552:
I don't see how it has anything to do with the policies and guidelines some of you are citing. I've said it once, I'm saying it again. Notability does not require itself to be established within the article itself. That is certainly preferable, but
Sceptre points out that there are seven books dissecting the series, which leaves me somewhat doubtful that notability has anything to do with a merger. Perhaps the articles, once merged, would miraculously start getting improved, but at this point I see little to support that hypothesis. It seems more likely given the things that Sgeureka and co. have said that it would mostly involve deleting content and then letting the articles rot. A merger makes even less sense given suggestions made multiple times to exclude particular articles from the merger as being better than the others. Maybe that makes sense in the crazy Knowledge bureaucracy everyone seems to want this to be. But I see notability in two ways, both of which must be balanced against each other. There is notability externally, the significance placed on particular characters or topics by the outside community, and then there is internal notability, which measures the significance placed on particular characters and topics
524:
on an article that would be about characterization, generally. As it is, if each and every individual article followed this model, we would have multiple redundant sets of information that would certainly be frequently inconsistent. "Casting" is similar -- especially when actors were originally considered for one part and then went to another, it's best to have a show's "casting" info all together. (2) Even if there is, it hasn't been shown yet. But we can write a nice article about "characterization on
Firefly", discussing (a) Whedon's approach with ensemble casts (citable, discussed in relation to his other works, and not easily doable on any one article about individual characters), (b) influence of actors and writers on characterization; (c) interplay between scripts & stories, tv series & movie, on character arc & development; (d) individual characters. Properly conceived, the "character profiles" would be the least significant part of such an article.
928:
It's essentially a conflict of interest where they were using their own busyness as a reason why the characters weren't notable via the fact that no work was being done. If I had actually seen active cooperation on improving the articles from both sides of the debate (as opposed to pretty much neither) I would be a lot more inclined to believe the argument that a merger would improve the quality of the articles. I recognize, of course, that I am guilty of this sin. I have limited cash, as do we all, and I suspect that the
Firefly fans that buy the books of commentary are mostly not the same Firefly fans that work on the Knowledge articles. I certainly don't fall in the former category. As such, there's not really a lot I can do to help the supposed problem of lack of cited sources. No worries,
883:
cover the intricacies of fiction. That said, there's a couple other issues here. Multiple references have been made by various parties to the fact that very little improvement has been shown in the article. I would like to propose that all of us, except plange, are complicit in the guilt of this. The three-week timeframe only works if we actually do something in the three weeks. You can't use the absence of work done on the article as evidence that no work CAN be done. We've just all been busy with other stuff, and some of us don't have the money to fork over to buy the secondary sources. That said, I'm all in favor of getting this thing over with, and unlike some of the other parties, I'm willing to compromise. A merger would be fine by me under the following assumptions:
891:
the patently ridiculous notion of merging Zoe, Wash, Jayne, Inara, Simon, and Kaylee but leaving Mal, Book and River alone. The reason given for this is clearly a flagrant abuse of the "Knowledge is not a bureaucracy" policy, which overrides any notability concerns. Especially egregious in such abuse is the notion of failing to merge River simply because she wasn't part of the AFD debate. Use common sense, people. Common sense tells you that readers are gonna think we're idiots if they stumble across pages for two minor stars and the protagonist when the other 6 major characters, some of which have more screen time than Book and River.
899:
everyone on the wiki would agree with you, if only you could ask them. It should not be carried out before WP:FICT is finalized because the new guideline may make this entire argument obsolete (specifically, the clause about secondary sources claiming that understanding of the element is necessary is worth looking at. We may not be able to find secondary sources discussing in depth the real-world content of each character, but I suspect you will find numerous secondary sources claiming that understanding of each of these characters is important to the understanding of the show as a whole.)
557:
episode. In this light, it is nonsensical to merge some characters and not others. It's all or nothing, guys. One last note, by the way. I've never really been that fond of all these rules, because I really do think that making sure the articles are helpful and informative is more important. From all that I've seen, in a large variety of cases this includes significant treatment, if not exclusive treatment, of in-universe information. Maybe that's not the official focus, but it's definately
994:, several developments are emerging that are relevant here: (1) the plot guideline is not going to be deprecated. (2) Spinout list articles are, however, considered a good compromise, even if they, too, contain little more than plot and {{in-universe}} details. (3) Merge is not delete. In the event that information emerges that allows for the individual character articles to be rewritten from a primarily real-world perspective, they can be resuscitated.
512:, mainly because FF is a show I somewhat care about (I rarely edit anything that I don't know out of fear to screw up). I realize that many people don't (yet) see merging as a form of cleanup/improvement, but I have (almost) only had good experiences with it for my article topics. In the few cases where a merge wasn't such a good idea in the end, it is easily undoable, but even so, I don't think this will be the case for FF characters. –
42:
466:) actually improving the Book article came late to the debate and understood that promises need to be followed by actions. The other editors in favor of keeping have done nothing non-trivial. Your suggestion to suspend this debate for a few more weeks is reasonable, but I regularly pointed out the passed weeks during the merge debate with nothing happening, such as after
489:(on DVD), I am not a hardcore fan, have no idea about the internet structure concerning that fandom, have no books and will not spend money on obtaining those, and have no access to any non-online stuff as the show didn't even air in my country. Browsing for online sources would cost time which I rather choose to spend on adding real-world content to
422:. New sources were provided. Doesn't matter. Room for expansion was delineated. Doesn't matter. Editors pointed to two of these articles that had been fixed. Doesn't matter - well, I guess except your list of articles to merge got shorter. People are working to fix this stuff, but not fast enough or you, and you've decided to step in and do what
720:'s efforts to demonstrate real-world significance, I appreciate her efforts (man, she got a barnstar from Yannis!), but it seems that much of that content is just fancrufty (sorry for the loaded term, but I think it fits) trivia, gussied up to masquerade as real-world context. The fact remains that there is NO real basis for asserting that
767:. Mal and River were not part of the original AfD and hence weren't up for the merge debate, and Book has significantly improved (at least from my perspective) that I did not include him in further merge considerations. So, while (as I explained above) I did not help in improvement of any of these articles, I have still been pretty
987:
Knowledge articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also
890:
That all characters be merged into one article. This would include all nine stars, as well as all guest stars and anyone else currently located in "List of
Characters in the Firefly Universe". Obviously the 9 stars would have a larger section about them, but at no point does this compromise condone
771:
with other fiction-related articles for which I have more easier access to real-world-content sources (see my userpage). I applaude plange for his work on Book, but the little progress on the other articles just proves that a merger brings these articles in line with WP:FICT faster than good faith in
551:
I'm sorry, guys. I'm really confused at this point. I would probably be willing to merge the articles, in all honesty, if I thought it would be beneficial. But the problem is that regardless of whether or not I think that would be beneficial to the articles (I haven't made up my mind yet, either),
497:
that lasted for 24 episodes (and FF only lasted for 14 plus a movie and some additional franchise), and I fail to see why the FF characters can't do the same, especially with the little amount of current real-world content. I hope this is not interpreted as that I work against the editors in favor of
303:
Re to sguereka - yes, seven weeks is a long wait. You can't say that people haven't had time to improve the articles. But the request for improvement applies to both parties. While the burden of evidence doesn't rest on you, it doesn't mean you shouldn't help to cleanup. Also, WP:DEADLINE, which gets
882:
Wow, another month passes and still nothing. I'd like to weigh in again. We really should probably not do anything until WP:FICT is passed as a guideline again. Policies about verifiability and original research aren't relevant, and the general notability guideline is too vague and doesn't really
795:
As said before, Book's article is fine for a start, and I'd have left it alone anyway. But for Inara, since her source is just given as an
External link, not an inline citation, there is technically no harm to move the source in a merge until someone actually wants to discuss the source (potentially
666:
over a year ago that should help out. I have basically no time to devote on this until after Feb 5th (does that give it away that I'm heavily involved in a presidential primary race that is sucking up all free time?!), at which time I will be happy to get these articles up to speed. My understanding
523:
I support merge for two reasons: (1) I am not, frankly, convinced that there is sufficient real-world notability for the individual characters. The "improved" articles on Mal and Book are thinly referenced. Roughly a third of the substance is about "relationships", which would be much better handled
950:
episodes and several dozens of other SG articles. There wasn't much active collaboration from anybody. And although SG is one of my fave shows, I am as strict with SG articles that don't pass WP:FICT, as I am with FF (or any other show for that matter). So, I am not using my business to not work on
917:
Well, I've been busy with school recently. I am also still working on my many open merge proposals from
December till February where arbcom so nicely put a wrench in my gears. I will/can put more time to the FF characters as time allows (I haven't forgotten about them), but some FF articles require
872:
has improved with a few added sources, but it is troubling that six sources are solely used to source two seemingly-noncontroversial sentences in the intro. So, after 3.5 months, I'd finally go ahead with the merge in a week or so (everyone but Mal, Book and River, who was never included in the AfD
661:
I know that I will be able to make the improvements to the articles (as shown with the ones I already started on) to make them meet guidelines, as there are plenty of secondary sources out there on all the characters, but I would like other editors who do not want to see the merge to help me out. I
561:
focus and I will fight a merger to my dying breath if I think important in-universe information would be excised by a merge. So let me just say that if someone can convince me that merging these articles will actually lead to significant improvement, I'll be happy to merge. But right now it seems
556:
Thus we may have some sort of measure by which
Malcolm Reynolds and Derrial Book are more notable externally, but this must be directly balanced against the fact that the other seven characters are given the same notability internally: they're all in the opening credits, they're all in almost every
894:
That effort be continuously made by all parties to the best of their abilities to improve the articles after the merge and split them again if the original reasons for the debate disappear. Unfortunately, I feel as if this is unlikely because the majority of the people involved in this debate are
822:
I don't know how medcab cases work. This one is still open, and
Sceptre as mediator hasn't really given a green light one way or another. So, (1) can I perform the merge and (2) enforce to keep them merged as long as no encyclopedic treatment is apparent, or (3) do I risk becoming another party in
927:
No, I recognize that most of us are busy and have other stuff we want to do with our time. The beef I had was just that some of the people were claiming that the fact that nobody was working on the articles meant they weren't notable, even though THEY weren't working on the articles themselves.
359:
which notes that fictional concepts are notable if they have received significant real-world coverage from reliable sources. No significant real-world coverage has been provided to suggest notability. As a result, the best result would be a merge. It is true that a significant body of opinion has
898:
That no action be taken before WP:FICT is finalized, or before local consensus is reached. This compromise is offered in good faith on the assumption that all parties can agree to it. It should not be carried out on the basis of some arbitrarily determined "global consensus" used to claim that
886:
That no significant content be excised from the articles during the merge. A compromise merge would not be used as an excuse to excise significant content. Obviously some summary is necessary and some of the characters are simply plot synopses at this time, but attemps MUST be maintained to
724:
has real-world importance. I think, as a result, that this merge should be carried through as proposed. Bottom line: consensus is global & plot summaries and trivia are strongly discouraged; arbcom cases and centralised discussions are not going to make these longstanding requirements for
498:
keeping; I rather encourage them to improve the articles as they have much easier access to sources. Worst case: the articles get merged, and if someone has so much real-world content to add that a character section gets too long, the character can be spun-off into his own article again. –
715:
To respond to some of the points above, I note (1) no efforts have been made to improve the quality of these articles. No real-world notability has been asserted, the overlong plot summaries remain and the trivia and other in-universe details has not been expurgated. (2) With respect to
951:
FF, but I am busy because I spend my wiki-time merging/improving/expanding those topics I am most interested in and which I have much fan material for (i.e. SG; like you I don't have much material for FF). The net gain for wikipedia stays the same: More articles that pass WP:FICT, and
682:
Incidentally, the only reason Mal and Book are better was that, yes, for Mal it was because he's the captain, but after that, Book is not the next major character and it was pure coincidence that I picked up that article to improve next. If I had to pick just one other, I'd say it was
617:
who, among other things, performed
England's 2006 World Cup anthem. If someone created a page saying "Embrace is a Brighouse-based band", it would be deleted although the band is notable. If someone created it sating "Embrace is a Brighouse-based band notable for their hit album
796:
allowing the de-merge again). Even if I leave Inara out for now, can the merge be performed in the next few days? With some of the FF fans claiming that the articles are fine as they are, I'd rather have the objective result of a medcab case backing up the merge actions. –
360:
coalesced at the local talk page against such a merge. But such opinion has not changed the global consensus that continues to exert a requirement for real-world significance to be adduced in order for individual episode articles to exist. Since
Knowledge's policy on
667:
of the guidelines is that a merge should only happen if it has been proved that an article will never be able to not be a stub... I've shown that these articles can be from an out-of-universe perspective and be a full article in its own right.... --
430:
claim to represent. You are certainly allowed to point to community accepted standards, decisions, etc. But you don't decide how they apply in every case. By demanding that we challenge the global consensus in order to not merge, you have already
326:
Some of the articles have been improved. Others are in the process of being improved. All participants in this discussion are well aware of the potential improvements. The merge is totally unnecessary, and those who advocate it have decided that
199:, specifically the remedy to urge parties to work collaboratively and constructively. Editors arguing against a merge while not improving the articles neither work collaboratively and constructively to resolve the underlying content dispute. –
250:. It asks for "real-world context". I don't particularly think that's hard to do. I know for a fact the show is on DVD as it's on my Amazon wishlist. The episodes also have commentary tracks. The show also has a companion guide by Whedon.
277:
Also, do a Google News search for Firefly. While the vast majority maybe pay-only, there will be some free interviews with either Whedon or the cast members about the characters, or some reviews that criticise or applaud some characters.
849:
379:
Once again, appealing to "global consensus" (quotation marks are used because you two keep saying it, whereas I don't believe you really represent global consensus) instead of discussing the facts at hand: the discussion brought up
1016:
I already got "permission" from Sceptre/Will to merge some time ago, but I just never actually started. But since this issue really requires closure, I'll just put my other merge proposals on hold and do some work here. –
783:
I'd be lenient on Book and Inara - they do have non-powers-that-be sources and references, although I would like to see them used more, but they have shown that they are discussed in reliable secondary sources.
856:(again), so I guess it is time to reconsider how to proceed. Almost all of the articles of questionable demonstrated notability or lacking encyclopedic treatment have not changed (much) for the better, in
1001:
noted above some time back, no real advances have been made to resituate the emphasis of these articles from in-universe to real-world and that remains the basic requirement for fiction-related articles.
697:
River actually appeared in more works than all the other characters, for that matter -- she was in the viral marketing River Tam sessions, and along with Mal was really the central figure of the film. --
602:
in its present state. I'm pretty confident that there is enough information to support a standalone JR article, but until such information is added, WP is improved by merging it with other characters.
187:, which like other notability guidelines decides what gets an article and what doesn't. The other character articles still fail all guidelines of the AfD deletion rationale, plus a few more (see
396:
if you want, I'm just trying to provide an explanation of what's going on that isn't from your point of view. Unless you want to declare yourself and sguereka neutral parties in this dispute. --
284:
Suspend the debate about merging the articles for three weeks (that is, until February 1). During that time, please, both sides work on the articles so they are of a quality comparable to say,
887:
summarize rather than abridge. The issue at contention is that the individual characters may not be notable enough to merit their own articles, not that the article content is objectionable.
355:
A remark I find disingenuous albeit from an editor I highly respect. The improvements have not contributed substantially to bringing the articles in question up to the standard elaborated at
288:. Buy the books, comb the news archives, and try as hard as you can to improve the articles. You'll get a lot more done instead of formulaic WP:SIZE/WP:DEADLINE vs. WP:N/WP:NOT#PLOT debate.
260:
196:
257:, people tend to leave character articles be when there is sufficient real-world context. If you really want secondary sources, I did a search on Amazon UK, and found the below results:
895:
contributing very little to the articles in question, seeming to prefer rather to use the bureaucracy to further their own private agenda at the expense of the quality of the articles.
643:
as well. There is currently this case, an arbcom case, and admin noticeboard, several RfC's, and various other discussions taking place. A solution needs to be had to fix this and
364:
is clear that consensus is sitewide, not local, I find the use of qualifying quotation marks mystifying. Until consensus changes, it is clear that these articles should be merged.
873:
of the following merge proposals for unknown reasons), without prejudice to have articles revived if someone wants to write an article in line with policies and guidelines. –
262:
836:
Never mind. It seems arbcom will punish anyone who dares to cleanup articles, with blocks, so I'll wait till the arbcom case is over (two weeks?). It may be that the updated
532:, if and when (citable, referenced) information about any one individual character is unbalancing the article, we can export that character to its own article and write a
203:
942:
To put this into context from my perspective (this is not intended as finger-pointing): Since November, I have worked on establishing the notability of at least six
1029:
414:
in letting non-notable articles sit around on Knowledge. There is no room for improvement and usually no one takes the time to even clean them up. But there was an
304:
cited in these cases, wasn't written to give articles permanent stay of execution. If neither side can cleanup after a concerted effort, maybe it's best to merge.
624:
and performing the World Cup anthem 'World at Your Feet'", it wouldn't. The easiest way to assert such notability is by adding sources independent of the show.
1036:
1021:
1011:
990:
I think we all agree on that. We can also agree that, at present, few if any of the Firefly characters conform to this standard. Per the ongoing discussion at
959:
937:
922:
912:
877:
844:
840:
will also have lost its proposed/disputed tags then, making it even clearer that most of the FF character articles in their current form are not acceptable. –
827:
811:
800:
790:
776:
734:
706:
692:
676:
656:
630:
608:
571:
545:
516:
502:
448:
405:
373:
348:
310:
297:
229:
169:
562:
too much like people want a merge to hide the low-quality content rather than to get rid of it by means of improvement. Wow. I'll stop talking now. --
195:
were reverted several times. The length of the merge discussion makes improvement actions through non-merging seem unlikely. Note the final decision of
946:
articles including what are now two GAs and one GAN (the others will follow as time allows). I have also finished the merger/redirecting of almost 300
462:
have already proven that. But what I am doubting is that these remaining articles will be "fixed" to meet WP:FICT any time soon, as the only editor (
805:
Book's fine and fiction stubs are allowed. And yes, there is nothing wrong with an Inara merge until the paper is actually used as a citation.
578:
But right now it seems too much like people want a merge to hide the low-quality content rather than to get rid of it by means of improvement.
853:
640:
613:
Knowledge needs an article to assert its notability, not just for the subject to be notable. Example, there's a local band called
647:
issues need to be looked at or this will never end and more arbcom, noticeboards, cabals, and RfCs will continue to be called. --
493:
articles to prevent their merging or deletion (and I have much work ahead fo me). Additionally, I have already worked hard on an
478:
is definately enough to tip off anyone's patience and require some actions to be done instead of keeping to listen to promises.
485:
and especially against those wikipedians just trying to cleanup. E.g., (only speaking for myself here) although I have watched
21:
768:
218:
214:
192:
184:
435:. That's circular logic! I believe that keeping these articles separate and allowing them to get fixed up as time goes on
981:. Pleas for more time and resources are not that convincing to me here. Let's restate the basic issue: per our policy on
274:. Thus the characters are most likely notable. The problem is, the articles right now don't particularly show they are.
494:
33:
17:
384:
against merging. The only rationale I've seen, still, in favor of the merge is that "things haven't been fixed
242:
While WP:FICT is a disputed guideline, it is not without merit. It quotes some long-standing policies, such as
188:
176:
418:
discussion in which the two of you decided you spoke for "global consensus" and were going to tell us that
614:
528:
would be an encyclopedic article on this topic; not simply a prose-style databank of character entries.
991:
933:
908:
567:
101:
1007:
730:
702:
541:
444:
401:
369:
344:
739:
It's Feb 1, and these are the changes to the character articles after 10 weeks of merge debate:
454:
Sceptre, I am not doubting that real-world content exists for these articles; the articles for
772:
laissez faire. I'll wait for Sceptre to make a final announcement before actions are taken. –
663:
652:
639:- I would like point out that this case is way above what is being discussed here. Please see
620:
533:
239:
While I am involved in the EPISODE/FICT debate, I'll be as neutral as possible in this case.
225:. And encyclopedic improvement is not happening, so it's best to merge until someone does. –
988:
to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
688:
672:
482:
105:
character articles. Among the editors who participated the most in the content dispute are:
152:
The articles for Firefly characters were group-nominated for deletion in November 2007 for
161:
410:
The articles are under development, and the two of you are impatient. I have absolutely
929:
904:
837:
581:
563:
356:
153:
130:
119:
1033:
1018:
1003:
998:
982:
956:
919:
874:
861:
841:
824:
797:
773:
726:
698:
605:
537:
513:
499:
490:
440:
397:
393:
389:
365:
361:
340:
243:
226:
222:
200:
165:
140:
125:
114:
109:
865:
807:
786:
721:
648:
626:
604:" Obviously, no FF character can compete with J.R., so make of this as you will. –
481:
I feel the approach to have both sides work on the articles works a little against
459:
455:
306:
293:
285:
157:
77:
869:
717:
684:
668:
463:
254:
247:
135:
122:(no further statements in the last 30 days, but initiator of the AfD, see below)
918:
extra trimming, and this takes extra time if the job is to be done properly. –
41:
997:
At this point, however, I feel we should get a decision down on the table. As
599:
585:
1030:
Talk:List_of_characters_in_the_Firefly_universe#Merger_of_FF_main_characters
179:, but no consensus has been found since. It should be noted that only one
439:
in agreement with global consensus. That is why this dispute is stuck. --
339:"global consensus" overrules the discussion that ended in "no merge." --
823:
the current arbcom case if I revert possible reverts of the merger? –
536:
section about that character to return the main article to balance. --
191:). Attempts to boldy fix the articles by merging to have them meet
495:
article encompassing all characters of a multi-award-winning show
595:
253:
While they may not be seen as secondary sources, as required by
331:
opinion is automatically that of "global consensus" and that
177:
Talk:Firefly_(TV_series)#Merge_to_form_Characters_of_Firefly
857:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
589:
475:
471:
467:
180:
854:
the proposed WP:FICT is moving to accepted guideline
72:
64:
56:
48:
32:
598:in its present state and discourage articles like
580:Right. And that's also what WP:FICT suggests in
175:. The AfD closer started a discussion thread at
221:. That can either be achieved by merging or by
388:" and "global consensus says do what I say."
219:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)#Notable topics
8:
850:The arbcom case is slowly coming to a close
508:Re Sceptre: I am trying to help in cleanup
433:assumed that our position disagrees with it
426:want based on some "global consensus" that
592:at WT:FICT that has my wildest support: "
281:So, I have some suggestions editorially:
209:What would you like to change about that?
382:a number of sources and valid rationales
213:Basically to have these articles meet
29:
7:
28:
860:'s case even for the worse (more
725:encyclopaedic standards go away.
554:by the people directly involved.
183:was reasonably improved to meet
40:
266:That's seven books dissecting
215:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
193:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
185:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
1:
335:are the ones who decide that
95:Who are the involved parties?
955:less articles that don't. –
845:17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
828:17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
812:16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
801:16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
791:10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
777:09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
735:22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
707:22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
693:04:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
677:23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
657:16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
631:15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
609:14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
572:21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
546:02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
517:01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
503:23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
449:05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
420:our rationales didn't matter
406:05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
374:04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
349:23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
311:23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
298:17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
641:this centralized discussion
637:Comment by uninvolved party
230:22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
204:22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1053:
1037:08:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
1022:08:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
1012:07:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
960:10:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
938:02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
923:08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
913:02:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
878:19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
147:
39:
34:Knowledge Mediation Cabal
18:Knowledge:Mediation Cabal
189:Talk:Firefly_(TV_series)
1028:For transparancy, see
662:created guidelines on
582:WP:FICT#Notable topics
223:encyclopedic improving
172:no consensus to merge
143:(mediation initiator)
317:Administrative notes
170:the AfD closed in a
102:Firefly (TV series)
197:recent arbcom case
621:The Good Will Out
181:character article
158:original research
84:
83:
1044:
588:recently made a
148:What's going on?
65:Requesting party
44:
30:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1042:
1041:
324:
319:
237:
211:
150:
99:Editors of the
97:
92:
90:Request details
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1050:
1048:
1040:
1039:
1026:
1025:
1024:
979:Call for Close
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
888:
831:
830:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
780:
779:
737:
712:
711:
710:
709:
634:
633:
611:
549:
548:
520:
519:
452:
451:
408:
323:
320:
318:
315:
314:
313:
236:
235:Mediator notes
233:
210:
207:
164:, and failing
149:
146:
145:
144:
138:
133:
131:User:Maratanos
128:
123:
120:User:Guest9999
117:
112:
96:
93:
91:
88:
82:
81:
74:
70:
69:
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1049:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
984:
980:
977:
976:
961:
958:
954:
949:
945:
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
926:
925:
924:
921:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
903:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
881:
880:
879:
876:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
848:
847:
846:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
832:
829:
826:
821:
820:
813:
810:
809:
804:
803:
802:
799:
794:
793:
792:
789:
788:
782:
781:
778:
775:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
736:
732:
728:
723:
719:
714:
713:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
681:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
665:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
632:
629:
628:
623:
622:
616:
612:
610:
607:
603:
601:
597:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
560:
555:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:summary style
531:
527:
522:
521:
518:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
501:
496:
492:
488:
484:
479:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
358:
353:
351:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:their opinion
334:
330:
321:
316:
312:
309:
308:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
295:
289:
287:
282:
279:
275:
273:
269:
264:
263:
261:
258:
256:
251:
249:
245:
240:
234:
232:
231:
228:
224:
220:
217:, especially
216:
208:
206:
205:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:
167:
166:a fiction MOS
163:
159:
155:
154:nonnotability
142:
141:User:Sgeureka
139:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:
126:User:Lquilter
124:
121:
118:
116:
115:User:Eusebeus
113:
111:
110:User:Cheeser1
108:
107:
106:
104:
103:
94:
89:
87:
80:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
38:
35:
31:
23:
19:
995:
986:
978:
952:
947:
943:
806:
785:
722:Derrial Book
660:
644:
636:
635:
625:
619:
594:...we allow
593:
577:
558:
553:
550:
529:
525:
509:
486:
480:
460:Derrial Book
456:Mal Reynolds
453:
436:
432:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
394:disingenuous
392:me of being
385:
381:
354:
352:
336:
332:
328:
325:
305:
292:
290:
286:Martha Jones
283:
280:
276:
271:
267:
265:
259:
252:
241:
238:
212:
171:
151:
100:
98:
85:
76:
57:Request date
870:Kaylee Frye
862:WP:NOT#PLOT
683:River....--
476:Seven weeks
472:three weeks
464:User:Plange
412:no interest
136:User:Plange
73:Mediator(s)
664:WP:FIREFLY
600:J.R. Ewing
586:User:Masem
510:by merging
322:Discussion
930:Maratanos
905:Maratanos
745:Washburne
564:Maratanos
483:WP:BURDEN
468:two weeks
416:extensive
362:consensus
1034:sgeureka
1019:sgeureka
1004:Eusebeus
999:sgeureka
957:sgeureka
948:Stargate
944:Stargate
920:sgeureka
875:sgeureka
842:sgeureka
825:sgeureka
798:sgeureka
774:sgeureka
727:Eusebeus
699:Lquilter
606:sgeureka
538:Lquilter
514:sgeureka
500:sgeureka
441:Cheeser1
398:Cheeser1
366:Eusebeus
341:Cheeser1
291:Thanks,
272:Serenity
227:sgeureka
201:sgeureka
162:fancruft
20: |
992:WT:FICT
838:WP:FICT
649:Maniwar
615:Embrace
590:comment
487:Firefly
357:WP:FICT
268:Firefly
68:Unknown
60:Unknown
983:WP:NOT
757:Kaylee
718:plange
685:plange
669:plange
390:Accuse
244:WP:NOT
168:, but
52:closed
49:Status
866:WP:OR
761:Simon
753:Jayne
749:Inara
470:and
329:their
22:Cases
16:<
1032:. –
1008:talk
934:talk
909:talk
864:and
808:Will
787:Will
769:busy
765:Book
731:talk
703:talk
689:talk
673:talk
653:talk
627:Will
596:Spoo
568:talk
542:talk
530:Then
526:That
458:and
445:talk
402:talk
370:talk
345:talk
333:they
307:Will
294:Will
270:and
255:WP:N
248:WP:N
246:and
78:Will
953:way
868:).
858:Zoe
741:Zoe
645:all
428:you
424:you
386:yet
86:]]
1010:)
985:,
936:)
911:)
852:,
763:,
759:,
755:,
751:,
747:,
743:,
733:)
705:)
691:)
675:)
655:)
584:.
570:)
544:)
491:my
474:.
447:)
437:is
404:)
372:)
347:)
160:,
156:,
1006:(
932:(
907:(
729:(
701:(
687:(
671:(
651:(
566:(
559:a
540:(
443:(
400:(
368:(
343:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
