This notability guideline rewrite does two things:
1.) It establishes the fact that fiction articles are only notable if there is out-of-universe infomration available
2.) Provides ways of dealing with non-notable topics and organizating notable-topics
In essense, many of the "list of vehicles from XXX" would be moved to another Wiki or whatever, because they fail to establish notability. ANYTHING is better than the current version, which is basically just tips to defend against huge tidal waves of fancruft. Most of the nonsense that people try to cleanup would be shipped out (or parts would be reorganized).
Newcomers especially need a place to go to understand that creating articles on their favorite mecha are non-notable unless they can provide significant out-of-universe information. WAF then provides details on out-of-universe sources as well as writing from an out-of-universe perspective. The key is to unite the two concepts of notability and writing about fiction.
Taking away a notability guideline would be seen to newbies as "anything in-universe is fair game".
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
Newcomers especially need a place to go to understand that creating articles on their favorite mecha are non-notable unless they can provide significant out-of-universe information. WAF then provides details on out-of-universe sources as well as writing from an out-of-universe perspective. The key is to unite the two concepts of notability and writing about fiction.
Taking away a notability guideline would be seen to newbies as "anything in-universe is fair game".
Sounds as though this is all inspired by newbiephobia.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
Newcomers especially need a place to go to understand that creating articles on their favorite mecha are non-notable unless they can provide significant out-of-universe information. WAF then provides details on out-of-universe sources as well as writing from an out-of-universe perspective. The key is to unite the two concepts of notability and writing about fiction.
Taking away a notability guideline would be seen to newbies as "anything in-universe is fair game".
Sounds as though this is all inspired by newbiephobia.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Let's teach the newbies how to do things" is not newbiephobia.
Todd Allen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
Newcomers especially need a place to go to understand that creating articles on their favorite mecha are non-notable unless they can provide significant out-of-universe information. WAF then provides details on out-of-universe sources as well as writing from an out-of-universe perspective. The key is to unite the two concepts of notability and writing about fiction.
Taking away a notability guideline would be seen to newbies as "anything in-universe is fair game".
Sounds as though this is all inspired by newbiephobia.
"Let's teach the newbies how to do things" is not newbiephobia.
That requires making the dangerous assumption that we already know how. It's a condescending attitude that makes no allowance for the possibility that a newbie might have good ideas.
Ec
1.) It establishes the fact that fiction articles are only notable if there is out-of-universe infomration available
Information is neither "in-universe" or "out-of-universe", it's just a collection of facts. It's the presentation of that information which is in- or out-of-universe, any in-universe content can be re-written out-of-universe (although a large amount of in-universe content is often a clue that the article needs trimming, so I'm not suggesting blindly rewriting articles). I think what you're trying to say is that there should be non-primary reliable sources in order for something to be notable, which is probably a good rule of thumb.
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
1.) It establishes the fact that fiction articles are only notable if there is out-of-universe infomration available
Information is neither "in-universe" or "out-of-universe", it's just a collection of facts. It's the presentation of that information which is in- or out-of-universe, any in-universe content can be re-written out-of-universe (although a large amount of in-universe content is often a clue that the article needs trimming, so I'm not suggesting blindly rewriting articles). I think what you're trying to say is that there should be non-primary reliable sources in order for something to be notable, which is probably a good rule of thumb.
IMHO it's not only about notability, but also about a general sanity-check. Articles featuring thousands of details of some fiction franchise without any information as to its real world framework must be discouraged. Going over notability is just one of several ways to address this issue - and a good one, imo, simply because fiction articles are not exempt from the burden to establish notability of the subject.
Also, I don't think any in-universe content can easily be rewritten as out-of-universe, you'd need incredibly detailed sources for that, if I interpret policy correctly. A section describing the character traits of some alien race would need to be rewritten along the lines of why and how the authors/designers/directors made the character that way. In most cases, sources like that don't exist - which shouldn't keep us from implementing the proposed guideline changes. The basic premise is that in fact there is a lot of unsuitable material, we just need plausible syntax to get rid of it while preserving as much useful material as possible.
Also, I don't think any in-universe content can easily be rewritten as out-of-universe, you'd need incredibly detailed sources for that, if I interpret policy correctly. A section describing the character traits of some alien race would need to be rewritten along the lines of why and how the authors/designers/directors made the character that way. In most cases, sources like that don't exist - which shouldn't keep us from implementing the proposed guideline changes. The basic premise is that in fact there is a lot of unsuitable material, we just need plausible syntax to get rid of it while preserving as much useful material as possible.
The in-universe statement: "The Blogaveen race has blue hair and green eyes." can be rewritten out-of-universe as: "In Episode 17, a member of the Blogaveen race is portrayed as having blue hair and green eyes." That statement is perfectly OOU, but doesn't require anything but the primary source. Obviously, information about the creation of the character would be good, but the absence of it doesn't make the statement IU.
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
Also, I don't think any in-universe content can easily be rewritten as out-of-universe, you'd need incredibly detailed sources for that, if I interpret policy correctly. A section describing the character traits of some alien race would need to be rewritten along the lines of why and how the authors/designers/directors made the character that way. In most cases, sources like that don't exist - which shouldn't keep us from implementing the proposed guideline changes. The basic premise is that in fact there is a lot of unsuitable material, we just need plausible syntax to get rid of it while preserving as much useful material as possible.
The in-universe statement: "The Blogaveen race has blue hair and green eyes." can be rewritten out-of-universe as: "In Episode 17, a member of the Blogaveen race is portrayed as having blue hair and green eyes." That statement is perfectly OOU, but doesn't require anything but the primary source. Obviously, information about the creation of the character would be good, but the absence of it doesn't make the statement IU.
Hmm.. WAF first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements referring to specific parts of a work is more like half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion, obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much of it.
Hmm.. WAF first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements referring to specific parts of a work is more like half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion, obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much of it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first sentence, so I'll ignore it for now. My example is 100% in an OOU perspective, by the definition given in WP:WAF. Yes, it doesn't include any non-fictional information, but that doesn't make it IU. Could you tell me what part of WAF says you have to include non-fiction details in order to make something OOU? I've just re-read the page, and I only see one mention of "out-of-universe information" (which I think is a confusing name, since OOU information and OOU perspective are quite different things - non-fiction information is clearer), and that's just to explain why it is important to include plot summaries, it's not related to anything about how to include plot summaries. The section is headed "Presentation of fictional material" - it is quite clearly talking about fictional material, not non-fiction.
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
Hmm.. WAF first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements referring to specific parts of a work is more like half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion, obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much of it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first sentence, so I'll ignore it for now. My example is 100% in an OOU perspective, by the definition given in WP:WAF. Yes, it doesn't include any non-fictional information, but that doesn't make it IU. Could you tell me what part of WAF says you have to include non-fiction details in order to make something OOU? I've just re-read the page, and I only see one mention of "out-of-universe information" (which I think is a confusing name, since OOU information and OOU perspective are quite different things - non-fiction information is clearer), and that's just to explain why it is important to include plot summaries, it's not related to anything about how to include plot summaries. The section is headed "Presentation of fictional material" - it is quite clearly talking about fictional material, not non-fiction.
For clarification of my first sentence, take a look at User:AldeBaer/sandbox. In my opinion the current wording of WAF is somewhat self-contradictory wrt preferred approach to writing about fiction.
The fiction/non-fiction terminology is in wide use to distuingish between fictional and non-fictional texts, yes. But using it in place of IU/OOU in WP:WAF would be incorrect, as in-universe/out-of-universe denotes primary source information vs secondary source information. Maybe the latter would be a more appropriate terminology?
Let's face the facts: Gray Jedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Jedi, Dark Jedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Jedi, Dark side devotee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_devotee, Sith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sith, Jerec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerec, Aayla Secura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aayla_Secura, Tremayne (Star Wars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremayne_%28Star_Wars%29, Xanatos (Star Wars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanatos_%28Star_Wars%29, Asajj Ventress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asajj_Ventress, Sev'rance Tann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev%27rance_Tann, Yuuzhan Vong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuuzhan_Vong, *Lightsaber combat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat*, *Force-sensitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-sensitive* and *Holocron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocron*, to name just a few. I love everything Star Wars, but notability and MOS guidelines that embrace this gallopping chaos must be rewritten sooner or later, ideally complementing each other.
Also, I appreciate that "notability" is an often-abused term, but on the other hand, any ambiguity in policies and guidelines is likewise prone to tendentious interpretation. I wouldn't usually argue for stricter guidelines, but here they are necessary.
And I don't quite understand why people are opposed to inter-article merging and intra-article merging (i.e. condensing material), seeing as the current guidelines let everything go unchecked. Guidelines would ideally not be necessary at all, but the current mess in articles about fiction doesn't allow for that luxury.
On 6/26/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Let's face the facts: Gray Jedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Jedi, Dark Jedi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Jedi, Dark side devotee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_devotee, Sith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sith, Jerec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerec, Aayla Secura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aayla_Secura, Tremayne (Star Wars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremayne_%28Star_Wars%29, Xanatos (Star Wars) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanatos_%28Star_Wars%29, Asajj Ventress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asajj_Ventress, Sev'rance Tann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev%27rance_Tann, Yuuzhan Vong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuuzhan_Vong, *Lightsaber combat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat*, *Force-sensitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-sensitive* and *Holocron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocron*, to name just a few. I love everything Star Wars, but notability and MOS guidelines that embrace this gallopping chaos must be rewritten sooner or later, ideally complementing each other.
What's the fact? That the Star Wars universe is large? That many people are interested in it? That it's complicated?
Hmm, for those reasons maybe Wikipedia should have comprehensive coverage of the subject.
Also, I appreciate that "notability" is an often-abused term, but on the other hand, any ambiguity in policies and guidelines is likewise prone to tendentious interpretation. I wouldn't usually argue for stricter guidelines, but here they are necessary.
Or maybe they're not.
And I don't quite understand why people are opposed to inter-article merging and intra-article merging (i.e. condensing material), seeing as the current guidelines let everything go unchecked. Guidelines would ideally not be necessary at all, but the current mess in articles about fiction doesn't allow for that luxury.
I dislike the idea of using a rewritten notability guideline as a club when common-sense guidelines about using links instead of repeating content, using concise prose, sticking to verifiable information, and avoiding subjective interpretation are perfectly sufficient to prune cruft.
In other words, Strunk and White is sufficient. No need to hammer a square peg into a round hole.