Difference between revisions of "Blog:Changes to notability policy"

Latest revision as of 13:17, February 4, 2013

This discussion is closed. Any comments left here will be ignored.

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while now. I totally disagree with articles about characters or locations mentioned in passing or just seen written down or on a sign, in passing. I think that these should be against the notability policy.

If a character is just mentioned in a sentence, their name said or something about the character said, that, to me, is just not notable and does not deserve an article. If it is a reference to a real person or a fictional character, it can be mentioned in the episode's references tab. It doesn't need a full article. Most people won't search for someone who has only been mentioned once in the show here and I'm sure that Special:PopularPages will reflect this with most of these articles.

The only mentioned characters and locations I would be fine with keeping are those which have had a certain emphasis on, are discussed about for a long time, more than a second or two, like most of our mentioned only articles. You may have noticed that when I go through episodes and make articles about them, I generally skip out adding mentioned only appearances, unless we already have an article for the character or location.

These articles are mostly stubs anyway and are poor quality, lacking images and much more information, something that we should not have on this wiki.

I am therefore proposing that we make the changes to the notability policy to reflect this. The updated policy should read:

Characters[edit]

• Characters mentioned in passing do not deserve an article. If the character is mentioned a few times in a discussion and a large emphasis is placed on the mentioned character, they can get an article.
• Character names seen written down do not deserve articles.

Locations[edit]

• Locations mentioned in passing do not deserve an article. If the location is mentioned a few times in a discussion and a large emphasis is placed on the mentioned location, it can get an article.
• Location names seen written down do not deserve articles.

I know that many people are all for having an article on anything related to The Simpsons but this, I feel, is ridiculous. We do not need an article on everybody mentioned in the show. No other wiki on the Internet has articles on something so trivial as a mentioned character or location and neither should we. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 11:34, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Discussion[edit]

I like the current policy. I think it's funny to find information like that and it bring us articles and give us more visitors. This is a wiki about Simpsons not Wikipedia, if a person/place is in the Simpsons it's should have an article./AleWi 12:39, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Except these articles don't give us more visitors, it's not funny to find stubs and most of these locations/characters are real-world or real-world fictional and don't need an article here, only a mention in the references tab. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 12:44, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Some gust star has been mentioned that not has playing themselves is still a character now, I think information like that important. Even famous people, sometimes I don't know who they're talking about but if they have an article I can found it. /AleWi 12:53, 14 November 2012 (EST)

If the person was mentioned only, they can get a mention on the references tab and possibly their article. They do not need a new article for one sentence. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 12:58, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Remaining neutral for the time being, statistically, I can't say PopularPages is a fair judge. The top end is loaded with recent episodes and related pages, and main characters and locations obviously, whereas the lower pages are newer articles, namely comic credits or minor characters (and not just those removed covered by a potential change in policy). And so for this to bear much relevance we'd need to take into account the many factors involved. And it should be noted even our highest values aren't that high. In the 3000s is Wedge Antilles, who was mentioned once, and only has 505 views. So with ~16000 pages less than 500 views, it's unfair to say that mentioned figures have less of a draw then the credits, references, quotes, gag, guest star, crew, merchandise, e.t.c. pages that also fill the lower ranking articles. Anyway, statistical analysis over, though while I'm analysing, most articles can't have images and have all the Simpsons info, and so aren't technically stubs.--Cook879 13:27, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Sure, some articles may be lower than mentioned characters, but they are notable things, for example, tab pages, like you said. That Wedge Antilles article has a "History" of one line, which to me, is a stub. We should just mention his mention in the references tab instead. It doesn't need an article for a one time mentioned name. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 13:41, 14 November 2012 (EST)

• Support. -- cjc 16:29, 18 November 2012 (EST)

We have 1060 mentioned characters today, what is wrong with articles like Arthur B. Ablabab for you admins? It's a person, same with Gorilla A, a name that Bart laughing to./AleWi 11:31, 19 November 2012 (EST)

They are both terrible articles and could be mentioned with a list of those names on the References page as trivia. They do not deserve articles. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 11:50, 19 November 2012 (EST)

They both could be redirected to Sideshow Bob Roberts/References or whatever. Both Arthur B Abababa and the Aaron Aaronsons could just be mentioned in a line there - "When Lisa looked at the results for the mayoral election she found out that Arthur B. Ablabab voted for Sideshow Bob, just like Aaron A. Aaronson and Aaron L. Aaronson did.". Because, honestly speaking, can you say anyone will ever really look for a page like that? -- cjc 16:07, 19 November 2012 (EST)

I agree with changing the policy as Solar has described. In order to justify having an article here, characters have to have more going for them than just a one-time mention. -- Mythigator 04:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)

• I agree with Solar, and that they should be put into their respective 'background' articles with a list of the background characters + locations, one-time mentioned ones, etc. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (EST)
  • It's not so much that, I just feel that if a famous person is mentioned, it should go under Cultural references. Lists of names, including "Gorilla A" etc. could go under trivia. They do not need their own individual articles, they can all go in the references tab. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 16:16, 21 November 2012 (EST)

• Would this mean deletion for pages like Douglas Adams, whose only notability in the Simpsons universe is he was on some list in the Ned Book. Because surely they don't deserve articles either... -- cjc 16:11, 23 November 2012 (EST)
  • I would think so, although fine details should be discussed in more detail if we decide to delete these type of articles. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 16:20, 23 November 2012 (EST)
    • Another thing that would need to be discussed is all the town and country articles that are just because someone mentioned them one time. -- cjc 16:28, 23 November 2012 (EST)
• What about characters/locations that are mentioned multiple times? --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 22:39, 24 November 2012 (EST)
  • Multiple times I am actually fine with. It's the one time mentions that I don't like. We may have to come up with a number though (maybe three mentions to be worthy of an article or something). The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 04:17, 25 November 2012 (EST)
    • Francine Simpson is a cousin to Homer that is mentioned once, I think some one time mentioned characters should still have articles. /AleWi 05:49, 25 November 2012 (EST)
      • I do agree with that as well, named family members who are mentioned should get articles, as long as they are part of a recurring family. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 09:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)
• Currently my stance is leaning more towards AleWi's side of the argument. Although I can see the uselessness in articles like Gorilla A., I do find the celebrity ones more relevant. Mainly though, we've put so much work into articles like these, as we've allowed them to build up over the years, that I just don't like the thought of throwing them all out.--Cook879 08:33, 25 November 2012 (EST)

One last thing[edit]

I feel that mentioned characters, those who are mentioned once, are totally unnotable. In fact, articles about the couch, characters beds, chairs, tables etc. are more notable than Gorilla A and other one time mentioned characters like that. If we stick with the policy, then we should just scrap the notability policy altogether. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 10:47, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Vote[edit]

Okay, it's been two weeks now. I think it's time to get this matter closed.

Make the proposed changes[edit]

1. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 08:33, 28 November 2012 (EST)
2. -- Mythigator 09:11, 28 November 2012 (EST)
3. -- cjc 12:41, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Keep the policy as it is[edit]

1. AleWi 09:31, 28 November 2012 (EST)
2. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 10:12, 28 November 2012 (EST)
3. --Cook879 12:50, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Another possible option[edit]

Since the vote seems to be roughly 50/50 and I don't think one or two votes either way should sway it, there may be another option. Notability could be decided on a case by case basis. This means that articles such as Gorilla A can go whereas articles such as Kenny Rogers would be kept as Kenny Rogers is a famous person. Of course, there will be some gray areas where discussion will be needed to decide if the character, location, etc. is notable enough but most users can see an obviously unnotable articles (Gorilla A for example) and these should be marked for deletion.

Since these will be decided on a case by case basis, users can and should nominate others up for deletion the usual way, unless it is obvious that they are not notable, in which case, add the speedy delete template to the page instead. What does everybody think? Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 13:02, 29 November 2012 (EST)

I'm ok with this. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 19:46, 29 November 2012 (EST)

That works for me. -- Mythigator 08:48, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Yep. -- cjc 16:06, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Seeming we worked this proposal out on IRC, I agree.--Cook879 18:01, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Okay then, looks like this is settled. I will make a page for these minor articles that should be deleted. This will have two segments, one for those that are obviously unnotable and those with questionable notability, which will have discussion about. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 12:33, 5 December 2012 (EST)