[andrewla]

> no matter how "notable" you think Beedrill might be, it doesn't need it's own separate wikipedia article

This has always been my sticking point with deletionist thinking. Why doesn't it need it's own separate wikipedia article? What's the harm in it? Are we worried that people will start treating Charizard as a real creature?

Where I see the value of notability criteria it is mostly in preventing vanity articles. Beedrill, presumably, is of general enough interest that people are willing to contribute and reference the information. Why isn't that enough?

[fsckboy]

I wish they'd give all the fantasy stuff (character in tv show, animated character, etc) something like a different background color or theme that essentially says "this is for people who want to document fantasy worlds".

[andrewla]

What purpose would the theme change have? Is there a risk of confusion?

[jhbadger]

Wouldn't it make sense for Pokemon to have its own wiki? Sure have an article about the existence/history of the games and anime in Wikipedia, but such details as describing the various creatures could go elsewhere. That's how it works for other games. For example, there are articles about the various games in the Fallout series in Wikipedia, but the various creatures and locations don't have their own pages there. But there's an entire (in fact several) wikis dedicated to everything Fallout.

[andrewla]

I mean, maybe it would make sense. But having the pages on wikipedia has a bunch of huge advantages -- not least of which is piggybacking on the ad-free nature of wikipedia. The size of the editorial community is much larger too.

The reason that there are wikis dedicated to "everything Fallout" is because of these deletionist sentiments. Most of these things started on wikipedia and had to migrate off because of the constant barrage of deletion fights.

[jhbadger]

Well, I don't like "deletionist sentiment" when the issue is "notability" -- obscure moths or Bulgarian poets have a legitimate reason to be in Wikipedia even if non-entomologists and non-Bulgarians may not care about them. But there is a real argument that fictional beings and places don't belong in a serious encyclopedia (even if the works they are from do exist and should be covered).

[andrewla]

> But there is a real argument that fictional beings and places don't belong in a serious encyclopedia

I'll bite, though -- why the passive voice? What is the argument? The first blush here is that these topics are non-serious and make Wikipedia seem less serious. That's clearly a strawman though -- what's the deeper argument? I mean, for Brittanica, you only have so much print space you can use, and an article on Beedrill is a waste of paper. But Wikipedia is not printed; and while space is scarce in theory we shouldn't be rationing until the need it apparent.

[jhbadger]

I think fiction and non-fiction are worth keeping separate on a philosophical level. It isn't about saving space, it is about keeping reality and fantasy isolated from each other which is more important now than ever in the "post-truth" society.