Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Scots: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:26, 13 July 2010 editNovickas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,221 edits - reply to Ben McD re usefulness of list pages in these situations← Previous edit Revision as of 02:26, 13 July 2010 edit undoMichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users60,150 edits →List of fictional Scots: attributionNext edit →
Line 27: Line 27:
:::::* '']'' is a reputable journal which has been published for nearly 200 years. It is a reliable source; your unsupported opinion is not. ] (]) 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) :::::* '']'' is a reputable journal which has been published for nearly 200 years. It is a reliable source; your unsupported opinion is not. ] (]) 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{tl|Rescue}} by the ]. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)</small> *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{tl|Rescue}} by the ]. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)</small>
*'''CLARIFY:'''<small class="delsort-notice"> The article under discussion here was tagged for {{tl|Rescue}} by ] in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- </small></sup> 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' and reference better and add context. The nominator's reading of ] would preclude any list from being formed. --] (]) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC) *'''Keep''' and reference better and add context. The nominator's reading of ] would preclude any list from being formed. --] (]) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::No, you're incorrect. I'm fine with ] or even ], because these have strict inclusion criteria and can reach a level of completion. Digimon and US Presidents are strongly linked together. What's in violation of ] are lists where the members have only a superficial or arbitrary connection, or are cross-categorizations, such as this. ] ] 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) ::No, you're incorrect. I'm fine with ] or even ], because these have strict inclusion criteria and can reach a level of completion. Digimon and US Presidents are strongly linked together. What's in violation of ] are lists where the members have only a superficial or arbitrary connection, or are cross-categorizations, such as this. ] ] 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:26, 13 July 2010

List of fictional Scots

List of fictional Scots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list, there are thousands of Scots appearing in books, films, TV etc etc. and I can't see this becoming a useful page. Category:Fictional Scottish people is a more suitable method of collecting such people. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • List of fictional Jews seems to be doing fine at AFD - heading for a snow keep. I have not looked into Armenians or Kiwis - it might be that some national stereotypes work better in fiction than others. The Scots seem highly distinctive in this respect and the lack of a corresponding list seemed a significant omission. Characters such as Dr. Finlay are national treasures and merit good attention. Providing an index to our articles of this sort is my point and it seems a good one. Lists are entirely legitimate for this purpose and are well-supported by practise and policy. Your attempt to suggest otherwise is counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The difference here seems to be that being Jewish is an ethnicity, a religion and a nationality, whereas being Scottish is just a nationality, and there's less coverage of Scots in fiction than Jews in fiction. Claritas § 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a nationality!? You are suggesting that the Jews are the chosen people and so all other nations are unimportant? Anyway, getting back to actual policy, please note that WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant as that is concerned with commercial directories not Misplaced Pages lists. WP:SALAT explicitly supports lists of this sort with its specific examples such as List of Albanians and its guidance that lists which are too general in scope should be split into sections or sublists. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Claritas, your remarks strike me as absurd. Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that there is "less coverage of Scots in fiction than Jews in fiction." Ben MacDui 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I simply feel that the Jewish cultural/religious/national identity is by its very nature stronger than the Scottish national identity. Such matters as the Wandering Jew, the portrayal of Jews in Wagner's operas and in the New testament, warrant independent encyclopaedic attention, whereas there are arguably few such entities concerning Scottish fiction. Perhaps a weak argument, but not absurd. Claritas § 11:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In the English-speaking world at least there are numerous well-kent stereotypes of Scots- the engineer, kailyard Hielander, kilted berserker etc. The total numbers of populations involved are of a similar order and the differences strike me as being less obvious than the similarities. Ben MacDui 11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You're just not hearing the consensus concerning the application of WP:NOTDIR - it applies to any sort of directory, not purely "commercial ones". Claritas § 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of our policies is ascertained by reading them. In this case, the relevant section is directed at "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." and the accompanying text clearly indicates the commercial focus of this policy which is directed at things like Yellow Pages. This is obviously not a general prohibition of navigational lists which are considered a different sort of object here, explicitly governed by different policies. Misplaced Pages has hundreds of thousands of Lists and so your attempt to extend an irrelevant policy to them is obviously not our consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, which clearly applies to more than lists about commercial products. The meaning of WP:NOTDIR can indeed be ascertained by reading it, which some people have obviously not done, or done in an overly selective manner. Specifically, I'm referring to items 1 and 6 of WP:NOTDIR:

Misplaced Pages articles are NOT:
1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)...Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List).
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.

This article clearly fits item 1, in that it is a list of loosely associated fictional people, who are clearly not famous primarily because they are Scots. If they are notable, they are because of their inclusion in a popular fictional book. This article also clearly fits item 6, because the intersection of fictional people and Scottish people cannot be shown to be a culturally significant phenomenon. SnottyWong 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • This classification is demonstrated to be culturally significant by the references provided as a sample of the independent coverage of Scottish people in fiction. We have to divide our lists and articles in some way to fit within the constraints of WP:SIZE. The Scottishness of the characters listed is typically a primary quality of the character. This directory nonsense doesn't stop having a List of Scots and this article is a natural companion to that which would otherwise have to be placed with in it, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • List of Scots doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIR because it is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Once you start trying to break down that list into smaller and smaller lists of different categories of Scots, you run the risk of violating WP:NOTDIR if that categorization cannot be shown to be notable. In this case, it is not notable. SnottyWong 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you're incorrect. I'm fine with List of US Presidents or even List of Digimon, because these have strict inclusion criteria and can reach a level of completion. Digimon and US Presidents are strongly linked together. What's in violation of WP:NOTDIR are lists where the members have only a superficial or arbitrary connection, or are cross-categorizations, such as this. Claritas § 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are because you have just admitted that your basis of criticism and the relevant policies is now different. This is not a vote and so, for contributions to be valid, they must be based upon reasoned argument. As for WP:SYNTH, this is the drawing of a conclusion from different sources that the sources did not make. This is not done here - there is no general conclusion or thesis. If you disagree, please state clearly what this synthetic conclusion is so that the list may be updated to remove it. Without clear substantiation of this sort, the argument is empty hand-waving. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. A category would work fine. Ben MacDui 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. A culturally notable topic as required by the guideline and as shown by the following. A book entitled "Scotland as we know it: representations of national identity in literature" . Some excerpts from other books/articles: "The question of the role of schemata in Scottish literature is a pertinent one, particularly when the expectations of Scottish characters, and their regressive or progessive qualities, have long fueled a heated debate (cf McArthur 1983a..." ; "Before the 1750s, Scottish characters had only appeared in English drama in a very miscelllaneous fashion...In the second half of the century, all this changed. Two stock Scottish characters appeared." , "A more fruitful stereotype, one that has yielded several high quality books, films and plays, could be called the Hardman. This male character type has been a recurrent feature of some of the most powerful Scottish art...". From the intro to "The mighty Scot: nation, gender, and the nineteenth-century mystique of Scottish masculinity": "As this study of nineteenth-century cultural representations of Scotland shows, stories and counterstories about Scottish masculinity..." . Most of the list entries now have a ref and some context, nice, contexts are a benefit that lists offer and categories can't. Novickas (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not simply whether Scottish people in fiction is a notable topic, but whether this is a cross-categorization on a par with List of fictional New Zealanders. I'm pretty confident that both Scots in fiction and New Zealanders in fiction would be acceptable articles, but Misplaced Pages is not just one big list. We don't have lists unless the serve a purpose which categories cannot do, and the nationality connection is actually fairly arbitrary. CW's statement that James Bond is Scottish illustrates the fact that this list is not going to provide any useful coverage of the portrayal of Scottish people in fiction (i.e. - portrayal of individuals as Scottish), so we might as well scrap this list (which was a pointy creation) and write an article on the topic. Claritas § 19:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Attempting to address your points in sequence. 1. The issue of its cultural notability was raised above. I think it's been addressed and the book links show that an article could be written about it. But does such an article need to be created before the list is, and would its creation render the list unnecessary? I don't see that stated as an imperative in the various guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong. We have a Brain tumor article along with a List of brain tumor patients. 2. Re "We don't have lists unless they serve a purpose that categories can't do" - Lists do serves purposes that categories can't, adding contexts is one such list purpose per Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, there are quite a few others Misplaced Pages:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_lists. And the entries here do have contexts now. 3. Re "CW's statement that James Bond is Scottish illustrates the fact that this list is not going to provide any useful coverage of the portrayal of Scottish people..." I disagree, because I see many book results for "James Bond Scottish identity" and one ref is currently present, which should suffice in a list, further development can and should go into the article itself, one good ref will do here. 4. "the nationality connection is actually fairly arbitrary" - I don't see this and I don't think we should go into discussions of whether these were 'real Scots' - what matters is whether a reliable source describes a fictional character as a Scot. 5. Re "it was a WP:POINTy creation", this is a strong charge that I don't see as supportable here, given the effort that's gone into it, including expansion and referencing, and the serious responses. I see POINT as applying to edits/articles that are easily identifiable as satiric, sarcastic, attacking, hoaxy, or clearly against current consensus, none of which apply here. Novickas (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I can see the argument for fictional Jews being an encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - the influence of Shylock and Fagin has clearly reverberated through society to influence how people came to see Jews. And you can't really describe them as being part of Jewish literature - quite the opposite! But the Jews are something of a special case. It's hard to argue that James Bond has had the same infuence on perceptions of Scottishness (or Swissness for that matter). In fact you could probably say that the main influence on such perceptions has been the treatment by artists of "real" Scots such as Wallace, Macbeth and the Young Pretender. And I'd argue that they have no place in a list of fictional Scots, because they really did exist. So I wouldn't say it is a totally non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation, but at best it's a very weakly encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - and that should be set against the facts that this list is very open-ended, a bit of a nightmare to maintain, and the function is already served by the category. There are also issues with defining "Scotland", particularly when you go back to Macbeth, a Pict who was brought up in an independent mormaerdom of Moray before seizing control of the "foreign" kingdom of Alba. Even then, he had tenuous control of the Borders and had the Highlands occupied by the Norse. I'd also suggest that assuming TV/film characters are Scottish based solely on their accent is tantamount to WP:OR unless they self-identify as Scots or the cameras show us their birth certificates! Le Deluge (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Re a nightmare to maintain - most WP articles are. :( But List of brain tumor patients, which is featured, contains the hatnote "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." We can apply the same standard here. Novickas (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"List of brain tumor patients" is a slightly lesser order of cross-categorization. The reason it is egregious is because it makes an implicit assumption that somehow the illnesses of "notable people" are more important (notable) than those suffered by other people - but that is another story. Ben MacDui 09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • On the accent point, there is really no doubt that the characters, Amy Pond and Montgomery Scott are both Scottish in their stories. No assumption is required as authoritative sources such as the BBC verify this. And, if we should have borderline cases, the list format is able to provide context, qualification and sources to fully inform the reader in a way that categories do not. Note that Amy Pond, for example, appears in Category:Fictional Scottish people without any source or explanation. Lists are thus superior to categories in respect of this important core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - the above contributions by Le Deluge & Novickas strike me as containing good arguments for an article about Scots (and Jews) in fiction, but not a list. Ben MacDui 20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think this way about it - if it's a valid category, and would make a valid article, why not a list? (Since its more meta, further discussion might better be conducted at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.) I just don't see anything at that guideline disparaging a list like this. Novickas (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OK - I'll do my best. The topic of "Scots in fiction" is notable. There are clearly any number of potential articles about notable fictional Scots. However, the list is potentially unmanageable - there must be thousands of potential members - and I can't think of any meaningful criteria based on either fame or influence that would limit them. Minor characters in Walter Scott novels, walk-on parts in River City, anyone appearing in The Broons etc. What then could the list achieve that a category could not, other than innumerable red links? I could get enthusiastic about an article, but I can't see how a list per se adds anything very much. Ben MacDui 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
To me the primary advantage of a list is context and wikilinks, secondary one is brevity, which eases navigation. Wouldn't you want to see a list like this one if you were for some reason interested in Fictional Lithuanian characters or Fictional Thai characters and found only the category pages? Very familiar to some of us - totally incomprehensible to many - a dedicated article is good but takes a while to develop (and to read). About the uncontrolled growth problem. List of Honorverse characters is I believe one of the largest articles on WP. But don't you find that all articles show tendencies towards growing out of bounds? WP keeps things like, say, country articles within limits by routine, ongoing editorial decisions about notability, verifiability, moving details to subarticles, the usual slog. The management here would be that if/when minor characters show up, condense the entries along these lines: River City, a popular television soap opera set in Glascow, features a cast of characters connected through family and work. Novickas (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to copy the contents of the existing article into a sandbox, turn its contents into the beginnings of an article, and consent to the list being deleted I'd be happy to support your efforts. Ben MacDui 09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be pleased to help any effort to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Claritas § 11:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and I note that already the list contains entries that redirect either to the book a character appears in or to the author who created the character. I'm intrigued that this has generated so much discussion, but on balance I still can't see that this article will serve any useful purpose, except to attract spurious entries from fans wanting to enter their favourite character and authors (or their friends and agents) wanting to promote their latest creation. --Deskford (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: