standards for notability, having a standalone article on Wikipedia is a matter of style and how the available information is best presented. A notable subject can be covered better as part of an article for a broader topic, including context that would be lost on a separate page. Conversely, when there is enough information to create a well balanced article, a separate page provides more room to cover the topic in depth. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas.
Notable topics as part of larger articles
A topic can be described in a small part of a wider article when there is not enough content for a start class article. In that situation, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. The topic should be relevant to the content of the target article.
- A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic, as it provides the reader with the wider picture and better explains how the subject relates to the main topic. This is a good solution for topics that are notable but fall under What Wikipedia is not, such as news reports or catalog tables of reasonable size.
- Examples: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example).
- Several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series).
- A future event may clearly be notable before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics), but if information is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL).
- A subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub.
Notable topics as standalone pages
Deciding whether a separate article is needed is often difficult for a notable topic with few reliable sources, or for which sources provide a small amount of distinct information. There are some cases where covering such topic with a short article is still a good idea:
- Enough references describing the topic may exist, and the article is short only because the sources have not been included yet. A well placed stub for a topic with potential to be expanded can entice editors to add content and complete the article with the right format and structure, making it easier than creating the article anew.
- There are cases where many similar notable topics exist and they cannot be collected into a single page, since the resulting article would be too long. A viable option is creating a new list or category for the broad-concept topic and linking the individual articles from it. See Category:Restaurants in New York City for an example.
- Placing the content of a notable topic under a wider article can provide undue weight to it. That can happen with fringe theories or lesser episodes in a biography, in special for biographies of living persons. In those cases, a standalone article for the notable topic is preferred, as the content is likely to be removed from the main article.
- Short articles should provide enough context beyond a summary or simple definition in order to explain how the topic has impacted the world, or how it was received by people that wrote about it. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, so that a reader with no previous knowledge of the topic can get a rough understanding of it. This can be done including attributed value judgments from experts in the field such as reviews, critiques and academic studies. Focusing on the quality of coverage, rather than its quantity, can help to ensure that the significant content required to write a standalone article is available.
- Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns of article size. This means that all the reliable sources can be potentially included as long as they are relevant to a topic. If many independent sources provide a neutral description of the same details, the details are deemed notable and a new spinoff article can be created to hold them. A brief description in summary style can link to it from the main article, providing the same context that would be available if the standalone article didn't exist.
discussion of draft 4
I think this is excellent... but I am not sure whether really fits within the scope of the WP:Notability guideline. Perhaps it would do better as a separate (new) guideline? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was one of the suggestions already... having a standalone article is different from being notable. Although they've been traditionally conflated in the same guideline, there's no reason why they couldn't be separated. Diego (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah... I would put it this way: being notable is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic (just as being verifiable is a precondition for inclusion of content within an article)... but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic (just as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of content within an article). Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Diego, huge thanks for your work on this. I agree with Blueboar that this is excellent. As for whether or not to try to make it a separate guideline, I think that we should also consider whether there are ways to provide the same information in a shorter form, and be able to keep it here.
- Yeah... I would put it this way: being notable is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic (just as being verifiable is a precondition for inclusion of content within an article)... but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic (just as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of content within an article). Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's important to give this new approach careful consideration, and WP:There is no deadline. Therefore, I'm going to temporarily stop the RfC that I started, while we examine this new idea. I think that there has, so far, been enough difference of opinion to conclude that Draft 3 has no consensus in its present form. My hope is that a draft growing out of Draft 4 will be resubmitted to the community in a resumed RfC. On the spectrum of editor opinion, from "inclusionist" to "deletionist", I think it's very important to find a draft that is in the middle of the spectrum (which means that neither pole will be entirely satisfied, but also neither pole will be entirely dissatisfied), so I hope that editors from both ends of the spectrum will help discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not opposed to a separate page for this, and linking to this. But again, in relation to notability, we need to say, in some language and in more depth than just the phrase in the header: "a standalone page is not a requirement for a notability topic", and to add from others "A standalone page may be the best option for a topic with sufficient but minimum notable coverage instead of merging". A paragraph here , linking to this possible new page, is fine. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about: Notability is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic, but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic. Some notable topics may be better presented within the context of an article on a broader topic (see <new guideline>) Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not yet sold on a separate guideline. I'd like to work on the shorter approach I mentioned above. My apologies that I've been (and will continue to be, for another day or two) a little short on wiki-time, but I'll work on fleshing out what I mean as soon as I can get to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about: Notability is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic, but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic. Some notable topics may be better presented within the context of an article on a broader topic (see <new guideline>) Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not opposed to a separate page for this, and linking to this. But again, in relation to notability, we need to say, in some language and in more depth than just the phrase in the header: "a standalone page is not a requirement for a notability topic", and to add from others "A standalone page may be the best option for a topic with sufficient but minimum notable coverage instead of merging". A paragraph here , linking to this possible new page, is fine. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- The first sentence is confusing. Perhaps you mean something like, "Even if a topic satisfies the sourcing standards for notability, editors may choose not to create a standalone article on Wikipedia after considering matters of style and how the available information is best presented."
- If a topic is notable, it qualifies for a separate, standalone article.
Notability = Sourcing × WP:NOT requirements × Editor's best judgment
- Notability is not just the first term in the equation. This section is about defining that third term, the one that takes a "qualifies based on sourcing" presumably notable topic and turns it into a topic that is not notable, i.e., does not actually "qualify for a separate, standalone article", because it's stylistically/contextually/whatever better for that material to be merged elsewhere.
- Wording that translates to "A topic that [qualifies for a separate, standalone article] does not qualify for a separate, standalone article" is never going to work for me.
- On the bigger question, while I honor the attempt to reduce ambiguity, the fact is that the third term in the equation is editorial judgment. It is not possible to reduce that to a checklist or to fully define it. The third term is, and has always been, a "subjective" item. We don't have to all like it, and a few of us will really hate it, but that's how the community actually makes these decisions, and we have to respect that fact, that very real existence of the importance of subjectiveness, on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm thinking is that we ought to find a way to acknowledge that "editorial judgment" is necessarily involved, but at the same time, make it explicitly clear that simply invoking the phrase is not a sufficient argument for deletion or merging. I'm working on ways to explain how, per Draft 4's bulleted points, there has to be justification in terms of how the decision helps readers understand the material. Sometimes, a standalone page helps one understand. Sometimes, the context of a section within a larger page helps one understand. (The other thing I'm thinking about is condensing the two sub-sections of Draft 4 into a single section. That way, we won't have dueling "content forks", one devoted to the "deletionist" approach, and the other devoted to the "inclusionist" one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- That approach sounds lovely. :-) If you can manage that feat, you'll have my respect. Diego (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The one thing to keep in mind is that there will always be people on extremes - those that insist a notable topic must have a standalone article, and those that will think that anything that just barely shows notability should be deleted - and we're not going to change their behavior with this descriptive process of what we do. My goal in this overall is to simply give those majority of editors that fall in the middle a nice pointer to go "Hey, there's a better option to handling this topic..." something we presently cannot do with any guideline (MERGE only partially addresses this). So it is important that "editorial judgement" is a consensus-based decision and that often one enters IAR territory on these discussions. We would hope everyone involved in the consensus discussion is trying to think how best to present the topic to the reader, whether that's in context of other topics or standalone. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're right that in the end, it's always a consensual decision. That's why I think it's important to show a list of points that can tip the scales one way or the other; not as hard rules to follow, but as suggestions for ideas to have in mind during discussion. Diego (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: actually, that new wording you propose wouldn't work, as it differs from mine in an important way. My point was to express that sometimes editors will want a new article, sometimes they won't. I'm sure my text could benefit from some grammar checking (specially for prepositions) as English is not my mother language and it shows; but that first sentence should still be neutral with respect to the existence of a standalone article. Diego (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm thinking is that we ought to find a way to acknowledge that "editorial judgment" is necessarily involved, but at the same time, make it explicitly clear that simply invoking the phrase is not a sufficient argument for deletion or merging. I'm working on ways to explain how, per Draft 4's bulleted points, there has to be justification in terms of how the decision helps readers understand the material. Sometimes, a standalone page helps one understand. Sometimes, the context of a section within a larger page helps one understand. (The other thing I'm thinking about is condensing the two sub-sections of Draft 4 into a single section. That way, we won't have dueling "content forks", one devoted to the "deletionist" approach, and the other devoted to the "inclusionist" one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not clear from my comment above, I support this. I think the wording needs work. But I don't expect perfection. I think the spirit of the idea comes across, and that spirit is following what I've always known to be best practice: that editors make decisions to merge articles all the time, and that bare notability isn't always the best reason to separate a topic out from a better article with more context. I support these drafts in various forms, and hope we can continue to work on the wording through further editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- [3] What "sourcing standards" are you referring to? Seems rather vague. And I'm still against this in any form. Hopefully you don't expect everyone who already commented on having any chance at all, to repeat themselves every time a new draft is tossed out there. Anything about merging should be in the merging article, not filling up the page here. Dream Focus 00:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- As has been explained before this is not limited to merge actions and ergo cannot just be pointed to there. The issue includes article creation before one even starts to write about a new notable topic (whether in with another article or as a standalone). "Sourcing standards" are outlines at WP:V and WP:RS. And yes, we do expect those that commented and are interested to review drafts that are attempting to accommodate their concerns on previous language. That's consensus. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- The sourcing standards for notability are the WP:GNG, and the WP:SNGs for particular topics.
- Hopefully you don't expect everyone who already commented ... to repeat themselves How else do you propose to build consensus? There's no need to comment on every draft; but you stated your concerns, I stated mine; and the draft above was composed with the goal to satisfy them, so after it's iterated through several versions for polishing, it's sensible to ask for approval or further refinement. Note that I'm at your side at the goal to avoid fueling AfDs with the "page is not required for every topic that satisfies notability" original proposal; and that you an I have often agreed at AfDs. So what's wrong with saying in the guideline that, sometimes, short notable articles should not be merged into larger articles? Diego (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dream Focus makes it clear that they are "against this in any form", presumably including any new form that may be proposed in the future. That is their prerogative. Then again, consensus does not equal unanimity, and consensus will be determined by those editors who participate constructively. At this point, I don't plan on supporting anything without a community RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am against any addition, since as I have stated it is unnecessary, and no reason to have anything that long shoved into the article. Others have made their objection clear also in this manner. No need for us to have to keep repeating it. Having the exact same thing being discussed again with slightly different wording, doesn't chance the fact that it isn't necessary, and serves no purpose other than to hammer in the deletionist motto "It doesn't matter how many reliable sources give it coverage, or how long the article is, or any other factors, if the random editors that notice something is at AFD, and decide to comment there, don't like it, you can delete it anyway." Dream Focus 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to remain steadfastly against any addition, and refuse to work (as the others that initially objected to this) to get the language right, you won't be able to stonewall against consensus. You're assuming incredibly bad faith that this is a deletionist ploy. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unless there is no consensus for any change at all. And its not assuming bad faith to state the obvious, since some who have supported it have already made it quite clear their beliefs that no matter what guidelines something passes, they can still delete it if they feel like it. Just say it flat out and obvious, don't go trying to pretend otherwise. While some supporting this may have good intentions, there are obviously others supporting it who do not, and the end result will be the same regardless. Dream Focus 16:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- No one had said they want articles deleted. You are definitely assuming that the additions are being propose in bad faith, and thus you are obstructing useful discussion towards consensus (Which is currently being achieved below). AGain, what has been proposed is stating what practice already is, not creating new practice, and current practice is that we merge such topics, never delete them. That won't change so calling this a deletionist thing is bad faith. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, they're not deleted, they are merged. I don't want people rampaging around getting rid of articles for clearly notable people replacing them with redirects to one of their books or whatever they are notable for, and calling it a "merge". Information about the author would then be removed if any put in another article, because it doesn't fit there, that article about their book not them. I've seen that happen before. Also, things that clearly pass notability requirements and have long articles filled with valid information, are sometimes targeted by people who don't like that sort of thing, and want to redirect them all to one article. When things end in Keep at AFD, people often try to argue to "merge" them elsewhere, which means just replace an article they don't like with a redirect. This happens far too often and drags out needlessly. Dream Focus 17:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe that "things that clearly pass notability requirements and have long articles" should not be deleted or merged, this is your golden chance to explain the reasons why that is the case, and have them encoded in the guideline, so that the default behavior will be to keep them no matter how many editors that don't like it show up at AfDs. Diego (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think you're trying to target the actions a very small number of certain individuals that have personal chips on their shoulders to deal with a specific field of interest to try to strip down information/remove it/whatever. No amount of guideline or policy will change their behavior, and that's what it is is a behavior problem meaning that if they keep doing that, you go to RFC/U and other dispute resolution.
- Mind you, that's a select few people. But when you start applying that at large, that's assuming bad faith. If an article is kept at AFD, a merge discussion afterwards is not a bad thing; it can be used to better address the problems that the nom and others saw at AFD to propose it for deletion. It only gets bad if the same editor keeps pushing the merge over and over despite repeated merge discussions that have failed. That's why its important to stress that "merge" is not an evil word as some make it out to be, particularly if that includes the redirect to keep the history of editing around. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, they're not deleted, they are merged. I don't want people rampaging around getting rid of articles for clearly notable people replacing them with redirects to one of their books or whatever they are notable for, and calling it a "merge". Information about the author would then be removed if any put in another article, because it doesn't fit there, that article about their book not them. I've seen that happen before. Also, things that clearly pass notability requirements and have long articles filled with valid information, are sometimes targeted by people who don't like that sort of thing, and want to redirect them all to one article. When things end in Keep at AFD, people often try to argue to "merge" them elsewhere, which means just replace an article they don't like with a redirect. This happens far too often and drags out needlessly. Dream Focus 17:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to remain steadfastly against any addition, and refuse to work (as the others that initially objected to this) to get the language right, you won't be able to stonewall against consensus. You're assuming incredibly bad faith that this is a deletionist ploy. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am against any addition, since as I have stated it is unnecessary, and no reason to have anything that long shoved into the article. Others have made their objection clear also in this manner. No need for us to have to keep repeating it. Having the exact same thing being discussed again with slightly different wording, doesn't chance the fact that it isn't necessary, and serves no purpose other than to hammer in the deletionist motto "It doesn't matter how many reliable sources give it coverage, or how long the article is, or any other factors, if the random editors that notice something is at AFD, and decide to comment there, don't like it, you can delete it anyway." Dream Focus 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dream Focus makes it clear that they are "against this in any form", presumably including any new form that may be proposed in the future. That is their prerogative. Then again, consensus does not equal unanimity, and consensus will be determined by those editors who participate constructively. At this point, I don't plan on supporting anything without a community RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As I'm thinking about a Draft 5 (yes, I'm actively thinking about it), something occurs to me that I don't think was mentioned yet and may be worth discussing. Part of the third bullet point in the second half of Draft 4 is based on WP:BLP. I'd be disinclined to include that part, because those issues really end up being about WP:DUE. BLP is very clear that potentially defamatory content is impermissible no matter where it's located, so it doesn't really help determine where best to put permissible biographical material. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well seen; I just intended to provide some examples of topics that are undue under a main topic (not because they're defamatory, just minor to their life as a whole, like "Invitations to the inauguration of Barack Obama") and nevertheless can be notable and adequate at a different context. But it's better not to mix this with the WP:BLP policy; that sentence could be shortened to "That can happen with fringe theories or lesser episodes in a biography." And maybe you can think of different examples that don't involve biographies. Diego (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good, agreed, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Draft 5
- Standalone pages for notable topics
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how to present the available information so that readers can best understand it. Sometimes, this objective is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we always do so. There are other times when it is better to cover the material as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.
- Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
- Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, they cannot be collected into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
- What sourcing is available now? A subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. A stub about a topic with potential to be expanded can entice editors to add content and complete the article. If information about a future event is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).
Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. Conversely, when a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page.
Thoughts? Have at it! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Quite impressed, so far. I'll sleep on it and give my thoughts tomorrow. Diego (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I read through your draft without knowing too much about the previous discussion. When I finished reading, I became confused as to what the purpose of this was and how it related to notability—I had to even check what page I was on. Then I scrolled up and read the first line of this section written by Masem and it all made sense: "While it is clear that once a topic is presumed notable per GNG or an SNG that we allow it its own stand-alone article, we should have advice that it is not required that a notable topic have its own stand-alone article." For as long as the draft is, it's not very clear as to what is being recommended and why. To start, perhaps you should change the section title to Standalone pages are not required for notable topics. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I personally find the use of the word require in this context highly misleading and wish we'd stop using it. Notability of a topic does not require an article or even inclusion of the topic in another article. I could list at least 100 topics that would meet our notability standard that do not have articles, but nothing requires me to write them. Our standalone article inclusion criteria is notability. Editors who chose to write articles on notable topics must ensure the topic meets our notability standard. Any content added to another article must meet our verifability criteria and has nothing to do with notability. Inclusion of content in another article on a topic that might otherwise meet our notability criteria is indeed an editorial judgement, but that decision is something that is justified by the context, not required by it. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- We don't want that to be "required", hence the need to direct the language away from that. That's the primary purpose here - there are some editors that insist that once they have a notable topic it must have an article. That's not the case, and why its necessary to assert that a separate standalone article is not required for a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's not a requirement to include aynthing at Wikipedia; the only hard requirements are to not include things that could damage the Wikimedia Foundation. So why should we single out the non-requirement for standalone articles, above all the things that are not required? I agree that this word is too strong, and likely redundant. At least now it's balanced with a reminder that Wikipedia is not paper and that, if new articles are not required, they're also not forbidden. (If you intend to use the "not required" argument at discussions, prepare to have it replied to each time with WP:NOTPAPER. It would be better to spend our efforts on the rest of arguments). Diego (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- We don't want that to be "required", hence the need to direct the language away from that. That's the primary purpose here - there are some editors that insist that once they have a notable topic it must have an article. That's not the case, and why its necessary to assert that a separate standalone article is not required for a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, some more thoughts. I like the new structure, it's better to have the "do"s and "do not"s for each criterion together instead of a whole separate section for each.
I'm worried that the fourth point in the SHORTPAGE section of Draft 4 (about short articles with enough context) is missing from the new draft while the link to WP:PERMASTUB essay remains. The difference between "a stub with no reasonable prospect for expansion" and a "valid short article that cannot be expanded" is subtle, but it exists - and ironically PERMASTUB gives some hints: when most aspects of the topic are not covered in other articles, all the important things to say about the subject are included, and the subject was not about a single event, then it merits an article even if there are no more sources to expand it.
I call these articles snowflakes (as opposed to run-of-the-mill). See the deletion discussion for Abraham Brian farm house for an example. There, an overwhelming early Delete consensus was reverted to a Keep; it just needed pointing out that, even if the person didn't meet the notability guideline for biographies, there was still a valid article because the house was being noted. With such a small tweak, a valid article was retained that would otherwise have been lost. (That was a case of notable vs non-notable, not of "notable-yes-but-with-or-without-article"; but the argument is still the same).
Quite often, all it takes to keep a stand alone page (with enough context for the topic to be properly explained) is a small effort to clarify in the article the reasons why the topic is notable and polish its structure and style. The third point in the current draft makes it look like it's a matter of volume, though, not the quality of information provided by the sources and reflected in the article. My new motto is focus on quality, not quantity; I think this idea must be included somehow in this guideline before it can be made public.
As for the section title, maybe a simple "Standalone pages" would suffice, since this would be the only guideline describing their relation to notable topics. Diego (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I've read with great interest the feedback so far, and here is my analysis of it. I'm trying to find ways to incorporate every concern that comes up, and sometimes this means figuring out how to reconcile opposing suggestions.
- The word "required", what the section title should be, and making it clear what the purpose of the section is. Odie5533's observation that it wasn't obvious why the section was being proposed strikes me as an important problem to address. One obvious way to go about that is to make a better title for the section. How about: "Whether to have standalone pages for notable topics"? That posits the question, without taking a side, and without getting into "required". Is it too long? We could also go with: "Whether to have standalone pages".
- "Required" and clarity in the first paragraph. Also, I'm not clear from the discussion: is it considered a problem where the second sentence of the first paragraph says: "... but it is not required that we always do so"? I can see how saying that something is "required" would present problems, but it is unclear to me whether saying something is "not required" presents the same problem. If we alter that phrase, I have trouble seeing how we could still make it clear to a new reader what the purpose of the section is.
- The fourth bullet point of the second part of Draft 4. When I started Draft 5, I was unsure about how much of that material to retain. In part, I'm concerned that it becomes a too-lengthy how-to about article writing, instead of guidance about notability. I have trouble seeing how to avoid making it sound like "how to write a good article". On the other hand, I'd be happy to add, maybe at the end of the third sentence of the third bullet point of Draft 5 (the sentence about enticing editors): "(see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill)." Would that be enough, or not?
I think you can see that these are things where I'm not sure which way to go, so specific feedback on these questions would be very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would still welcome comments on these issues, but, seeing none so far, I'm going to use my best guesses, and move forward to Draft 7, because I don't want Draft 6 to sidetrack what has been a productive discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Draft 6
- Standalone pages for notable topics
Important things to remember:
- If something qualifies for a merge, then it should be discussed on the talk page, to determine if that is the best way to do things. Tag both articles involved with a notice showing people there is a discussion.
- You may not merge something just to get rid of an article you don't like. Dismissing the notability guidelines simply because you don't think something should be allowed on the Wikipedia, is not acceptable.
- While we try to assume good faith of all editors, we must also watch out for those who try to game the system. There are some editors who after failing to get an article deleted in a proper deletion discussion, will immediately start a discussion on the talk page to try to eliminate it through means of a "merger" instead. These bad editors sometimes repeatedly nominate something for deletion or bring up merger discussions after awhile to try to restart the same discussion hoping for the results they want, ignoring all previous discussions which has shown people were against these actions. While consensus can change on things, this is clearly an act of someone gaming the system. Editors must judge for themselves if there is a valid reason to merge something, or someone is just trying to use that as an excuse to eliminate an article they don't like.
- If a page is too long, its best to divide some of the content into a side article. You can not merge things together if the result would be an article too long.
- You may not eliminate valid information from an article, just to make it short enough so that a merger would seem practical.
- Even if an article is merged, it can still be restored later on if enough valid information about it has been found to fill its own article.
- Wikipedia has no shortage of space, so space concerns are never a valid reason to delete or merge something.
- An article being short should not be the sole reason for merging it. The notable subject may do well on its own, or have potential to expand.
- To see examples of when something should be merged, and when its best not to, see the WP:MERGE article, since obviously that's the right place for that.
- How about that? We need everything laid out clearly so we can show the difference between legitimate merges and illegitimate ones. Dream Focus 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that you don't mind if I endlessly reply to what you proposed, but it seems to me that this version (probably better with WP:NOMERGE as the shortcut) would fit better at WP:MERGING than here. It's basically about merging, and particularly when not to merge something. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Somehow we have transformed what we are drafting from a broad philosophical statement (Essentially saying: not every notable topic needs to have its own stand alone article; sometimes it is better to present it in the context of another article) into a set of "Rules for merging and not merging". I am not sure that I like this transformation. The broad statement at least had a tie to the concept of notability... now it just seems like disconnected instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since these new articles would be created regardless of what is said, it ends up as being a merge discussion anyway. People will only link back here and quote what is suggested in other drafts, to try to eliminate an article someone has already created by merge or deletion. The existing bit in the article already says everything that needs to be said at the top. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Dream Focus 07:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Dream Focus at this point (not necessarily the draft, but the relevancy). If you substitute in Draft 6 the word "merge" with "not having a standalone article" the ideas do apply to new articles as well. And Blueboar, this is a guide for style not a philosophical discussion; it's not here to provide moral support for those editors willing to merge the notable topic or keep the notable topic (do not! do too!), we already have IAR for that. It should explain why we think a topic should or should not have a page; it's useless without that. And it's not instruction creep if the rules are contradictory - you can still decide which one applies to each particular case and ignore the rest. Diego (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, I hope that it's obvious that Draft 6 is not so much an outgrowth of Draft 5, as a rebuttal to it. My preference would be to go back to discussing Draft 5. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, the problem with Draft 6 is that it is being prescriptive and introducing new "rules" that 1) don't belong at WP:N but at MERGE, and 2) do not address the original philosophical point. DF's assumption that adding new language will give ammo for those that are insistent on deleting material is completely in bad faith and does not recognize this happens already, with or without the previously proposed langauge, and more importantly with an addition page to clarify things of when and when not to consider including a smaller topic in a larger one, we can potentially offer advice to be more useful to prevent such AFDs. While one can state IAR, IAR is meant to be for exceptions, and this really is not, because again we're starting from the point that this guideline never said that a notable topic must get a standalone page though there are editors that fight strongly on this assumption. Because the consideration of smaller topics discussed in larger context is rather common, it's not something to just IAR away. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to get sidetracked by a discussion about DF, so I hope we can get back to a productive discussion about #Draft 5, where I left some questions that I hope others can answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, the problem with Draft 6 is that it is being prescriptive and introducing new "rules" that 1) don't belong at WP:N but at MERGE, and 2) do not address the original philosophical point. DF's assumption that adding new language will give ammo for those that are insistent on deleting material is completely in bad faith and does not recognize this happens already, with or without the previously proposed langauge, and more importantly with an addition page to clarify things of when and when not to consider including a smaller topic in a larger one, we can potentially offer advice to be more useful to prevent such AFDs. While one can state IAR, IAR is meant to be for exceptions, and this really is not, because again we're starting from the point that this guideline never said that a notable topic must get a standalone page though there are editors that fight strongly on this assumption. Because the consideration of smaller topics discussed in larger context is rather common, it's not something to just IAR away. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, I hope that it's obvious that Draft 6 is not so much an outgrowth of Draft 5, as a rebuttal to it. My preference would be to go back to discussing Draft 5. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- This proposal doesn't seem to reflect any of the advice in the previous edits, which has a consensus as far as I can tell, if not something very close to it. We'd be better off working with the other version. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Many of these concerns have been included at Draft 5 and Draft 7 already (space, content forking, article growing, a link to WP:SNOWFLAKE to defend short articles). I think the call to WP:PRESERVE content that would otherwise removed may be a good addition to Draft 7, if we find a concise way to include it. The comments about editor behavior seem out of place though; this is not a behavioral guideline but a content guideline. Diego (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Draft 7
- Whether to create standalone pages
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how to present the available information so that readers can best understand it. Sometimes, this objective is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we always do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable material as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.
- Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
- Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, they cannot be collected into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
- What sourcing is available now? A subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. A stub about a topic with potential to be expanded can entice editors to add content and complete the article (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). If information about a future event is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).
Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap). Conversely, when a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page.
Continued from #Draft 5, above. Thoughts, advice? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Very good. I am still not sure whether this would be best presented as a section within WP:NOTE, or as a linked stand-alone guideline page on its own... but as far as guidance and text goes, I have no issues with it. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hate to add more to make this longer, but I would suggest, in the lead, about not disparging the importance of a topic when included in a larger subject, adding that we can use redirects and disambiguation pages to keep such terms as searchable terms, possibly linking to Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap in addition to WP:REDIRECT and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, I just this now at the bottom. Nevermind then... --MASEM (t) 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I just added the essay link. Thanks for pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, I just this now at the bottom. Nevermind then... --MASEM (t) 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I like it. It's starting to get wordy, and I think we can get to the point a lot quicker. But I'm happy to add it as is and refine it through the ordinary policy editing process. This definitely represents existing practice: sometimes notable stubs are merged, or notable articles with a ton of unreferenced material are cleaned up and merged. Especially when there's an article that can put that topic in context, instead of obfuscating the sub-topic with a data dump and editorial opinion. The fact that this proposed section is descriptive of this practice -- and not prescriptive -- is exactly why it's a good guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have mixed emotions. I mostly like the result. I have this feeling that posting this text as a guideline will be misused in horrendous unpredictable ways, but I can't think of a single comma to change. So I say, go ahead an publish it; but keep an eye on it and be open to change it (or even trash it) when it gets tested in the field and we get feedback from the community. Also: can we get another, more positive shortcut besides NOPAGE? Diego (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Like Shooterwalker, I have a feeling that's it's gotten a bit wordier than it needs to be, but I'd need advice as to what to trim. (Maybe I'll think of something.) Diego, please feel free to suggest a second shortcut (WP:STANDALONE is already taken, alas), and also please feel free to point to anything that might lend itself to misuse (especially if fixing it doesn't require making it longer). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here's my attempt at a brutally simple version:
- Whether to create standalone pages
When adding reliable research to the encyclopedia, editors should strive for optimal reader understanding. Sometimes this is best achieved through a stand-alone page. But other times, editors may decide that notable content would be more comprehensible as part of another notable article, with more context. Making the editorial decision to cover a notable topic as part of a broader page is never a statement of dislike, disparagement, or a concern about limited space (since Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia). Editors may arrive at a consensus that a stand-alone article would be better as part of another article where it would lead to a higher quality, more understandable article, and should consider these factors:
- What reliable research is available? A stand-alone page is appropriate for topics where there are abundant reliable sources to discuss it, even if that stand-alone page is currently a stub. But when no reliable sources exist on a topic, a full article cannot be writting without resorting to original research and undue weight, and the article risks becoming a permanent stub. Permanent stubs are good candidates to be merged into broader article. (For example, articles about a future event where there is scarce reliable information.)
- Are there other articles that provide needed context? Sometimes a notable topic is more informative when covered as a section in a broader article with more context. Another way to improve context and understanding would be to compile several short notable topics into a single page or list. Avoid collecting several notable topics together if the resulting article would be too unwieldy, and consider creating a navigational list or category instead.
- Are there other guidelines about how to best cover the topic? Consult Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages for advice on whether to create standalone articles in particular subject areas. Also consider whether the stand-alone page would give WP:undue weight to WP:fringe theories or other things that WP:Wikipedia is not.
When notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap). Conversely, when a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page.
- Not trying to make this more complicated. I mostly removed the examples, and tried to avoid unnecessary words and repetition. If I'm barking up the wrong tree, let's just go with draft 7 and work at it through ordinary editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this! I could quibble with some of the wording choices, but it would be easy for me to just edit those things for a Draft 8 if there is interest in using this approach. What I'd like to ask is: what do other editors here think about the approach of removing the examples, as well as some of the links (to essays, for example)? I'm too close to it at this point to be able to see clearly about it, so I'd really like to find out what other folks think about that question. By the way, as I've said previously, I feel that we need to have an RfC before we put anything on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I still don't like it and for me it has a touch WP:CREEP. There is nothing wrong with offering additional advice but that can be done as an essay rather than extending bloating guideline. If it is on guideline level it is likely to ultimately function as a "law" for disputes over articles and merging discussion. Meaning its character is becoming more mandatory rather than simply advising lost authors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. And that's why we would need an RfC. My perspective is that it really isn't creating new "law", because of what the guideline already says on the subject, but there obviously are differing opinions on that matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Does making it shorter make it less clear that the wording is intended not to take "sides" about deletion/inclusion? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me like we have discussed the drafting of the proposal to the point where everyone's eyes are glazing over. I'm going to answer my own question immediately above by saying that I think it's very important not to give the impression that the proposal is pushing for deletionism, because it really isn't, and giving examples illustrating each way one might go is very useful to make this concept clear. What we might gain by succinctness pales in comparison with what we need to gain by including examples.
- In another day or so, I'm going to pull together a draft for the RfC, and start the RfC, and we'll let the community response determine the consensus. I'll submit something pretty similar to the draft at the top of this talk section, but I'll try to see if I can make anything more succinct. I'll also create WP:PAGEDECIDE as a first shortcut, per Diego's comment. Of course, I'd still welcome any further feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with your analysis, and also prefer the version with links to examples. The new title and the shortcut are very good. Diego (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! (Now I have to find the time to follow through on it...) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I concur with your analysis, and also prefer the version with links to examples. The new title and the shortcut are very good. Diego (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- In another day or so, I'm going to pull together a draft for the RfC, and start the RfC, and we'll let the community response determine the consensus. I'll submit something pretty similar to the draft at the top of this talk section, but I'll try to see if I can make anything more succinct. I'll also create WP:PAGEDECIDE as a first shortcut, per Diego's comment. Of course, I'd still welcome any further feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
RfC on revised proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following revised section be added to Wikipedia:Notability, after "Notability is not temporary" and before "Why we have these requirements"? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whether to create standalone pages
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.
- Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
- Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
- What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, making a permanent stub may be undesirable. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).
Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).
- Support. This new section provides a helpful explanation of current practice. Currently, the lead section of the guideline says: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Consequently, this proposal serves to spell out what the lead says, and is not instruction creep, because it really does not add anything beyond what the lead says. It also is carefully balanced between the options of creating, or not creating, a standalone page. In each case, examples are given for both approaches. Consequently, anyone who tries to quote a cherry-picked portion of the section for a deletion discussion can readily be pointed to what the rest of the section says. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support with the further cavaet if someone wants to make a separate guideline page on when and when not to create standalone articles on notable topics that some of this can be merged into there and references this way. This reflects long-standing advice, and does not change any status quo of how articles will be seen at AFD, but if anything hopefully reduce how many end up going to AFD. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support WP:N would benefit from addressing editor judgment in depth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
CommentSupport: Although I understand and support the explicit intent of this language, but I think it has two flaws. 1) And I've said this before, the but it is not required that we always do so language is misleading since there is zero requirement to create a page. Notability justifies or supports creation of a new article, but it doesn't require it. 2) I am concerned that the language improperly links notability with content inclusion. The hurdle for content inclusion is verifability, not notability. If the current language causes editors to now argue that something that's not notable cannot be included, them we created a new problem while trying to solve another one. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mike, I tried to be responsive to your earlier comments in revising this proposal. I would agree with your point 1 if the language talked about something that "is" required, but it seems to me, logically, that the concern simply does not apply when we are saying that it "is not" required. Yes, there is zero requirement to create a page, and the proposal here reaffirms that there is no such requirement. And point 2 rests on content that is not notable. The proposal here is entirely about content that is notable. Every example is about material that satisfies WP:N, so there is nothing here that would be about excluding material on the grounds that it is non-notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- On point one, I think is more about precision of the statement and what meaning it might convey to someone who actually doesn't know what it means. I know what it means and I agree with, but if I didn't know what it meant and just used my understanding the individual words, I could ask If it is not required that we always do so, under what circumstances (criteria) is it required. In this case the word always (i.e. = Everytime), implies that I could ask if not everytime, then what times is it required. Again I am not quibling with the concept or intent, just the choice of language. The real message is something like this Notability does not always justify (support) the creation of a standalone article ... blah, blah, blan there are alternatives. There is no ambiguity in that because indeed "Notability in most cases does justify a standalone article" The current language isn't a deal breaker for me, but I do think it is not worded as precisely as it could be. --Mike Cline (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- On point two, I don't think there is any language in our guidelines that describes notable content. In fact the Notabilty guideline WP:NNC is explicit in saying notability criteria doesn't apply to content inclusion. Here again, I know what the intent is and support it, but I can recall a great many content related disputes where editors were attempting to limit inclusion of material on notability grounds instead of verifiability and balance grounds. And the defenders of and the sages of the wiki always chime in with something like Notability doesn't apply to content inclusion. So if we were to craft some language for the suggested alternative that said something to the effect of content on the subject in these cases may be included in ...... as long as it meets ....guidelines In other words, don't allow the language to inadvertantly create a class of content, ie. notable content that really doesn't exist and carries some implied baggage "notabilty" that we explicity refute elsewhere. Again not a deal breaker, just a suggestion to make this more meaningful for those editors who don't really no what it means. --Mike Cline (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the further explanations. I need to start my response by saying that I've been looking at these drafts for so long that my eyes may simply be missing things that are obvious to people who look at it with fresh eyes. That said, it sounds to me like these things are going to be pretty easy to fix, given that you consider the issues not to be deal breakers, and that I and the rest of us certainly have no objections to further tweaking of the language (either before or after implementation of the proposal, depending on what the consensus is). So, on point 1, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the differences between "but it is not required that we always do so", which is what the proposal currently says, and "but it is not always required that we do so", which would clearly imply that there are other times when it would be required. Again, maybe I'm just missing something, but I'm not seeing the same implication in the language the proposal actually contains. I'd have no objection, however, to deleting the word "always". Would that help?
- On point two, I don't think there is any language in our guidelines that describes notable content. In fact the Notabilty guideline WP:NNC is explicit in saying notability criteria doesn't apply to content inclusion. Here again, I know what the intent is and support it, but I can recall a great many content related disputes where editors were attempting to limit inclusion of material on notability grounds instead of verifiability and balance grounds. And the defenders of and the sages of the wiki always chime in with something like Notability doesn't apply to content inclusion. So if we were to craft some language for the suggested alternative that said something to the effect of content on the subject in these cases may be included in ...... as long as it meets ....guidelines In other words, don't allow the language to inadvertantly create a class of content, ie. notable content that really doesn't exist and carries some implied baggage "notabilty" that we explicity refute elsewhere. Again not a deal breaker, just a suggestion to make this more meaningful for those editors who don't really no what it means. --Mike Cline (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- And on point 2, the current language refers to "notable topics", which I think is generally regarded as within established practice: some topics are notable, and other topics are not. I see phrases like "content about a notable topic", but I don't actually see "notable content". I also think that the proposal deals only with decisions between (a) covering something as a standalone page, or (b) covering it as part of a larger page about a broader topic. It never talks about whether or not to include material, only about how to include it. There's no mention of deciding to exclude it. Would it help to change the sentence "There are other times when it is better to cover notable material as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." to "There are other times when it is better to cover notable material, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context."?
- In summary, change the second and third sentences to "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we
alwaysdo so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable material, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." I'd regard that as a friendly amendment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- In summary, change the second and third sentences to "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we
- One change for consistency. Change Notable material (implies content and not the subject of the content) to Notable topics. Bob is notable, but we don't really need a separate article on Bob because we can include material (content) on Bob in the Bob's Uncles article as long as it is verfiable That is now consistent with practice. There is no notability standard for inclusion of content or material in an article. But Notable topics is widely understood as applying to the subject and not content about the subject and is reinforced by the overall language in the guideline. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. It's a deal. I trust this won't be a deal-breaker for the two editors besides me who already supported, because it really seems to me to be a modest change. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not a deal-breaker at all for me. Those are valid and simple changes, and we can expect the wording to evolve even after it has been included in the policy - it would be silly to reject the whole thing now over those small changes. Diego (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- So that's a "support" for this RfC, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not a deal-breaker at all for me. Those are valid and simple changes, and we can expect the wording to evolve even after it has been included in the policy - it would be silly to reject the whole thing now over those small changes. Diego (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. It's a deal. I trust this won't be a deal-breaker for the two editors besides me who already supported, because it really seems to me to be a modest change. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- One change for consistency. Change Notable material (implies content and not the subject of the content) to Notable topics. Bob is notable, but we don't really need a separate article on Bob because we can include material (content) on Bob in the Bob's Uncles article as long as it is verfiable That is now consistent with practice. There is no notability standard for inclusion of content or material in an article. But Notable topics is widely understood as applying to the subject and not content about the subject and is reinforced by the overall language in the guideline. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support except for the part deprecating Permanent Stubs. Stubs that will stay that way indefinitely aresometimes a good idea, sometimes not, but they have been widely accepted in WP for years. Our language should reflect this. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support I don't know the context or history nor have I analyzed this in depth so count me as 1/2. But it looks good. North8000 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support generally but I disagree with the part about permanent stubs. Many other encyclopedias have articles that we would consider here to be stubs. They are not necessarily undesirable and there will often not be an appropriate merge target. Perhaps change "but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub" to "but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, or for future events where there is currently little information available, may be more appropriately incorporated into another article on a broader topic"? We could then lose the last two sentences about future events. --Michig (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good call. Including that part about stubs as it's written is turning the WP:PERMASTUB essay into policy. It's good to say that merging them is a good option, but not to call them undesirable - as they're sometimes the best option. I like your tweak to that section to express this. Diego (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agreed. Now that I see it, I think that DGG and Michig make a good point about permastubs. I'd be just fine with changing "...making a permanent stub may be undesirable" to "...editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub", which I think better captures the existing consensus as DGG described it. As for omitting those last two sentences about future events, I see some value in retaining one example each, of having a page and of not having one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good call. Including that part about stubs as it's written is turning the WP:PERMASTUB essay into policy. It's good to say that merging them is a good option, but not to call them undesirable - as they're sometimes the best option. I like your tweak to that section to express this. Diego (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support although I still think it's a little wordy. I'm in favor of just getting it out there, as it does describe current practice. We can always refine it and simplify it through the ordinary editing process. I'm hoping that's something we can all work on together. In the meantime, we'll get it out there, and let it stabilize for a while. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Harmonizing stated policy with current practice makes things more clear.
User:WhatamIdoing's point addressing editorial judgment is a song I've sung for years.
The change agreed to on 12/19 is music to this editor's ears.
David in DC (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) - Just a reminder that the RFC bot listing will expire in a few days, and although there are some suggestions for improvements above, it's so far 100% in favor of adding this. I don't see any need to extend the discussion, so unless someone else does, this is last call for the opposition to "speak now, or forever hold your peace" (or at least to stop edit warring it out when it is added to the guideline later this week). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's precisely what I have been thinking. It seems to me that we should close this RfC as soon as the bot removes the listing (but not before). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:LISTN: Notability of a list
How many reliable sources independent of a subject are required to establish notability of a list? Are 10 reliable sources enough? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- We don't use numbers as it would be gamed badly. You need to demonstrate significant coverage in secondary sources, and how many sources it takes to do that is a case-by-case system. Even in rare cases 1 source may be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking? Zero. If a list has multiple notable elements "X", then "list of X" is notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The subtle different between Lists and a single topic is in the type of coverage. Lists, because they are enumerations of a number of entries about a topic, generally require coverage of those entries as a group. This is not a difficult hurdle in most lists situations because indeed whatever criteria binds the entries together, has been discussed independently in reliable sources. Where we are challenged as a community is those lists/enumerations where some arbitary criteria (arbitrary cross-categorization if you will) is not supported by any reliable sources ever having covered that arbitrary criteria. Although the scenario Jclemens alludes to, generally passes the notability hurdle as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that lists have been kept by the community on numerous occasions for reasons other than strict adherence to WP:GNG. Lists have many purposes at Wikipedia, including navigation and organization. It can often be enough for a list to be reasonable and useful and carefully constructed (i.e. doesn't violate WP:IINFO for it to be kept. --Jayron32 02:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, LISTN was specifically written because we could not come up with a single approach that would cover all lists that are included on WP; the only clear situations where lists would be kept is if the grouping topic was notable - this is not meant to be the only way to identify list notability but the reasoning in any other scenario is not as strong an argument to generalize. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, the community has generally accepted a great many lists that do not meet this requirement, and in fact the last discussion at AfD that hinged on this particular criterion I recall was several years ago. But that is not clear from the page, and the text should be changed to reflect this. I have boldly made two additions in accord with the realities of what happens at AfD. Italics represent my additions.
- The opening sentence reads "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group ...."
- The opening sentence of the second paragraph now reads "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists... or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists,
- I think this is the meaning of the discussion above. I have some definite views about what the other criteria are, but I did not insert them, nor would I add them in this fashion without suggesting it here first and discussing it. That should be a separate question. I've limited myself to indicating more clearly that possibilities are open. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It really shouldn't be an issue, because in most cases, there should be a source for most items supporting inclusion in the list. There are always some edge cases we can argue about that wouldn't require a source ("dachsund" in "List of small dogs", for example), but if there aren't independent, third-party sources for most elements of the list supporting inclusion in the list, it's a WP:V violation, as the article couldn't be considered to be based on independent, third-party sources. Once an article fails WP:V, WP:N isn't even a consideration.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a problem with saying "If a list has multiple notable elements "X", then "list of X" is notable"... To give an illustration: suppose I were to compile a "List of Monarchs who wore eyeglasses". Each individual element (a Monarch) is probably notable on its own... but the actual topic of the list (eyeglasses wearing monarchs) would probably not a be considered a notable topic for a list. For it to survive at AfD, I would first need to establish that the entire topic (eyeglass wearing by monarchs) is a notable topic. Then, once I have demonstrated notability of the topic, I would move on to inclusion... finding sources that demonstrate that each listed monarch actually did wear eyeglasses. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is something that is beyond notability here, maybe reflected in list guidance, about appropriate list topics. I could easily have a list of notable people who's second letter in their last name is "Z", but that's a terrible list topic and far from a natural grouping. If you are doing "List of X which are also Y", and "X which are also Y" is notable, great. But if otherwise you can make a list of notable elements that are "X which are also Y", then the classification of "X which are also Y" should be some type of either sourcable distinction (List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game, the topic is not notable but the fact that scoring 100+ points is considered important by sources), or a "natural" (common sense) means of classifying X (nearly all of our "List of people from (geographic location Y)" lists are like this. That said, WP:N is not the place for this advice, that's about choosing the appropriate list classification. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:LISTPURP. As a rejoinder against anyone trying to over-legislate the issue of list inclusion, I'd also ask them to actually look at the archives of list AFDs, or the currently pending ones. We do not have a community crisis of !voters trying to keep ridiculously trivial straw men lists like "List of Monarchs who wore eyeglasses", so there is not a problem that needs solving there. We have had, however, plenty of AFD !voters think LISTN was a universal and absolute standard and try to get quite standard navigational lists deleted on that basis alone. So if anything the problem has been too much wikilaw in this area, not too little. I think LISTPURP does the job quite fine. As Masem said, not all list problems are notability problems, so trying to stretch notability alone to keep out bad lists mischaracterizes the problems with the bad lists and mistargets good lists. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- If it was up to me, we'd create an entirely new mainspace category for broad navigational lists (perhaps a *gasp* directory space?) and retain the list designation for noteworthy subjects. So we would have a directory of people from New York We would have to change the CLN web a bit but this should settle questions of notability and purpose.
- Back on topic, two broad sources are usually enough to ensure notability of a list (sometimes even one great source). A hundred sources verifying the individual list members don't do anything to the notability of the group of people. Notability of the list itself is not inherited from the notability of its members. ThemFromSpace 19:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The actual point is that for many lists, there is no such thing as the "notability of the list." It simply isn't a meaningful way of analyzing many kinds of lists any more than it is to ask about the notability of a category or an article subsection.
Anyway, your idea ab out a separate namespace for lists is enticing, but ultimately unworkable, because many lists are split-offs from articles (such as lists of people by place of origin, lists of people by alumni, lists of TV episode articles, discographies, etc.) that would be included in those articles if not for space concerns. Others are informational articles in their own right due to their annotations or the way in which their organization is itself informative (such as lists of places by population or area).
Those are all also good examples of lists for which direct notability analysis is not useful, though they are all related to notable topics. We would not tolerate a list of notable alumni from a nonnotable school, or a list of nonnotable alumni from a notable school, but our only concern for a standalone list of notable alumni from a notable school is whether there are enough verifiable entries to justify the split from the school's article. It makes no sense (or is at least irrelevant) to ask whether the list of alumni is itself notable. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The actual point is that for many lists, there is no such thing as the "notability of the list." It simply isn't a meaningful way of analyzing many kinds of lists any more than it is to ask about the notability of a category or an article subsection.
- I might be okay with a lot of navigational lists. After all, we do keep a lot of them, regardless of trying to write a real article about it or sourcing it to a bunch of third party sources. But we don't keep all of them. Some of them really are original research, in the sense that someone noticed some kind of weird common trait between all the entries, and created a list to push that observation. I think this takes more discussion than "yes they're allowed" or "no they're not". (And I share the opinion of some people who think we ought to create a concept distinct from lists, say an "index", so we don't conflate the two.) I'd be worried about making an exception to notability so wide that it becomes a back door for original research and POV pushing. Personally, if we're going to allow people to create indexes, the next best thing to a bunch of sources would be a complete lack of originality. Traits like nationality are unoriginal, obvious ways to organize things. List of brown things would probably be a little too creative for an encyclopedia, and too dependent on editorial opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- You still have WP:NOT to keep undesired lists out; I don't think the proposed change would open a backdoor. Having lists that point readers to the parts of Wikipedia that cover related items is a good thing. ("Index" may not be the best word for it; we already have set indexes for articles with the same or similar names). Diego (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
A useful class of lists in spirit with WP:LISTPURP#Navigation are those navigational lists that point to all instances of a notable topic that are covered somewhere in Wikipedia, even if each item appears as part of a larger article and is not notable on its own. Many of the Lists of fictional things follow this approach. The lists are not indiscriminate, since items that aren't described somewhere in Wikipedia with verifiable sources are excluded, preventing the list to grow too much. Maybe we could add this criterion to the Common selection criteria, to indicate that this list purpose is commonly accepted and not an exception as Masem discussed above? Diego (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that "Lists of fictional X" is always representative of a navigational list. I've seen several that aren't navigaton, where most of the entries don't have a topic themselves and if linked, linked to the work or list of characters for that work. Some are navigation, but it is not universal, and this also implies cases of "List of fictional X that are Y" where the "X that are Y" aren't a natural organization for a topic. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- As long as the entry is linked to the work and the work discusses the entry with reliable sources, the list has served its purpose, allowing readers to find out what part of Wikipedia describes part of the topic. If "X that are Y" is not a "natural" topic (meaning that is defined by reliable sources), I agree the purpose for that particular list is not valid. Diego (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So? Is there still opposition to the line "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability" that was removed on 25th December? Diego (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea why that was removed, but it should definitely be put back in since there's so many different functions a list can serve that make notability judgement of it difficult. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment on LISTPURP sentence/link
Just so we aren't editing warring over this inclusion, I want to comment to Shooterwalker's comment on this diff, in calling the link to LISTPURP a loophole. Unfortunately, it is a loophole, one that we could not simply close when we evaluated LISTN way back. No, we didn't add LISTPURP then and only recently, but I think it was implicitly implied with LISTN's formation (and of course, subsequently explicitly agreed to) as why there was no way to make one nice catchall statement on list notability, simply because there's many purposes for lists on WP. Even without mention of LISTPURP, the advice of LISTN is a loophole itself, since it can only give direct advice on a subset of lists out there. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think Shooterwalker is trying to prescribe a new rule rather than merely describe what current consensus is, and the talk of "loopholes" sounds like an attempt to wiki-legislate from on high. These aren't statutes. Anyway, there have been many AFDs of lists that rely entirely on LISTPURP as a basis for keeping, and we've been discussing for many, many months the fact that LISTN needs to acknowledge that more clearly than it did to avoid anyone else being confused by thinking it's a universal standard for all lists. I think the reply to Shooterwalker above by Diego re: WP:NOT is key—there are many other inclusion principles at play that keep out ridiculous lists that have nothing to do with notability, and so it's not even necessary to try and stretch LISTN beyond how consensus interprets it and beyond even where its analysis is meaningful and coherent. Nor has Shooterwalker pointed to any actual examples that might show that there's actually a problem to be solved by the imposition of more rules. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't accuse me of trying to "legislate" or "prescribe". You're the ones trying to change the guideline. I am comfortable with the truth that we keep a lot of navigational lists, and I'm comfortable with a small exception. My problem is when someone tries to take a narrow exception and write it into practice in the most vague and broad way possible. *Specific* navigational lists are kept. The idea that any list with a navigational purpose is exempt from notability -- really, any list period, because everything on Wikipedia helps you navigate somewhere -- is where I see the legislative overreach. "Informational purpose" is even worse, since that describes virtually every list. Is it your intention to make all lists exempt from the GNG? Because that's what you've described in those words. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- "[T]here have been many AFDs of lists that rely entirely on LISTPURP as a basis for keeping, and we've been discussing for many, many months the fact that LISTN needs to acknowledge that more clearly than it did to avoid anyone else being confused by thinking it's a universal standard for all lists. I think the reply to Shooterwalker above by Diego re: WP:NOT is key—there are many other inclusion principles at play that keep out ridiculous lists that have nothing to do with notability..." postdlf (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We have a new notability guideline!
Wikipedia :Notability (geographic features) has just been tagged as a notability guidline after an RfC with five participants. I thought we needed much more discussion and hashing out before implementing new notability guidelines. I'm posting here to seek further discussion since apparently nobody is watching that page. My opinion is that this needs to be undone to allow for more voices in the discussion. ThemFromSpace 19:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like pretty good work but I consider the mere existence of SNG's to create a messy and ambiguous situation and and special-case "copout" for not improving wp:notability so such complexities are not necessary and we can get rid of SNG's rather than add to them. Most of them are just attempting to address the fact that the ratio of detailed-coverage to actual notability-related-article suitability is inconsistent, and the fact that wp:notability fails to recognize and adapt to that. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the GNG is the copout. The GNG is a criterion based not upon the properties of the subject, not upon the essential policy of WP:V, but of deciding on whether to have an article on the basis of what specific types of sources we happen to be able to currently find about it. This is an accident of the type of topic, the year, the locality, the current participation. It has nothing to do with whether a verifiable article can be written providing NPOV information about a encycopedia-worthy subject. It's a course of desperation,for use when we cant think of anything better. It's sometimes even a last ditch alternative way of justifying an article for which there is no subject-based justification. There is no possible general case rational subject related guideline because the universe of subjects are too different. There's nothing commensurable about the notability of schools and the notability of porn stars. All we have in the world are special cases. We need to make them comprehensive and cover the likely types of articles. The new one is an excellent simple compromise that should remove about 5% of the AfDs from the need for discussion. 5% isn't much, but its getting somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:N, or the GNG, has little to do with WP:V and nothing to do with WP:NPOV. The GNG is an extreme case of WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, not really; technically WP:N extends from WP:IINFO (from WP:NOT). However, meeting the GNG likely helps an article to assure meeting WP:V (via reliable sources), NOR (by demonstrating the notability of a topic through secondary coverage) and NPOV (requiring independent sources to avoid bias). --MASEM (t) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, really. The language of the GNG was drawn from the language of WP:A (then policy), drawn itself from WP:NOR. Helping meet WP:V is incidental; secondary sources are not as reliable as primary sources (typically, reliable is not applicable to a secondary source, we should change "reliable" to "reputable"). WP:NOT (WP:IINFO) is all knee jerk, non intellectual reaction, all negative, and fundamentally unhelpful except in turning around someone who is headed in the wrong direction. Sure, the ill chosen word "notable" pre-existed at WP:NOT, but not the information on how to demonstrate notability. Requiring two independent sources (typically in lede) is not the method to meet WP:NPOV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what WP:N was borne out of, it is still a matter that WP:N today is used to make sure articles meet WP:IINFO, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. What happens is that the method of showing how a topic meets WP:N, via significant coverage in independent secondary sources, also means that we partially satisfy (but rarely, fully satisfy) WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Most articles still need more sourcing and the like to fully satisfy those, but to get a partial meeting through the GNG can only be a good thing. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, really. The language of the GNG was drawn from the language of WP:A (then policy), drawn itself from WP:NOR. Helping meet WP:V is incidental; secondary sources are not as reliable as primary sources (typically, reliable is not applicable to a secondary source, we should change "reliable" to "reputable"). WP:NOT (WP:IINFO) is all knee jerk, non intellectual reaction, all negative, and fundamentally unhelpful except in turning around someone who is headed in the wrong direction. Sure, the ill chosen word "notable" pre-existed at WP:NOT, but not the information on how to demonstrate notability. Requiring two independent sources (typically in lede) is not the method to meet WP:NPOV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, not really; technically WP:N extends from WP:IINFO (from WP:NOT). However, meeting the GNG likely helps an article to assure meeting WP:V (via reliable sources), NOR (by demonstrating the notability of a topic through secondary coverage) and NPOV (requiring independent sources to avoid bias). --MASEM (t) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:N, or the GNG, has little to do with WP:V and nothing to do with WP:NPOV. The GNG is an extreme case of WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the GNG is the copout. The GNG is a criterion based not upon the properties of the subject, not upon the essential policy of WP:V, but of deciding on whether to have an article on the basis of what specific types of sources we happen to be able to currently find about it. This is an accident of the type of topic, the year, the locality, the current participation. It has nothing to do with whether a verifiable article can be written providing NPOV information about a encycopedia-worthy subject. It's a course of desperation,for use when we cant think of anything better. It's sometimes even a last ditch alternative way of justifying an article for which there is no subject-based justification. There is no possible general case rational subject related guideline because the universe of subjects are too different. There's nothing commensurable about the notability of schools and the notability of porn stars. All we have in the world are special cases. We need to make them comprehensive and cover the likely types of articles. The new one is an excellent simple compromise that should remove about 5% of the AfDs from the need for discussion. 5% isn't much, but its getting somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:N today is used to make sure articles meet WP:IINFO? Nonsense. Or barely any. If something meets WP:N, it easily beats WP:IINFO. These are two different bars (thresholds). Your meaning behind referencing "pillars" is unclear to me. The pillars (WP:5P) are introductory for newcomers. WP:N is nuanced, for a specific purpose (AfD), and opaque for non-Wikipedians. The main use of WP:N is in deciding whether borderline articles should have their own article (or deleted or smerged). WP:NOT doesn't work with borderline articles. WP:V isn't useful for borderline articles. If something is unverifiable, then it is deleted without reference to the much more complex WP:N. WP:N doesn't encourage more sourcing, it encourages a bare minimum of sourcing and no more.
- WP:N, the GNG, is used to exclude topics that are not known to be of interest to others. Specifically reputable (eg. not blog) others independent/unconnected with the topic. The SNG Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) is a particularly appropriate as an expansive SNG because we can agree that geographic features are usually of interest without having to examine the "independence" and "depth of coverage" of sources. In contrast, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is an appropriate more restrictive SNG because organizations and companies are prone to encouraging sources hiding their non-independence, and in seeking to misuse Wikipedia for promotion.
- I disagree with DGG's typical characterisations of the GNG, but agree that the SNGs have better practical utility, where they apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- "to exclude topics that are not known to be of interest to others" falls under "WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information" (eg, every fine detail about a topic can "indiscriminate info" of high interest to some but not to the broad audience of a tertiary work like an encyclopedia); that's why WP:N is a guideline to support WP:NOT. And the point I'm making is that you have to get past the bare requirement of the GNG to understand how the SNGs need to be developed. There's a reason we don't just say "you need 2 sources and you've meet the GNG". The concept at its base is to assure that we have a number of sources that go into a higher-level details about a topic to make sure we can base an encyclopedic (not just what it is but why it is important) standalone article about a topic - The GNG describes the types of sourcing that an encyclopedic-quality article should have. SNGs if not crafted carefully create articles that do not do this; but that's why we presume notability in all cases so that if its ultimately decided that enough sources exist to do that with an article after a reasonable amount of time, we can consider merging/deletion as appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:IINFO points to Wikipedia:Notability as "see also, but it is the 8th dot point of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion that establishes WP:N as pseudo-policy regardless of its tag.
- "You have to get past the bare requirement of the GNG to understand how the SNGs need to be developed." Yes, not wording I'd use, but OK.
- WP:N / WP:GNG does say that you just need two sources. Not just any sources though. Independent, secondary sources (preferably), with significant depth of coverage of the subject. Not to be confused with WP:RS. But two sources suffice. Got them, and you are AfD-protected.
- I care little for "presumed", thinking that few readers know what to make of it, and I note that most deletions occur after very little time.
- "WP:N / WP:GNG does say that you just need two sources". No it does not. It says "significant coverage", and however many sources it takes to get there, that's your number. Remember, we're looking to make the case that there's enough sourcing out there to write an encyclopedic article, we don't need to account for all sourcing but enough demonstration that sourcing is or likely will exist to do that. One really in-depth book that goes into a topic that is considered reliable may be all one needs to meet the GNG. On the other hand, some topics may need 5-6 sources to do that. We know that if you put "you need X number of sources", that will be gamed at AFD.
- "Presumed" is necessary because you can't prove a negative - that is, it is impossible say a topic is, absolutely, not notable, for purposes of writing a stand-alone article. That presumption is necessary because consensus can change or an initial presumption of notable (typically from an SNG) may fall through when sources don't appear. That's why every SNG statement should lead to a condition that sourcing can be found in time. Winning a notable award, for example, is strong assurance. Just existing is usually not. As long as we should that this condition is met, we on good faith presume notability to give time for editors to improve the article within the non-timeline of WP:DEADLINE.
- As for SNGs and sourcing, to show the criteria is met, they need a minimum WP:V source (eg, in the case of an award, a cite that asserts that), but they don't need GNG-type sources from the onset. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you consider the new SNG is "carefully crafted"?
- Do you agree that this SNG excepts geographical features articles from having to meet the GNG, leaving them mainly just needing to meet verifiability, which they may do using primary sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Prior to the SNG, the OUTCOMES to keep recognized settlements was always based on the presumption that sources will appear in time, even if local from that settlement itself. In other words, that reasoning mimicked the how an SNG should work. This is in essence captured in the first part of this SNG. (Mind you, I'm of the opinion that this approach is a bad idea, but it is consensus so respect it). But I don't think this is carefully crafted , in considering how the other SNGs are written (which generally go "A topic is presumed notable if it meets (list of criterion)." This needs a major rewrite to bring it in line. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think I agree. I just realised how much it is about human effects (settlements, political regions, buildings and infrastructure). These are not what I consider "geographic features". It might be improved by tossing all human stuff out, leaving "Named natural features are often notable", which is not a useful guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Prior to the SNG, the OUTCOMES to keep recognized settlements was always based on the presumption that sources will appear in time, even if local from that settlement itself. In other words, that reasoning mimicked the how an SNG should work. This is in essence captured in the first part of this SNG. (Mind you, I'm of the opinion that this approach is a bad idea, but it is consensus so respect it). But I don't think this is carefully crafted , in considering how the other SNGs are written (which generally go "A topic is presumed notable if it meets (list of criterion)." This needs a major rewrite to bring it in line. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- So that calls for elimination of wp:notabiity and writing 500 SNG's. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The way that the GNG adopts to different topics is through what is considered as "independent secondary sources" for that topic area. What would be okay for film articles would likely fail for medical topics, for example. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, no, no, and no. A topic is verifiably notable if it has been extensively noted by reliable sources. That is the only way to verify it. If reliable sources have declined to note it extensively, they have, by extension, stated that it is not notable. This "gazetteer" (read bot-generated permastubs on Buttfuck, Nowhere) shit needs to stop. Topics are notable by being extensively noted, and for no other reason, full, stop. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- (I was the sole "oppose") A proposal promoted to a guideline with only two supporters? The discussion was left open for more than 90 days. Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- So do you predict that AfDs are going to close in contradiction to it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I think is that any attempt to cite the guideline at AfD is rebuttable by noting that only two editors supported the guideline at the RfC. The irony is that this reflects directly back onto my limited involvement in the development. In July, my first and only contribution was to add to the "See also" the essay linked by WP:STREET, which is an essay favored by both myself and Bearian. An editor immediately removed the essay stating, "the essay appears to have a low degree of acceptance in the community". Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately a bit late to the discussion, but I have to say from my perspective the guideline is highly problematic and possibly in contradiction to current practice/consensus. The problem is the (new) rather different treatment of populated places (basically always notable) and geographical features (may only be notable if more than statistical data exists). While this much stricter treatment of geographical features may make sense for some of them it does however even contradict conventional (print) encyclopedias with regard to some of the most important geographical features such as rivers and mountain ranges. For many of the world's rivers or mountain ranges (aside from the best known ones) traditional encyclopedias often just offer statistical information (location, length or max elevation, etc.). Such entries would not to be notable anymore under the suggested guideline, which in my experience contradicts the current practice and is imho and unjustified restriction. It makes little sense to me, why we should consider a small town of a few hundred people notable for its own sake, but not a river with a length of a few hundred kilometers or a mountain range for which we just have some statistical data available (at the moment).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Specialty notability guidelines for Masonic groups and similar organizations.
We are currently working on some notability guidelines within the Freemasonry WikiProject that would address notability of Lodges (which fall under the "local chapter" portion of ORG), but also of Grand Lodges and other "larger than local" groups that don't fall into the "local chapter" area to explicitly address a separation of the organization from the building it meets in, and to avoid a lot of stub articles based solely on a group being "the first" in a given area or under a certain qualification (incorporated vs. unincorporated, for example).
I think that the guidelines we are working on could actually be generalized to other similarly-organized organizations in the future, but as a starting point, can we use them within the project as article guidelines, or do they need to be approved to go into the notability policies somewhere first? MSJapan (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm incredibly worried about this development. The Freemasonry Project almost solely consists of Freemasons of the conersvative stream (Anglo-American) and they do tend to hunt in groups and have a much more restrictive view of what "notability" means when applied to Masonic subjects - there are currently three attempts to delete articles relating to eighteenth century lodges (two continuing) and also a mass attempt to change the title of articles where a historic building has "Masonic Lodge" in its title. There is a general desire to not have articles on Masonic topics as well as being able to categorise by Masonic topics (for example Category:Freemasons, which may just be hyper-deletionism but it does seem to be shared by almost every participants. As I've said there is also a tendency to orchestrate views, I'm not sure whether it's by email or by seeing a recognised name and coming to their side however weak the arguments, and this could easily lead to a false consensus at odds with WP:ORG. And lastly there have been attempts to get non-Masonic editors out of Masonic articles either by bullying or by formal request to AN/I (I've had four so far). This can only lead to trouble. JASpencer (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Irregardless of the intent that JASpencer is worried about, if you are introducing new criteria for presumed notability, you will need global consensus to be able to adapt them, otherwise you are creating a walled project, intentionally or not. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why is this necessary? Has there been a spate of AFDs regarding Masonic lodges, in which WP:ORG or WP:GNG proved inadequate or incomplete? postdlf (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Echoing what other editors have already said, I would be quite concerned that such an SNG would be much too specialized, and that it would be best to rely instead on GNG or ORG. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Until now the Freemasonry Project has looked to WP:ORG. It should be enough. However, in some recent AfD's, some of the Keep opinions seem to disregard what is stated at ORG. That is a problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The question to ask is why the lodges deleted should actually be kept. If it's just based on the reasoning that all such types of lodges should be keep irregardless, that will likely fail as a reason. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The presumption from many editors who are Freemasons (and they push the vast majority of AfDs for Lodges and grand lodges) on these AfDs that lodges should be deleted unless they showed a higher bar than in WP:ORG. For example in this current AfD the opening reasoning is merely "No apparent notability, most local masonic lodges are not notable" and that's despite it having a claim to being the first Masonic presence in Brazil and instigating a failed coup. They have been losing a few of the AfDs because the votes are following WP:ORG not because they are deviating from it. I'd like to see a closing vote where the only argument put forward was "all Masonic lodges are notable". JASpencer (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The question to ask is why the lodges deleted should actually be kept. If it's just based on the reasoning that all such types of lodges should be keep irregardless, that will likely fail as a reason. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Until now the Freemasonry Project has looked to WP:ORG. It should be enough. However, in some recent AfD's, some of the Keep opinions seem to disregard what is stated at ORG. That is a problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) The largest issue has been a lot of stub articles on lodges and groups. They are usually created by members of those lodges in good faith, and I say this because most Lodge histories are not publicly printed - they are limited run for members on special occasions, which means unless there is a Masonic library nearby, there's no way to verify any of what is said i the articles, nor expand or maintain them. The best we can usually do is prove existence (and existence only) through a publicly-available list. There are also several articles whose source materials consist of one item in a foreign language, and we can't really speak to its reliability as a source for several reasons. That's not enough for GNG, but editors are willing to let this go, apparently, because no one ever cites GNG in AfDs, they use ORG.
ORG is often inadequate because only "historical notability" is being cited ("X is the first Lodge in Y"). ORG will let that pass as notability. However, somebody has to be first, and many times that historical precedence is predicated on "qualified circumstances." For example, Savannah Lodge (at AfD) is supposedly notable because it is the "mother lodge of Georgia." Problem is, three lodges need to form a Grand Lodge, so no jurisdiction has a "mother lodge." Phoenix Lodge in Sunderland (alos at AfD) is also notable "because they have the oldest purpose-built building in the area", except the Lodge and its building are separate entities. Early Lodges met in taverns, and the Lodge is not its building and never has been. The Phoenix building is notable (it's Grade I listed), but the Lodge may not be.
In the US alone, we would need to have 49 stub articles on "the first lodges" in the states, plus associated Grand Lodge articles for all the states, many of which we don't have information on other than formation dates. The truly notable historical lodges are well-documented in readily-available sources, but ORG would allow any Lodge with a date claim to pass as notable.
We also have issues with Grand Lodges. There is no single Grand Lodge that covers everyone in the world. Every Grand Lodge is sovereign in its own jurisdiction, meaning that no one else can tell it what to do in its own country, province, city or state. There are even District Grand Lodges if a Grand Lodge has a Lodge in another country it can't administer effectively. So there are 49 in the US, at least six in Germany, 12 (I think) in Brazil, and that's only on one side of the Masonic equation.
Adding to that, anyone can form a Grand Lodge, and there are multiple GLs in many places of varying actual jurisdiction and recognized legality. Therefore, the title alone does not confer notability. Yet, we have a whole bunch of stubs that we can't do anything with, like Grand Lodge of West Virginia (the majority of which was about a non-notable court case involving one member, and not about the organization), Grande Loge Suisse Alpina, Grand Orient of Poland, and Masonic Order of Liberia. AFAICT, because they exist, and because they have some jurisdiction which they claim in a given area, they're "notable." Problem is, we can't write anything on them, and for that reason they're actually unencyclopedic. "The GL of X, formed in year Y, is the governing body of Freemasonry in X" is really all we have for many of these, and all we will be able to get. That's a classic dicdef if ever I saw one.
Now, some are notable for different things - Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was the first in not only the US, but the New World, had Paul Revere as a Grand Master, and was the first Grand Lodge to recognize Prince Hall Freemasonry, which was a huge deal. The Grand Lodge of Texas sent a warrant with Neil Armstrong to the Moon to claim jurisdiction there, and I'm sure there are other things I could point out if I knew more about it. Nevertheless, these are well-documented and historically important items, and are often only one of a number of historically important items involving these groups.
As it comes down to it, it's context, really. The context of fraternal groups in general is very different than the sorts of organizations ORG is intended to cover. They can pop up simultaneously in different places, and many times, there is no single progenitor to look to - as far as ORG goes, any one of them can be proved just as notable as the others for the same reason, and that is where the problem lies. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- To my mind, most of this is covered by WP:ORG... which clearly and repeatedly calls for reliable sources that are independent of the organization to support claims of notability. Self-published lodge histories, and lodge websites don't qualify. In many of the cases currently at AfD, there is an assumption that sources exist to support the claims of notability... but that assumption is not always born out by the facts. Either the sources don't actually exist, or (when sources do exist) they amount to nothing more than "passing" references and not the sort of substantial discussion WP:ORG (and GNG) calls for.
- I do have to agree that the "notable building/non-notable org" issue is a vexing issue. Because so many Masonic buildings are listed by the NRHP, and because the NRHP project is prolific and wants to have stub articles on every building listed by the NRHP, we have a LOT of stubs on Masonic buildings. Unfortunately, with many of these Masonic buildings, the only source is the NRHP database itself... which means the article should never grow beyond a simple stub saying "X is a building listed on the NRHP". And because there is a natural desire to say more than that... we get well intentioned editors "padding" the article with information on the non-notable organization that meets in the building (sourced to self-published lodge histories and websites). Eventually, you get an article that talks more about the lodge (organization) than about the building. The article gives more WEIGHT to the non-notable lodge than the notable building. In other words... an article that starts off as a "non-expandable stub" about a notable building... turns into a more extensive article about a non-notable organization. Yet when sent to AfD, people (correctly) say "Keep" because the building is notable. Essentially its a DUE WEIGHT issue... which grows until it becomes a Notability issue. The solution is to pare the article back to a stub about the building... but that upsets people because they view it as not WP:PRESERVEing information (even though the information should never have been added to the article in the first place, because it isn't information about the building). Not an easy issue to deal with. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the policy is not working, because there are two distinct pieces to it. Under the first part, there are specific prohibitions against inherent or inherited notability, specific rules as to depth and type of coverage, as well as a rule prohibiting "allegations of lawlessness" from asserting notability. Were that to be applied, the problems at hand would be solved almost immediately.
- However, the problem is not in that part of the policy, but with the "alternative" criteria for organizational activity, which deal with "scope of activities", "widespread attention", and then deals with "local chapters" separately. Does Freemasonry attract widespread attention? As an overall group, yes. As a local Lodge, not usually. Can one consider the scope of Freemasonry's activities to be national? For some countries at the Grand Lodge level, yes. Local Lodges, not so much. Can most people differentiate these? No.
- Additionally, the alternative criteria for "non-commercial" and "local chapters" appear to be mutually exclusive of one another. All fraternal groups are somewhere in the middle, because they are both non-commercial and mainly locally based. So there is at least a gap that could stand to be addressed, if only to explicitly assert that both sets of those alternative criteria should apply to fraternal groups as a whole, not just Freemasonry. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've been following this discussion, about a subject that I know very little about, and Blueboar's analysis gave me an idea about something I'd like to suggest. If one of the problems is stubs about notable buildings being improperly expanded into pages about who meets in those buildings, maybe we could provide some guidance there, without actually creating a new SNG. I haven't looked at what (if anything) WP:ORG says about it, but perhaps a sentence or two could be added, saying that pages about buildings should not give undue weight to information about non-notable organizations that utilize those buildings. I believe there is also a Masonry WikiProject, and perhaps their project pages could also give advice of that nature. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is for the project, and there are more issues than just buildings. We can repurpose a building article. As I said, the main problem is the alternative notability criteria allows "Y is the oldest Lodge in X" articles to pass. Fraternal organizations pretty much need both sets of alternative criteria to apply. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've been following this discussion, about a subject that I know very little about, and Blueboar's analysis gave me an idea about something I'd like to suggest. If one of the problems is stubs about notable buildings being improperly expanded into pages about who meets in those buildings, maybe we could provide some guidance there, without actually creating a new SNG. I haven't looked at what (if anything) WP:ORG says about it, but perhaps a sentence or two could be added, saying that pages about buildings should not give undue weight to information about non-notable organizations that utilize those buildings. I believe there is also a Masonry WikiProject, and perhaps their project pages could also give advice of that nature. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me like ORG actually covers this reasonably well, stating that generally, local chapters/units of a larger organization are not notable. This really isn't any different than a large company being notable, but its various offices generally not being. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly... while there are a few local lodges that are notable, most are not. Once again, the key to determining which is which is independent sourcing... the age of a Masonic lodge (or any other organization) is nothing more than trivia - unless an independent source makes note of that age (beyond just a passing reference). The same is true for being the first lodge in a given area... it is nothing more than trivia, unless an independent source makes note of the fact that it was the first Masonic Lodge in the area. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the WikiProject write a {{Wikiproject notability essay}} in their own namespace explaining exactly how ORG applies and how it should not be misinterpreted (copying liberally from MSJapan and Blueboar's comments above, if desired) and how to deal with the building-versus-builder issues. I do not recommend trying to make a WP:PROPOSAL for a formal guideline. Also, creating entries on lists with redirects sometimes helps mollify the people who believe that being first in a small place is a big deal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion for a new section "Subject-specific notability guidelines"
Just in dealing with a few issues around ORG and some AFD comments elsewhere, I'm thinking that we may want to add one section, immediately following the first on the GNG, on "Subject-specific notability guidelines". Primarily, this is to stress the point that notability can also be presumed by meeting an SNG (as listed in the table) (read: this is the "GNG or SNG" approach that currently has consensus). But we also should stress and spell out the few SNGs where there are tighter restrictions than just the GNG - specifically as noted at ORG (requiring more than just local coverage) and NSPORT (again, more than just local/routine coverage). There might be other cases too, and these should be spelled out; this is meant to stress that if the topic area may have a SNG but that is not one more restrictive than the GNG, then a topic in that area is presumed notable if it meets the GNG but may fail the SNG (as I've seen a lot of AFDs where some article delete based on failure to meet the SNG despite clear GNG coverage). I know the point is already stressed in the intro but this would expand on it and point out that in some areas the GNG is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kudos (or a purple heart) to you for trying to clarify this. BTW, such a clarification would mean that stricter SNG's are moot. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alternatively we can acknowledge the reality. GNG is founded on the presumption that the amount of wp:notability-type-coverage is proportional to the topic's suitability. That's the best gauge that there is but it isn't perfect. Some fields which are proportionately more in-depth-coverage-heavy (e.g. sports, where "coverage" is more of an additional form of entertainment rather than being coverage, or academics where everybody is writing about everybody) and others are proportionately lighter on in-depth coverage such as with musical groups which are very notable but coverage is typically narrower/shallower and fields that are proportionately lighter on accessible coverage (e.g. towns in India.) So some non-notable high school football player might have more accessible in-depth coverage than a city of 10,000 in India. We go though all of these contortions on how to reconcile SNG's with GNG ("just need to meet one or the other" "but sometimes you have to meet both" or "SNG's are just to help predict whether it can meet GNG"). Also massive exceptions (bot-generated articles on every town and geographic unit) to tap dance around this. So some non-notable high school football player in the US might have more accessible in-depth coverage than a city of 10,000 in India. Maybe we should just acknowledge that it is the legitimate place of SNG's to raise or lower the bar of GNG just a teeny bit, and that that is all that they can do, and re-write the SNG's around that concept. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- If notability is "the ability to write a coherent, neutral article about a topic from reliable sources", the indian football player from your example wouldn't be non-notable. I agree that's good to lower the bar for difficult-to-source topics, but I've never seen the need to restrict coverage for having "too much professionally written and reliable information". If someone wants to write such article and has the good sources in place, kudos to them. Diego (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Clarifying (which I fixed) I was comparing a non-notable US high school football player to a city of 10,000 in India, not talking about a player from that town. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- If notability is "the ability to write a coherent, neutral article about a topic from reliable sources", the indian football player from your example wouldn't be non-notable. I agree that's good to lower the bar for difficult-to-source topics, but I've never seen the need to restrict coverage for having "too much professionally written and reliable information". If someone wants to write such article and has the good sources in place, kudos to them. Diego (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Understand that with this addition, I specifically want to point out the ones that are stricter (there's only a couple). And I don't want to make it like the SNG's are ways around the GNG. I have a whole philosophy about the presumed notability from SNGs needing to eventually get to the GNG, but I definitely do not want to touch on that, but instead note that practice is that, save for the stricter SNGs, one can show presumed notability from the GNG or an appropriate SNG. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alternatively we can acknowledge the reality. GNG is founded on the presumption that the amount of wp:notability-type-coverage is proportional to the topic's suitability. That's the best gauge that there is but it isn't perfect. Some fields which are proportionately more in-depth-coverage-heavy (e.g. sports, where "coverage" is more of an additional form of entertainment rather than being coverage, or academics where everybody is writing about everybody) and others are proportionately lighter on in-depth coverage such as with musical groups which are very notable but coverage is typically narrower/shallower and fields that are proportionately lighter on accessible coverage (e.g. towns in India.) So some non-notable high school football player might have more accessible in-depth coverage than a city of 10,000 in India. We go though all of these contortions on how to reconcile SNG's with GNG ("just need to meet one or the other" "but sometimes you have to meet both" or "SNG's are just to help predict whether it can meet GNG"). Also massive exceptions (bot-generated articles on every town and geographic unit) to tap dance around this. So some non-notable high school football player in the US might have more accessible in-depth coverage than a city of 10,000 in India. Maybe we should just acknowledge that it is the legitimate place of SNG's to raise or lower the bar of GNG just a teeny bit, and that that is all that they can do, and re-write the SNG's around that concept. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- It already says clearly they are notable if they meet the GNG or any of the secondary guidelines, they not having to ever meet both, that just ridiculous. We could add in a sentence saying clearly "no article has to meet both, and failure to meet one does not counter the presumption of notability by the other. Dream Focus 00:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know it says this, but I have been pointed to AFDs by others where there are editors assume that the SNGs override the GNG; that is, they argue that a topic that clearly meets the GNG is not notable because it fails the appropriate SNG. (happens often around athletes who may get notable coverage before they are in pro-level sports, for example). I want to make sure that it is clear that, outside of a few specific SNGs, that presumption from the GNG or any SNGs have equal weight. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Purple Heart, it seems to me. As all of us already know, this is one of the "third rails" of Wiki-policy. I think it all depends on the exact wording of anything to be added. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- And to clarify, here is an example AFD I was pointed to (in relation to MMA stuff) where a few editors !voted delete because the competitor didn't meet the MMA section of NSPORTS, but did meet the GNG (with non-local non-routine sources, natch) prior to the AFD. This is not an isolated argument that I've seen in the past, though its not very frequent. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- The whole relationship between GNG and SNG's is inherently unclear / inconsistent. Even in this thread you have been forced to somewhat conflict with yourself. I.E. saying that we should acknowledge that some SNG's do raise the GNG bar, but then pointing to an example and saying that folks were making a mistake when they did just that. So we must acknowledge that any real "clarification" is actually going to be creation of a new "rule". Which is fine if we do it carefully. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Most SNGs do not raise the bar - they work on equal ground as a means of presumed notability as with the GNG; there are only a few exceptions where an SNG requires more than just GNG passage (like in the case of local coverage of ametuer/school athletes.) When you take those exceptions away, we have "GNG or SNG". The example I gave is not one of the exceptions of a stricter SNG, and thus the !votes that said "GNG but not SNG notable" were wrong, despite what we have already listed on this page. That's the case example that we need to provide clarity to with the suggested addition. Again, to stress: most SNGs do not impose a stronger requirement upon the GNG to presume a topic notable, they instead provide an alternate path to presumed notability. There is no new rule here, this is all what happens now, but we do need to be clear for the cases like in that AFD where it is envoked wrongly. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that is all consistent if you mean that that particular case (MMA) is not one of those exceptions where we let the SNG raise the bar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Most SNGs do not raise the bar - they work on equal ground as a means of presumed notability as with the GNG; there are only a few exceptions where an SNG requires more than just GNG passage (like in the case of local coverage of ametuer/school athletes.) When you take those exceptions away, we have "GNG or SNG". The example I gave is not one of the exceptions of a stricter SNG, and thus the !votes that said "GNG but not SNG notable" were wrong, despite what we have already listed on this page. That's the case example that we need to provide clarity to with the suggested addition. Again, to stress: most SNGs do not impose a stronger requirement upon the GNG to presume a topic notable, they instead provide an alternate path to presumed notability. There is no new rule here, this is all what happens now, but we do need to be clear for the cases like in that AFD where it is envoked wrongly. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- The whole relationship between GNG and SNG's is inherently unclear / inconsistent. Even in this thread you have been forced to somewhat conflict with yourself. I.E. saying that we should acknowledge that some SNG's do raise the GNG bar, but then pointing to an example and saying that folks were making a mistake when they did just that. So we must acknowledge that any real "clarification" is actually going to be creation of a new "rule". Which is fine if we do it carefully. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- What bothers me is the "perception gap" between GNG and the SNGs... GNG is perceived as saying: "Sources, sources, sources... no source = not notable. PERIOD. End of discussion" while most of the various SNGs are perceived as saying "If it falls into class X, it's notable... sources don't matter". I know that this is not what either GNG or the SNGs actually do say... but I do think this is how they are understood. To my mind, the SNGs should be seen as clarifications of GNG (as applied to a specific topic area)... and not as alternatives to GNG. In other words we should be able to conform to both at the same time. I would recommend a centralized discussion to work on ways close this "perception gap". Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- But that's definitely not how they are used or designed or considered per the last RFC for WP:N. They are alternatives, and it definitely should not be the case where both should be met at the same time. This creates a really bad bias where for topics that don't fall into any SNG, they only have to meet the GNG, while topics that do fall into an SNG suddenly have to met both. That would create an uproar.
- The way I keep notability in mind is that it is a presumption - based on evidence (sourcing) provided - that a decent encyclopedic article can eventually be written about a topic, with an encyclopedic article one that clearly meets WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and other policies and guidelines and provides more than just basic primary facts about a topic and instead gives context and more understanding to the topic. Having sources as required by the GNG gets you close already, hence why the GNG is a good notability guideline. A topic meeting an SNG will likely not have that type of sourcing to start, but it will have other sourcing that indicates some fact or criteria being met that is a strong indicator that other sources have or will talk about that topic. Thus the SNG is a presumption that gives time (how much time? however much is needed under DEADLINE, which is a heck of a lot) for editors to locate sources - some which may be obscure print versions - or for sources to be generated, to expand the article out. We'd not delete an article that meets an SNG for failing the GNG until we are at a point where the community has determined that if sources were going to be found or created, they would have already, and the original presumption of notability would be determine invalid. This is why SNGs need to be crafted on the basis of potential sourcing. As long as that is met, "GNG or SNG" is the correct description of how to determine presumed notability.
- But that points to why when people say "It meets the GNG but fails the SNG, delete". We want articles to trend towards GNG-like sourcing, so meeting the GNG is sufficient itself. SNGs are not meant to exclude topics except in a few limited cases, specifically NSPORTS and local/routine coverage as one example. This is to fight systematic bias, that some sports in some regions get extremely detailed coverage that does not extend to other sports or even the same sport in other regions. Thus setting strong requirements for sourcing is fine there. But again, rarely is it a problem where one of these exceptions are misused at AFD. It is the case of where "meets GNG, fails SNG" that WP:N presently doesn't sufficiently address and comes up more than enough at AFD to provide caution on. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- What bothers me is the "perception gap" between GNG and the SNGs... GNG is perceived as saying: "Sources, sources, sources... no source = not notable. PERIOD. End of discussion" while most of the various SNGs are perceived as saying "If it falls into class X, it's notable... sources don't matter". I know that this is not what either GNG or the SNGs actually do say... but I do think this is how they are understood. To my mind, the SNGs should be seen as clarifications of GNG (as applied to a specific topic area)... and not as alternatives to GNG. In other words we should be able to conform to both at the same time. I would recommend a centralized discussion to work on ways close this "perception gap". Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The relationship between GNG's and SNG's is a logical quagmire if you try to really define it. What makes it more or less work right now is the fuzziness (logically, a neural net process on a massive scale) that makes a whole lot of things pretty much work in Wikipedia. Any ideas to tidy it up that I can think of require simplification on a massive scale. My kudos, a purple heart and best wishes to the folks like Masem and Blueboar working to more realistically tweak and define it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Two thoughts occur to me, growing out of the most recent comments above. One is that I really agree with what North just said, about how the fuzziness actually ends up helping things work. What I conclude from that is that it can actually be problematic to try to make things less fuzzy, so we need to be careful about that, if we make any changes.
- The second is that any change might as well acknowledge that some SNGs are intended to set a higher bar than what GNG appears to set. It's true that we are in the realm of "presumption", and that, therefore, we should not – generally! – say something that passes GNG should be deleted because it fails an SNG. But GNG can be difficult to interpret, on the face of it, when dealing with a subject for which the sourcing is subject to special considerations. Just how "significant" is that coverage? How "reliable"? How "independent of the subject"? That's where, in an ideal world, the SNGs are supposed to help. When an SNG appears to set the bar higher than GNG, what is happening – ideally, if not in practice – is that the SNG is saying "even though this kind of sourcing appears to pass GNG, as GNG is written, editors who have carefully thought about this subject area have figured out that the spirit (as opposed to the letter) of GNG can only be met by meeting the following criteria." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think, definitely, some SNGs set a higher bar, and others set a lower bar. A lower bar is appropriate for the natural world, non-fringe science, and distant history. A higher bar is appropriate for profit-making and advocating organisations, and recent events in the popular media. The important underlying consideration is the likelihood of surreptitious promotion at play and non-genuinely independent sources. While this is covered by the GNG, it is not covered in a useful way such that a random editor can easily make a judgment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- What you've done, SmokeyJoe, is spoken the unspoken reality of notability at Wikipedia. None of this is written in the guidelines as you've so eloquently put it, but in reality it has always worked that way. In ways that no body actually dares speak, but which many understand, notability acts as a gatekeeper against spam: it's main use is, (and really has always been) to keep Wikipedia from being used as a vehicle to promote some new business. It's why people don't really get up in arms (as a whole community) against tiny dozen-resident villages in North Dakota or high schools or short unnavigable rivers: articles that will never functionally meet WP:GNG, but which pose no threat to be vehicles of promotion, are often either overlooked in practice (i.e. no one bothers) or are specifically excluded from the GNG by other guidelines. That is, the unwritten rule of notability is this: if you want to write an article about some poorly maintained county road in upstate New York, no one's really going to stop you because, though you may be a bit weird in your interests, there's no danger of your article being a vehicle to promote some business or person. If you want to write an article about some bar band from Upstate New York, it'll get slapped with a db-tag faster than you can read it for a second time. I'm not saying it should be any different, but it is a bit of an unwritten, secret rule here. Now, there is a vocal minority of the community that does try to enforce GNG against non-commercial subjects, but ultimately the community as a whole doesn't back this up in widespread practices, which is pretty much what you've stated. --Jayron32 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Getting a bit off track here, though its good discussion. I want to come back to the example AFD that I put, where the nom and a few !votes, said "passes GNG but fails the SNG" with the specific note that the criteria pointed is not a case where the SNG is meant to be more restrictive than the GNG. I know most of our SNGs have text at their top that say sorta the reverse of what WP:N starts with - "A topic is presumed notable if it meets the criteria below. It is also notable if it meets the GNG." Yet, this advice keeps getting missed in such AFDs. I want to make it clear (on WP:N) that while there are some SNGs that require more than the GNG, those exceptions are few (and can be outlines) and in all other cases, a topic only has to show meeting the GNG or (not both) the appropriate SNG to have presumed notability - either is sufficient for the allowance for a stand-alone page. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The real key is whether there is sufficient source material to write an article that is able to meet all of Wikipedia's content policies. That's all notability is about. When people get it wrong is because they've got some emotional investment beyond the growth of the encyclopedia: either they really want to promote some entity, or they really want to "win the battle" or something else. However, there is no functional reason why Wikipedia should not contain information about a subject where reliable source material exists to allow Wikipedia's own coverage of the subject to be trustworthy and accurate enough. --Jayron32 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- But again, in this case, the article had sourcing, but the nom and some !voters were saying "well, the SNG doesn't allow us to include it" (again, with the case that the SNG was not designed to be more restrictive). --MASEM (t) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can you link to the specific example? This is too hypothetical. "Has sourcing" is not per se sufficient for inclusion. sometimes it is easier to point to the SNG than to explain the inadequacies of some sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The example I'm pointing to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio_McKee (and which I note that someone started a second AFD hours later after closure, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee (2nd nomination). --MASEM (t) 00:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, a typical WP:ATHLETE. Athletes frequently accrue an abundance of coverage in popular and sport-specific media. Often, the references are passing mentions, or entirely non-secondary source material, while some are discussion pieces directly covering the athlete. Often, surrepticious promotion is at play ("friendly" journalists/editors, intentional promotion of the subject area of the journal). There people have resourceful managers. It can take a careful examination of every source to decide whether the GNG is met.
I see that Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Mixed_martial_arts is objective but very brief. Sticking to its letter would be easier for all involved, but if someone wants to push for an examination per the GNG, I suppose that is reasonable. It will take some work. When this work is done, consideration should be given to updating or reinforcing the SNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't mention what is IMHO the most common reason for the higher coverage-to-actual-notability-ratio for athletes/sports. Its because much of the the "coverage" it itself more a form of entertainment with immense amounts of sold time-slots and column-inches to fill rather that being coverage in the normal sense. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's really a good idea that we make decisions on high as to what reasons that something receives reliable coverage are valid, and which are not. Either source material exists or it doesn't. We don't need to make any judgements about how we wish society didn't find something worth generating source texts for us to use. Doing so is elitist. We just need to focus on the quantity and quality of material available for use for sources for Wikipedia text, not why that material exists in the first place. --Jayron32 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- ...other than if the material exists because its publication was funded, even indirectly, by the subject. Yes. Being published due to being popular is not a negative. Mere entertainment publications do tend to not be secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wp-notability-suitable-coverage is itself a metric for suitability for an article. Comments like mine are talking about calibrating for imperfections in that metric, not passing judgement on society. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's really a good idea that we make decisions on high as to what reasons that something receives reliable coverage are valid, and which are not. Either source material exists or it doesn't. We don't need to make any judgements about how we wish society didn't find something worth generating source texts for us to use. Doing so is elitist. We just need to focus on the quantity and quality of material available for use for sources for Wikipedia text, not why that material exists in the first place. --Jayron32 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't mention what is IMHO the most common reason for the higher coverage-to-actual-notability-ratio for athletes/sports. Its because much of the the "coverage" it itself more a form of entertainment with immense amounts of sold time-slots and column-inches to fill rather that being coverage in the normal sense. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, a typical WP:ATHLETE. Athletes frequently accrue an abundance of coverage in popular and sport-specific media. Often, the references are passing mentions, or entirely non-secondary source material, while some are discussion pieces directly covering the athlete. Often, surrepticious promotion is at play ("friendly" journalists/editors, intentional promotion of the subject area of the journal). There people have resourceful managers. It can take a careful examination of every source to decide whether the GNG is met.
- The example I'm pointing to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio_McKee (and which I note that someone started a second AFD hours later after closure, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio McKee (2nd nomination). --MASEM (t) 00:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can you link to the specific example? This is too hypothetical. "Has sourcing" is not per se sufficient for inclusion. sometimes it is easier to point to the SNG than to explain the inadequacies of some sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- But again, in this case, the article had sourcing, but the nom and some !voters were saying "well, the SNG doesn't allow us to include it" (again, with the case that the SNG was not designed to be more restrictive). --MASEM (t) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I like the idea. I'm uncertain about the likelihood of success. This is one of those subjects that it's okay for us all to know and to process AFDs on, but it bothers some people to spell it out for everyone.
- One other general clarification that would be appropriate is for each SNG to have a section that directly says that a complete inability to verify basic information (e.g., that the subject is the president of the United States) in an independent source is a death sentence, no matter how supposedly famous and inherently notable the subject is. Wikipedia:Notability (web) has some good language that others might consider (probably toning down somewhat, since WEB is trying to very slightly raise the bar to stem a tide of self-promotion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Do sections of long encyclopedia articles contribute to establishing notability?
Yeah, this is, maybe, a strange question. But, FYI, I have been going through a few specialist reference sources regarding religion, generally specifically faith traditions, in the process of trying to create lists of articles which the given reference works might be useful for, and, also, which articles would seem to be very relevant and/or necessary for the comprehensive coverage of a given topic. In the process, I have found some "encyclopedic" sources which have really very long single articles relating to a rather broad topic, with specific sections within that article for "subtopics". For instance, I am currently going through an "Encyclopedia of Buddhism" which has articles of several pages in lengths on the subject of Buddhist art in various countries and regions, generally with multiple sections, which often are, basically, short one or two paragraph articles on given artists or local artistic traditions. Sometimes, those sections can be quite long, including over a single page in their own right. For a similar list I created recently for the Bible based on one Bible dictionary, I found any number of articles which have lengthy marked subsections regarding theological matters regarding certain topics, history of the development of ideas, etc., etc. Granted that I am comparatively not the best informed person on a lot of these topics, like Buddhism, but I'm not sure how many others we have around here who know it better. So, in the event that there seems to be some form of consistency regarding the relative scope of individual articles or subarticles of longer articles regarding specific topics regarding a religion, would it be acceptable to perhaps use those sources as indicators of notability for a lot of these generally apparently fairly significant topics which have, to date, gotten not a lot of attention around here? John Carter (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the source text is a) reliable and b) indepth, I don't see why not? Presumably, anything notable is notable in more than one text, though, so have you tried to look for additional information? The thing is, much information about non-western subjects has copious reliable texts in non-English sources (which is fine) but you'd need to know those languages to use those sources. Just some thoughts. --Jayron32 02:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's alright to use other encyclopedias as indicators of notability, in partial contrast to using them (as tertiary sources) to source specific facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is plot summary "significant content"?
This is about fiction (let's take the example of an article about a fictional character). If we have a reliable secondary source, but in which we can only find plot summary and no analysis/commentary, would the summary be considered "significant coverage" or not ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a little unclear about what you are asking, but none of the ways I can think of to interpret what you are asking would count as significant coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- A plot summary without any analysis or other transformation is a primary source - and ergo not appropriate for notability. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree - the mere fact of summarizing is a transformation that implies analysis and interpretation, if done by someone else than the original author. Parts of the whole work are weighted by the writer of the summary, which requires judgement as to what is the essence of the story; and different writers can arrive to quite distinct summaries that focus on separate aspects of the story. If the writer is not "close to the event" nor "directly involved" with the work, the summary is a secondary interpretation of it. As long as there are multiple and in-depth sources of that kind, that's enough to establish notability - independent parties are noting the work and writing reasoned presentations about it. Diego (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those are some good points Diego, thanks. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's absolutely wrong, however, for how we categorize secondary sources. Remember, we are in the act of summarizing as well, but we would never consider our summaries as secondary sourcing - its tertiary. The distinction you are talking about is on the first-party, third-party axis or in considering dependent vs independent sources. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I'm explicitly talking of the primary-secondary-tertiary axis, which requires that a primary source is directly involved, and a secondary includes an author's own thinking. I'm also not talking of our summaries, but of summaries by reliable sources; my position is that creating a reliable summary requires a good deal of author's thought and provides emphasis on the significant parts of the story. (A third-party, primary source is the witness of an accident, not someone who analyzes an artistic work and writes about it).
- So enlighten me - if a reliable third party transforming a whole work into a few selected paragraphs is not "transformative" enough for notability, when does such coverage begin to be a significant transformation? Diego (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not the only to think this way - the WP:ALLPRIMARY essay linked from WP:N explicitly recognizes that "a peer-reviewed journal article [...] summarizing previously published work to place the new work in context [...] is secondary material". Diego (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- This completely invalidates your reasoning: "a transformation that implies analysis and interpretation". Per WP:GNG,"Significant coverage means that [...] no original research is needed to extract the content". Unless a writer says so, there is no analysis or commentary whatsoever in a summary; as long as the author doesn't infer or speculate on any plot point, he's merely paraphrasing a primary source and not commenting on it or transforming it. The same goes for "judging the essence of the story", unless the writer clearly says so, we have no business implying that he would have "weighed an interpreted". That would be OR. The involvement of a 3rd party in a summary is trivial at best; the cuts made into the plot absolutely do not change anything to the events/conclusion of a fictional work, there's not enough difference from the primary source to deem it "significant", and there's absolutely no trace of a 2ndary writer's "own thinking", unless we use OR, or unless we're dealing with something else that a summary. WP:ALLPRIMARY is also completely irrelevant here, since it refers to placing "the new work in context", so this refers to summary + analysis, not summary alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're mixing up the concept of original research with editorial judgement. OR applies to what goes written into the article and readers will find about - it cannot apply to the thoughts themselves that editors indulge when deciding what to write about. Yes, what reliable sources write about is relevant to what is finally written - but what counts as "significant" is ultimately decided by editors, not by other sources, because otherwise you'd enter in an infinite loop. As of today, WP:GNG doesn't require any particular kind of content from sources (such as critical commentary and analysis), only in-depth coverage that allows Wikipedians to write about the topic by copying and summarizing what's available elsewhere. Diego (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- GNG's "secondary sources" specifically asserts what type of content we expect as part of the significant coverage - ones that are more than just rote reiteration of facts, and that contain analysis and criticial review. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, what exactly do you refer to with GNG's "secondary sources"? Diego (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're mixing up the concept of original research with editorial judgement. OR applies to what goes written into the article and readers will find about - it cannot apply to the thoughts themselves that editors indulge when deciding what to write about. Yes, what reliable sources write about is relevant to what is finally written - but what counts as "significant" is ultimately decided by editors, not by other sources, because otherwise you'd enter in an infinite loop. As of today, WP:GNG doesn't require any particular kind of content from sources (such as critical commentary and analysis), only in-depth coverage that allows Wikipedians to write about the topic by copying and summarizing what's available elsewhere. Diego (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- This completely invalidates your reasoning: "a transformation that implies analysis and interpretation". Per WP:GNG,"Significant coverage means that [...] no original research is needed to extract the content". Unless a writer says so, there is no analysis or commentary whatsoever in a summary; as long as the author doesn't infer or speculate on any plot point, he's merely paraphrasing a primary source and not commenting on it or transforming it. The same goes for "judging the essence of the story", unless the writer clearly says so, we have no business implying that he would have "weighed an interpreted". That would be OR. The involvement of a 3rd party in a summary is trivial at best; the cuts made into the plot absolutely do not change anything to the events/conclusion of a fictional work, there's not enough difference from the primary source to deem it "significant", and there's absolutely no trace of a 2ndary writer's "own thinking", unless we use OR, or unless we're dealing with something else that a summary. WP:ALLPRIMARY is also completely irrelevant here, since it refers to placing "the new work in context", so this refers to summary + analysis, not summary alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not the only to think this way - the WP:ALLPRIMARY essay linked from WP:N explicitly recognizes that "a peer-reviewed journal article [...] summarizing previously published work to place the new work in context [...] is secondary material". Diego (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree - the mere fact of summarizing is a transformation that implies analysis and interpretation, if done by someone else than the original author. Parts of the whole work are weighted by the writer of the summary, which requires judgement as to what is the essence of the story; and different writers can arrive to quite distinct summaries that focus on separate aspects of the story. If the writer is not "close to the event" nor "directly involved" with the work, the summary is a secondary interpretation of it. As long as there are multiple and in-depth sources of that kind, that's enough to establish notability - independent parties are noting the work and writing reasoned presentations about it. Diego (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- if a reliable third party transforming a whole work into a few selected paragraphs is not "transformative" enough for notability, when does such coverage begin to be a significant transformation? - As soon as you add something that is not otherwise plainly obvious from the original published work, whether it is a personal opinion, a statement of interpretation, comparison between multiple works, or so on - something that if written by a WPian in the course of writing, would be called out as original research. A case in point would be the recaps at the website Television Without Pity, which while recapping a show may include snark and commentary. Of course, how much of such commentary exists relative to the recapping aspect will after how significant this is: one commentary line in 20 pages of non-interpretative recapping is likely not going to be considered significant. Just to be clear and where I'm coming from: I've been trying to push for notability of fiction for several years, and despite that, it is always been argued that recaps without additional transformation are not sufficient sources for notability. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Notable enough for them to talk about the person, and the achievements in their life, be they real or fictional, would indicate notability. Why would a fictional person be treated differently than a real one? Is it just one sentence for a book saying its about this character doing this or that, or is there a lot of detail to it? How much is written about the person/character? Dream Focus 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because real life and fiction are not the same, and "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary", meaning that plot summaries are not the end-all of articles and thus are not significant. I'll also add that even for real persons, WP:ANYBIO seems to say that a mere bio is not notable without the person being notable for something else than for merely having a life that can be summed up.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Folken de Fanel, checking your contribution history, I see you arguing with people on the Dragonlance characters. Is that what you are talking about here? Consensus was that Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere were notable enough to have their own articles. [4] The amount of coverage they have, the details of it, how many notable works they were major characters in, etc. is all relevant. Dream Focus 13:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- First,"how many notable works they were major characters in" isn't relevant because notability is not inherited. Yes, I've recently debated about Dragonlance characters (and the two you mention didn't actually prompt me to come here, it was rather Caramon Majere), and during these discussion, the question arose of whether plot summaries (as opposed to secondary/real world information) sourced to non-primary sources were "significant" enough in themselves to make an article notable. But this goes beyond just a few select articles, fiction doesn't have its own notability guideline, we have to refer to the GNG and I think it is too vague as to what "significant coverage" is when dealing with fiction. If plot summaries are acknowledged as significant coverage, then we could have cases of notable article that would violate a policy, WP:NOTPLOT, and that is problematic. I think we have to clarify a few things here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you aware that NOTINHERITED is an essay? What matters per GNG to write an article for an item in the fictional work is that there's enough content to write about the item alone, while satisfying all the content guidelines such as WP:NPOV and NOTPLOT. I believe a short article that includes the plot highlights and real-world facts with equal weight from reliable sources is perfectly compatible with all the content guidelines, and I haven't seen any policy that contradicts that. Diego (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NRVE is not an essay.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- To which I agree, but that isn't related to inherited notability nor contradicts what I said above. We're talking of sources that have received extended, verifiable attention in the form of plot summaries coming from "peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally". Diego (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- yes, that's related to inherited notability, since no topic is notable merely because it exists, merely being a character from a notable work is not enough, ~which is why Dream Focus was wrong. And my take on plot summaries is that if the author didn't find the subject worthy enough to write original thoughts and analysis rather than merely rehashing the plot, then there's no significant coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- To which I agree, but that isn't related to inherited notability nor contradicts what I said above. We're talking of sources that have received extended, verifiable attention in the form of plot summaries coming from "peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally". Diego (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NRVE is not an essay.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you aware that NOTINHERITED is an essay? What matters per GNG to write an article for an item in the fictional work is that there's enough content to write about the item alone, while satisfying all the content guidelines such as WP:NPOV and NOTPLOT. I believe a short article that includes the plot highlights and real-world facts with equal weight from reliable sources is perfectly compatible with all the content guidelines, and I haven't seen any policy that contradicts that. Diego (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If all your source provides is a recanting of the plot then you still haven't got enough information about a character to build a valid article. We have several character articles that fall afoul of WP:NOT#PLOT because of these kind of problems: if all the article can provide is a plot summary that has been filtered by only discussing the events which involved a particular character, it's still just a plot summary and has no place here. A valid character article should resemble Superman or Bugs Bunny, with substantial information about the appearance of the character in diverse media and its influence in other media. It certainly should not resemble Caramon Majere, which would appear to be a plot recitation dressed up as if it were analysis.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once again, we seem to be faced with the distinction between a subject being "note-worthy" and it being "WP:NOTABLE". The first concept is broad in scope, and relates to the issue of whether we should mention the subject somewhere in Wikipedia (Not necessarily in an article dedicated to that subject). The second concept is narrower in scope, and relates purely to the issue of whether we should have an article dedicated to the subject. The major characters of a popular work of fiction (or, as is the case of Dragonlance, a popular fictional series) would certainly be note-worthy; and they definitely should be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia (the most logical place would be in the main Dragonlance article). The question is whether a given character is WP:NOTABLE enough for its own article. That brings us to sources and "significant coverage"... and the more specific question of whether secondary source plot summaries constitute "significant coverage". To me the answer lies in asking another question: What is the secondary source plot summary focused on. A secondary source plot summary that explicitly focuses on the specific character (ie outlines his/her adventures across multiple Dragonlance books) would constitute significant coverage of the subject (the character). A secondary source plot summary that focused on the broad story arc of the series... and was not explicitly focused on the specific character, would not be.
- So... In my opinion, we can not answer the question as asked. "Are plot summaries "significant coverage?"... Some are, but others are not. We need to look at the specific plot summary in question to determine if it constitutes significant coverage. That is a consensus determination... not a matter of policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I feel, however, that this is a matter of policy. If a character article only has what you call significant summary (ie focused on the character across multiple primary sources) and it is impossible to find any commentary or real-world perspective...the article would technically meet WP:N, but still fail WP:NOTPLOT. What do we do then ? I know that logically, policies should trumpt guidelines, but is there any point in having a guideline specifically contradicting a policy instead of resolving the matter by clearly drawing a line as to what is "significant" for fiction ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The world isn't black-and-white. If you showed me a character that had several plot-focused summations from great sources and enough little bits and pieces from other sources to build a real article, I'd be more inclined to look favorably on that article than if all you could show me was the bit and pieces. The plot-based stuff won't suffice to build an article, but it can contribute to notability. As to "contradicting", there's no contradiction: if the article doesn't pass WP:NOT, then WP:N doesn't apply. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not."—Kww(talk) 17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Blueboar analysis is spot-on. The points about a character that reliable sources want to write about are those being noted, and what we should include in an article about those characters. NOTPLOT should not be a problem, as it includes the way to handle such an article: expand it to provide real-world facts about the character; there will always be the easy ones - works where they appear, genre of the work, year of publication - those are the context that NOTPLOT talks about. Critical commentary is a welcome, but it should not be an impediment for having the article - no other encyclopedia writes about characters only with critical reception. "Just the facts" is a perfectly valid approach for writing an encyclopedia (see Britannica's article about Gollum for instance) - it was what encyclopedias were about before WP:NOT was written. Given that WP is also not paper, articles should be written about the facts of all characters that are being noted by third parties. Diego (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- We do not consider elements like "works where they appear, genre of the work, year of publication" as sufficient to meet WP:NOT#PLOT, as again, that is primary data and not secondary. Articles on fictional characters must include information related to their development, their reception, their legacy, or other analytic or critical details that are beyond fundamental facts, in order to be considered notable. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? WP:NOT is unrelated to notability, so it's not affected by the requirement of secondary sources. What we're finally discussing is what constitutes a valid article about a fictional character. Per Notability, a character that is noted by a lot of independent sources can be kept. Per NOTPLOT, if the article contains an equal proportion of summary and real-world facts (which includes the list of works, year and genre) it can be kept. So far I haven't seen anything in any guideline or policy that would prohibit a "just the facts" article about a fictional character, so opposing them is a matter of personal preference, not policy; it's not any different than the myriad of facts-only articles about soundtracks, movies or books that Wikipedia contains even without Reception sections, provided there are enough sources for them. Diego (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:V requires that articles be based on independent sources (it certainly permits the use of primary sourcing, but the requirement to be based on independent sources has been there for years). Any article which only included information from primary sources would be prohibited by WP:V.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, I agree, but we're talking exclusively about articles where there's a lot of secondary independent sources, all of them providing in-depth summaries of the plot of books or fictional elements, likely from different angles and approaches - WP:V is a given in the above discussion. Diego (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those are not secondary sources, that's the problem. I strongly recommend reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive to show what does not cut it for character articles - just re-iterating plot summaries even from 3rd party sources will not cut it. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If journal articles summarizing previously published work are secondary sources, why summaries of fictional works are not secondary sources? There may be a reason, but I certainly don't see it encoded in policy. Diego (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- You need to use the line from ALLPRIMARY in its entirety: "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing previously published work to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." (stress mine). For articles on fictional characters, we are definitely not talking about using recaps as to put "a new work in context" and thus would be primary here. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, then if I understand your reasoning, the conclusion for the original question is that summaries about fictional works created to put the work in some context would be valid for establishing notability. That wouldn't include blurbs that exclusively provide a summary, but it would include summaries created to talk about a topic other than the fictional work. Diego (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the summaries can talk more about the fictional work in a manner than just rote non-interpretive summary of the work. I could argue that if I had a source that said "fictional works A and B are similar" and proceed to do a rote summary of both works within it, that would at least a start of a secondary source since it's making the claim of A and B being similar. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- As long as the source provides original commentary (ie "new content") there is no problem since the summary is balanced with commentary. I'm refering to instances where sources can only be used for summary. Or in case where we have like 99% plot sum (even from secondary sources) and 1% commentary such as Caramon Majere, which shouldn't be a stand-alone article since there's only one source for commentary and everything else only providing plot sum.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The cure for an article like Caramon Majere is rarely a full deletion for lack of notability. The character being created for a campaign, appearing in early video games and being part of the storylines in several works do all merit being included somewhere in Wikipedia. Now that WP:PAGEDECIDE has been included in the guideline, the decision to have an article doesn't need to be decided on a consensus about notability or NOTPLOT - editorial judgement can be used to decide how to best present the available, well sourced bits. Trimming a plot-only article down to a stub or even blanking it are valid actions, but WP:PRESERVE is also policy and sourced facts should not be lost in the process. Diego (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is where the merge would be best done instead, particular if the character can only be discussed by its appearance in fiction and no or little secondary source coverage exists. By necessity, some of the plot-related elements will have to be trimmed by this, but there's no problem with keeping redirects around to make it a search term. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The cure for an article like Caramon Majere is rarely a full deletion for lack of notability. The character being created for a campaign, appearing in early video games and being part of the storylines in several works do all merit being included somewhere in Wikipedia. Now that WP:PAGEDECIDE has been included in the guideline, the decision to have an article doesn't need to be decided on a consensus about notability or NOTPLOT - editorial judgement can be used to decide how to best present the available, well sourced bits. Trimming a plot-only article down to a stub or even blanking it are valid actions, but WP:PRESERVE is also policy and sourced facts should not be lost in the process. Diego (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, then if I understand your reasoning, the conclusion for the original question is that summaries about fictional works created to put the work in some context would be valid for establishing notability. That wouldn't include blurbs that exclusively provide a summary, but it would include summaries created to talk about a topic other than the fictional work. Diego (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- You need to use the line from ALLPRIMARY in its entirety: "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing previously published work to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." (stress mine). For articles on fictional characters, we are definitely not talking about using recaps as to put "a new work in context" and thus would be primary here. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If journal articles summarizing previously published work are secondary sources, why summaries of fictional works are not secondary sources? There may be a reason, but I certainly don't see it encoded in policy. Diego (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those are not secondary sources, that's the problem. I strongly recommend reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive to show what does not cut it for character articles - just re-iterating plot summaries even from 3rd party sources will not cut it. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, I agree, but we're talking exclusively about articles where there's a lot of secondary independent sources, all of them providing in-depth summaries of the plot of books or fictional elements, likely from different angles and approaches - WP:V is a given in the above discussion. Diego (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:V requires that articles be based on independent sources (it certainly permits the use of primary sourcing, but the requirement to be based on independent sources has been there for years). Any article which only included information from primary sources would be prohibited by WP:V.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? WP:NOT is unrelated to notability, so it's not affected by the requirement of secondary sources. What we're finally discussing is what constitutes a valid article about a fictional character. Per Notability, a character that is noted by a lot of independent sources can be kept. Per NOTPLOT, if the article contains an equal proportion of summary and real-world facts (which includes the list of works, year and genre) it can be kept. So far I haven't seen anything in any guideline or policy that would prohibit a "just the facts" article about a fictional character, so opposing them is a matter of personal preference, not policy; it's not any different than the myriad of facts-only articles about soundtracks, movies or books that Wikipedia contains even without Reception sections, provided there are enough sources for them. Diego (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- We do not consider elements like "works where they appear, genre of the work, year of publication" as sufficient to meet WP:NOT#PLOT, as again, that is primary data and not secondary. Articles on fictional characters must include information related to their development, their reception, their legacy, or other analytic or critical details that are beyond fundamental facts, in order to be considered notable. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I feel, however, that this is a matter of policy. If a character article only has what you call significant summary (ie focused on the character across multiple primary sources) and it is impossible to find any commentary or real-world perspective...the article would technically meet WP:N, but still fail WP:NOTPLOT. What do we do then ? I know that logically, policies should trumpt guidelines, but is there any point in having a guideline specifically contradicting a policy instead of resolving the matter by clearly drawing a line as to what is "significant" for fiction ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This was already commented when writing WP:PAGEDECIDE - the problem is that often there's not a valid merge target, because the most obvious place (the original work that included the character or item) is too large or too general to include in that article; but the item has been independently noted so it should be described somewhere. Or when the item appeared in various novels, merging it to the article for one book in the series wouldn't make sense either. In such cases, keeping a small article covering the various references that addressed it is the best possible structure. WP:SPLIT advises how to handle those cases. Diego (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's why articles like "List of characters in X" for serial works are readily accepted as means of summarizing the characters on their own. This would be perfectly appropriate for these Dragonlance characters for example. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there is a List of Dragonlance characters, and I'm fine with having the sourced content from Camaron Majere preserved and merged there (see how it was done), actually there's already a multi-character merge discussion, but a user has objected the merge of this particular character by arguing that sourced plot summary would make it meet the GNG. That's what prompted me to open this thread.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is that support for keeping around plot details under lists of fictional characters? Because those are also regularly nominatd for deletion under NOTPLOT. If merging the plot of characters into a list under Wikipedia:CSC#2 or #3 is suggested as the preferred solution, count me in. Diego (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there is a List of Dragonlance characters, and I'm fine with having the sourced content from Camaron Majere preserved and merged there (see how it was done), actually there's already a multi-character merge discussion, but a user has objected the merge of this particular character by arguing that sourced plot summary would make it meet the GNG. That's what prompted me to open this thread.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Plot summary is fine as significant coverage. An example, Encyclopaedia Britannica on Macbeth (character): "Macbeth, a general in King Duncan’s army who is spurred on by the prophecy of the Weird Sisters ... The ultimate hopelessness of his position becomes clear to him at last, and he spells this out in two poignant speeches in Act V ...". Or Medusa: "Medusa, in Greek mythology, the most famous of the monster figures known as Gorgons. She was usually represented as a winged female creature having a head of hair consisting of snakes ... The severed head, which had the power of turning into stone all who looked upon it, was given to Athena, who placed it in her shield ..." . Such summaries are fine. Literary criticism and reviews are mainly opinion and so not so significant. We're here to report facts, not opinions. Warden (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. A plot summary is acceptable as part of the coverage of a character but cannot be the only aspect of a notable character. The reason that Britannica has articles on characters like Macbeth or Medusa is that because literary experts have analyszed these characters as part of the body of human literature; but before they can talk about that, they have to identify that character in the primary works, hence the appropriateness of plot summary as part of a stand-alone article. But plot summary alone doesn't give any indication of notability. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- And actually, notability as a whole is about opinions - opinions on what is important from experts in the various fields, as we define as being independent reliable sources. It is one thing if Robert Ebert determines that a film is worthwhile to talk about , compared to a random blogger talking about the same film. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Literary criticism and reviews are mainly opinion and so not so significant. We're here to report facts, not opinions"...and how do we reconcile that with WP:NOTPLOT ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If it's truly just plot summary, then it's a primary source. Secondary sources (as we use this term on the English Wikipedia; in the real world, each academic field has a slightly different definition) require some sort of thoughtful transformation, not just a paraphrase or condensation. See WP:USEPRIMARY for more about the concepts as used here, and see WP:Secondary does not mean independent for more about why it's not enough for the summary writer to not be "directly involved" in the original. It sounds to me like what you have is a reliable, independent, primary source, which is valuable for all purposes except notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Plot summaries are never primary sources, per what Diego said above. Summary != primary, it's hard to put it any simpler than that. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes they are, if they are simply rote summation of a work without any interpretation. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, they're not. You can't summarize a work without independent critical thought. Every abridgement of any primary source necessarily decides what the central points are, and how to present them. These may seem quite outlandish, but they demonstrate how non-neutral a summary can be. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- By that logic, plot summaries written by Wikipedians from their own impressions of the work itself are independent critical thought. Reyk YO! 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you need to reread WP:NOR. There are most assuredly summaries which are independent critical thought but not be original research. The difference elaborated on in NOR is that we are guided by other plot summaries in our own plot summaries: c.f. WP:DUE. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have reread it and confirmed that my interpretation is right. When you do independent critical thought, you're doing original research. You seem to want to have it both ways- that plot summaries are transformative critiques when someone else does it and you want to argue notability, but somehow magically not OR when Wikipedians do it. It's one or the other. Reyk YO! 05:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you need to reread WP:NOR. There are most assuredly summaries which are independent critical thought but not be original research. The difference elaborated on in NOR is that we are guided by other plot summaries in our own plot summaries: c.f. WP:DUE. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- By that logic, plot summaries written by Wikipedians from their own impressions of the work itself are independent critical thought. Reyk YO! 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, they're not. You can't summarize a work without independent critical thought. Every abridgement of any primary source necessarily decides what the central points are, and how to present them. These may seem quite outlandish, but they demonstrate how non-neutral a summary can be. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes they are, if they are simply rote summation of a work without any interpretation. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- A plot summary, as a non-creative derivative of the work itself, may be significant, but must be considered a primary source in terms of historiography, which are the terms most applicable to an encyclopedia.
The more the summary can be considered “creative”, the less we call it a “summary”. Summarisation is a technical skill, and is even amenable to automation. The best summary, for a given level of detail, has the least influence of its author. “Summarisation to make a point” is not mere summarisation.
In a reliable secondary source, the plot summary (that is, the parts devoid of commentary) does not count towards “significant depths of coverage”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The most workaday plot summary is still an interpretive work and a secondary source. A common attitude seems to be that the plot of a fictional work is somehow an objective thing hanging in the void somewhere and a "rote recounting" simply reproduces that objective thing, verbatim. This is nonsense. The mere determining what the plot of a fictional work is is an act of interpretation, casting some elements as significant and others not, establishing a point of view on what happened (think this isn't subjective? look into studies of comparative eyewitness testimony), and so on. A plot summary is no more a primary source because of some idea of its "roteness" than a photograph of a tobacco pipe is a tobacco pipe because of the mechanical quality of its reproduction. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. Consider every standard WP edit that includes information from a source (fiction or note). That is the act of summary. For that summary to be appropriate in WP, it may not make new conclusions or the like that is not immediately apparent in the source - read: all of this summary is primary information. In the same manner, one can write a plot summary that, while deciding the important aspects to include in the summary, still remains neutral and non-interpretive. That's most plot summaries that are out there, and thus we treat as primary. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia summarization attempts to be neutral, and it's possible that this is both achievable and more or less achieved in many cases. The idea that it's non-interpretive is laughable. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- A plot summary is no more a secondary source than a photograph of a tobacco pipe is commentary on a tobacco pipe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is it somehow possible to take a photograph of a tobacco pipe without perforce commenting that you consider that tobacco pipe a fit subject for photography? —chaos5023 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that someone bothers to summarise and publish is a step towards wikipedia-notability. If the summariser-publisher is highly reputable, it is a bigger step. If many publish competing and contrasting summaries, then it is surely very interesting. However, until someone clearly, explicitly, says something qualitative about the subject, you don’t have citable material to base an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is it somehow possible to take a photograph of a tobacco pipe without perforce commenting that you consider that tobacco pipe a fit subject for photography? —chaos5023 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. Consider every standard WP edit that includes information from a source (fiction or note). That is the act of summary. For that summary to be appropriate in WP, it may not make new conclusions or the like that is not immediately apparent in the source - read: all of this summary is primary information. In the same manner, one can write a plot summary that, while deciding the important aspects to include in the summary, still remains neutral and non-interpretive. That's most plot summaries that are out there, and thus we treat as primary. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- We need to be clear here - no one is saying no plot summary can be a secondary source, but there are plot summaries and there are plot summaries. The ones that we write (or should be writing towards) on WP, or those found in Cliff's Notes, will be primary as while there is some editorial consideration of what points are the most important, no novel ideas are being introduced by that summary. On the other hand, television episodes recapped at Television Without Pity, or movie recaps by critics, will often contain new thoughts and thus the entire piece would likely be secondary, and thus indicating notability.
- A factor to consider is that if a work has numerous primary plot summaries from reliable sources, there is bound to be coverage beyond that in the secondary manner somewhere if the work gets that much repetition. In other words, it is rare that we have a work that has no secondary sources but lots of primary plot summaries. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)