Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I will note that I did give fewer weight to a couple of a arguments for retention as they were not based on policy or guideline, but even after that, I still could not get anywhere close to finding a consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional currencies

[edit]
List of fictional currencies (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)

Per WP:OR, WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Gnevin (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a good place to merge articles on non-notable fictional currencies.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Kitfoxxe makes a couple of good points. Also, I doubt OR need be an overwhelming problem if each item on the list comes from a named book or film - there's not much scope for people using it as a coatrack for their own synthesis or fringe beliefs. bobrayner (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia for the sake of trivia and indiscriminate in the sense it gathers fictions together with no rhyme or reason except that they have fictional currencies (unsurprising). WP:SALAT. Someoneanother 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prety much agree with above. This list seems to have no context.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - An impressive work of scholarship just accumulating all that info. This is a list, not an article. I think its case for inclusion would be stronger if there was a full-blown, well documented article on fictional currency in existence; this now just redirects to the list. As a numismatist, I know that a serious, verifiable, well-documented article COULD be written on that topic — at which point this list becomes far more relevant and far less "indiscriminate." PLEASE make sure this gets userfied if the verdict is "delete." Carrite (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our policy to preserve contributions rather than wasting them by over-hasty deletion. There seems to be much scope for improvement of this article and it does not appear that the nominator explored any of the possibilities suggested. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is "going after" this list; this is a standard AFD discussion and hostile language like "go after" is uncalled for. Nor is anyone targeting this list merely because its subject is fictional, so claims that this AFD is a call for censorship are not only false but an abject failure on your part to assume the good faith of those editors who disagree with you. The existence of one or more lists for actual currencies has no relevance to whether this list should be retained since each article is expected to conform to our policies and guidelines without regard to other content. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we might develop the discoursive parts of the article, such as the commentary on credits which are so common in science fiction. If we delete then we will have nothing at all about this notable matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already provided one encyclopedic source which comments on the matter of credits as part of its lengthy commentary on fictional currencies. Here's another in which Roger Ebert considers the matter worth an entry. One can find such sources in a minute or two of searching. The word "credit" as a keyword doesn't lend itself to such searching and so I've not had time for a more thorough rummage but already one sees enough to confirm these obvious observations. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ebert "source", aside from being a single sentence in a 240 page book and thus a textbook trivial mention, points to the indiscriminate nature of this list. If indeed in "any science-fiction movie" currency is called "credits" then every single science fiction film would get an entry on this list. Thousands if not tens of thousands of entries, most or all of which would likely be cited to primary sources and would shed no encyclopedic light on the subject. "List of every time someone says 'credit' instead of 'shekel' or 'euro' in a movie, book, play, comic book, magazine or TV show" is a vast, sprawling, unbounded, dare I say indiscriminate collection of information. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the point of the list is to list the currencies, not all examples of their use. The universal nature of credits helps us because it enables us to have just one entry, supported by sources like Ebert and the Greenwood Encyclopedia, with a few representative examples. Improvement of this sort is ordinary editing for which deletion would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how does one decide when is include and what is not. If not in an indiscriminate way Gnevin (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want to artificially impose a limit on what is and isn't listed (one fictional "credit" makes the list but another doesn't). On what basis other than the synthesized opinion of one editor or another does a "credit" in one work of fiction be deemed worthy of inclusion while another doesn't? Noting again that the Ebert "source", along with being a trivial mention per WP:GNG, argues against this list by highlighting its indiscriminate nature. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that one mention is trivial actually doesn't violate the GNG at all - two specialist encyclopedias have substantial articles on this topic, which arguably passes the "substantive" part of the GNG, but other references and mentions are allowed to be relatively trivial. The logic in your last statement seems awry - for any clearly notable topic, it's easy to find a relatively trivial mention of it somewhere (one that may even be suitable as a reference in the article if it highlights a minor or contextual points that more "heavy-duty" references haven't covered); the fact that a trivial source certainly doesn't act as proof against notability. TheGrappler (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a section on the front page devoted to interesting tidbits taken from articles on notable subjects. The existence of DYK is not an endorsement for keeping articles and indeed some articles which have been suggested for DYK have been deleted because their subject matter is not notable. Every deleted article on Wikipedia was of interest to at least one reader (the one who wrote it); simply being of interest (in other words, "interesting") is not the standard for a Wikipedia article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but could you point out which bit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to this article? I've seen it invoked many times, but never against things that were on the six-point list behind the link: "Plot-only description of fictional works," "lyrics databases," "excessive listing of statistics," "news reports," "who's who," and "FAQs." --Kizor 20:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a book is set in 2012 and it says the person buys something for x dollar or y euro is this a fictional currency . What if the book pins an exchange rate for the two ? Gnevin (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is in fact not specific in the slightest since any mention of a non-existent currency in any fictional setting, no matter how fleeting and unimportant, qualifies for listing. "In episode 22 of Series XYZ a character offers to buy something for 20 blooploos and blooploos are never mentioned again in any other episode or on any other TV show" is the stuff of trivia. It does not impart encyclopedic knowledge of the concept of fictional currency. It does not impart encyclopedic knowledge of the TV epiosde. It does not impart encyclopedic knowledge of the TV series. "Hey, look at that!" is not a basis for an encyclopedia article, no matter how much particular editors may obsessively cherish this nonsense. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just a content question of editorial judgment, not an existential question for a deletion debate. It would be entirely possible to restrict this list to entries that have received coverage outside their original medium. Large numbers of fictional currencies are covered in the encyclopedia entries Colonel Warden found; we could simply restrict ourselves to entries which have received this form of secondary coverage. A quick check of WP:N and WP:CLT will demonstrate that the individual items in the list don't need to have received so much secondary coverage that they are notable in their own right, and indeed this is one reason why lists can be preferable to categories for some topics. Whether to restrict this list to "more notable" entries (not necessarily WP:N in their own right, but with secondary coverage of some type) is a question of editorial judgment; previous editors at this page seem to have formed a consensus to add any fictional currency that could be referenced to its original work. For what it's worth I disagree with their decision. But if your beef with this article is largely that its entries should be more selective, and not include any fictional currency that is mentioned by anyone in any work, then the right place for you to debate that is the article talk page, where maybe you and me and whoever else wants some involvement can flesh out some principles, yeah? If there is a plausible content/editorial solution to your problem, then AFD is the wrong place to be talking, even for an article which (like this one) was in a bad state. TheGrappler (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not supposed to be an argument, but we have well over 200 list articles that are a "List of fictional Xs" for some X, and the arguments presented here for deletion would appear to apply equally (or equally not) to any of those. The argument that this is "an indiscriminate collection of information" is not strong; there is a well-defined inclusion criterion, as required by WP:LIST. The way WP:Source list is formulated suggests to me that content criteria like WP:V and WP:OR are supposed to be applied to the entries of the list, rather than the list in its entirety; indeed, it is hard to see how else we could have any lists. Note that this is not an article about a list such as the Domesday Book; if the topic discussed is an existing list about which we have an article, it makes sense to apply notability criteria such as significant coverage in multiple sources, but it is eminently unreasonable to require proof that Wikipedia's List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire article, for example, has been discussed in The New York Times and the Muskogee Phoenix or else face ignominious deletion for being non-notable.  --Lambiam 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not like the majority of other lists on fictional topics, which will at least have a navigational function relevant to the topic. This list mostly consists of disparate fictions plonked together solely because they feature currency, it's almost as though the single most trivial thing which could be used to connect them has been dug out and held aloft like a shining gem. List of fictional Antichrists, for instance, contains Randall Flagg and Damien from the Omen series, anybody who wants to find these characters will find them. This list isn't about fictional currencies, it's about fictions which happen to contain fictional currencies, which is invariably common the same as fantasy video games containing slime or bat type enemies. According to this list, the fact that MapleStory's unit of currency is a Meso somehow connects it with Rogue Galaxy because the currency in that game is named Zehn. What's the reader supposed to be looking for? A list of random, largely meaningless words that happen to be used in XYZ fiction to denote currency? This list is not solving a problem, it does not navigate readers through WP in a meaningful way, it is not an article dealing with fictional currency as a subject, it is trivia without a cause containing all the zest and joy of the humming of a fridge. I am keeping an open mind and will be reading everyone's comments again, but I strongly encourage those advocating keeping this list to look again at what it is and what it supposedly does rather than what an article on fictional currency could be. Someoneanother 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to nominate either or both of those lists for deletion if you want, but their existence does not justify the existence of this list. Dozens or hundreds of articles are deleted every day despite the existence of other similar articles so it's unfathomable why you continue to use this argument. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fictional topics are disliked"? Are you frequenting a different Wikipedia from the rest of us? People love the minutiae of fiction here. That's why so many articles on fictional topics are stuffed full of crap like this. Certainly no one in this discussion dislikes fiction. Pretty much everyone who's supported deleting this article has noted that an article that's actually about currency in fiction would be worthwhile. What we're saying is that the potential of the topic doesn't make a list of trivial sightings of fictional currency a legitimate way to approach the topic. Large unreferenced trivia sections in articles are strongly discouraged and a list of every fictional currency is nothing but a large unreferenced trivia section. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) There's no reason the items in the list need to be unreferenced - all could be referenced to their original works. Lack of references is a content problem not a deletion question. [Inherently unreferencable articles should be deleted, as should those where the presence of unreferenced comments may be harmful to a living person, but neither of those is at stake here.] (b) Have another look at the article. It's had substantial improvement and no longer resembles your description of it as a mere list of OR trivia. (c) Would you guys fancy a nice cup of tea and a sit-down? It's just an article, guys, not a toxic ulcer that needs to be immediately removed before fatal gangrene destroys this project and everyone who works on it, nor a beautiful but endangered butterfly that this is humanity's last chance to save... TheGrappler (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of the list of fictional x could be AFD'd in my opinion. I may open a central discussion Gnevin (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but disagreeing with almost all rationales expressed so far: I don't think it's necessary to ignore all - or indeed any! - rules here. I don't think lists of fictional things are inherently notable or non-notable per se: though I require more convincing that fictional things deserve an article than non-fictional things. For physically/historically real things or people, I don't need to have seen any other site produce a "List of X in Y" to know that the list is likely valuable and worth keeping if individual instances of X are noteworthy and Y is a non-arbitray place or period, and particularly if the list form can provide substantial presentational or informational advantages over a category. On the other hand "List of fictional A [in B]" requires me to ascertain that the concept of fictional A is itself noteworthy, separately of whether real A would be notable (though not necessarily independetly: if even real A were arguably non-notable, then the odds are stacked against fictional A!). The fact that other lists of fictional things exist makes this neither more nor less deletion-worthy and it should be assessed on its merits. We can assess it either as a list, or as a very primitive version of an article on the concept of Fictional currency. Does it pass muster as a list? It isn't indiscriminate: the concept is well-defined, and the criteria for inclusion perfectly clear. Weird, certainly! But "indiscriminate" doesn't mean "unusual", it means that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary or absurd; "units of currency used in fictional scenarios in notable works of literature, TV, film or video game" is neither of those things. It couldn't be done better as a category or navigational template, because the entries mostly do not deserve their own articles. It needn't be full of original research - instances of fictional currency or exchange clearly can be referenced to source material even if this has not been done at the moment; most WP lists are often "synthesis" to some extent (in the sense that the precise list of entries may not be matched by a particular list available elsewhere) but so long as the entries are verifiable individually this need not be a breach of WP:SYN, which is mostly concerned with the compilation of facts slanted to advance or imply a novel position or argument. Neither do I feel that the list's classification into "Names adapted from real-world currencies" or "Exchange media" is a breach of OR (I would argue that the classification of some currencies by name/type and others by type of source material e.g. "Fictional currency in computer games" is bad editorial judgment but that can be easily rectified). To me this all establishes that the content and mode of construction of such a list do not breach Wikipedia's substantive content rules. But does the topic itself pass notability requirements? The answer is provided by Colonel Warden; a specialized Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for such a topic. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of Everything, including topics normally found in specialist rather than generalist encyclopedias. Similarly, even the brief Ebert discussion of the concept of "fictional currency" suggests that the concept is worth a page, and currently we are using this list as one. Prune, verify and rearrange more coherently (e.g. "computer game" is a bad subheading since some fictional settings and their currencies are used in a variety of media e.g. book, game and film) by all means, and maybe it's better as a broader article on fictional currencies, but this particular list of fictional things satisfies both our requirements for building a list, and our article notability threshold. TheGrappler (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is unusual, certainly. But whatever the problems with it, I don't think it is indiscriminate as inclusion criteria are pretty clear. The fact that a list isn't (or can't be) exhaustive is not the same as it being indiscriminate. It is long, but not unusably so, particularly as it can be subdivided if necessary. An important test (and what they use at Citizendium, and I think we really should emulate!) is whether the list is maintainable - that is particularly a problem for lists that are likely to get constantly outdated (e.g. a very long list of obscure weather or sports records) but due to its nature, this list doesn't require regular updates - just some TLC and pruning from time to time (like pretty much all our sci-fi articles, which seem to magnetically attract overenthusiastic new editors). I wouldn't be against paring this list down and using it as an appendage to a more fleshed-out article, possibly at a new pagename: that would probably be of greater editorial value. But now this page has been stripped of most of the OR in the introduction, it isn't a bad start. After a couple of citations from an appropriate specialist encyclopedia, this is actually going to be a half-decent albeit obscure article. It already conveys information that is of use or interest to some people, in an organized manner, and is potentially entirely verifiable/referenceable; moreover the fact it is not exhaustively referenced at the moment (it's a surprisingly old article and predates the line-by-line referencing obsession) is not currently a major threat to accuracy (sci-fi and gaming geeks can, I'm sure, vouch for items in this list even if they can't off-hand give a page or DVD reference) and neither does it threaten the privacy of living people, so it's the kind of thing I'm comfortable with hanging loose on strict references for. TheGrappler (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • inclusion criteria are pretty clear - Yes, any one-line mention of any non-existent currency in any fictional setting with no regard to whether that non-existent currency has any actual meaning or importance either within the fictional universe or in outside reliable sources. The notion that the list would require periodic "pruning" is an open invitation to original research and POV-pushing since editors would be repeatedly deciding based on their own beliefs and opinions which trivial mentions of fictional currencies should be included and which trivial mentions should be removed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my response to you above. That's a content/editorial decision not an AFD decision. We both disagree with the editorial choices of previous editors. But we should be discussing that that on the article talk page, not here. It would be straightforward to make the editorial judgment that some secondary coverage (e.g. in Colonel Warden's encylopedia articles) is necessary, and see if consensus for that can be found. TheGrappler (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what "cannot be made in compliance" mean? There's been no prior discussion of this on the article talk page. If you were being stonewalled there by dozens of pro-trivia fanatics intent that they'd established consensus to produce Wikipedia's most record-breakingly unsourced list ever, I'd understand bringing it to AFD. But this clearly can be made policy-compliant (e.g. by establishing stricter inclusion criteria, like requiring secondary coverage) and there is nothing to stop you doing it. I've tried my best to patch it up for now and you'd have to admit it looks rather different now to when it started. You've obviously got some really good ideas about this stuff, so why not pitch in and help me get it policy-compliant? The more the merrier, and I'd much rather collaborate with someone than work on my own. TheGrappler (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the main problem is the amount of OR. There are few third-party sources that mention these currencies and establish their notability. If that can be improved, there's no problem. Malick78 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the excellent reasoning of TheGrappler. Again, people randomly toss policy acronyms like IINFO without actually understanding what they are meant for -actually as a feeble pedestal to justify a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. An indiscriminate list is something like "List of blue petals fallen the 5th of May" or "List of badass big toes". A list with a well defined, notable and reasonable inclusion criteria, like this one, is not IINFO. I may also add the following: One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is that of conveniently structuring content, not only of collecting it. Lists are a powerful tool for this aim. If one wants to research the topic of fictional currencies, a list of such currencies is a powerful tool. Lists are different from other articles in that they are navigational aids, and as such they are meant to be useful. Such usefulness comes into play when deciding its fate. --Cyclopiatalk 21:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find much more insulting to our fellow editors to see a perfectly good article to be called "indiscriminate collection of trivial information" when it is not clarified at all 1)why it is "indiscriminate" 2)why it is "trivial". You simply happen, still to quote you, that it is "inappropriate" but you haven't explained why -and no, IINFO is not a reason unless you explain exactly why it applies, that's why I see it as being used as a more respectable term for IDONTLIKEIT. --Cyclopiatalk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained repeatedly. It is indiscriminate because it has no reasonable boundary, allowing for any passing mention of any currency from a work of fiction to be included. It is trivial because it is without regard to the significance of the currency either within the work of fiction or in the real world. Calling something indiscriminate or trivial can not reasonably be interpreted as an insult except by the most hyper-sensitive. Reducing arguments to "you don't like it" and ascribing that motive to an editor is deeply insulting and dismissive. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no, I will not be striking out my delete !vote because I do not believe that NPOV inclusion guidelines are possible. For every person who thinks the line should be drawn at one place there will be any number of others who want it drawn somewhere else. I note that WP:ATD says "should" and not "shall" or "must". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possibility would be the criterion "include a currency only if it has received coverage in secondary sources outside its original medium". Why would that not be NPOV? Another alternative would be to convert this into an article Fictional currency or Money in fiction rather than a list. There is referenced material here that could form the basis of an article (re-read it, as it may have changed since your last look). Are neither of those alternatives acceptable? TheGrappler (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a strong consensus that this list is plagued with OR. The central problem with this article is that Wikipedia is now the only place where a list like this has been published, making the fundamental idea for this list into WP:OR. There are a lot of policy-less arguments for keep: votes, basically. Wikipedia is not a democracy. But if we give into the votes, at the very least this list needs to be pruned drastically. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the OR was in the lead paragraphs which have been pruned now. The actual composition of a list is not OR so long as individual items are verifiable; many of Wikipedia's lists have been formed by combining large amounts of information from other sources into a list that hasn't been published in that form before, and that is not the breach of content guidelines. TheGrappler (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some semblance of an article at the top now, which I believe is sufficient to pass notability muster. Is the list too long? Arguably. It might need paring — but not with a hand grenade. Is this article the form of fringy unwikified original essays that we must be on guard against? No. It's a reasonable take on a notable topic — taken to extreme. There's room for improvement at the top and probably a place for pruning at the bottom. All in all, the article is a keeper, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki (is there any appropriate target for fictioncruft?) and Delete While potentially there may be a basis for an article in there somewhere, to get to it would require scrapping pretty much everything anyway. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some content cited to Colonel Warden's suggested encyclopedia articles is going to be added to this page over the next few hours, at which point this rationale will cease to be entirely true. Would you reconsider that decision? TheGrappler (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am liking the encyclopedic prose content added, but I am still failing to see any encyclopedic value in the List itself. I would at this time also support a Move > Fictional currency with a deletion of the list itself. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Hope you don't mind me moving your comment to what seems the logical threaded position, apologies if it was there for a reason!) I think there'd be some merit to such a move. I almost wonder whether the moved page should really be at Money in fiction or similar. Even after a page move it would be possible to include a list of some sorts as a supplement to the article; for instance it could be pruned down to those entries that have received secondary coverage outside their original source (which would declutter the list somewhat). Some editors may prefer to make the list as wide as possible (and in fairness WP:N doesn't require individual list items to be notable in their own right, so long as they are verifiable, which is one advantage of lists over categories as per WP:CLT; so while I disagree I do accept it's a viable position) and some like you would seem to prefer removing the list entirely. Perhaps that's a question best settled by article talk page consensus-seeking rather than at this AFD though. TheGrappler (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_currencies&oldid=1138010812"