Blog:Changes to notability policy

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

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

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

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.--Cook 8 7 9 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)