Fiction

[[Image:Threegraces.jpg|250px|thumb|The Charites, here in a painting by Sandro Botticelli, were the goddesses of charm, beauty, nature, human creativity and fertility in Greek mythology.]] Fiction is the term used to describe works of the imagination. This is in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality. A large part of the appeal of fiction is its ability to evoke the entire spectrum of human emotions: to distract our minds, to give us hope in times of despair, to make us laugh, or to let us experience empathy without attachment. Fictional works—novels, pictures, short story, fairy tales, fables, films, comic book, interactive fiction—may be partly based on factual occurrences but always contain some imaginary content. The term is also often used synonymously with fictional prose. In this sense, fiction refers only to novels or short stories and is often divided into two categories, popular fiction (e.g., science fiction or mystery fiction) and literary fiction (e.g., Victor Hugo or William Faulkner). Fiction is largely perceived as a form of art or entertainment, although not all fiction is necessarily artistic. Fiction may be created for the purpose of educating, such as fictional examples used in school textbooks. Fiction is also frequently instrumentalized by propaganda and advertising. Fiction may be propagated by parents to their children out of tradition (e.g. Santa Claus) or in order to instill certain beliefs and values. Fables with an explicit moral goal are not necessarily targeted at children, however. Fiction may over time blend with factual accounts and develop into mythology. Many atheists perceive religion as no different from any fictional tale, whereas members of religious groups typically explain their beliefs with faith and claim they are fundamentally different from fictional tales (although they may call other religious views fictional). The sociological school of constructivist epistemology argues that every view of reality is fundamentally a construction of the self and that a safe distinction between fact and fiction is impossible, whereas the philosophy of naturalism holds that reality can be approximated and truth can be demonstrated through usefulness, allowing the distinction from fiction. Fiction has often been the target of censorship or boycotts, escalating into book burnings or banned books. Extremist regimes like the Taliban have been even more prohibitive, restricting all reading to religious texts. There is an ongoing debate regarding sexual content in fiction and whether or not juveniles can be safely exposed to it; opponents of fiction with sexual content typically label it pornography. The Internet has had a massive impact on the distribution of fiction, calling into question the feasibility of copyright as a means to ensure the income of creators. Together with cheap and powerful home computers, it has also led to new forms of fiction, such as interactive computer games or computer-generated comics. Countless forums for fan fiction can be found online, where loyal followers of specific fictional realms create and distribute derivative stories. Through open writing systems like wikis, collaboratively written fiction is also becoming possible (see the [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikifiction Wikifiction] initiative). Fiction is a fundamental part of human culture, and the ability to create fiction and other artistic works is frequently cited as one of the defining characteristics of humanity. ==Categories of fiction== * Children's fiction * Crime fiction ** Detective fiction ** Mystery fiction * Fan fiction * Interactive fiction * Literary fiction * Speculative fiction ** Fantasy fiction ** Horror fiction *** Vampire fiction ** Science fiction * Spy fiction ==Elements of fiction== *antagonists *conflicts *climax (narrative) *fictional characters *plots *protagonists *resolution *structures *subplots *theme (literary)s ==See also== * Film * Creative Writing * Fictional character * Fictional realm * Literature * Novelists * Archive of fictional things ==External links== * [http://book.awardannals.com/genre/fiction/ Most Honored Fiction] at the [http://book.awardannals.com/ Book Award Annals] Fiction

Fiction

Non-fiction "derives from provable facts"? That is questionable. The Qur'an and the Bible cannot both be true, but both are non-fiction. Non-fiction is ''intended'' to be understood to be true, but that doesn't mean it is always provable. -- Mike Hardy :At least some theologians will probably argue that a considerable part of the Bible is narrative text and consequently fiction. I do agree, however, that this wikipedia:Stub oversimplifies things. --User:KF 01:10 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) We currently have two major types of fiction articles: " in fiction" and "List of fictional ". These appear to be very similar, only that the " in fiction" articles sometimes contain more detailed discussions. We need to agree on a general title for these articles. Personally, I think "List of fictional cats" should be "Cats in fiction" etc. Other opinions? --User:Eloquence 01:59 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) What about all the different kinds of authors of fiction? User:Danny : What about them? I already linked some of them, more to follow. I think the article titles are fine there. --User:Eloquence I don't see why we need to set a standard at all - if the article is a list, then it's a "list of fictional foos", while if it's a more general article about the subject, then it's "foos in fiction". It's possible one might even want both - if the article on, say planets in science fiction got very long, then it might be an idea to break the list off to List of fictional planets. Just my opinion, of course. --User:Camembert :I agree. If it is a list then it should be named appropriately so people don't expect an encyclopedia article when they click on a linked titled [foos]. That way we also sidestep the anti-pluralization naming convention and clearly distinguish encyclopedia articles form Almanac-like lists. Besides, usually [List of foo] is a subarticle of [foo] that was spun-off as soon as the list in [foo] got too long. We should have an encyclopedia article about fictional cats but it should be titled fictional cat so that within an article on a fictional cat we can simply write "Foo is a fictional cat." Any long list of fictional cats could then be spun-off into [list of fictional cats] leaving the article about them free of clutter. If we don't follow the anti-pluralization naming convention then we would have to write "Foo is a fictional cats" or "Foo is one of many fictional cats" (redirects are not the answer because their existence is not obvious and the presence of an incorrectly pluralized article title will encourage more similarly pluralized titles). Plurals need to be avoided for encyclopedia articles and Almanac-like list need to be named correctly (perhaps in the future our statistics can be made to count the number of articles with "list" in the title and maybe even exclude them from the article count - since they are not encyclopedia articles). --User:Maveric149 :: Hmm, I'm not sure which policy you are suggesting here. Should all "List of " articles be renamed "" (singular)? Should "women in science fiction" be "woman in science fiction"? I think it's important to have consistent titles, and if we call an article about fictional cats "fictional cat", there is a consistency problem with articles like "Mars in science fiction" etc. Making articles easy to link to is an important criterion, but IMHO article titles should also look professional and consistent. :: I could agree with " in fiction" for articles and "Fictional " ''or'' "List of fictional " for lists. --User:Eloquence :::But [foos in fiction] is still plural which violates a naming convention and also isn't likely to be linked to naturally or directly. [fictional foo] would and should there be the title of the article. Also, when a person clicks on a link titled [fictional foo] in the context of an encyclopedia it is very reasonable to expect that they want to land on a encyclopedia article about fictional foos and not a list. Any long list of fictional foos can and should eventually be in [list of fictional foos] and logically would only be linked to from [fictional foo]. This has been the current common practice for many months - I just haven't gotton around to writing a naming convention for it. Professional presentation is highly subjective whereas whether or not an article is easy to link to is easier to determine and since we are a Wiki we need to encourage easy and natural linking. --mav So should we from this derive a policy that: # Lists should always be called "List of .." so they are easily recognizable. # Specialized articles such as "Women in science fiction", "Mars in science fiction" should have specialized titles # More general articles should be called "fictional " (singular) for easy linking? I'm not too happy with that result. It is inconsistent, esp. 2 vs. 3, and I particularly dislike "fictional " titles. It just doesn't sound very encyclopedia-like. What would you search for to find out about cats in fiction -- "fictional cat" or "cats in fiction"? Searchability is another important criterion besides linkability. "We are a wiki" is correct, but we are first and foremost an encyclopedia. Wiki is just a tool. --User:Eloquence :But to build that encyclopedia linking must be easy and predictable. Otherwise, there is no encyclopedia. --mav ::I think it's reasonably simple. Redirects on "fictional " are a good compromise. There does not seem to be a risk of further "plural contamination" as we are dealing with specific composites, not individual words. --User:Eloquence :::I just changed every ''fictional cat'' I could find to List of fictional cats, so that one is moot. User:Ortolan88 ::::Not the best solution. Now people will be brought to a list instead of the future article on fictional cats. --mav :::Better solution than not finding them at all. If, in the future, someone writes an article on fictional cats, they can do as they please with the cross references. Whatever they do, it will be easier because they are now linked, not just text. :::It is hard to imagine how an article on fictional cats would be much more than a list though: ::::"The cat in fiction draws on deep wells of human connection with the feline race . . ." :::User:Ortolan88 ::::I wasn't suggesting that a redirect shouldn't exist in the interim before an article on fictional cats can be made. If each of the fictional cat articles have a link in them called 'fictional cat' then when an article replaces the redirect at fictional cat then nothing needs to be changed. --User:Maveric149 :::::"Fictional cat" is not a proper title for an encyclopedia article. "Cats in fiction" is. And it's more searchable. --User:Eloquence 01:08 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC) :::::This isn't any ordinary encyclopedia. Free linking is a very important thing to consider here whereas that is not important in a dead-tree encyclopedia. --mav :::::: We have various behind the scenes means to make linking easier for us (i.e. redirect "fictional cat->cats in fiction"). We should ''never'' sacrifice the values of an encyclopedia for the values of a wiki. ---User:Eloquence ---- I shortened the last paragraph, which for reference read: :Fiction may be perceived as funny, serious, sad, fast, tense, confusing, surprising, twisted, provocative, boring, unrealistic, enlightening, addictive, manipulative, generic, beautiful, life-changing, depressing, or inspiring. Whatever one's view of specific forms of fiction may be, it cannot be denied that fiction is a fundamental part of human culture, and the ability to create fiction, or in fact any art, is frequently cited as one of the defining characteristics of humanity. The long list of adjectives looked kind of ridiculous and didn't have much point. (The second sentence was shortened because it was too wordy.) User:Eric119 03:55, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Poor, poor definition== :Fiction is the term used to describe works of the imagination. This is in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality. What does "factual claims about reality" mean? Works of the imagination? Beethoven's symphonies are works of imagination, but are they fiction? Picasso's painting? Fiction is about literature - why doesn't this entry state that explicitly? Are poetry to be considered fiction, or merely prose? Plays? This lead entry is seriously disappointing. User:Mandel 12:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fiction

==Fiction in Wikipedia== #Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice. #Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a ''"List of characters."'' This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles. #Fictional characters which are cultural icons appearing in works of fiction not directly linked to themselves (e.g. as cameo or guest appearance), or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. #It would be useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there. ==Being bold== If you find articles (particularly stubs) on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) you may want to be bold and merge them into an appropriate article. This allows the information to become more organized and easier to access. However, if you should do so, do not delete meaningful content. You should obviously remove redundant headers ('this is a fictional character from such-and-such book by such-and-such author'), but you should not summarize or otherwise reduce the articles in question. ==Details== This ''guideline'' was created from strong consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters and other discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. It is not official policy, but should be helpful for making a decision on keeping, merging or deleting of fiction-related articles. If you are unfamiliar with a certain field or are unsure whether some character (concept, place, etc.) should be considered minor or major, please ask around on the relevant talk pages before making radical changes. Fiction includes books, TV series, films, computer games and roleplaying games, and possibly other sources. Fanfiction, on the other hand may well be considered ''vanity'' (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion. This includes anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press; information about a character in roleplaying or MMORPGs; and computer game mods or custom maps. Fiction not yet written may be considered ''speculation'' (again, not by default, but often so) which is grounds for deletion per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This includes not-yet-released books, movies, games etc, unless there has already been substantial hype and press coverage about the to-be-released item. See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. ==Examples== *Hermione Granger from the Harry Potter books is a major character, and has her own article because the main article would get too long otherwise. *Prince Corwin from Nine Princes in Amber (and sequels) is a major character, and is covered in the main article. *Lionel Hutz from The Simpsons is a minor character, and is covered in a list of minor characters. *Superman is universally well known and transcending the original work he appeared in, so he has his own article. *Horses of Middle-earth is an example of a list that was recently created from a group of short articles. ==Related topics== * The proliferation of fictional-universe-related articles is considered in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Fancruft and its talk page.

Fiction

This category describes fiction. For fictional things—fictional universes, characters and so forth—see the subcategory :Category:Fictional. Entertainment Literature

Fiction

== Fictional == I was told that this :Category:Fiction is planned to be used (in the future, when boolean category queries become available) for excluding of "fictional everything" from queries. For this reason it contains sub-categories like :Category:Fictional books, :Category:Fictional characters, :Category:Fictional companies, etc. I see at least four problems in this: # Shouldn't :Category:Fiction and all affected subcategories include ? # :Category:Fiction contains a number of articles and subcategories which aren't fictional, like Thriller. # Down the subcategory tree, this idea relies on carefully including only fictional items in each subcategory. This is violated in several places as of now. # It is complicated and time consuming to accurately sort all fictional articles into this elabborate hierarchy. As an alternative I started a flat :Category:Fictional, but was advised to stop, see :Category_talk:Fictional. I still see no problem of having this category, even if it will grow to some 2000 to 6000 entries, I estimate (de.wikipedia has :de:Kategorie:Mann which in the moment holds about 2000 entries). User:Pjacobi 16:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Note: There is a proposal at :Category_talk:Fictional that may resolve these questions (I think it does, anyway) that seems like a good compromise. User:Jwrosenzweig 16:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fiction

This article does not make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Please [{{localurl::}} edit it] according to the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction regarding fiction.

Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear

Fiction

How is this semi-policy when this talk page DOES NOT EXIST? I'm changing it from semi-policy to not policy until someone can provide me something that shows there's been discussion about it. User:Cburnett 01:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) What absolutely troubles me about this is User:Radiant! has done the bulk of editting on this page and seems to be the only one using it for VFD. User:Cburnett 02:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :The link to the page where the dicussion took place is listed on the page. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters User:K1Bond007 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::You know, it's funny how I missed that link on the front page. Well, with my stupidity aside: I think major consolidations (such as what Indrian has been doing) should be taken up on a talk page to gather consensus since it's considered semi-policy. He's made major races/characters into redirects and put into a list. ::This policy attempts to create a line that divides black and white, and not everyone will agree where that line is. Nor is the line fixed for all fiction. User:Cburnett 02:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::* Well, it is meant as a guideline. I clearly stated on the page WP:FICT that it isn't policy - nor does its name assert it as such. If you have counterexamples I'd be happy to hear them. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::: You clearly purported it as such in voting. Such as "Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 15:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)" on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MIPS (character) and labeling it as semi-policy (which you agree with), you're acting as if it were policy. User:Cburnett 08:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::::*That was never my intent. "Merge per WP:FICT" should be read as "I vote for this article to be merged for the reasons described in WP:FICT". Just like people say "Delete as vanity" when they mean "I vote for this article to be deleted for the reasons described in WP:VAIN". Note that merging is, according to the VfD FAQ, a form of 'keep', and that neither keeping nor merging requires a consensual vote (we have a be bold guideline for that). This is, however, semi-policy for the sheer number of people who think it's a good idea. Semi-policy means little else than that. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::The alternative proposal listed on the page I linked (see bottom) is considered a consensus and now Wikipedia policy when concerning VFD. It's not really supposed to clarify the grey, but rather aid in determining what is notable enough for its own page since the definition of "fancruft" varies from person to person. This is my understanding anyway. User:K1Bond007 02:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::*I'd like to read this, but I couldn't find the page you linked at the bottom, please explain? User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::I would like to note that when making the redirects that I have undertaken I have been moving information mostly intact to the new page (I may have left some stuff out and anyone may feel free to add it back in). The one exception to this is the Gorn article, which was full of fanon and therefore not appropriate for a factual article on the topic in my view. The fact of the matter is that fictional concepts do not in my opinion often have enough information to justify separate articles since, by definition, these things do not exist. The best solution is to put these things in lists unless they transcend the subject matter or become too large through the addition of good additional information. I did not move Cardassian or Ferengi or Vulcan, but I have been moving a host of minor races. Anyway, this is a compromise between the fancruft and fancraft positions. No information is lost, but proliferation is controlled. User:Indrian 03:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::*Exactly. And, many fancruft articles will never be more than stubs (for instance, there are articles on Tolkien characters that are mentioned once in the series). I do NOT want these articles deleted, but I do believe they make more sense in context - e.g. a list of such characters. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 07:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) I find it difficult to correlate both the FICT policy and Wiki_is_not_paper. If someone is willing to do the work to write an article on, say, the Gorn -- and if others are willing to edit the article to keep fanon to a minimum, etc. -- then I see no reason why the article cannot be kept, and maybe cross-referenced elsewhere. For example, Star Trek has a list of the movies and TV series with a brief description and then a link to a main article. The idea that topics -- ''any'' topics -- are not justified for inclusion in a boundless encyclopedia simply because they do not fit a person's view as to what Wikipedia should include is, in my view, elitist. There are people who would like to see ALL articles related on fiction, whether they be articles about characters (T'Pol) or books (the dozens of James Bond novels articles K1Bond007 and myself have spent many hours working on) eliminated from Wikipedia because they feel it should all be about academia. IMO that's not what this place is all about. VFD serves a valuable purpose to identify articles that are nonsense, libellous, or violate this place's NPOV policy; I have some misgivings regarding the criteria people are using for notability -- as a book editor I recently attended a course that started off with the admonition that Google should NEVER been used as the only source for research, yet it seems to be the case when determining notability here -- but I can understand if a person is so obscure his/her very existence cannot be verified and there have been many cases of non-existent people and characters being created for articles. But unless something is so obscure that there is literally nothing to write about (a character mentioned only once in the 1000+ pages of Lord of the Rings, for example), I believe any fictional character, race, concept ''with substance'' is worthy of an article if someone is willing to invest the time to write an accurate article about it. User:23skidoo 14:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) *I wholeheartedly agree. But what exactly is your point here? WP:FICT is about the organization of articles on fiction, and could feasibly be grounds for merging some of them, but not for deleting them. Remember that ''merging is a form of keeping''. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) **(as a side point, both WP:FICT and WP:WINP are guidelines rather than policy). User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ***Maybe I was being a little too broad. In part I am reacting to Indrian going a bit further than merging with regards to the Star Trek races articles, effectively deleting the originals and replacing them with single-paragraph write-ups in one large article, eliminating much of the detail and interesting information from the originals. Merging might be a form of keeping, but unless you want an article like List of Star Trek races to be 500Kb long, you just can't get into the level of detail that you can in a separate article -- assuming, as I say above, there is enough to write about. As Indrian correctly states, there has to be caution regarding the inclusion of fanon and/or material that's just made up by editors. But that's why this place is set up so anyone can edit. If I spot something that is clearly nonsense, I'll correct it. If Indrian had included all the information from Gorn (I use this example only because it was the first article that caught my attention regarding this issue) in the List of Star Trek races article, I might not have made such a big deal of it. But that was an article with long history and a lot of edits. I was concerned an article like Vulcans -- which is constantly evolving -- might be next. User:23skidoo 14:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ****I have been doing no such thing, and I resent that accusation. I may have deleted a sentence here or there, but not with any particular purpose and they could easily be readded to the write-up in list form. The only article I modified significantly was Gorn, for very different reasons. If I had come across that article without any thought of merging races into a list, I still would have felt obligated to delete the fanon contained in that article (and no doubt would have had that reverted, but that is another issue). I have not been creating single paragraph articles and deleting longer ones, I have been merging small articles into a list. I also take umbrage to the implication that I would merge an article like Vulcan when none of my actions have shown a proclivity for merging an article on a major Star Trek race with a long write-up. I have merged several races so far, and the only one significantly modified was Gorn. User:Indrian 15:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) == Proposed addition == I think WP:FICT needs to include garnishing consensus from the wikiproject (or somewhere else such as Talk:Star Trek if about ST characters) if affecting a large number of articles for a given subject. For example, Indrian and his dozens of edits for Star Trek stuff. As I said earlier, WP:FICT attempts to place a line down and divide black (minor residing to a list of minors) from white (major with own article) and that's not always the same. It's going to vary with the topic and vary with the person as to exactly where that line lies. User:Cburnett 14:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :I believe the line between white-and-black (as you call it) is simply on the amount of information you can write about them. I also believe (but this is just common sense) that if you don't know much about a topic, you should ask someone who does. But yes, people should take care, and if there is unclarity about this then I'm certainly in favor of adding warnings. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::Even still, you are imposing a line between how much is sufficient. It's entirely subjective and all I'm proposing is that there be a consensus drawn (I use Star Trek since that's what spurred this entire discussion here) in an area before making sweeping changes. There's Being Bold and there's working with a community. User:Cburnett 17:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::I really do not see the problem here. If this were a matter of keeping or deleting, you would have a valid point, but this is an organizational issue. It seems to me that the policy says that fictional concepts with small articles should be merged into a large article until that article becomes to big. At that point, you either further subdivide, or separate out the article(s) that has grown too large. As the original separate article remains as a redirect, someone searching wikipedia for a particular concept will still be led to that concept easily. This is a way of improving the public face of wikipedia by eliminating short articles (often, but not always stubs) on fictional concepts, which some people do not like. No one is talking about deleting information or hiding information or constricting future article growth. You have yet to show how this is not a good compromise position between those who want lots of fiction articles and those who want virtually no fiction articles. User:Indrian 17:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::::FOR THE THIRD TIME: ''THE LINE IS SUBJECTIVE''. Deletion only further accentuates my point, but it still holds for merging. All I'm saying is that sweeping changes be posed first. Do you have a problem with working with a community? User:Cburnett 17:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::::And here I thought that engaging in discussion was working with a community, just as implementing a semi-policy conceived through debate and strong consensus was also working in a community. The "sweeping changes" were posed in the discussion leading up to the semi-policy. The line is not subjective becasue it is controlled by article size, which is measureable. If a list page exceeds the recommended page size, which has been conclusively established, then the entries in said list are reorganized (without deletion of any content) so that the list no longer exceeds this limitation. The IMPORTANCE of a particular entry, which is subjective, is not the controlling factor. Rather it is the AMOUNT of information written on the subject. You still have not answered why this compromise is unsatisfactory. What compromise would you propose?User:Indrian 19:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :::::: As a side point, the WP:FICT guideline ''does not draw a line''. It merely asserts that such a line exists. The discussion on where such a line might lie for any particular topic, should be held in the talk pages related to that topic. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 21:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) I have no idea if you're actually agreeing with me or Indrian, Radiant, but "discussion on where such a line might lie" is exactly what I've proposed here. If you want to merge dozens of races of Star Trek into a single list, then propose it at Talk:Star Trek (or link from there and/or the wikiproject to where discussion is) with a list and discussion. That's all I'm asking to add here: for mass changes, seek consensus first. Indrian, I don't know what the problem is here....but I feel like I'm bashing my head against the wall here for as far as this discussion is going with you. If you bothered to read WP:FICT, you'll see it specifies Major characters and Minor characters (emphasis not mine). At NO POINT does is say "merge if less than 100 words, keep if greater than 100 words and toss a coin if it's 100 words exactly". The signifying difference is major vs. minor, which directly contradicts your point of "The IMPORTANTCE of a particular entry is not the controlling factor." Importance ''IS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR''. I dunno, is the bold-italics making my point? Exactly who is a major or minor character is subjective (where WP:FICT draws the line (yes, I'll keep using that phrase even though the words aren't on the page, so stop reminding me please)) and is at the heart of deciding if they should have their own article or be consolidated. Seriously, Indrian, one of us is clearly missing the boat...and I think I've already had my boat ride on this topic. User:Cburnett 21:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) :Hmmm, well, this conversation has begun moving away from civility in quite a hurry. When it returns to this topic, I just might too. In the meantime, we will just have to agree to disagree on the finer points of the policy for now, and I will also be gracious enough to stay out of the Star Trek articles in regards to merging. User:Indrian 21:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::Call it frustration. I've had to repeat a key point four times now to someone who also doesn't see that Major characters vs. Minor characters is an issue of importance and not amount. Come on, what am I supposed to do? Repeat everything a dozen times? ::This is not a personal attack against you for your ST edits...it's merely a convenient and driving example. There's clearly disagreement about your edits and it could have been avoided if my proposal of garnering support after discussion had been in place. That's all. I don't want to drive you away from ST articles, that's the least of my goals. User:Cburnett 22:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) ::* Well, the problem as I see it is this: obviously people should use all standard guidelines (such as WikiQuette) when moving/merging pages (and I've just ''added'' a warning to the FICT page for that). However, the whole point of WikiPedia is that you do not require other people's consent to make changes. The Wiki thrives because everybody can edit everything. Of course this can sometimes lead to edit wars and other frustrations, but we have processes to deal with those. But if people want to make a change in good faith, WikiPolicy is to let them. Even if that chance is perceived as radical by some (and personally, I don't find merging all that radical but that's IMHO). Since WP:FICT isn't policy, it cannot supersede the fact that anyone can edit anything, because that is beyond policy - it's one of the founding rules. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) ==Warning added == * Note that I've added a warning to the WP:FICT page to not use it as grounds for deleting content. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC) == Would a template be useful? == Here's a first crack at a template for use on talk pages to foster discussion on whether or not the article should be merged per WP:FICT.

It has been proposed that this article on a ''minor character or concept'' be merged with {} (which may not yet exist) based on the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Fiction. If you agree or disagree with this proposal, please participate in the discussion below. If you have evidence that the character or concept is not sufficiently minor, or have plans to expand the article to a degree such that a merger with {} would not be appropriate, please voice your concerns. Keep in mind that the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fiction are semi-policy and should not be taken as strict rules.

Good? Needs work? Really stupid idea? Let me know. (A category might be useful, too, but one step at a time...) User:Android79↔User talk:Android79 02:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC) * Not a bad idea, but people have a tendency to use WP:BOLD and start merging things right away. It depends really if you wanted to make this policy (tag, wait a couple days for concurrence, then do stuff) which imho would be instruction creep, or simply create a mechanism to alert mergists to some article (in which case it needs a cat). User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC) **Yeah, I've reconsidered this. I figured a boilerplate message would be a nice way to give "fair warning," but WP:BOLD is probably the way to go... or at least to just start discussion on the talk page. User:Android79↔User talk:Android79 04:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC) ==Major vs. Minor== I don't like this distinction as it ambigious. I think it would be better if we simply used "List of characters in X" instead of "List of ''minor'' characters in X" and placed all characters from the fiction in question on the list page. Those who are important enough to have their own article can be iLinked from the list page. User:Oberiko 16:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *But isn't "important enough to have their own article" the same as "major"? User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 16:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC) **Not necessarily. Just because a character is major doesn't mean that enough text could be (or has been) written about that character to necessitate said character having its own article. -User:Gtrmp 06:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ***In that case I think Oberiko's suggestion is good. I do believe most lists are already called 'characters' rather than 'minor characters'. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 07:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *I don't like it either - it's so ambiguous it's pointless. User:Gracefool |User talk:gracefool 03:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Ultimately, what I don't get is what's the problem with having an article about...say the Changeling (Star Trek) race in Star Trek when WP:NOT. Whether or not if it's a redirect there will still be something at Changeling (Star Trek). User:Cburnett 05:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) *I'm going to change the article to remove the "minor" constraint on lists. User:Oberiko 15:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) == merge with Wikipedia:Importance == I'd like to propose merging this with the less ambiguous and more generic Wikipedia:Importance. User:Gracefool |User talk:gracefool 01:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) *I'd prefer not to. Wikipedia:Importance is rather controversial since some people fear it might be used for deleting articles that are not 'notable' by any definition of the word. WP:FICT is more like the opposite - it calls for keeping just about everything fiction-related (but in merged form in several cases). Also, despite being relatively new, I'd say it does have consensus - check Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Wikipedia%3AFiction whatlinkshere]. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC) *I would also disagree with this, WP:FICT was born out of necessity from both Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters and Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items because there was the opinion that if something is fictional it isn't really as important and doesn't quite deserve to be in an encyclopedia. Also given the large number of articles on fictional subjects I think it's best that there is something specific to refer to. -- User:Lochaber 12:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC) **Points taken. How about using Wikipedia:Verifiability in place of part 3? :Also, I'd still say this policy is a bit young to have established consensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Wikipedia%3AFiction Whatlinkshere] isn't a very good indicator - Wikipedia:Importance has more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Wikipedia%3AImportance links to it], probably just because it's older. As for Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, like WP:FICT it's less than three months old! Has WP:FICT been featured at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Has it been voted on at Wikipedia:Current surveys? I support WP:FICT, but I'm very uneasy about labelling something as a guideline so quickly, when most of the community probably isn't even aware of it. User:Gracefool |User talk:gracefool 08:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) **To answer your concern - it is frequently cited on VFD as a reason for keeping or merging something (or, occasionally, getting rid of fanfic). It is presently used as ''precedent'' on RFC (see section on policy disputes). I'd say that does indicate wide acceptance. It has never been at WP:CS, but that's because consensus isn't necessarily established by voting on it. Arguably many editors aren't aware of it, but most editors are unaware of most policies and guidelines anyway. HTH! User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 09:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) == New concern of mine == Having chosen to do some interwiki link cleanup for Star Trek article, I ran across a case I had yet to consider (and by all looks of it....no one else has either): interwiki links. For example: * Vulcan (Star Trek) and :de:V�lker im Star-Trek-Universum#Vulkanier * Borg and :de:V�lker im Star-Trek-Universum#Borg Clearly, the german WP has consolidated two races that I'd fight tooth-and-nail against consolidating on the english WP. What point this raises is that it's impossible to use interwiki links from the german page to the other language sites as intended. There were actually several incorrect interwiki links on :de:V�lker im Star-Trek-Universum that weren't pointing to the equivalent of list of Star Trek races.) The only way is to now create a list of interwiki links under each heading. This might be acceptable if I could spell "interwiki links" in every language I've edited under (current count is 32 languages), which I don't. I don't have anything specific to suggest or append to the guideline, but I think discussion is warranted on this. What I'd like to see added is for authors considering to merge-and-redirect under WP:FICT to have to clean up the interwiki stuff and create a list of interwiki links or something. Just like moving a page: people expect you to clean up after your actions. Thoughts? I haven't even touched list of Star Trek races and the semi-recent consolidation someone attempted (stopped about at the k's) as I suspect it'll not be that much fun. User:Cburnett 00:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) :A day-and-a-half later and no one has a comment on this? I'm...shocked. :I found another example that's not influenced by WP:FICT but poses the same problem: kilobyte and :de:kilobyte (which redirects to :de:Speicherkapazit�t which is a list of basically storage sizes: bit, byte, kilobyte, etc.). Since Speicherkapazit�t has redirects to it, it becomes a ''major hassle'' to want to link to bit, byte, kilobyte, kibibyte, etc. Interwiki links were not designed for this. :After further thinking, I'm at the conclusion that WP:FICT is, meh, ok for a single language but unless *all* languages follow suit (which they don't) this problem will persist and I find it livable but not acceptable. User:Cburnett 18:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) This point of discussion is up on the village pump at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Interwiki links and lists since it's not WP:FICT specific. Please reply there. User:Cburnett 18:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) *Well, I'm not sure how to comment on it. You are correct that this is inconsistent. However, the problem is that most other-language wikis work differently from the English one. I'd say the solution would be to allow interwiki links to a section. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!>|<">meta:mergist 08:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

F