Archives
2009 2008 09/2007 - 12/2007 04/2007 - 08/2007 02/2007 - 03/2007 10/2006 - 01/2007 06/2006 - 10/2006 05/2006 - 07/2006 07/2005 - 05/2006 08/2004 - 06/2005

[edit] Question about WP:ENTERTAINER

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Does this include news channels? Or would television journalists and newsreaders come under WP:CREATIVE, which says: "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" ? ƒ(Δ)² 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a part of Wikipedia that I spend much time in, but my first opinion (which I expressed in a recent AfD) is that news anchors are not entertainers unless they are anchoring a show that is intended to be comedy (which in the US would include people like Jon Stewart). So I would use WP:CREATIVE. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What Soap says makes sense to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd probably alter WP:CREATIVE to say "...editors, journalists (print or otherwise), filmmakers...", just to clarify. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What Soap says... Pmlineditor ∞ 07:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the reply guys. Really appreciate it. ƒ(Δ)² 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It would haven been nice if you'd had the courtesty to inform me of this question. The discussion here ignores the text of WP:ENTERTAINER, which refers to both "television personalities" and "opinion makers," indicating that it is not limited to comedic performers. There are quite a few classes of people covered by multiple guidelines, and this ought to be seen as one of those cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for a third opinion. (And my question was phrased with a NPOV) Your opinion is welcome here, of course. ƒ(Δ)² 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You really weren't looking very hard. Your argument is based on the misconception that one and only notability guideline can apply to a class of potentially notable people, an idea that's been widely rejected (eg, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR often overlap). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that ENTERTAINER shouldn't apply to newsreaders at all. There is no question of any overlap.

"You really weren't looking very hard." Explain. Do you think this isn't the appropriate forum? Where do you wish to hold this discussion? ƒ(Δ)² 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, this question was brought forth as a result of this AfD. I used WP:ENT in the discussion since it specifically calls out the term "television personalities" which is how the subject of the AfD is described in the majority of the google/google news hits covering her. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was brought forth as a result of this AfD. Having said that, I believe it applies to the AfD you linked to too (as Talbot is a news presenter/reader and also a journalist). Though it's quite possible, of course, that I'm wrong. ƒ(Δ)² 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has is correct. WP:ENTERTAINER does indeed refer to both "television personalities" and "opinion makers"... so news journalists are covered. You don't neccessarily have to be entertaining to be covered by entertainer... but then, some folks do find the evening news to indeed be entertaining. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• These days TV news is part of the entertainment industry and those who report for it or present it should be classed primarilly as entertainers. RMHED 23:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree. News journalists aren't entertainers unless they do entertainment journalism. There is a distinction for a reason. Lara 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILBIO

There is presently a discussion on the Wikiproject Military History talk page regarding the possibility of establishing notability requirements for individuals who are notable for military service. All interested editors are invited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Television personalities

Re: the KATU article - I have a question on lists of television personalities.

A list of broadcast staff were added in the section "Notable on-air personalities" (here) by Hasselbeckfan 2007 (talk · contribs). I reverted this list (here) with the edit summary "rv - persons do not yet meet notability guideline defined at WP:BIO". But, I noticed the material was restored by Emarsee (talk · contribs) (here) with the edit summary "rv personalities are allowed, but I am going to remove the notable header. (TW)", with a subsequesnt edit to change the section header to "On-air personalities" instead of claiming notable.

I'm requesting clarification on the interpretation of WP:BIO in regards to lists of news personalities. The nearest sub-section appears to be WP:CREATIVE - but I don't see how the persons added meet that section or the basic criteria. Also, the section WP:NLIST would seem to be applicable; but only three of the persons listed have articles of their own which provide refs establishing notability. For the rest of them, none provide refs to establish notability, nor do they appear to have their own articles where such refs could also exist. I would appreciate others opinions / input on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

note: As a courtesy, I've already notified Emarsee of this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, lists personalities are allowed per WP:TVS. If you would like to hear the opinions of others, I would advise you to bring it over to WP:TVS, as I'm fairly busy at the moment.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post a notice on that project talk page, notifying about the discussion here. The discussion could likely take place in either location - but as it's already posted, I'll leave it here. Note: I'm not saying you're wrong in your interpretation - I just want clarification as I'm not seeing how the list of persons meet WP inclusion criteria - if someone can explain, that would be appreciated.

Note also, I see there's also a subsection at WP:ENT that could be applicable - but again, I'm not seeing how most of the names listed meet that set of criteria either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Emarsee is referring to in WP:TVS is the section on article structure where it says the article should include "information on its personalities, past and present". I did an unscientific sample of some other articles under WP:TVS, some had no such list (possibly because the article wasn't compete) and some, such as KVIA-TV, had very long lists. WP:TVS says to include information on its personalities but it doesn't (unless there's a section I missed) say you need to have a list of everyone who's ever had their face on the screen. The KVIA is a case in point; the "Former staff members" section is pages long and is a classic case of WP:IINFO. I would say that as a WP-wide guideline, WP:NLIST trumps WP:TVS, but it does allow some room for common sense exceptions. So it seems to me that WP:TVS should be clarified in that the "information on its personalities" should still fall within notability guidelines and if there are exceptions to be made then it should spell out the circumstances so that indiscriminate lists such as that in the KVIA aren't allowed.--RDBury (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Independent notability is not required for inclusion within a list. Considering that the personalities are notable to the TV station is is perfectly appropriate to include a list of them with the station's article, even if the people themselves are not independently notable. Of course not every person who has ever worked there is worthy of mention, but who belongs and who doesn't is a question of editorial judgment, not a policy question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Thaddeus above, in that as long as there is a source confirming the person's association with the station, and the person's relative importance, the TV personality may be included in the station's article. ƒ(Δ)² 16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The person's association can be sourced (usually) to the station itself. The part which seems a gray area to me is the "person's relative importance" ... would this be importance as defined as notability under WP:BIO (i.e. subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.) ... or would importance be defined in other ways? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My take, basically agreeing with Thaddeus and Aditya, is that someone does not have to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG simply to be mentioned within an article (on any subject), and including them on this kind of list falls under that criterion. (By analogy, there are lots of pages about historical events that mention persons who do not also have their own bio pages, and who would not qualify for such a bio page, but we don't go around deleting every name that isn't blue-linked.) So my take on the answer to Barek's question is that, no, the people do not have to pass BIO to be listed; rather, they just need to be judged by the editors of the page to be of informational interest to the readers of the page, while keeping in mind that it does not serve the reader to list everyone who ever appeared on screen, and that's a subjective call. Now there's a corollary: just being listed does not confer notability, and there should not be red links in the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't such a list go against the WP:NLIST subsection of WP:BIO? If consensus is that such lists should exist, then WP:NLIST should probably be modified, as it current reads "Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion in these lists should be determined by the notability criteria above..." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. (And maybe I'm wrong!) That's the kind of inconsistency about notability criteria that drives me up the wall. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the NLIST guideline is only intended to be talking about the typical indiscriminary lists such as "graduates of" or "residents of" well the number of non-notable people who could be listed is virtually unlimited. (It certainly isn't phrased that way, though.) For example, if we have a notable band and want to list its members that is certainly appropriate even if none of the members are independently notable. If we have a city article it is certainly inappropriate to list every person who lives there. Given those two extremes, the NLIST guideline should really make it more clear what exactly it is talking about. I stand by the position that "notable to the article's subject" is really the best way to determine what should or should not be included in any given article, irregardless of what the guidelines say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes good sense to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewording of the "Lists of people" section

In regards to the above discussion, it seem clear that this section of the guideline is unclear in its meaning/intent. The current wording:

Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion in these lists should be determined by the notability criteria above. Furthermore, every entry in such a list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.

For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater.

leads to an interpretation that every list must contain only notable people when read literally. This is not consistent with standard guidelines that notability does not directly dictate what can be placed within an article on a notable topic. As such I propose the following rewording:

Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within these lists should be determined by the notability criteria above, except where the list is highly relevant to the article's subject. Furthermore, every entry in such a list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.

For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable.

That could probably use some tweaking, but you get the idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that wording would be restrictive enough - as I can see people focused on a specific topic claiming that it opens the door to a more permissive addition of people to articles about charities, high schools, companies, etc. I see the direction you're going with this; but we need to be certain that the revised wording doesn't accidentally open the door too far.

Also, when looking in the history, I noticed an an edit to WP:NLIST from July of this year which references an earlier discussion from WP:VPP (now archived). Would it be appropriate to notify participants of that earlier discussion about this one ... or should this one be moved to WP:VPP as well? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Once we've nailed down a version we're happy with, we should seek wider input - either via WP:CENT or WP:VPP - but I don't see a need to notify the people who participated in that discussion specifically. I don't think that change directly relates to the issue being discussed here. (The discussion was aimed at eliminating such lists entriely for which there was no consensus - the improved wording was just an outcrop of the discussion, not the focus of it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Getting back to the first section of Barek's comment, I think that's a serious point. I think that the sentence Thaddeus added at the end, about the list of past school presidents, is fine. But I think "except where the list is highly relevant to the article's subject" in the second sentence of the first paragraph is where we have to be careful, per Barek. It may be necessary to distinguish lists within articles from stand-alone list pages. If someone created a stand-alone list page of past school presidents, for example, and linked to it from the page about the school, I'd probably argue for merging the list into the page about the school. Thus, I think stand-alone lists should be governed by the notability criteria, period. But lists within pages should, instead, not be governed by the notability criteria, but rather by whether "the list is highly relevant to the article's subject". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Focusing on the language except where the list is highly relevant to the article's subject for a moment, a highly restrictive version would be except where the list is the article's subject. That, however, would not allow the academic president list in a college article. Except where the list is a sequential list directly relevant to the article's subject is a possibility. Are there reasonable non-sequential lists that we'd be excluding? List of founding members, or list of participating entities in a consortium, for example? If we do open the door a little, lets keep it small. The list of WorldCat participating entities would be unwieldy to say the least, and lists of non-notable founding members are not particularly useful. --Bejnar (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be overlap between the list section here and WP:Source list. If changes are to be made here they should be consistent with the other section. Also, I'm worried about phrases such as "highly relevant"; can objective criteria be given for this? The people adding lists of indiscriminate data probably think it's "highly relevant" to the subject and it would be hard to argue otherwise unless a more precise definition is given.--RDBury (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have stalled ... none of us (including myself) seem to be coming up with a wording change that avoids vague language open for interpretation - which could lead to further content disputes on what is "highly relevant" to the subject.

The more I look at this, the more i think that we should leave WP:NLIST as it stands - require that persons in such lists meet notability requirements ... we then would need to refine the WP:ENTERTAINER section. Currently, it defines as notable anyone who "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." ... but I think it would be reasonable to also add a criteria for persons who are in programs that have an original airing date 5 or more times per week, and in which the program lasts one hour or more per day ... (again, the wording likely needs tweaking). This change does open the flood-gates to a large addition of persons who may not have previously been classified as notable (not necesarilly a bad thing) ... my main concern is it then becomes harder to argue against listing past news personalities in news broadcast articles. Not sure how to deal with that one if this change were made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think that Thaddeus made a good point about NLIST needing some repair, but I also agree with the other editors about not opening the door too far. In the spirit of getting this effort unstalled, then, please let me suggest this:

Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within lists as stand-alone articles should be determined by the notability criteria above. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by the relevance to the article's subject, while attempting wherever possible to replace lists with text, and subject also to WP:Trivia sections. Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.

For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how this advances the discussion. Just leaving out the principle while retaining the example seems to open up the door more, rather than keeping the exception as small as possible. I do think that if we are to allow "past school presidents lists" and their ilk, with citation, but without separate notability, then we are bound to provide guidance as to when and where such lists are appropriately used. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on some of what you just said. What do you mean by "leaving out the principle"? In addition to WP:Trivia sections, what other guidance would you want to provide? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A list of founders of an organization or a corporation may be marginally relevant to an article on that that organization or corporation, and would not be excluded by the trivia guidelines. In fact a regular list of non-notable alumni, with appropriate citation attesting to their membership in the group, would pass the trivia guidelines. Just saying that alumni lists are excluded doesn't provide a basis for excluding them. The trivia guidelines say This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. What we need is something that will exclude alumni and other such lists but allow lists such as award winners in awards articles, past presidents in college articles and past editors in journal articles. That is what I was trying to do, if ever so inartfully, with restricting such lists to "sequential lists directly relevant to the article's subject". --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I think the first paragraph of the proposed language (and in fact of the existing language) comes close to what you are suggesting; the second paragraph, about the school alumni and presidents, is (and has been) just an example for illustration. It would be fine with me to insert the word "direct" before the word "relevance" in sentence 3 of paragraph 1. Would that work? You also refer to "sequential"; I'm fine with adding that to the language, but I don't really understand what it means. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to summarize, the nub of the issue to to relax the guidelines a bit to allow people who aren't independently notable to be included in in lists under certain circumstances where common sense would seem to dictate should be allowed, but to not open the door to a lot of listcruft. Also, to keep things in perspective, most of the people who create listcruft don't pay attention to to these guidelines in the first place, but it's nice to be able to put "Per WP:BIO" in the edit summary when you're deleting irrelevant trash. I like idea of splitting into cases; I don't think there's anyone who wants to change the guidelines for stand-alone lists. I think Richard Pryor#Marriages is a good example of the kind of list you're trying to allow since if you follow the letter of the guidelines it's not permitted. The point I'm trying to get to is that the reason that it's common sense to allow a list like this is that the spouse of a subject is normally considered encyclopedic content and if one spouse is encyclopedic then all of them are. Similarly, the current president of a college is considered encyclopedic information and if the current one is then past presidents are as well. I still think the word "relevance" in the second sentence Tryptofish's proposed wording is a bit vague. How about something like the following?

Lists within articles must conform to WP:Source list in that the entries must have the the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Probably still needs work but I hope you see where I'm trying to go with it.--RDBury (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RDBury's idea seems like a very good solution to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I too like RDBury's idea, but I would still like to see the modifier "sequential" as a restriction. So far all of the suggested examples to be allowed have been sequential lists, i.e. one person following another in the position. Of course the counter-example comes to mind of non-monogamists in "Lists of wives". But I don't think that is really an issue, is it? --Bejnar (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The original reason this issue came up - TV personalities - wouldn't appear to be sequential. Neither would a list of band members or the list of Deal or No Deal models that recently survived AfD (as a stand alone list) by near unanimity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I thought we were talking about embedded lists, not stand-a-lones. I could see band members, but I think those are better as text. I can't see embedded TV personalities or Deal or No Deal models. --Bejnar (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I too think that RDBury made a good point. I still do not see a need for making a specific reference to sequential, however. Here is my stab at incorporating this:

Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within lists as stand-alone articles should be determined by the notability criteria above. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.

For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable.

How does that sound? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days since there were any new comments on this so I'm going to go ahead and update the article as there seems to be consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 October 2009

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I support this bold change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About hobby

Can I create a special page like a hobby-page (For example "Hobbies of Frank Sinatra")

And include some stuff like a:

• He liked to drink: ...
• He liked to watch: ....
• His biggest regret was: ...
• The person whom he always asked for advice was: ...
• He like to play: ....
• His best sport was: ....
• He always think, that the greatest singer is: ...
• His greatest actor was: .....

and so on (maybe 50 strokes)... Хитрый Петр (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be trivial information, not encyclopedic. Lara 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "NOTABILITY" for Entertainers and Artists NEEDS a revision

Hello,

I am relatively new to these discussions, but I offer a well informed fresh view. It has come to my attention that certain actors, musicians, and artists/entertainers of all sorts are added or deleted based on a very ambiguous term of 'Notability'. Who is to say what is 'notable' or not? Also, the roles actors play in certain productions must be 'significant'...again what does that mean exactly? Where is the line drawn? How are administrators of Wikipedia supposed to determine what is 'significant' and 'notable' based on these extremely vague guidelines?

I propose an additional criteria that can assist in determining the 'notability' of entertainers. Seeing as that the internet is and will be a major source of determining how prevalent any given entertainer is in today's society, and thereby relevant as a searchable subject for those seeking information about said entertainer on Wikipedia, I think an additional factor we can add to the determination of 'notability' is search engine results or 'Internet Proliferation'. Those who are less 'known' will have very few results as opposed to those who have made somewhat of a public stamp in society, who will have many thousands or millions. However, there is the issue of name commonality resulting in inaccuracy, for example, the name "John Smith" will have tens of millions of search results, whereas a less common name (ex: Chiwetel Ejiofor) will have a more accurate assessment of their societal public prevalence. This can partially be solved by adding a middle name and/or the occupation, example: "John Clarance Smith Actor" for those names that result in an excess of unrelated search results. Once this qualification is refined, we can set a guideline of perhaps, 10,000 relevant results as a determination of notability. This additional factor will indeed assist in those borderline cases where an entertainer is not universally recognizable, but does or did in fact have a relevant career in their entertainment profession. I realize there still remains some ambiguity in this, particularly with common named entertainers, but I think this is a huge step in the right direction and greatly reduces the overall vagueness of the guidelines.

Another vague criteria: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Here, "other productions" is clearly another term that is blatantly vague. What kinds of productions can determine notability? Are webisodes considered valid to qualify? What about straight to DVD/video films? Short films? YouTube Videos? How do we determine if an entertainer has been in what Wikipedia Administrators consider to be 'notable'? Perhaps the 'other productions' term should be removed and a list of exactly what kinds of productions are acceptable should be specifically listed. I suggest "Straight to DVD", "Short Films (that are available for purchase online through a 3rd party vendor - not those for sale by the entertainer or production company themselves)", "Films, TV Shows, etc. that are not completed yet, but in production and entertainer is verifiable through a source", "YouTube videos with 20 million or more views".

And how many is "multiple"? Is that "2 or more"? If so, then why doesn't it say "2 or more" instead of the unspecific term 'multiple' that can be interpreted by some to mean a larger amount?

Finally, the term "significant role" which is what the entertainer's participatory involvement should be if the credit is to be 'notable', thereby qualifying for the entertainer's 'notability', is very ambiguous. If someone has not seen a particular project, then they cannot accurately say how significant an entertainer's role is or isn't in any given production. And even if they have seen it, what determines significance exactly? Is it the effect or relevance their portrayal/character has on the plot of a story? Is it the amount of screen time (calculation of percentage of time on screen)? Number of lines spoken? Credit billing? Some kind of hybrid of these? This is a very grey area. For example, Ellen Burstyn received an Emmy nomination for her performance in "Mrs. Harris", a 2005 TV Movie, even though her character only appears on screen for 11 seconds and has only two lines. Based on the 'significance' criteria (lets pretend this is her first entertainer credit and before the Emmy nomination), this appearance would have been insignificant because it seems to be a rather small part in the film, but, in fact she was nominated for an Emmy. In addition, there exist projects that do not have significant character names - i.e. the 2005 feature film "Feast", which was highlighted on HBO's Project Greenlight, has major character's named 'Bartender', 'Beer Guy', 'Heroine', which at first glance seem like insignificant character names, but are in fact major parts in the film. So, how do we minimize the grey area here when determining which entertainers have significant parts in their projects or not? I'm not sure about a clear cut solution to this one, but something should be more detailed as to give a better guideline than what currently exists. Perhaps a combination of lines spoken and screen time? Or maybe it should be determined by credit billing - they must be listed in the top 60% of the credited cast list in the credits in order to be considered 'significant'? There still exists ambiguity, but its an improvement to the current guidelines.

Wikipedia's rules on this are antiquated and vague and should be given a much needed update. Thoughts on these proposed ideas?

Thank you. --Nevpan (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Because arbitrary criteria suck and nobody can agree on them; we tend to get consensus amongst editors faster on a case-by-case basis. Believe us, we've tried: see this old version of WP:WEB. Nifboy (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PORNBIO #5

A user has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. Within 30 minutes, this page will be added to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I don't believe additional criteria #5 of WP:PORNBIO to be in the spirit of WP:GNG. Criteria #5 states: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." The term notable mainstream media does not mean the same thing as reliable independent media. The General Notability Guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." News sources in the pornographic industry are by nature obscure and "mainstream" (aka mass media) rarely covers the subject unless it is in a disparaging way.

I'm proposing that #5 be rewritten as follows: Has been featured multiple times in reliable independent media. See WP:WikiProject Pornography for suggestions on sources. Stillwaterising (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the criteria. It's not meant to be a rephrasing of the general notability criteria; it means a porn star is presumed notable if they have performed in mainstream films, TV programmes, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A pornographic film in itself would be considered a primary source. What I'm more concerned with are secondary sources like reviews and biographical articles. Porn bios get deleted all the time with simple justification of "does meet PORNBIO" without considering WP:ANYBIO or other guidelines. What I'm proposing is the terminology can be changed to reflect the value of industry-related journalism. Stillwaterising (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the general notability criteria already satisfies this function for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stillwaterising. The current PORNBIO requirements are unreasonably restrictive -at odds with other guidelines like WP:ATHLETE for example. Being featured in industry-related journalism should be enough. I would personally add that instead of substituting it, meaning that if the subject's has been mentioned in mainstream sources, is also likely to be notable. --Cyclopia^talk 12:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere states that coverage in industry-related journalism can't establish notability. Epbr123 (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Any problems with excessive deletion that exist are due to editor attitudes, not the PORNBIO guidelines. The guidelines do NOT override the GNG - anyone who RS industry coverage passes. Changing the guidelines, however, won't change attitudes. If you really want to see more bios kept you'll have to make strong AfD arguments by providing sources. Most editors are ignorant of these "industry publications" and Google isn't going to find them, so they can hardly be blamed for !voting delete based on a lack of verifiability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably best that they do, a lot of the biographical guidelines are really pretty overly loose. If you've only been covered in specialty stuff, you're probably not really all that notable. You know you've got a problem when we've got stubs on every "pro" player that's warmed a bench for half a game, and if we loosen up the other ones too much, we'll have the same problem there. You have to pass the GNG regardless, subguidelines can't override it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that PORNBIO #5 needs clarification; I've seen it used too often as a means of evading GNG principles and claiming that someone who falls well below notability standards in two areas somehow merits an article simply because they're otherwise nonnotable in two fields rather than one. Specialized guidelines are intended to supplement the GNG by identifying classes of people who are presumed to satisfy the GNG, not allow end runs around it. While WP:ATHLETE has often been criticized, it's probably one of the best-targeted specialized guideline, because of the highly detailed reported on professional sports, including statistical reports, which typically ends up satisfying the GNG. Compared to what's generally required in practice for academics and business professions, WP:PORNBIO is a remarkably loose guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, WP:BIO is an alternative to GNG, that's the way it's written. If you don't like it you need to be using the GNG talk page not this one. I'm supporting this with the following text taken directly out of the WP:GNG:

A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ENT

I have come across editors denying suitability of guideline WP:ENT because of the essay WP:NOTINHERITED, with the claim that relying on "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", is a way to assert notability through inheritance... and since THAT is not allowed per the essay, that portion of W:ENT may thus be ignored. What is the best response to this type of reasoning? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The most obvious response is that an essay is just advice which may or may not reflect community will, but a guideline is explicitly endorsed by community consensus. If people feel ENT is in error, they should try to get consensus to change it not declare it invalid because their interpretation of an essay disagrees with it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED is right that simply appearing in a notable film doesn't make someone notable. The essay doesn't however address actors who have had significant roles in multiple notable films. Epbr123 (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. Actors who have had significant roles in multiple notable films will have definitely received significant coverage by multiple repliable sources. The sub-guidelines are there to provide a safety net which says "if you can't find the references right now, then they probably exist if the subject falls under one of these categories". It is not a substitute for significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, which is what WP:NOTINHERITED covers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, that is what most of sub-guidelines are intended to do. Unfortunately, the actual practice is a bit different, as people try to use them both for inclusion and exclusion at AfD: "So and so only had one significant role, so he isn't notable despite significant RS coverage." I certainly agree than any actor that has been multiple significant roles will have significant coverage somewhere, and that it is just a matter of finding it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who ever says something like "despite significant RS coverage" should be politely pointed at the GNG. We needn't concern ourselves with a failure to comprehend our primary notability criterion on this sub-page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, but be aware that there are plenty of editors who think that for a topic where an SNG exists, the SNG should be used to the exclusion of (rather than a complement for) the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've run into that a lot, usually in relation to WP:ATHLETE. The simple answer is that these editors are wrong. There's a big bold bit in the lede of WP:N which cannot be interpreted in any other way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Vidal Fernandez

Not to familiar with Notability issues but I don't think this article passes. Any thoughts? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BASIC

I've created a redirect for WP:BASIC and linked it to the Basic Criteria section. Would anybody object to putting the shortcut into the main article? -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether there are any other "basic" sections in other (unrelated) guidelines or policies around the Wiki, and whether there would be disambiguation issues. Can anyone remember any? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PORNBIO criteria #5

I propose this be re-worded from "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" to "Has made multiple appearances in notable mainstream media". The current wording has led to confusion numerous times. Epbr123 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - "featured" is indeed a confusing term. --Cyclopia^talk 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - :As in the original discussion, I had wanted this criteria to have independent verification by reliable sources (outside of tertiary like IMDB or primary sources). That's how I had always interpreted "featured". The appearance was notable enough that an independent reliable source had mentioned it. The reason why I objected to basing notability on the significance of the role is because that even being an extra can be a notable appearance if reliable sources report on it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "made appearances" is either (a) confusing; or (b) the wrong criterion. ^Bongo_matic 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the phrasing. I agree that the current formulation has led to confusion, but think that simply saying "multiple appearances," without some qualfication, leads to problems. Otherwise performers with porn and mainstream track records that are both completely trivial would pass the guideline, but fail the GNG by a wide margin. Specialty guidelines are useful only when they reliably predict that a subject would pass the GNG. Under the proposed phrasing, any mainstream appearances would do; for example, a performer with half a dozen uncredited/"extra" roles in movies or TV would pass the guideline by making a single porn performance, regardess of its significance. At the same time, by limiting the test to appearances, leaving out other mainstream coverage ("featured" is a helpfully vague term here), subjects like Rachel Ryan or Marylin Star would fail the guideline, even though they've got more significant coverage than the typical award-winners, leaving the applicability of policies/guidelines like BLP1E, NOTNEWS,and NOTINHERITED to be debated. What criterion #5 does now is allows us to recognize that the combination of porn work and significant (as opposed to trivial) mainstream coverage can support notability in combination even when neither would be sufficient standing alone. The change would make this a mechanical, numerical test which clearly can lead to inappropriate results. I've suggested changing "appearances" to "significant appearances," because "significance" is used in speedy deletion criteria as a less stringent standard than notability, and therefore helpful here. There's a current AFD about a porn actress where (it's claimed) she gets some notability from appearing for 1-2 seconds in a notable music video, as the camera pans around a crowd scene. That, I think, is the kind of "appearance" that doesn't actually to contribute to notability, and the criterion should be written in a way that excludes it. And, as I said, "appearances" may be too narrow to bring in other sorts of coverage that contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically, Hullaballoo has explained it very well. But I think a solution might be to add "non-trivial" as a qualifier: "Has made multiple non-trivial appearances in notable mainstream media". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. At the discussion that led to the latest version of the pornbio criteria, there was consensus that trivial mainstream appearances do establish notability. There's therefore no consensus that the words "significant" or "non-trivial" should be added. The only effect this new phrasing will have on AfD is that people like me won't have to keep explaining that criteria 5 has nothing to do with WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  Then it may be that consensus is changing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  If consensus does change, PORNBIO criteria 5 will become redundant due to WP:ENT criteria 1, so it can just be removed rather than reworded. Epbr123 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. While this isn't what I originally proposed, but I'm in favor of a better-worded less-restrictive criteria. I'm apprehensive about adding the requirement of 'non-trivial' without clear guidelines as to what is trivial or not. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• The criteria is indeed confusing as worded. I, like main others, had assumed it meant mainstream news stories. If it actually means acting jobs, then it should use some other wording than the current one. As such I would support changing it to read as proposed, since that would be in line with the original intent it seems. If people no longer support its intended meaning, than it should be removed as confusing and not adding anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclined to oppose at this moment, anyway. I'm not sure the standard for notability for any type of people should be how often they are in "notable mainstream media." There are plenty of notable people that don't appear there, and plenty of non-notable people that do. I would support it as a characteristic that may bolster notability, but not as a requirement. Шизомби (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  This isn't a proposal to make the criteria less restrictive. This is just a proposal to get the criteria copyedited so that "featured in mainstream media" doesn't keep getting misinterpreted as "coverage in mainstream newspapers". I can't see how this is so controversial. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no meaningful difference between Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" and "Has made multiple appearances in notable mainstream media", so I don't see how that would help. Шизомби (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know they have the same meaning, but the new wording is harder to misinterpret. Epbr123 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, You are essentially saying "I oppose this wording change b/c the two mean the same thing." Um, yah, that is the point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They're equally easy to misinterpret, because their wording has no meaningful difference. At the moment the change would serve no purpose for that very reason. I'm not sure what it is you want it to mean, or want it to prohibit. Шизомби (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)