Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-9-9-07

This page in a nutshell: (Succinct wording needed.)

The following is a tool to help determine whether an fictional subject is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this proposal covers all fictional subjects.

Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The subject of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", particularly in the case of fictional subjects. A fictional subject that is important within a fictional work is not necessarily notable outside of that work. A fictional subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline, or if it meets an accepted fictional subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a fictional subject warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. Articles that may be non-notable can be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem. In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Alternatively, the proposed deletion process may be used.

These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article subjects but do not directly limit the content of articles.^[1]

Fictional subjects

Wikipedia covers numerous subjects, including works of fiction: Articles range from ancient mythological epics such as Beowulf and The Ramayana, to literary classics like Les Misérables, to recently published phenomena such as Harry Potter and The Simpsons. Information about fiction falls into two broad categories: facts about the work of fiction itself, such as its authorship, publication, critical reception, and influence are termed out-of-universe information while information about the plot and concepts that are described within the work is often referred to as in-universe information.

Fictional subjects do not exist in the real world, but in a fictional universe. Articles about novels are not fictional articles, while articles about characters in novels are: Books exist in the real world, while the characters exists only in those books. Fictional characters, fictional locations, fictional events (including alternate histories) and fictional concepts are examples of fictional subjects.

This guideline only considers the notability of fictional subjects. For the notability guidelines that cover works of fiction themselves, rather than the concepts within them, refer to the notability guidelines for books, films, or the general notability guideline.

Principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information about subjects notable within the real world, and is not a collection of plot summaries or an encyclopedia of fictional universes. However, since understanding an article on a work of fiction requires the reader know what the work is about, articles on works of fiction can and should include information about the elements within the work.

Editors should consider the following key points when deciding on the inclusion of in-universe information in an article:

All Wikipedia subjects should be notable: Establishing the notability of the subject is the first step in writing any article. If you have not yet taken the time to assert the notability of the work of fiction you are writing about by including information about its real-world history and reception, then summarizing its plot will not help increase its quality.

All Wikipedia articles should be readably formatted: Articles about fictional subjects should follow the relevant portions of the Manual of style, including the style guide for fiction. Often WikiProjects also have their own stylistic guidelines.

All Wikipedia articles should be understandable to outsiders: Editors should assume that readers have little or no personal experience with the subject: if a work of fiction prominently features invented terminology or words redefined for the purposes of its story, then these terms should be briefly defined in the main article on the work, even if "any fan would know them". Similarly, unnecessary jargon should be avoided: if Martians in a sci-fi book have a different word for water, the Wikipedia article on the book should still refer to it in English.

Coverage of in-universe elements on Wikipedia must be verifiable: The verifiability of in universe information is generally easy to ensure, as it comes from a reliable source, the series itself. This information should be supplemented by out of universe sources. Care should be taken to avoid original research or synthesis to advance a position.

Coverage of in-universe elements on Wikipedia should be succinct: Information on an element of the plot or fictional universe should not be included simply because it is interesting, but because it is also important. Details of combat sequences, information revealed only in supplementary materials, personal histories, or backgrounds of minor characters are generally unacceptable in articles because they do not significantly aid in understanding the work as a whole.

Wikipedia covers many fictional works, and many of its editors are fans of those works. It is very easy and can be satisfying to write articles at length about the in-universe descriptions of plot, characters, setting, and other elements for such fictional works. However, just as it is possible to provide too much technical detail for a scientific topic that falls outside of Wikipedia's notability policies, it is just as easy to overly describe the in-universe details of fictional elements without demonstrating their out-of-universe notability. This guideline is aimed at assisting editors to establish notability for fictional subjects, reducing excessive details of in-universe elements, and providing solutions to common issues that arise when writing about fiction.

Criterion

There are two general scenarios in which a fictional subject justifies its own article and a third in which articles are created out of necessity:

Independently notable subjects

Fictional concepts are generally notable if they have been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources are not sufficient to establish notability: Coverage such as the identification of actors in their fictional roles, or the localized names for characters in international works are usually trivial at best, and are weak indicators of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, all content must be attributable.

"Secondary sources" include reliable published works in all forms. Reliable secondary sources may:

Provide "real-world content" such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept. These sources include scholarly analyses, evidence that the fictional subject has had a major impact on later works of fiction, and evidence that the subject has become a part of mainstream culture separately from its source material. Editors should note that critical reviews and interviews generally focus on the work as a whole, and any consideration of individual subjects is likely to be trivial.

Critically analyze the importance of the fictional subject within the fictional universe. These sources imply notability only if they are reliable, not of questionable integrity and independent of the subject. Such sources should focus on analysis rather than description.

While sources which are published by the author of the original work – or under the author's direction – are generally weak indicators of notability, sources which required the author's permission because of copyright issues are not generally excluded for that reason.

Examples of independently notable topics include:

Count Dracula is a fictional character that has attained a worldwide cultural significance far beyond the original novel that he appeared in. Because Dracula is an independently notable subject, in universe information in this article is targeted towards helping readers understand the character, not just the book he is from, and a relatively large amount of in universe detail about his character is warranted.

Subjects notable as an aspect of a larger work

Major fictional subjects such as characters, locations, and concepts of a fictional work should always be discussed in the main body of the work. If the further encyclopedic treatment of the fictional subject should cause the main article to become too long, that fictional subject should get its own sub-article. The encyclopedic treatment of the fictional subject is the provision of a real world, out-of-universe perspective on the subject that is backed by sources independent of the work. Examples of significant information for the encyclopedic treatment of a fictional subject include details on the real-world development of the element and its critical reception. Editors should note that a summary of this subject should remain in the main body.

For example, articles such as Bart Simpson (add more examples here) have been broken out from their main works for these purposes. Other examples include:

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII contains significant out-of-universe information relevant to the characters. Because the characters are notable primarily as an aspect of Final Fantasy VIII, the in-universe content in their article is geared towards understanding their role in the overall game, and each individual character receives only a minor amount of in universe detail.

Stylistic reasons

If information about a fictional element is essential to an encyclopaedic treatment of the original work, and presenting it as a separate article is significantly beneficial to the readability of the page, due to size or other stylistic concerns, creating a sub-article based on in-universe content may be justifiable.

Editors are strongly encouraged to consider other options before creating an in-universe sub-article justified solely on stylistic grounds. The creation of a sub-article due to stylistic concerns should be a rare event, and the resulting sub-article will be stringently scrutinized and should be impeccable in every other respect. The individual descriptions of minor subjects in sub-articles should be accurate and succinct; the elements should not receive detailed treatment of in-universe information just because the sub-article has more room to expand outside the bounds of the main article. The fictional context should be strongly emphasized in the lead section and throughout the article's body. Sub-articles should be supported by suitable secondary sources containing out-of-universe information whenever possible. While it may be desirable to include non-free images on such pages to identify the fictional subjects, editors should be aware that certain uses of non-free images on lists may violate Wikipedia's non-free use policy.

Editors must evaluate the necessity of creating sub-articles for stylistic reasons on a case by case basis: Sub-article pages should not be created "by example". Fictional work X should not have a "List of characters in X" sub-article, because the similar fictional work "Y" has a "List of characters in Y" sub-article.

Should editors agree that it is necessary to create a sub-article for stylistic reasons or retain an existing article for the same purposes, it is recommended for editors to include the {{in-universe rationale}} template on the sub-article's talk page, which provide the date and talk page discussions supporting the sub-article's existence. This will help to prevent other editors from dismissing the page as non-notable and justify the existing of a primarily in-universe article. However, editors are still strongly urged to maintain the sub-article to Wikipedia's highest standards and to seek out secondary sources to provide notability for the sub-articles' content.

Examples of appropriate stylistic sub-articles include:

List of Pokémon was adjusted to meet concerns for lack of out-of-universe notability in June 2007. Originally, each Pokémon had received its own article, most with only in-universe information regarding its appearance in the anime, manga, and video game series. Due to concerns over the predominate in-universe approach to these articles, these have since been condensed into one single master list which, due to containing more than 400 entries, has been kept as a separate article from the main Pokémon article for stylistic reasons. Sublists providing brief in-universe descriptions of each Pokémon type have been provided (such as List of Pokémon (1-20)), with those species which have out-of-universe notability, like Pikachu, given their own articles.
List of Gunslinger Girl characters was split out from a "Characters" section in Gunslinger Girl, because its inclusion was causing the characters section to "take over" the rest of the page. Because the characters are not a notable subject, the in-universe information in the list is geared wholly towards understanding the series, with each character receiving no more in-universe detail than is required for an outside reader to have a basic understanding of the work. Ideally, out-of-universe information will eventually be found and added.

Alternatives to in-universe sub-articles

As described above, it may be necessary to create a sub-article of the main fictional work to cover portions of the in-universe fictional elements in order for the page to meet style and other guidelines. However, this step should always be taken as a last resort. Sub-articles should not be created based on the argument that another fictional work already has a similar sub-article: The necessity for the creation of these articles will vary widely between fictional mediums and individual works.

Editors should consider the necessity of the fictional elements to the encyclopedic knowledge of the fictional work: Editors should not fully give a blow-by-blow account of the plot of the work, but should instead accurately and succinctly summarize the plot: This will reflect on what aspects of the fictional work – characters, setting, and other elements – are necessary to understand the plot. It may also be necessary to describe these additional elements to provide the required knowledge needed to understand the out-of-universe notability of the fictional work. Sections with fictional elements that are unimportant to the encyclopedic treatment of the fictional work should be identified, and either trimmed, edited, or removed prior to the creation of a sub-article. Editors should consider converting any lists with fictional content into prose as it helps to identify unnecessary items and improves the article's style, and may eliminate the need for a sub-article.

Editors should consider the importance of the fictional element in the overall plot: Editors are advised to hold off on creating sub-articles from sub-sections of new or ongoing serial fictional works until the importance of the sub-section is understood in light of the overall plot: Fictional elements may at first seem highly important but may later turn out to be unimportant to the overall plot. If the in-universe information is evaluated, and information unimportant to the overall plot is trimmed, edited, or removed, the need for a sub-article may be eliminated.

Editors should identify out-of-universe information to support the importance of fictional elements to its work: If significant out-of-universe information can be provided in a sub-section, the case of creating a sub-article will greatly be strengthened and the section will be made more useful to readers. Since new information can surface from various media sources, it may be worthwhile to search for out-of-universe information even if previous attempts were unsuccessful. Since other editors may have additional resources, it may be helpful to ask for assistance from other editors on the article talk page. Editors may also find help from the various WikiProjects that are involved with specific forms of fictional works to location out-of-universe information.

Editors should consider reorganizing the pages on the fictional subject: There are often better grouping of information with better opportunities for expansion with both in- and out-of-universe information: For example, rather than creating a "list of locations" sub-article for a novel series, the recurring locations could be added in a separate section in the main article, and the other locations could be described in the individual novels' sub-articles. Templates such as {{See also}} should be used to direct the reader to these previous sections. Similarly, a "Plot summary of X" article (in addition to being considered a violation of What Wikipedia is not) is nearly always redundant to a "List of X episodes" page, with the latter option having a much better potential for expansion with out of universe info.; In the specific case of television shows, it is generally accepted that separate articles for season and episode lists are notable as they identify out-of-universe details of television shows. Such lists allow for the inclusion of a brief plot summary. Instead of creating separate sub-articles for lists of minor, one-time, and cameo appearances of fictional subjects on television shows, editors should consider including these appearances within the brief episode summaries of these season and episode lists.

Editors should link to existing reliable web sites that provide detailed in-universe information rather than duplicating content on Wikipedia: If existing web pages outside of Wikipedia and its sister projects contain a great deal of in-universe information on the fictional subject, editors are recommended to link to these pages instead of replicating the information on Wikipedia. Editors must use caution and follow the guidelines for external links as many "fan sites" will typically fail one – or more – of these requirements. Such sites should also be readily recognized by those interested in that fictional work as a complete and stable repository for such information. Examples of such sites include the The Simpsons Archive for The Simpsons, or Memory Alpha for Star Trek information.

Editors should consider moving in-universe material to a sister Wiki project: Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks. One possible action to consider is to make use of all of the Wikimedia projects combined: to have an encyclopedia article about the work of fiction on Wikipedia giving a brief outline, a chapter-by-chapter annotation on Wikibooks, the full source text on Wikisource (if the work is in the public domain), and interwiki links joining them all together into a whole. However, Wikibooks opposes in-universe books, so it is not an appropriate place to transwiki large quantities of in-universe material.

Fictional material unsuited to or too detailed for Wikipedia may be transwikied to an appropriate Wikia, such as Final Fantasy Wikia and Wookieepedia. Other sites, such as Gaming Wiki, may also accept material. Transwikied material should be edited to meet the guidelines of specific wikias; editors should not just copy and paste material. The Wikia Annex is a staging area for transwikied material and a place for non-notable fictional material that does not have another home; the original Wikipedia versions will also be stored there.

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Due to the dynamic nature of Wikipedia, there are numerous articles that describe fiction subjects which lack any out-of-universe notability or do not treat the subject in an encyclopedic manner. While these guidelines are aimed to prevent the creation of such pages, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Instead, editors are strongly encouraged to find ways to improve these existing articles through a number of means, including:

Content reorganization: Several articles of similar fictional subjects of the same work can be grouped into a single article, such as a list of characters.
Adding out-of-world secondary sources: Secondary sources can be added to describe the notability of the fictional subject and meet the notability guidelines.
Merging: The article can be trimmed, condensed, and merged into the main fictional work's article if the subject is important to understanding the fictional work and is impossible to identify the notability of the fictional subject or group it with other articles.
Deletion: If all other means fail to demonstrate notability or necessary inclusion in the main fictional work article, the article should then be proposed for deletion. This will give the chance for other editors, including those not involved with the article or familiar with the work, to help identify the subject's notability or other means of retaining the article's content.

Editors should also make sure to request help from the appropriate Wikiprojects that may help to also identify methods of dealing with such articles within the context of the media. For example, the Movies and Films WikiProject has developed its own Manual of Style that applies to dealing with film articles. (maybe include a table of WProjects and their related MOSs for reference here or somewhere?)

References

^ Quote from Wikipedia:Notability

[1] Quote from Wikipedia:Notability

[1]