Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Removal of {{notability}} and {{mergeto}} tags in regards to The Outer Limits episodes

What should be done in cases where an editor removes {{notability}} and {{mergeto}} tags with the edit summary "Adding templates" and doesn't leave a note anywhere in the merge discussions, as happened here (one of many)? I am in particular looking for an answer that doesn't raise accusations of bad faith on my part while assuring that the episode coverage eventually passes WP:EPISODE and various other policies and guidelines. (I have informed the editor in question of this noticeboard thread.)

I also use this occasion to invite editors to participate in the merge discussions at Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes. (It's got a bit of background, but a look at a few random articles will give you an idea why a merge proposal is on the table). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think you'd be within your rights to revert the removals, leaving explanations at both the editor's talk page and the article's talk page. I think this falls well and truly under bold, revert, discuss. If the editor is open to discussion, then all is good. If they are unresponsive, well, I for one find hit-and-run editing like this annoying and unproductive and shouldn't hinder the people who aer actually trying to improve the articles. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• This question was initiated by you at least two times, and as you know, both times the result was To keep and Not to merge all TOL episodes' articles . Templates was removed in accordance with these discussions. Please, don't raise the same question again. Krasss (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The merge discussions show a no consensus at best, not a straight keep. But I'll leave this be for a few months. I have restored all notability tags to be better able to track the notability and/or improvement of these episode articles. Please avoid using misleading edit summaries in the future. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot and In-Universe tags on the same article?

Does it make sense to have both in one article, in this case Bruenor Battlehammer? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, what about {{importance}} and {{notability}} on the same article? BOZ (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say no. Important would indicate that one feels the article probably is notable, but isn't "showing" it, while the latter questions whether it is notable at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, although these two tags are nearly interchangeable when the tagger is unfamilar with a topic. I nearly always only use the notability tag, or don't tag at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, makes perfect sense as they speak to two different things. Plot is excessive amounts of plot, while in-universe notes that the fictional discussion is written from an in-universe perspective instead of real-world. An article could have one or both issues. Could have the right amount of "plot" type content, but have too much written in-universe, and visa versa, or both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I usually reserve {{plot}} for plot section of undue length in otherwise legitimate articles[1], and {{in-universe}} when the whole article perspective is wrong (no real-world focus)[2]. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Frequently articles suffer from both flaws, which makes it even more confusing. Reyk _YO! 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the amount of suitable plot information is defined by the amount of present or addable real-world information elsewhere in the article, while {{in-universe}} often means that there is literally not even an attempt to cover real-world information. {{plot}} requires a trim [of a section] but leaves the article structure mostly in-tact, while {{in-universe}} requires a completely rewrite of the article and expansion with real-world information (come to think of it, I use {{notability}} instead of {{in-universe}} most of the time, because they require the same solution). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Underworld

For the Underworld film series, there are 3 movie pages, one Underworld (film series) page, a Races of Underworld universe page, a Selene (Underworld) page, a Raze (Underworld) page, a Kraven (Underworld) page, a Viktor (Underworld) page, a Michael Corvin page, a William Corvinus page, a Sonja (Underworld) page, and a few others. I have suggested that the pages be merged. A few months ago, many of these pages were nominated for deletion, but over half the people voted to keep/merge. More voted for merging than just keeping the page. A particular user says that the merging is unnecessary (despite that over half the people on the deletion nominations voted for a merge and all comments on the merging now are in favor) and continues to erase the merging tags. So many people have voted it should be merged, should this person be allowed to continue to go around erasing the tags? AlessaGillespie (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear who can add and remove merge tags, but it's clear when cleanup tags can be removed (namely when the cleanup issues have been addressed). If you cannot come to an agreement with the user despite the already initiated discussions, I suggest to introduce dated notability tags (or other appropriate cleanup tags), wait two or three months and then either restart merge discussions or take the articles to AfD again, citing lack of improvement and cooperation. You've done everything reasonable in your power, the ball is in the other editor's court now, and time will lead to better results than edit-warring about tags. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Members of Seigkau in the "Prince of Tennis"

In the "Prince of Tennis" articles, although there has been no concensus, each of the members of Seigaku usually got their own article. Recently, many of the members' articles were deleted and given shortened bios. As the manga and the anime focus mostly on the team, I (and others on the "Discussion" page) feel that all the Seigaku members deserve their own article. They were restored after I addressed this on the "Discussion" page, but two of the members, Kaoru Kaidoh and Takeshi Momoshiro keep getting their articles deleted. Kaidoh's is currently restored, but now Momoshiro's is gone. I request that the article be restored and if any of the articles wish to be removed, that a concensus is held. Jedi Striker, 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That reasoning goes against Wikipedia guidelines and the overall consensus of the Anime and manga project that individual characters do NOT "deserve" their own articles unless they are actually notable, as shown by having significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the availability of plenty of creation/conception and reception info from reliable sources. While I agree, discussion should have occurred first, both do need to be merged to the list. They are not notable. I've tagged the remaining articles and started a new discussion, with proper notification to the anime and manga project made. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Waterloo Road characters & Category:Doctors characters

All of these articles are written from a completely in-universe perspective. The main editors appear to be rather young, as they are resorting to foul abusive language, and are difficult to communicate with. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shows how much you know then doesn't it!!

• The perspective doesn't matter. The lead section should tell all you need to know to understand the characters are fictional. Everything else is subject to reliable sources. You can't discuss a fictional character without covering at least part of their fictional life from such a perspective. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

I have created a proposal at Wikipedia:Fiction for a new policy page discussing fiction issues in general - pulling heavily from WAF, but also from NOT#PLOT and some of the more agreed upon proposals to come up in notability debates. The goal is to create a single policy page that clearly establishes core principles of what it means to write about fiction in an encyclopedia about fact. I welcome comments and criticism at the talk page there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since NOT#PLOT is under discussion I'd argue it's not a good page to draw from. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters merge disagreements

In early April, several characters were merged from individual articles to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters as they failed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and following an AfD one one of the characters. These merges stood without a single voice of disagreement until last week when User:Redfarmer reverted one of the merges, on the character Kim Greylek, disagreeing with it and stating there was no discussion and claiming that the AfD on a different character from a different L&O series was applicable to the Greylek article as well. I feel the discussion that occured at the time of the merge and the AfD showed enough eyes were on the article to give silent support, and the merging was specifically announced at the television project so its not as if it was done silently. So I restored the merge and we have been going back and forth over the issue, dipping into incivility and bad faith accusations. An RfC has now been started over the issue of both Greylek and another character, Chester Lake. Outside opinions are greatly needed and requests for views from the TV project have gone unanswered thus far. Discussion is at Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Merges of Unnotable Characters. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Marshals (film)

This article has an "Inaccuracies" section which discusses a glaring inaccuracy in the film, where the prisoners are shown being transported by airplane are chained to their seats. Both FAA regulation and Department of Justice policy expressly prohibit attaching prisoners to aircraft in any way, so that they can quickly exit the plane in an emergency.

On February 22 2009 User:Tony Sidaway deleted this section, saying: "We don't do inaccuracies and bloopers sections. It's a work of fiction."

After trying in vain to find Wikipedia policy that substantiated Sidaway's deletion, I reverted it, and posted the following in the article's Talk page:

"I searched but could not find a WP policy that corroborates Tony Sidaway's rational for deleting the Inaccuracies section 'We don't do inaccuracies and bloopers sections. It's a work of fiction.' I found WP:TRIV, and even that says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. " I don't think that a section on inaccuracies in a film necessarily qualifies as a trivia section. If a film depicts a historical event, and there are historical inaccuracies, it seems to me these would be worth mentioning in an article on the film. If a movie portrays US Marshals, and makes a glaringly inaccurate portrayal of US Marshal policy, I think there is a case to be made for a section that is limited to just these inaccuracies on US Marshal policy, as long as it is kept in reign. Still, if there is a specific policy against inaccuracies sections in film articles that I'm not aware of, so be it, so I'll consider this a temporary revert until a wikipedia policy is cited. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)"

There was no further discussion. On May 31, User:Cton85 deleted the Inaccuracies section without explanation. I have reverted that deletion, but would like to find consensus on this issue. Is there a specific policy that forbids the inclusion of "inaccuracies" sections in fictional works, and advocates deletion of these sections? Thanks for your help. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Such a section goes against WP:MOSFILMS, WP:NOT, and WP:V. Tony's removal was perfectly valid. it is a work of fiction, not a documentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see any text in any of policies you referenced that specifically addresses this issue. Could you please point me to the specific paragraphs of each of these policies that disallow "Inaccuracies" sections? Also, I am not sure if it was appropriate for you to take action to delete the section immediately after being the first person to respond to this notice. I don't think your position alone qualifies as consensus.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR, it is not the place for indiscriminate trivia, nor is it a mirror for sites like IMDB, etc. The lack of such a section being noted as appropriate in the Film MoS is pretty clear. If it were relevant, and appropriate, the MoS would cover it. No well-crafted film article would include such a section unless it was given significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Also, re-removing the section is fully appropriate. Three different editors have rejected its inclusion. In your replacing the section, you acted against the established consensus that it didn't belong. You also have not provided a single guideline or policy that backs up your view that this is pertinent information. As a note, the Films project has been notified of this issue as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: the source you added is not a reliable source. It clearly notes on that page that it is a Wikipedia article and does not meet the RS guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking for policy that explicitly states such sections are not allowed, including a quotation of the exact statement that they are not, which you have not provided. If you or anyone can provide this, I am fine with the section being gone. Your "consensus" of three editors, one of which is you, none of which bothered to provide full rationale for your reverts after I brought the issue up in the Talk page, doesn't hold water. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another way to substantiate it is through WP:OR, specifically synthesis of information. In this case, yes, the facts they weren't chained to seats is verifiable, and the restriction on airflight is verifiable, but combining that information into the same fact is inapproprite synthesis to put forward a point - that the move was inaccurate. If the movie was really inaccurate (see Armageddon for one where this is justifiable) there would be reliable sources that describe the inaccuracies and how they impacted the movie. As such, without a source, anyone can pull in common sense mistakes and claim them valid. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually added a source to substantiate, but Collectonian has again deleted this section before consensus was reached. Please see this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Marshals_(film)&curid=2144178&diff=294005079&oldid=294004538Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See above, Wikipedia and its mirrors can not be used to source itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this case, I concur that the "Inaccuracies" section is inappropriate. The item was the result of original research in the sense that it requires specialist knowledge. WP:PSTS says, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." This is why plot descriptions of films are kept basic. Additionally, the usage of the absoluteastronomy.com reference (which never refers to the film) is synthesis in how it offers a "novel conclusion" since this particular phenomenon was not explicitly observed in the film by an authoritative figure. In general, an "Inaccuracies" section, even if items were cited, would be too much of an indiscriminate list for an encyclopedic article. If there are reliable sources that comment on the accuracy of prison transfer or marshal ranks, they could be implemented in a kind of "Production" section where it can be shown how cinematic licensing was taken for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very helpful comment that helps me understand the issue better.Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Babylon 5 articles

Would anyone be interested in helping me clean up Babylon 5 related articles? There's a ton of small articles that don't assert individual notability--and in most cases wouldn't pass any recent such test--which are categorized, when per WP:CLT they should really be placed into list articles. I think 50-75% of the Babylon 5-related articles could be merged into a few category-replacement articles, and from thence cited appropriately and trimmed as necessary. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Savidan's recent campaign

User:Savidan has been on a tear lately, PROD'ing, redirecting, and AfDing a ton of fictional elements articles. All of them should be cleaned up (most are appropriately tagged in-universe), many of them may need to be merged, but the large-scale, multi-genre and multi-franchise deletion efforts risk eliminating notable topics. Editors concerned about fictional element portrayal on Wikipedia, of whatever perspective, would be welcomed in the discussions. I've tried to add the articles up for deletion to the appropriate WP:DELSORT lists, but it wouldn't hurt to go through the current AfD discussions manually to see if I've missed any that would benefit from more editor participation. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the summary of a Reality TV programme count as a work of fiction...

...and therefore not need to be sourced per WP:MOSTV#Plot section? We're currently debating whether the "Summary" and "Nominations table" sections of Big Brother 2009 (UK) need sourcing per the aforementioned policy. Please join in with the discussion here. Thanks, DJ 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Inkheart

There is currently a discussion taking place on the notability of several aspects of the Inkheart trilogy at Talk:Mortimer Folchart. Any and all opinions/comments are welcome. Best, faithless (^speak) 08:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Accelerating universe

Systemizer (talk · contribs) has been adding OR to this article, any of our scientific types want to put this on their watch list? I just gave him a 3RR warning but he may blank it as he did an OR warning by another editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Three TfDs

Template:Infobox Hercaverse and Xenaverse character, Template:Infobox He-Man/She-Ra character, and the newly created Template:Infobox fictional artifact have been nominated for deletion. As all three are fiction related, giving notification here. Discussion on all three at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 13. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Trailer DRV

The merging of a Good Article about a television trailer at AFD is under discussion here. Input at the DRV regarding the place of AfD to merge articles, the place of AfD as a run-around to GAR, and current practice in the closure fiction AfDs would be appreciated. As a personal note, I feel that all three of these have been dealt incorrectly (i.e. no consensus to merge, GAs should have ex officio immunity from deletion, and this represents a dangerous precedent in which good quality articles are seen as less valuable than sprawling minor character articles), and regardless of the result of the AfD, I urge everyone to clamp down on the bad fiction articles, to save the process from being embarrased again. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

John Titor

An article on a random internet based hoax of borderline notability. Article presently up for AfD. Could not think of any more neutral noticeboard to bring this to attention. Seeking feedback at AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that if the article is based on speculation, then it is likely to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Note that articles that fail WP:NOT usually fail WP:N and vice versa. The article is of questionable notability, simply because a reliable secondary source is unlikey to concern itself with speculation of John Titor's identity. The source are unlikely to be viewed as being reliable, which is the issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fiction-related non-flag test case of WP:MOSICON at TfD

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Re: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons): Inline-in-prose use of icons is being tested in a TfD on the use of templates to insert strings of "Stargate" symbols into articles on the TV shows. We mostly see this guideline applied with regard to flags; its application to non-flag icons is likely to be of interest to editors here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Golspie Sutherland F.C.

Resolved

 – Nothing to see or do here. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whole load of rubbish at the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzlewis (talk • contribs) 10:27, March 13, 2010

Not sure what this has to do with fiction? That is a bio article on a soccer player? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this was listed here because the material is thought to be "fictional"? This board is for discussion of problems on pages about works of fiction, Razzlewis, not anything that might be fictional.Yoshi348 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor is urging abandonment of Fiction MOS

I hadn't wanted to bring this up, but a WikiProject Comics editor, over the course of a couple months now, has gone from merely saying he doesn't want to follow this MOS to actively advocating for the abandonment of what he calls this "idiotic manual of style".

The editor, Dream Focus, does so near the bottom of Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. The article itself is a blatant, blanket violation of every aspect of this MOS. It has been nominated three times for deletion, and each time rescued by, and I'm sorry to use this term, fanboys who treat Wikipedia like free server space for their fan sites.

I'd like to ask any concerned members of the Fiction Project, including admins, to please, please go this article with an eye toward deleting it and helping to establish that the writing-about-fiction MOS matters. (A task force of several editors put a much shorter, up-to-MOS-standard version on the main Spider-Man page.)

When it's gotten to the point where contributors are actively urging others to ignore the MOS for writing about fiction, I believe that this will, in the long run, hurt Wikipedia's credibility. In the short run, it denigrates all the thought, care, hard work and consensus here that led to the writing-about-fiction MOS. Please see Fictional history of Spider-Man and see for yourselves. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. What doesn't appear quite as appropriate is your breach of the WP:CANVASS guidelines by posting a partisan call for involvement. Please remember that consensus can change, and that a large number of efforts to restrict fictional coverage to real-world impact have been rebuffed. Keeping a detailed fictional history in a separate article seems like an appropriate compromise in light of the entrenched differences between camps of editors on how Wikipedia should handle fiction. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When it is appropriate to split out an article on an aspect of a fictional subject has always been a matter of editorial judgment. There is no blanket solution. The article in question is non-ideal, and should really be renamed Spider-Man comic book storylines or something similar so that the fictional history can be put in its proper context with events like change in writer and cultural standards, but there is nothing wrong with the subject itself.

Additionally, Tenebrae, your statement that his opinion "denigrates all the thought, care, hard work and consensus here that led to the writing-about-fiction MOS" is highly troubling to me, as it suggests that you are taking the criticism of a style guideline personally. I suggest you take a short break from editing related to this issue to de-stress. --erachima talk 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's WP:CANVASS violation when I put a notice on the noticeboard; that's what noticeboards are for.

If the style guideline changes, of course we should go along with the change. But it hasn't changed, and Jclemens seems to suggest that should simply ignore it. I'm not sure these are representative opinions of the Fiction Project at large; otherwise, the writing-about-fiction guidelines would have changed already.

What erachima calls stress I call trying to give a deserved compliment to the members of the Fiction Project. I'm surprised anyone could be offended by being lauded for "thought, care, hard work and consensus." -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You've polemically implied that those opposed to the current MOS lack such characteristics. Really, you need to AGF with those who differ with your interpretation of "what would a perfect Wikipedia look like?" MOSes are there to help promote a consistent look and feel, not bludgeons with which to exclude disfavored content or presentations. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:CANVASS expectations of neutrality. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why thought an editor of over five years would be unfamiliar with WP:CANVASS, or at the very least that I would not click on the link that you did thoughtfully provide. I'm not sure I understand how wanting to follow Project guidelines could be considered "partisan" or "biased." I'm also not sure how it's improper to notify the Project of an editor advocating complete disregard of "idiotic" guidelines that "no one cares about" (his words). I do appreciate your taking the time to respond and make a clear statement. I'm sure it would not be a bad thing to see a broader range of comments from additional editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

List of The Punisher comics

Like most Wikipedia editors, I have strived to make the articles I edit as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, user Pun Fan has apparently claimed ownership of the article List of The Punisher comics, because he refuses to accept any edits he does not agree with. This has resulted in an edit war, and when I tried to politely bring this to his attention, he resorted to personal attacks, both in his edit summaries and on his talk page, where he has since deleted my attempts at discussion. This is the only article this editor has ever worked on, and he has changed the title of the article twice without consensus, to suit his POV. [3] [4] Please help! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've returned it to the "list of..." format, move protected it for a week, and encouraged the user to participate on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your complaints over the editor should be addressed at the other complaint you made at WP:Wikiquette alerts#List of The Punisher comics. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)