Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 14

3643:

problematic. Basically, when PLOT and NOTE point towards deletion, this is the page that gets it done. When NOTE and PLOT don't, you're saying to now look below this guideline to find backup for deletions. This again says to me that this page should be deprecated. Basically, I think we should get rid of this page, or spell out for people why NOTE and PLOT are not applicable. I.E. "NOTE and PLOT are our guidelines, except, you should check the current consensus of our most prolific editors at WP:TV for episode notablity." We would then need to do this for all aspects of fiction. Who gets to control what would be quite interesting. This may sound a bit harsh, but when editors use this guideline to remove thousands of articles, I think it behooves us to say exactly where the power is coming from. -

1732:

out. But given that we are bringing that up for now, while I feel there is some truth in having more real world info than plot, setting the requirement for 50% or more of content being real world will cause a lot of complaints and problems including wikilaywering, word smithing to add more to a real-world section to avoid reducing plot, and so forth, including chasing more people from the project. Fictional articles are usually one area where people first contribute, and we don't want to be smacking hands saying "you've unbalanced the article!" - that'll chase them away for sure. I think this was an issue talked about in December, but there is no hard set number to meet for the balance. It really should be determined on a case-by-case, individual article consensus basis.

3563:

just say "this is enough, it meets NOTE and PLOT." Which is rebutted with "it may meet NOTE and PLOT but it is not enough." Now, you could say this is just an editorial decision. That doesn't seem right to me when one editor makes the decision for thousands of articles against the opposition of numerous (hundreds) other editors. Then you could say, it's several editor's decision (TTN, Ned, Bignole, etc.), but again it doesn't seem right to me when maybe five editors make the decision against numerous editors spread out over many pages. Five editors is about the amount needed to control this page, so let's make them explicity state their case here, in one place, and get this hammered out. -

3579:

same, we come to the issue that many episodes meet NOTE and PLOT. New, popular shows on the major networks can meet NOTE and PLOT with every single episode. This is (seemingly) unacceptable to some editors, so they have to argue without the backing on any G and P page that these articles don't belong. This is what needs to be addressed in this page. The number of reliable sources reviewing episodes is only going to increase, so we need to either allow NOTE and PLOT to do their work as they have, or create a special exemption for episode pages that creates arbitrary hurdles beyond these G and P pages. Let's make this page useful. -

990:

the end, there may not be that much information to support a separate article on the topic, and the information available might be better suited under a larger topic. There seems to be a rush to create an article on every topic, no matter how minute it is on the grand scale of the main subject. That's where the "common sense application" part of this guideline--really part of every guideline on Knowledge--is used. A topic might fit the bare minimum of notability requirements, and if there is a parent article for that topic then it may be more beneficial to it to be part of that larger page than on its own.

2554:: For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. In-universe content refers to descriptions of the work's plot, characters, location, objects, and other aspects of the fictional setting provided by the work of fiction." I don't think the "secondary sources' part belongs-- ,that distinction is very likely to disappear, or at least be limited--reliable sources is enough. 2902:"Once the merits of the article have been debated, the administrator closing the debate should ensure that the decision to keep an article is based strictly on its ability to meet this guideline, rather than on a majority vote or a consensus of opinion. AfD discussions should be seen as a process of notability review, rather than a debate about the relative merits or applicability of the guideline to the topic in question. It is the duty of administrators to apply Knowledge guidelines vigourously, rather than allow topics with notability issues to exist indefinetly." 2961:

all favor keep with various of ILIKEIT, the admin should recognize that, and not give in to the majority. But if there are good arguments that suggest a non-notable argument be kept on good faith, (maybe someone is trying to get a translation of a secondary source and its taking a lot of time, or the like), the admin should not blindly follow WP:FICT to close. Now, of course, admins that close AfDs in favor of majorities without consensus should be taking to the AfD closing review process. But in any case, all these actions are well outside the bounds of WP:FICT.

3472:

little use if it doesn't spell out what type of sources make an episode article (character, whatever) notable, since I have frequently seen what NOTE and PLOT say rejected as insufficient. It's why I'll mention again that this page should be deprectated. There's an unwritten understanding behind this page that is used to delete/redirect articles that does not conform to NOTE and PLOT, like this page supposedly does. We need to follow those guidelines explicitly, or explicitly state how this page goes further. Leaving it murky is not helping anything. I

1743:(It is important that the nutshell state what to do with non-notable articles - and that it does NOT say "deletion"). Also note that this is still descriptive - again, we're setting ground rules that use WP:N's white line of secondary source coverage, but, as a guideline, there are always exceptional cases. Also I will note that reading through the policies and guidelines on sourcing, commentary and interviews of people involved with production are considered secondary, so this removed that special "primary source" case I have in the draft now. -- 3813:

anything special treatment - contemporary culture is "lucky" that many sources are online but there are physical resources like your local library or such where information can be found for older works. (As a counter to this, nearly every printed work is reliable without question, but online sources need to demonstrate this much better). Doing the physical research is a time process and thus that's why it's important to assume good faith in what the editors are working on for an article, and that deletion should not be a "jump the gun" process. --

235:. There's no clear answer, but it does sound like it's been brought up several times before and the consensus is that it is not a COI to take content from WP and put on Wikia despite what Jimbo Wales owns. But, however, there's no clear written out "why this is the case" decision page on that, and it might be a good thing to have (whether its a consensus or higher-up decision) I've been more careful to state transwiki to "other wikis" without implying Wikia, as long as the other wiki is GFDL. -- 171:

changed in May 07, and likely actions by TTN and other such editors started this ticking time bomb regarding fiction on WP, but even before the WP:NOTE change, it still suggests fictional works should not be covered as much as we give them without notability demonstrations). I think adding something that explains this change (in particular for fiction in WP:FICT) to the proposed guideline will help to allow editors to understand that WP's under constant change. If tomorrow,

2968:, patrol their own article bases to review how WP:FICT applies to them, and the like. I'd love it if, though concerted effort of many WP editors, that no fictional topic will ever head for AfD again due to notability due to people working together on demonstrating it, merging articles, or moving them to other wikis. It won't happen, but a ultimate goal of this rewrite is to reduce the volume of fictional topic pages heading to AfD due to lack of notability. -- 1936:, so that many of them can be safely deleted from Knowledge. Seriously, Nydas, where ever did you get the impression that Digimon was some how exempt from the guideline? The only reason people are not rushing to AfD these articles is because there are notices on every talk page of Digimon articles telling people about the transwiki work (and before that, a notice about a mass merge). Users are a lot more patient when they see real evidence of improvement. -- 3606:

reception and a development bit), but that makes this a stronger requirement than NOTE and thus I don't propose to include this. I don't know if this is something that can be spelled out in WP:FICT as well - what may be significant for a TV episode may not be sufficient or a movie, and so forth. FICT spells out that things like development, reviews, etc help to satisfy NOTE, but exactly what degree is really consensus in similar articles/projects.

31: 2401:'s issue on notability is only when the subject of the article is self-publishing to demonstrate their notability; this pretty much only applies to persons, companies, and organizations. A fictional work or element cannot self-publish. (This definitely does not mean that a self-published work can be used to demonstrate notability for a different topic: this would suddenly mean tons of blogs and other works become valid sources which breaks 2738:

there is nothing wrong with this. The character plot info isn't the primary focus, it's the majority of the content, but the focus of the article is "why should the reader, that never played and never will play FF8, care about these characters", and the answer is given by notability - the game was popular in part due to the characters, they were influenced by certain things, they were merchandised, and were critically reviewed.

192:

interact and the relative popularity of such fictional works. Maybe we'll have a policy some day that you can only have an article that describes the published work, and any discussion of plot or characters or episodes or whatnot must be moved off WP (one article per work, effectively, to remove the "popularity" bias), but I very much doubt this will happen nor do I think it's appropriate. --

402:, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste 551:. The instructions itself should probably just go directly into the Knowledge: namespace (not as a WikiProject sub-page) or the Help: namespace, this will give us a place to collaborate about many issues, like helping convert templates, noting differences in different wikis, and allowing us to be focused on all external wikis, not just Wikia. -- 2893:

it comes to the duties of administrators to enforce the guidelines at AfD. Lots of articles which fail all known guidelines often survive the AfD process (only to be renominated) becuase the closing admin will not overturn a concensus. I beleive that for this guideline to be effective, there must be included a paragraph in the section

1717:, as it would force editors to limit plot summaries to at least 50% of an articles content, which is a useful benchmark when it comes to ascertaining whether a plot summary is of the appropriate length. In my view the guidelines need to be more prescriptive, so that any exceptions have to be accompanied by reasonable justification. -- 3690:

in good faith need time to improve - maybe Buddy TV isn't the most reliable source but that would imply there may be better (as in "established for being reliable") sources to help with that. Once some reasonable degree of notability has been established even if not perfect, there should not be a mad rush to delete it. That aspect

2570:"Very rarely should such sub-articles be about a singular topic; either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing sub-articles." I disagree with the "very rarely, and would substitute "when appropriate". I see no reason it should be rare. It just has to be not inappropriate. 2356:). Rather, notability should need to be shown, but after that an in-universe description of the item/character is what I would assume readers would actually be looking for. (Is it more likely that they care that the lightsaber has 20 scholarly articles describing it as a phallic symbol or why different folks had different colors?) 1975:. I very much doubt that with extra effort, the most popular Brazilian soap opera could not be shown to be notable; there are likely plenty of sources, just unfortunately in a foreign language, that can be used. Unfortunately, the fact that it would take a bit more work is part of the English language bias that WP has. -- 3358:

articles should go to AfD. If we get consensus on this WP-wide and it becomes the guideline, then we'd make sure to approach the AfD process board and make sure the admins there are aware of this change, and if say someone takes a ME article to AfD without necessarily being aware of this, then make sure to argue that the

2510:, but calling it undue weight is a good way to think of it". It's one of those things where we're using the word itself, and not necessarily the guideline that shares its name (which can be confusing considering how many guidelines use common terms and phrases for their page name, but they are still terms and phrases). -- 3002:. It's only policies which tend to be rated above a consensus in a deletion debate, not guidelines. Through a lot of discussion over the last month or so people have been pretty much agreed that it's the afd discussion and the consensus reached there which determines whether an article is deleted, not this guidance. 949:

use dependent sources for real-world information, which so far almost no one has disagreed with. Then we have people wanting WP:FICT to help improve how people handle situations with these articles (i.e. preventing mass AfDs, edit warring, etc). On top of that, now we're talking about taking things from

3689:

if TTN or others are truly AfD'ing articles that have even a handful of questionable/as-yet-established reliable sources(*) but that are appropriate types of notable materials, then they are going against what the new WP:FICT rewrite suggests in that notability demonstration is something that editors

3383:

I think I had included some more specific guidance for depth of coverage in serialized works that no longer appears in the newest draft. I think, if consensus points to it, that there should be some specific guidance about individual episodes of television shows and individual issues of comic books.

3241:

3) The key that this guideline pushes is that deletion should be the last resort for any article on fiction (as there are places where the information can go or be used), and as long as people are making good faith efforts to demonstrate notability, nothing should be done to nanescent articles beyond

3207:

This rewrite of WP:FICT looks good. A few questions: (1) Can someone point me to the point where it was decided that a rewrite was needed? (2) Can someone provide useful links to older versions of the policy (ie. versions that were substantially different and stable for a long time) - keeping a tidy

3172:

I totally understand Gavin's thinking here, but even when you're right about such things, the result is a huge backlash by other editors. This is pretty much what happened with TTN. People simply freak out. Everyone is a lot more at ease when we have a little more time to look at things, and a little

2737:

Again, I'm saying that "primary focus" means that the structure and the tone of the article (not it's content) should be aimed at telling the reader why this is notable. Characters in FF8 is bounded front and back by notability information with a majority of the page being about the characters - and

2578:

The depth of coverage should be a function of the importance of the work, not the length. Possibly, length and importance, but I'm not sure I would even accept that-=I do not see why a long and unimportant work that is just barely notable is appropriate for extensive coverage. In fact, those articles

2435:

On "Primary focus" I think that something like "This doesn't mean that more than 50% of the article has to be notability, but that the article should be structured (as suggested through WP:WAF) to address notability in clear terms in addition to plot info." should be included in the actual document.

2388:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence

1731:

Just to note two things: the balance/undue weight issue is more a style issue: this belongs in WAF (which looks like it will be getting a rewrite too to work in harmony with what we end up with here). It needs to be mentioned, but we shouldn't be describing to what extent real-world and plot balance

1067:

Well, part of some of those is that the sources need to be appropriate reliable sources. The RotToEE one does use Dragon magazine, so it's likely ok, and Dwellers is certainly appropriate (though needs cleanup), but the others are using (as best as I can tell) "unreliable" websites (mostly fansites,

948:

What we have now is hardly a "mess". We have a few main points that most of the other points fall under for why the current guideline is disputed. One is the lack of support for summary style, which we started to amend a little while back, but appears to need more expanding. Another is the ability to

3790:

The concepts that fans are incapable of neutrality, civil discussion or productive work, on the other hand, seem to be remarkably self-fulfilling when those editors are treated as such from the start. We could use some basic advice on local social dynamics, particularily on how to work in this field

3684:

which does indicate it is currently disputed, but that brings PLOT/NOTE as the working guideline.), and you feel that sources present are reliable and thus demonstrate notability, you need to assert that in the AfD and make sure that your sources are there and noted for being reliable. If you do so

3449:

Reviews from reliable sources are perfectly acceptable to demonstrate notability. A plot synopsis, alone, however, is not (a blurb in TV guide is not sufficient for notability, since that's primary information - no analysis of the work is made) - though a synopsis as part of commentary or review is

3114:

The solution proposed here to patchy or selective enforcement won't work. For starters, there's no way that the admins will consent to having their autonomy curbed over something like this. Even if they did, who watches the watchers? Our fiction deletionists? My impression is that they're the mostly

2892:

relating to the policing and enforcement of the guidelines. There is an aspect to the current deletion process which is attributable to the fact that the existing guideline is weak when it comes to practical implementation on a day to day basis because it is not sufficiently prescriptive enough when

2798:

I have changed depth of coverage to state that the depth of coverage should be appropriate for the length of the work in addition to notability. The point here that I think needs to be said that a one-shot fictional work does not need pages and pages of fictional text; a long running TV series can,

2614:

For primary/secondary, see WT:OR, where the discussion for the last month has been most about whether the distinction should be removed altogether. "notability" is every bit as vague as "importance"--the only real distinction is notability being "suitability for wikipedia," and that is circular, for

2207:

This is a major trim of lots of extraneous text from the proposed version to address issues of it being too long. Note that I discount the last two sections on dealing with non-notable articles since that is a bit of procedural approach, but in terms of getting the point across per the convo above,

2035:

which has a following in English but only due to unofficial/questionable translations or means lacks English sources to describe its notability, though, as I understand it, the show is effectively Japan's version of Sesame Street and likely there are Japanese articles that talk more about the show.

1384:

Again, the third paragraph describes other uses. If you believe that all major characters automatically have encyclopedic potential, then you fall halfway between my description. Can you clarify what encyclopedic content means to you? If it just means a well written in-universe article, I guess that

1369:

I think you are badly misrepresenting WP:WEIGHT. It is about making sure different opinions and issues get covered fairly. Not if things get covered at all. And the reason I assume you include me is because you seem to include all but a small number of people. I'm willing to assume I fit in your

849:

List of Warcraft Characters is an example of what the real consensus is. Characters got moved into the large list, but once the list was huge and still had no sources the list was deleted. Once all the individual articles are gone then people will start to go after lists. consensus is that even the

649:

A good project, but let this not divert us from the real work--improving the articles right here and now on wikipedia, defending the defensible ones 7 only the defensible ones when they are nominated for deleting, having a say at guideline pages to ensure that the few with a POV do not impose their

170:

may issue affect how WP has developed. Unfortunately, without a lot of effect, trying to track exactly when and where such changes occurred as to provide a clear idea of how these principles have come about to include on this or any other relevant pages is pretty much impossible (I know WP:NOTE was

3605:

The other aspect is the significant coverage. Even if Buddy TV is considered reliable, if an episode only has that review as its demonstration of notability, then it is not "significant" as required by NOTE and subsequently here. Personally, I would like to see two "aspects" of notability (say, a

3578:

While I'm not providing examples. ;-) Ned mentioned Buddy TV. They are a reliable source that frequently reviews every episode of a large number of tv shows. They are a reliable source, their reviews are non-trivial, etc. Because they review so many episodes, and other reliable web sites do the

3547:

Back to what seems to be your main question, things that add real world context might or might not be enough for an entire article, depending on who you ask, and depending upon the type of real world context. Which, like pointed out before, doesn't mean content, so it is possible to have an article

3426:

I've read the new page, but I never know what it really means. Are multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources the real deciding factor, or do we still have those unwritten rules where reviews and synopsis of television episodes don't count towards notability? Or maybe they're written this time and I

3399:

I think I took it out to streamline the text; the largest complaint was that the draft was too long. I think with the reduced version, we want to keep the first 4 sections (up to how to deal with non-notable works) streamlined so that someone doesn't assert "tl;dr" when they are told their article

2753:

Primary focus will be interpreted as "majority of content, and in that sense, i think that primary focus should not be on the details of publication etc but on the work itself. What you are suggesting is that the lead paragraph should put the work into a real world context, not go straight out into

2533:

If we interpret fiction subarticles as articles that were removed from the main article to avoid one massive article, applying UNDUE in its current state accordingly would work. It becomes difficult when notability of fictional elements is not so clear prior to it being established, and the current

1616:

It seems like this coversation is another reason we need to deprecate this page and rely on NOTE and the various policies. Here, we get extreme emotion and a small userbase for our "consensus." There, we would get a large group of people who edit other types of articles and can look at this issue

1340:) is notable. Nor do I want to spend hours arguing what qualifies as a reasonable secondary source for these books or characters. I don't want long plot summaries, I think they are generally inappropriate. I do want encyclopedic information about books and fictional worlds that are well-sourced. 1184:

and taunt them afterwards - which makes it no wonder that the opposition to this guideline keeps growing. By mistreating editors like that you only make the issue emotional, and that means they'll do what their emotions tell them - "protect" article of the series they like - rather using their head

989:

I don't believe it is limited to solely reviews of fiction; substantial production information--when you don't have any reviews--can be enough to support a separate article. Many times a work of fiction might only have 1 or 2 reviews, or maybe a limited amount of production information about it. In

797:

I think consensus on this is changing back in the last month. Minor characters should not have their own pages, but the more important D&D monsters are being kept as are major characters. Some lists (all operatives in KND) are going away (I suspect) but that one is a pretty extreme case. The

695:

That's one of things we want to stress: while some do argue that deleted articles can be resurrected after deletion, this requires some administrator help to perform. Any action like merging, trimming, or transwiki'ing is a way of saving what's already written in a manner that can be retrieved via

252:

People should also bear in mind that it is policy that information contained on Knowledge be preserved, unless it is misleading, unverifiable (not unverified), redundant or irrelevant. The issues a lot of people have with this guidance is that it declares the opposite. Notability was not introduced

208:

The GNU may allow commercial use, but using ad supported wikis for content written for WP is far from perfect. If we had a sister project like wikibooks for fiction, no one would complain. This is a decision that needed to be made at the highest level, and they decided to create a for profit spin

3562:

I could provide examples. It's not really constuctive since TTN redirected hundreds or thousands of articles that would pass this guideline as it reads, although not as its "understood." Ned was there for some of it, and gives the reasoning behind disregarding our higher G's and P's. So far, we

3094:

I don't think he's describing a conflict, but rather how much something can be enforced. If a discussion on a single talk page has a consensus, that doesn't mean it has more consensus than the guideline, which has it's own discussions and observations that form its consensus. But, as we've learned

3062:

Consensus and strict rules aren't mutually exclusive. Being a bureaucracy is about the complexity of the process and being "by the book" which is different from giving something more authority. Think of it like exact instructions vs a general idea, but still strongly enforcing it. I'm not saying I

2960:

I have to agree with Ridernyc - your suggested approach is first outside the scope of WP:FICT (since it deals with how the AfD process is performed), and more importantly, breaks how consensus works on WP. In the case than an article is up for AfD and the only people responding besides the AfD'er

962:

I think it is a mess. Certainly there is a tag on this policy indicating that there is a lack of consensus. I assume you mean "independent sources for real-world information". And I think I'd agree with that if it meant that reviews and the like were enough (which I think was the intent) but it

878:

I'll have to look see if I can dig it up, but the reason cited the second time it came up for AFD is that some trimming was done but no sources were added. For months every non-notable chacter was merged as a result of AFDs into the list and then the list was AFD. The list had nothing but a giant

315:

is thus borne out of that to set some expected level of notability that can support verifibility, reliable sourcing, and no original research. But preservation is a key word here and that's why I do agree that the mentality of most deletionists (delete first, ask later) is not the right way to go

3702:

That's why I asked for examples of articles TTN or others that are up for AfD where you've stated that there was notability demonstrated but still being AfD. I'm getting your side of the picture but I also need to see what such works are myself to be able to understand what degree this occurs as

3471:

That sounds good, but it hasn't been the way TTN and others have been judging episode pages. No one is saying the little weekly blurbs count as one of the multiple sources. They're obviouslyy trivial, which doesn't pass NOTE. They are not the bone of contention. I believe this quideline is of

1354:

Actually, the third paragraph describes the various ways that it is applied, including depth of coverage. You're probably are one of the exceptions to the rule (why to people always believe that I'm going to necessarily be describing them specifically?). I don't even know if you fit into what I'm

1150:

I've haven't been around to keep up with this, so how are we doing right now as far as what's being discussed? Are we actually going over the relevant points of how to handle the bad articles and other minor points on wording, or are people still trying to loosen this up, so wikilawyering will be

1075:

But this points to Bignole's point that often even if notability of one item can be shown, common sense in this case suggests that you can make a much much better article by combining all these into a list of modules for D&D (likely a page for each of the major subuniverses like Ravenloft and

670:

The Annex can be used even if we keep an article on Knowledge, simply if some editors wish to take the article in another direction. That's the great thing about the transwiki process, it can happen at any time, and for any reason. It doesn't just have to be about "saving" articles. Any wiki just

653:

If everyone who cared about this articles actually worked on one a day, and participated intelligently in a few AfDs even outside their main interest in an even-handed manner, and did not let policy changes take place by default, we can then use the Annex for the truly unimportant but interesting

191:

interesting to note that the part about having an article for every Simpsons episode and character is close to true. We do have that, and nearly all of them meet the notability/plot requirements. I know other media cannot get there, but that is unfortunately the nature of how those two policies

3812:

I note there's no mention of "fan" or related works in the current revision, and given that everyone was saying it was too long to start, I do not believe adding more text that is not explicit to WP:FICT's goal is appropriate. Also, just because information is not available online does not give

529:

seems to be developing a fool-proof method of simply typing in the article, selecting Knowledge, and poof, you're done. From that point, even if you use another Wikia wiki, you can cite the history on the Annex incase the Knowledge copy is ever deleted. Even with that feature not yet working, it

183:

very disconcerting because while those articles may not be appropriate in WP per PLOT/NOTE, they have probably been perfected in all other aspects, and overzealousness wipes them out. Again why there's a strong emphasis that deletion should be the very last resort for non-notable articles in my

3775:

Just as with any topic on Knowledge, book references are just as acceptable. There is still a need to eventually find and provide such references. The fanbase thing applies more to currently popular fandoms - it will be interesting to see what Knowledge does with fandoms that fade away in a few

1435:

I think "no offense" followed by "being totally absurd" is sorta passive-aggressive eh? In any case, my point is that the biography of a fictional and non-fictional person can be both notable and verifiable. Are they equal? Of course not. But each needs to be handled separately. I strongly

1170:

there, TTN. Anyone not agreeing with you (or the current state of Notability (fiction)) is either haggling "over minor points on wording or trying to loosen this us so wikilawyering will be easy"? To be honest, if anyone wanted to undermine the principle behind this guideline, he couldn't do it

812:

It's not that parts of the April 2007 version aren't incorrect, but that they are much too specific, and furthermore, with the May 2007 change in notability to include significance in sources, this version would take a major rewrite to align with that. We want to present general suggestions on

387:

Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index”

344:

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the

178:

And I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but we also need to make clear that other wikis are a perfect home for information that has existed for a long time on the site and make sure that those new homes are well stated so people can still find them. Given that we've had that option for a

3642:

as specified by NOTE. No one is saying that just one is enough. Well, I didn't expect this guideline to actually say that NOTE and PLOT should be followed when it would lead to an inclusionist perspective, so OK. But, this is the page that is cited for deletion/redirection, so that is a bit

3597:

Two things: the applicability of Buddy TV ( and subsequently any other such review site ) is something that needs to be decided by the TV project - WP:FICT really cannot provide the guidance there beyond the fact that the notability sources need to be reliable. (This also may be a question at

2818:

I would like a footnote or something somewhere that says "This doesn't mean that more than 50% of the article has to be notability, but that the article should be structured (as suggested through WP:WAF) to address notability in clear terms in addition to plot info." or your quote about the FF

1267:

I must apologize, but TTN's actions really got under my skin. It would have been so simple if he just had been nicer to people (or was transwikiing the stuff he redirects). But this way he needlessly antagonizes droves of people, which makes trying to resolve this issue so much more difficult.

3357:

Well, more about avoiding deletion is described in the "How to deal with non-notable articles" - it is urged that all other actions be taken before using AfD. In the case of Middle Earth, the fact that you are talking about means there's good faith effort to improve, which means none of your

2841:

be about reviews, sales, and production, as well as a reasonable summary (the reader should be able to understand what it was about, who the major characters were, the major conflicts, etc). Star Wars can be taken further, because other topics have been inspired/effected by the series, and by

864:

Do you have specific AfD links? If I recall correctly, a good amount of those lists were for every character under the sun, and not just a main set of characters, and were horrible. The point isn't if the information is in an article or in a list, it's that the information is excessive. It's

310:

policy that, even if content can be written to meet all three other major policies, it is not appropriate for WP, which includes the issues with fiction but also includes real world topics too. I can write an article that tells one how to make a spice rack, citing woodwooking books and other

124:

to create individual articles for each character. Told that they SHOULD have articles on every episode... and indeed links therein to sub-articles for reviews of each episode and trivia about it. A 100 page poker guide is described as a good thing entirely in keeping with Knowledge's mission.

3366:. So hopefully, once the new WP:FICT is given for all to see, editors will see volunteer steps to improve notability/reduce in-universe content as good things and not to be touched. How we'll deal with someone who is more aggressive, we'll likely have to work at that when the time comes. -- 2912:

regarding this issue, but my view is that this problem of non-enforcement of the guidelins applies to many categories of fiction-related articles, and its not just my pet peeve. In my experience, you can count on at least 6 editors to oppose an AfD regardless of the notability of the topic,

1887:

real-world may give rise to complaints about this being too little leeway, but at the moment my biggest complaint is that plot summaries and other padding such as info boxes and trivia sections are too long and are the norm rather than the exception. This is more than just a style issue; if

2599:

I'm not sure what you mean by secondary sources distinction going away? But I can seeing more towards "reliable sources providing real world information". "Depth of coverage" is really tricky; "importance" is a bad measuring stick since that's a personal opinion. Maybe depth of coverage

524:

I wouldn't worry about the COI issues, as long as the editors themselves are not on anyone's payroll for Knowledge or Wikia. It seems the Wikia Annex is doing some new things that will make this process even easier than our friend leads on, but the feature doesn't seem to be working yet:

3510:

And just as a note, I've spot checked a few of TTN's edits in redirecting episodes claiming lack of NOTE and most are appropriate (there's no notability at all in these), plus at least TTN's trying to work somethign with the Futurama editors to decide which episodes are notable and

2701:

of the article is. For a book the article should be about the book. In the case of non-fiction it should summarize the book and describe how it contributes and how it was received. For fiction it should be the same thing. This change is very significant and IMO a very bad one.

2907:

This might seem rather harsh, but it is very easy to start an article (a moments copy and paste) without complying with the guidelines, but it is coming close to difficult to remedy the spamming of articles with notability issues. You should be aware of the extensive debate on my

1949:

If a South Korean MMORPG or a Brazilian soap opera had the same level of coverage as Digimon, I can't imagine it being treated with kid gloves, with the whole 'merge just as soon as you're ready' attitude. It would get pulverised in a heartbeat, regardless of anything on the talk

3761:. At the very least, it should contain a warning to be extra-careful with fiction that is pre-Internet or unlikely to be well-covered online. It should also encourage Wikipedians to avoid thinking that concepts like 'fans', 'fanbase', etc are generally applicable concepts.-- 1741:, and should provided a balanced treatment of both real-world and in-universe information. Articles on fiction that fail to demonstrate notability should be improved to demonstrate notability, trimmed and/or merged into a larger article, or moved to a GFDL-compatible wiki. 3452:

Articles dealing with a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should be able to readily demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable

1788:

All the examples you cite have significant measures of secondary sources that they can use to demonstrate notability of topics within that universe. The depth of coverage is proportional to what real-world information a fictional topic has. That is all necessary to meet

1050:

This is a fairly short list, certain folks have tagged perhaps 100s of articles in D&D using WP:FICT as a basis. Some have a point, others are debatable, and others are clearly bogus (as those above). But the lack of clarity and meaning of "real world" is a killer.

1105:

Well, in the article in question, Dragon magazine is acting as a secondary source: it is making analysis or synthetic claims even though it is the same publisher. It's the same as what we're saying is development and reception information coming from DVD commentaries.

265:. It was never intended that notability guidance supersede them. If an article complies with our three policies, the default should be keep. That needs to be a lot clearer in notability. It's pretty clear in our deletion policy, but not so clear in these guidelines. 680:

Not only that, nothing prevents the article from coming back to wikipedia, once improved, i.e trimmed and filled with the citations and sources that are so important here. Annex can serve as a good repository of content that is not polished up to Knowledge standards.

334:

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and All Ye blessed Folk in between, gather round and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the

468:

Also, the document encoding might change things, at least it did on my mac running 10.5. Using some text encoding options for the file format would mess up Japanese characters for anime articles. Not sure the specifics on it. Have you had any problems like this? --

621:

Absurd. It is editors who have 'created' unencyclopaedic content here who are trying to harness others to the task of off-loading their shite to fan-sites. FYI, I believe I have only once nominated an article for deletion (not deleted, not fiction-related). Ditto,

3334:

can be actually agreed upon in good-faith by all sides, and that time is given to complete long-term plans like this. One thing that may be a problem is that I can't quite see yet where that bit in the nutshell is made clear in the main part of the guideline.

151:

when the revisionists claim over and over again that 'it has always been this way'. It hasn't. Stop treating the people who disagree with you as 'those who are mis-using Knowledge'. They aren't. At least not by the standards it was founded and long run under.

2236:

Well, part of this is that writing towards summary style will be moved to WAF in more detail; it is included here to say that summary style lists do not have to demontsrate notability. But again, feel free to take any editing stabs to improve the language.

2680:

What "primary focus" in the nutshell is spelled out more in "depth of coverage": the article should be structured around its notability ("Plot" is a section, but there should also be "Development/History" "Critical reception", and so forth, as outlined in

125:

Sub-articles were encouraged to organize the information logically and people were actively encouraged to assume there were NO limits on the level of detail they should pursue. Further, if you trace back, those statements were directly endorsed by Jimbo.

397:

Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Knowledge’s

1175:

by making derogatory remarks and talking down to those that do not agree with you ("your opinion does not matter" "if it does not get merged I'll AfD the article") and spice things up by rapidly doing "mergers" on a large scale. You do not even try to

3208:

record of the history is an important part of the process. (3) How much latitude is given to long-term efforts to evolve articles from a collection of stubs through merging into lists and (eventually) into something like the examples mentioned here (

3685:

and such AfD's are being closed over that, you need to start a discussion likely both at the project of interest and with those editors putting AfDs up for these article to get those sources noted for being reliable. There, WP:FICT cannot help --

2143:

Nydas, I think it's pretty absurd to say that Digimon gets some kind of special treatment. In less than a year a few hundred articles were merged into lists. Those lists were still "too much" and were all moved over to Digimon Wiki. Check out the

3851:

I would be open to a section or two at the bottom (once the guideline is spelled out) for more helpful advice, such as avoiding the word "fan", etc. But I don't want to weigh down anything up through "how to deal with non-notable articles"

2655:

not about star wars sales figures and reviews. Those will establish notability. Other than the one word change I'd suggested (edit-- and the spelling error), I strongly recommend that we go back to the start of draft 7. This is a huge

3210:"World of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) were evolved from lists of terms, characters, events, and concepts into articles with both real-world content and an out-of-universe perspective." 2913:

particularly if they have contributed to the article, or it is related to their pet subject. However, this guideline will not have much impact unless it is given teeth; we need to give guidance to administors if it is to be effective.--

1597:"Fictional topics should include demonstration of real-world notability, such as development, critical analysis, and reception, through reliable secondary sources. Such notability should not be outweighed by in-universe descriptions." 253:

to combat articles at the level under discussion here. It was discussed to prevent articles on every concept ever conceived, and to prevent a bias towards self published sources as sole sources for an article. It was an outgrowth of

3212:)? I ask because I'm working on one such area, and it would be discouraging if deletion debates were started while I (and others) were partway through the process. Obviously some progress has to be seen, but how little is too little? 1882:

revised wording, I think the term "balanced treatment" is too vague and woolly to be enforeable, and could all to easily be used to defend overlong plot summaries. I think my wording with its requirement for article content to be

3733:

due to recent "soft-deletes" of redirecting episode articles to an episode list page, though in the cases I spot-check, the articles themselves lack any notable information - it's more the approach TTN's taking that is at issue.

3237:

in May of 2007 (hence the April 07 revision) that specifically included notability demonstration through secondary sources, which clashed to some degree with the above link in addition to not match the format of other notability

2799:

but only if the series has sufficient notability to support that. A kids cartoon with 100 episodes with maybe 5 or 6 lines of notable information should not get the same treatment as, say, The Simpsons or South Park. --

1090:

Dragon is basically the same publisher as the publisher of the games so they are considered primary. There is some debate because at various points in Dragons history it was controlled by varying degrees by WotC and TSR.

2221:

I like it, I think the summary style section may need a little tweaking. It's going in the right direction but even I have trouble following what it says. I think anyone could interpret that section anyway they wanted.

1567:

The article or group of articles dealing with a work of fiction must include an appropriate amount of real-world content, and must be more than plot summary. Notability must be demonstrated from third party real-world

530:

appears that non-admins are able to import articles to there, using the advice above (remember to do the find/replace for the usernames, to avoid possible username conflicts, cross-project). This is very exciting. --

1517:. We want this guideline to be descriptive so that there are leeways with rules to be determined by editor consensus on a case-by-case basis, but ultimately we still need to build an encyclopedia here to meet the 3258:

I think Masem's proposal is looking really good right now, and even if it's not perfect yet, we might be at a point to start requesting comments from the greater community? Or should we wait a little bit still? --

2412:. This doesn't mean that more than 50% of the article has to be notability, but that the article should be structured (as suggested through WP:WAF) to address notability in clear terms in addition to plot info. -- 478:

Once, I was about to save with the default ANSI Encoding, but a small Message popped up, warning Me that That might changeth the Code. Now, I saveth the Files in Unicode or UTF-8, and the Code is not altered. —

3602:). We can add to WP:FICT that what constitutes a reliable source should be consensus of editors that heavily work in that project, but again, what actually are reliable sources stands outside of FICT's intent. 3548:

that is more plot in terms of the number of words than the "real world" parts. However, I don't think reviews from something like TVbuddy would justify an article for an episode, even if we did consider it a

110:

For those who don't understand the anger directed at the 'fiction deletionist' claims that they are 'the good guys defending Knowledge from the excesses of fictionalists' it might be good to review the past:

2347:

it would be a poor article that spent the majority of it's time on notability. I'm fine with the thing needing to be notable, but requiring this be the focus of the article will lead to way too large of a

1664:

1370:

majority. Finally, major characters in major series have encyclopedic content associated with them. The issue should be writing that clearly. And in-world material will be a large part of that content.

3609:

I don't know if either of those helps: it sounds like there may be a bit more language to be added that individual WP should further define details , but FICT cannot specifically spell out those details.

2819:

character article or something similar. Not sure how to add it, but I think the quote I gave (your words I think) as a footnote would be perfect if it doesn't mess with the structure too much. Thoughts?

782:

The sections on character lists are also out dated. Consensus has changed if you follow the past4-5 months of AFD's. It seems it was created for a few very notable works but quickly grew out of control.

3115:

cut from the same cloth as the average Wikipedian; that is, sci-fi and fantasy are first and foremost in their mind and they see everything through a fan-prism. All it would do is intensify our slant.--

825:

Hobit, your AfD observations are right, but there are also merge discussions. Main characters of shortrunning shows and cartoons often get merged when reliable secondary sources are not demonstrated. –

650:

will on the wider community, and rewording the parts of WP NOT and other policies that are used inappropriate. One comprehensive encyclopedia, is what WP is supposed to be, and we should hold to it.

3498:

Can you provide example AfDs that this is happening in so that we can identify 1) if there is a problem with the deletion call and 2) what needs to be added here that NOTE is too broad to include. --

384:

Window at Knowledge, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Knowledge Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”

879:

list of character bios, not even an introduction and 0 sources. My point is that simply making a list is not enough there still needs to be sourcing and real world context at least in introduction.

136:

barred these things... that people have been mis-using Knowledge and now are standing in the way of returning to what it was 'supposed to be'... these are revisionist history, pure and simple.

3327: 767:

I'd suggest that this draft be used as a starting point. I think it's clear and well written other than the two issues listed above (and only the nutshell one is a big deal IMO). Thoughts?

1770:

have a licence for unlimited fancruft, whilst stuff lower on the pecking order is aggressively pulverised, along with any pretence at balance or fairness when it comes to covering fiction.

3326:. That's over 450 articles merged or redirected. A recent debate around these issues of allowing time for merging and adding of sources (for both notability and verification) can be seen 2786:

I have removed "secondary", but keeping reliable and stress that real-world data is needed from reliable sources for notability (the spirit of "secondary sources" pending it going away).

3318:(others are working on other areas of this topic). The progress over the past year has been a reduction (mainly due to merging or removing the project tag from existing redirects) from 2111:

I have no idea where exactly there are, but you get magazines like Newtype that cover anime/manga that help to provide the frame of reference for the English treatment of the works. --

496:

We probably want to make sure that the various COI issues with Annex/Wikia are resolved, but I strongly urge that these instructions be made into a page about transwiking (better than

2754:

the plot as if it were an historical event. In that case, I agree, but then the wording should say so.-- i becomes a minor point of arrangement, not a primary aspect of the article.

3669:(ec) This guideline still provides more information for fiction that is not spelled out in PLOT and NOTE, and in further goes into, for fictional works, what are acceptable types of 1848:

I just looked and you're right - at least the few I spot checked are bad. Has anyone tried to AfD them, as I'm curious to know if it is admin bais or the like. (And I'm discounting

3076:

If a discussion results in a consensus that contradicts a guideline, it is the guideline in error, not the consensus. Guidelines must reflect consensus, not the other way around.--

1298:(i.e. the core of the guideline rather than the few points such as the AfD focus) of this guideline wants anything more than a overly long plot summaries and articles dedicated to 813:

fictional notability that align with other policies and guidelines, provide a few examples, but leave enough descriptive information to allow per-page determinations as needed. --

2249:

It's a tough one because I think we all know what we want it to say but explaining it one paragraph is close to impossible. JUST want prevent situations like what we have with

798:

general sense of AfD is that minor characters should be merged into an appropriate place (the main page if that article isn't too big, a "list of minor characters" if it is.

2851:

I don't see how this would even effect article structure, nor have I seen WP:FICT ever used in an argument about article structure. I don't think that's a major concern. --

2842:

individual characters and elements, which will likely be explained in another article and not directly a Star Wars article, but that doesn't mean we just assume such things.

1932:

was given as an example of being kept because someone liked it? Well, that's news to me, because I've been working my butt off to import every last one of those articles to

835:

Certainly. I think the "merge boldly" thing goes there nicely (if a bit too strong for my taste). But I do think consensus is moving and this policy should reflect that.

2789:

I have rephrased "primary focus" to "the article should be structured around the notability aspects", so that DGG's point about misintepretation of that phrase is removed.

2813:

I think this is much better. I feel that there is still far too much emphasis on real-world information, and I agree with DGG's comments on how this should be structured.

316:

and that's why its important to open up as many options both those editing and those wanting to clean up can explore before completely losing that information forever. --

2272:

Pinging watchpages to see if there are any glaring issues with this. Unless there's more feedback, I think the next step is to get many many more eyes on this through

3314:. There are still several months work involved, some of which involves adding sources to demonstrate notability. I'm still deep in the merging stage, as can be seen 977:

You are correct that reviews qualify for that - so I am very curious to see what articles that include reviews are being deleted. Can you point to any examples. --

2145: 1878:

related to the policing and enforcement of the guidelines, which I think is important but may be be something we might want to build into this later. Returning to

3095:

from the recent arbcom case, forcing the guideline isn't good either. Also, being a guideline, there are going to be situations that weren't anticipated, etc. --

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1698:

The article or group of articles dealing with a work of fiction must predominately be comprised of real-world content, and notability must be demonstrated from

433:. This will export an entire copy of the article, and not just the last 100 versions. After doing this, use a text program's find/replace feature and find all " 2323:, not about balancing different components of an article. I don't know that that is important here, but it seems way out of context to use it the way you did. 3311: 2909: 2741:

We're saying the same thing, just that you're interpreting "primary focus" as "majority of content" while I am saying that its more on article structure. --

2562:

this is not correct. Adequate plot summary would be better, or at least "limited buyt adequate" we are providing positive guidelines, not just negative ones.

2837:

I can understand that in some situations we will actually have more text of plot summary than "real world information". Though, an article about Star Wars

147:

is what Knowledge WAS about. The claim that Knowledge is NOT about these things is of newer vintage. And there is inevitable disagreement with the change.

2615:

we are here trying to decide what is suitable for wikipedia. I continue to think that the length of the work is a separate and very minor factor indeed.

1495:. Hobit's stance on the purpose of WP:WEIGHT, and by extension WP:FICT, seems to share the same spirit as Knowledge's policies, and TTN's, simply, don't. 2944:

But why? If this issue is not addressed, the guideline will have limited effectiveness, in which case we may as well stick with what we have already. --

897: 209:

off. Regardless of intentions, they have an apparent confict of interest and we need to work out something free, like Ned and others have mentioned. -

1253:

I'd tone it down a few steps, but I had a similar thought when reading TTN's comments. I do think yours (CharonX) comments are also needlessly rude.

3522:

resources that should not be used for it, but guidelines are not supposed to be prescriptive - we need room for interpretation article by article. --

1636:

comments are too general and we should methodically look at each section and discuss what should be kept or amended, section by section. I think that

1476:

I know I'm not the most knowledgeable around when it comes to Knowledge and it's rules, but I do think that it's worth mentioning that TTN's constant

3173:

big more room for discussion. The guideline is only one part of how we handle such articles. What is likely needed is to further explore ideas like

3698:(*) Such sites would obviously not beself-published like personal blogs, journals, web pages, or forums, but likely lack the reputation as EW.com. 3302:. I'm talking about clean-up efforts on old articles. The topic here is that covered by the articles that have been tagged and are being edited by 3323: 2964:

What we do want to encourage is catching article creation before non-notable article spamming. We need to encourage projects on fiction to watch

2534:

dispute already shows that interested editors (i.e. fans) are not always the best to judge what's truly wiki-notable when articles are started. –

3476:

say that this version is better than most others in its conciseness. It just doesn't address any of the controversial uses of this guideline. -

3140:, which seems to be exactly what I am proposing here. Please disregard what I have suggested and lets have any other proposals for amendment to 1540:

section implies that you need to balance plot summary with real-world information, which leads to this guideline. It's not the exact spirit of

708:

It requires specialist knowledge that most Wikipedians do not possess, whereas admins are easy to find. It makes little difference either way.--

1041: 373:. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “ 128:

In short, the things which the deletionists are saying are 'bad' and against what Knowledge stands for are, in fact, exactly what people were

3552:

source. Those kinds of reviews.. they're just bad; poorly written, and lacking in insight. (which in my mind makes them trivial sources.) --

1421:

No offense but when we are calling a biography of a real person a "plot" we are reaching the point so of your argument being totally absurd.

508:. A big problem with the transwiki option is that the method is very mystical to many people and a good page of instructions would help. -- 1496: 3694:

covered in the rewrite and goes above what is spelled out in NOTE (which you'll note jumps to deletion pretty quickly as suggested routes)

3230:

is one in April 07 that Hobit provided, which is based on a previous deletion consensus that lists of characters are able to stand-alone.

47: 17: 2031:

And (officially) translated to English, thus giving rise to reliable English sources talking about it. On the other hand, a show like

1544:

which is more about opposing viewpoints being equally covered to avoid bias, but it still means we balance information in an article.--

3303: 3137: 139:

Episode guides, articles on each character, detailed trivia sections... people built these things because they were told that they

3384:

I know the proposal gives some general guidance, but I think the depth of coverage portion may need to be a little more clear.

2860:

Interesting point, but I see WP:PLOT used over and over again and it would be nice to clarify that here if possible/reasonable.

2725: 1559:

I think we can all agree with that last statement (making allowances for subarticles dealing with aspects). Can we say then that

388:

Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.

3306:. Some date back 4 or 5 years to near the beginning of Knowledge, but clear-up didn't really start until a year or so ago. See 2336:"The notability of a fictional topic should be the primary focus of the article". This I disagree with. For something like a 2177:

of time, considering the fiction deletionists will re-nominate something on a monthly basis if they've taken a dislike to it.--

722: 548: 406:

at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

696:

non-admin editors, so that if better sourcing can be provided later, content can be restored without a significant problem. --

1036: 3276:

Looks to be like a few things still need forming up and reinforcing. Some more examples (maybe on a subpage) would be good.

894: 3158:

The idea itself is good, but it's more likely something we'll have to deal with on another page, or as its own process. --

850:

lists need sources and real world context. Not to the same extent as individual articles, but it still needs to be there.

1337: 1324:

is about balancing viewpoints in articles, not about balancing who uses information on wikipedia. Secondly, I don't want

1399:

See, I knew you were talking about me :-). Seriously, well-written summaries of a character that are mainly plot driven

3800: 3141: 2885: 2202: 1641: 1774:

should be the starting point for this guideline, since it is where we are failing most miserably as encyclopedists.--

1758:

Strict guidelines with 'reasonable' exceptions is just the situation we have now, where Wikipedians' favourites like

459: 415: 1888:

real-world content of articles is not our core focus, then Knowledge will be filled with prose rather than facts. --

3648: 3584: 3568: 3481: 3432: 1622: 1570:

I agree this does not say very much, but it will be a great thing at this point if we can all agree on. something.

934:

I'd argue its a good step forward from the mess we have now. It's the last time there was real consensus I think.

291: 214: 38: 1333: 1294:

At this point, there is no reason to assume that anyone {besides a very small amount of people) that opposes the

1031: 2697:

Primary focus (now) appears there too. I'm not worried about the ratio of material, I'm worried about what the

607: 480: 455: 411: 3730: 3049: 1737:

Articles, including sub-articles, dealing with a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from

1500: 590: 431:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Export&pages=NAME_OF_ARTICLE&history=1&action=submit

286:

That's why we should deprecate this page and lrt the higher up poloicies and guidelines cover all articles. -

2600:

proportional to notability information and should be appropriate for both this and the length of the work. --

3149: 3027: 2949: 2918: 1893: 1722: 1649: 568: 526: 3859: 3838: 3820: 3805: 3785: 3769: 3741: 3710: 3652: 3617: 3588: 3572: 3556: 3529: 3505: 3485: 3462: 3442: 3415: 3404:. A short sentence in Depth of Coverage, or possibly even a new section "Specific guidance" as is done in 3393: 3373: 3344: 3285: 3263: 3249: 3221: 3196: 3181: 3162: 3153: 3123: 3099: 3085: 3067: 3053: 3031: 3011: 2975: 2953: 2937: 2922: 2869: 2855: 2828: 2806: 2765: 2748: 2711: 2692: 2669: 2626: 2607: 2590: 2538: 2514: 2499: 2465: 2445: 2419: 2370: 2283: 2262: 2244: 2231: 2215: 2185: 2156: 2118: 2078: 2043: 2010: 1982: 1958: 1940: 1917: 1897: 1859: 1831: 1804: 1782: 1750: 1726: 1682: 1653: 1626: 1606: 1581: 1551: 1504: 1453: 1430: 1416: 1394: 1379: 1364: 1355:

describing. Do you believe that all major characters deserve coverage, regardless of encyclopedic content?

1349: 1315: 1289: 1262: 1246: 1220: 1206: 1160: 1113: 1100: 1083: 1060: 1005: 984: 972: 957: 943: 929: 908: 888: 873: 859: 844: 830: 820: 807: 792: 776: 729: 716: 703: 690: 675: 665: 636: 597: 555: 534: 515: 483: 473: 463: 445: 419: 323: 295: 274: 242: 218: 199: 156: 3829:

Would a subpage be appropriate to help explain some things in greater detail, and to explore side issues?

3081: 1272: 1229: 1189: 865:

normally a given that when you merge you trim, so the fact that people didn't trim really isn't something

1511:"Ignore all rules" doesn't mean you can use it to include content that is contrary to Knowledge's purpose 3644: 3580: 3564: 3477: 3428: 3315: 1633: 1618: 585:

and I do not care to support commercial enterprises in which I have no stake. If you care to drink that

287: 210: 153: 3677:(which is also going under rewrite) cover in enough depth to give the appropriate guidance for editors. 2436:

I'm certain people will argue otherwise if it isn't. (I'll fill in more later, but off to bed for me.)

1852:

now as JMS's comments are appropriate secondary sources - aka my 1.5 sources concept from way back). --

2965: 3834: 3781: 3438: 3389: 3340: 3281: 3217: 501: 167: 3174: 3133: 3045: 2987: 172: 2470:

I think balance in content can be too tricky for any number of reasons. But most important is the

3145: 3023: 2945: 2933: 2914: 2258: 2227: 1889: 1718: 1645: 1426: 1216: 1096: 904: 884: 855: 788: 633: 594: 2795:

I have rephrased the part on singular items gaining their own sub-article to soften the language

3540:

Since we're including summary style in the guideline, I would think the draft would be seen as

2253:

where we have a basically a Bionicle wiki created, in which 51 articles need to be dealt with.

1823:

sub-articles in particular are almost completely devoid of sources or real-world information.--

352:

Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to

112: 3077: 2685:), but there's no exact ratio of how much in-universe to real-world material there can be. -- 2398: 2326: 1713:

are too vague, and leave the door open to long plot summaries and fancruft. I prefer the word

1282: 1239: 1199: 1018:

Deleted? Not really. Brought to AfD, and/or tagged with notability templates forever? Sure.

1000: 950: 686: 362:. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third. 3192: 3007: 1541: 1533: 1329: 1321: 1303: 1025: 270: 2506:

I'm not sure of the exact discussion, but I can recall a bunch of us going "well, it's not

2478:

that's left to the editors. Here you are saying, as a guideline, that too much plot is an

3830: 3795: 3777: 3767: 3385: 3336: 3277: 3213: 3121: 2865: 2824: 2707: 2665: 2495: 2487: 2451: 2441: 2425: 2383: 2366: 2312: 2183: 2076: 2032: 2008: 1956: 1829: 1780: 1510: 1449: 1412: 1375: 1345: 1258: 1167: 1056: 968: 939: 840: 803: 772: 714: 505: 3332:"Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted." 2375:"Significant" is probably better, not as prescriptive as "Substantial" and follows from 3758: 3681: 3674: 3553: 3401: 3260: 3178: 3159: 3096: 3064: 3041: 2852: 2511: 2475: 2455: 2429: 2409: 2392: 2376: 2330: 2320: 2276:

and any WP with strong ties to fictional articles as to start the consensus process. --

2153: 1937: 1771: 1537: 1518: 954: 926: 870: 866: 726: 672: 552: 531: 497: 470: 442: 426: 399: 381: 353: 312: 254: 3450:

fine for notability. The use of reviews for notability is mentioned in this draft. (

2579:

on episodes of the least important series are in my view a large part of the problem.

1403:

encyclopedic. What about them isn't? A real person or a fictional person both have a

3405: 3363: 2995: 2929: 2761: 2721: 2682: 2622: 2586: 2535: 2273: 2254: 2223: 1678: 1577: 1514: 1492: 1488: 1477: 1422: 1390: 1360: 1311: 1212: 1156: 1092: 900: 880: 851: 827: 784: 661: 626: 307: 262: 163: 3753:

I don't agree that we should cling to a flimsy and counter-intuitive hodge-podge of

3670: 3599: 3233:

1) The change from this April one was best as I can tell a result of the change in

2999: 2991: 2402: 2353: 2337: 1794: 1738: 1699: 1691:

I think you could make this sentence shorter, more assertive and more prescriptive:

1269: 1226: 1186: 1069: 991: 682: 579: 3044:

and related guidelines which explain why consensus is preferred to strict rules.

2329:

Specifically allows self-published works when relevant to notability. Why should

1933: 1671:

the fiction to show notability. The type of sources can be discussed as a detail.

1644:

and should be included at its begining, as it explains the topic in a nutshell. --

311:

craftsman for the instructions, but that is not appropriate info to be included.

1617:

dispassionately. Why don't we let editors from a higher plane deal with this. -

593:

as being on those who consider such content to actually have any value. Regards,

3754: 3234: 3188: 3003: 1790: 1592: 1328:

plot summaries. what I want is to not spend hours arguing if a given book (say

582: 266: 258: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3680:

If people are citing this guideline (and remember, we're still using what's at

1685:

How about "balanced" for"outweighed" -- its the more usual term in guidelines.

3853: 3814: 3792: 3763: 3735: 3704: 3611: 3523: 3499: 3456: 3409: 3367: 3307: 3243: 3117: 2969: 2889: 2861: 2820: 2800: 2742: 2703: 2686: 2661: 2601: 2491: 2459: 2437: 2413: 2362: 2340: 2277: 2238: 2209: 2179: 2112: 2072: 2037: 2004: 1976: 1952: 1911: 1879: 1875: 1853: 1825: 1798: 1776: 1759: 1744: 1600: 1545: 1445: 1408: 1371: 1341: 1254: 1107: 1077: 1052: 978: 964: 935: 836: 814: 799: 768: 710: 697: 509: 317: 236: 193: 3703:

there are places that the rewrite can be made stronger if this is the case.--

3132:

I accept my proposal is probably not well thought out; the link provided by

2652: 2648: 1816: 1763: 1441: 348:

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

175:

was reached that fictional topics are unbound by WP:PLOT/WP:NOTE, we adopt.

3299: 3298:

Thanks for the reply, Masem. Unfortunately many of these articles are not

1444:). And it my opinion, that makes Vecna at least as notable as Mr. Hill. 1385:

means that you fall within my description, minus the long plot summaries.

763:

The "be bold" part may need a bit of work, but I think it is largely okay.

179:

while, the deletion of long-standing pages without appropriate relocation

2756: 2617: 2581: 2344: 2250: 1673: 1637: 1572: 1386: 1356: 1307: 1152: 671:

wanting a kick-start with content can take advantage of what we have. --

656: 586: 3514:

Also partially as Ned mentions below, we want to make sure we spell out

393: 358: 2928:

I don't think that is something that we can address in this guideline.

2576:

The depth of coverage will also be a function of the length of the work

1999: 1929: 1820: 1767: 370: 366: 2432:

in context I don't think this can/should be used as you are using it.

654:

details--the important ones will be where they belong, on wikipedia.

3022:

If you don't have effective guidelines, how do you enforce policy?--

2289:

I still don't care for the content too much, but the readability is

3187:

And once again I bang the drum for a Fictional topics noticeboard.

2647:

Absolutely not. This utterly kills this draft IMO. An article on

963:

isn't being used that way, nor do I think it is written that way.

3408:, can be added (and please go ahead to add this if you desire.) -- 2640:"Real-world notability should be the primary focus of the article" 2458:

but it is commonly accepted that it applies to content as well. --

2391:

It is not just about NPOV. This also follows to some degree from

1437: 1172: 756:

is much better than what we currently have other than two issues:

575: 3063:

want that for WP:FICT, I just thought I would point this out. --

1849: 1480:

attitude is possessed of a certain disregard for what was once,

341:, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Knowledge. 2070:

Where are these reliable English sources you keep mentioning?--

925:

The old version of WP:FICT is way too many steps backwards. --

232: 3422:

Does this now follow PLOT and NOTE, or is it more restrictive?

2728:. Notice that the role of the characters in the story is the 25: 2315:

in a rather significant way. That article is about (in fact

1658:

Masem, I accept your change about third party. That gives us:

721:

Which is why I plan to spend my next two days off formatting

162:

I know that statement has been around from the start, but as

1971:

Most likely due to a lack of appropriate secondary sources

118:

Note that on that page people were (and indeed, still are)

3330:. What I'm hoping is that the bit here from the nutshell: 606:

Very well, don’t take Responsibility for thine Actions. —

337: 2792:

I have replaced "limited" plot summarise with "concise".

899:

Note that consensus in the second was unanimous delete.

3319: 3228: 2780: 2657: 2148:, where all the individual articles were copied over. " 1591:

Well, it doesn't have to be third-party - that exceeds

1484: 1481: 753: 2361:

I've a few other concerns, but those are the big ones.

3177:, and make how we handle the issue its own thing. -- 2888:

for a moment, I wish to bring up the issue raised by

1336:) is notable, or if a major character from a series ( 3362:

consensus version of WP:FICT states this is against

1302:"major" characters for no reason other than to have 589:, fine. I, however, view the onus for rescuing such 3310:for an old debate from 2004, and a later debate at 345:Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them. 454:Ah, thank Ye for That helpful Advice, good Sir. — 1185:and rationally think about the issue. Well done. 1028:-- Nom clearly wants to bring it back up to AfD. 2482:balance. Is too much history of a country an 2389:of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. 1735:I would state it something along these lines: 3791:without pissing a whole lot of people off. -- 8: 3312:Knowledge:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items 1304:unnecessary details geared only towards fans 1068:thus failing by being self-published). See 425:Actually, a better idea would be to not use 2308:. Is there a reason that word was changed? 1407:attached to them. I don't see a problem. 1667:in other words, there has to be something 410:Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friends, 2895:Dealing with non-notable fictional topics 2880:Dealing with non-notable fictional topics 1440:is than some random football player (say 1640:comments neatly summarise this section ( 3518:types of resources for notability, and 1436:suspect many many more people know who 233:this Villiage Pump discussion of recent 1180:people, you just bitch-slap them with 1042:Return_to_the_Temple_of_Elemental_Evil 377:” and save It. Leave the Window open. 306:It still bears out that there is also 132:to do. The claims that notability has 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3544:restrictive than PLOT and NOTE alone. 2002:is Japanese. What's the difference?-- 330:Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex 7: 3675:primary, secondary, tertiary sources 1538:Knowledge is not just plot summaries 3630:Of course, Buddy TV is only one of 439:@en.wikipedia.org</username: --> 18:Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction) 3304:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle-earth 2208:the rest has been trimmed down. -- 2150:merge just as soon as you're ready 1536:doesn't come out from WP:NOT, the 369:. If Ye haveth It not, then open 24: 1874:I think the issue your raised by 748:Use old draft as a starting point 166:as well as what changes that the 2726:Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VIII 2293:up. Here are a few suggestions: 365:Next, open the Program known as 29: 1642:Defining notability for fiction 1528:Defining notability for fiction 1037:Dwellers of the Forbidden City‎ 723:Knowledge:WikiProject Transwiki 549:Knowledge:WikiProject Transwiki 3042:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy 1910:Please see Draft #7 (below) -- 1338:Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons) 547:I've made some redlinks blue, 1: 3731:TTN is an issue again at AN/I 2408:"Primary focus" follows from 1491:. He constantly goes against 730:04:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 717:18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 704:15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 691:14:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 676:06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 666:03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 637:08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 598:08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 556:05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 535:05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 516:04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 484:05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 474:05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 464:04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 446:04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 420:04:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 324:16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 296:20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 275:15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 243:14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 219:14:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 200:14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 157:10:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 2720:Something that is listed in 1171:better than you. Act like a 3860:15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3839:15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3821:14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3806:23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3786:14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3770:14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3742:15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3711:14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3653:07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3618:07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3589:06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3573:06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3557:06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3530:06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3506:06:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3486:06:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3463:05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3443:05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3416:14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3394:08:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3374:14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 3345:15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3286:15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3264:06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3250:03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3242:helping them to improve. -- 3222:03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 3197:22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 3182:04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3163:05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3154:22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3144:that might be worthwhile.-- 3124:21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3100:05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3086:05:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3068:04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 3054:18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3032:18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 3012:16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2976:15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2954:13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2938:11:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2923:11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2870:05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2856:05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2829:01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2807:18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2766:18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2749:16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2712:15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2693:14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2670:14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2627:18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2608:05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2591:05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2539:11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2515:04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2500:14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2466:04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2446:04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2420:04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2371:04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2284:20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2263:18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2245:18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2232:18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2216:17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2186:09:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2157:03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2119:23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2079:23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2044:23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2011:22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 1983:21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 1959:21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 1941:06:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 1918:17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1898:16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1860:17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1832:16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1805:16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1783:15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1751:14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1727:14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1683:13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1654:12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1627:07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1607:07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1582:06:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1552:06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1505:05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1454:04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1431:03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1417:03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1395:02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1380:02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1365:02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1350:02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1316:01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1290:17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1263:01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1247:17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1221:01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1207:01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1161:21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 1146:Where are we at this point? 1114:05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1101:04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1084:04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1061:04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1006:04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 985:04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 973:04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 958:03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 944:03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 930:02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 909:03:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 889:03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 874:02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 860:01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 845:21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 831:16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 821:16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 808:16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 793:15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 777:14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 3880: 3203:Looks good & questions 1739:reliable secondary sources 1700:reliable secondary sources 1595:. Maybe something like 1519:five pillars for Knowledge 953:and putting them here. -- 527:wikia:annex:Special:Import 404:{{Knowledge|{{PAGENAME}}}} 2986:Wow. That would violate 2635:Latest changes to draft 7 2311:I think you are misusing 1334:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer 1032:Living_Greyhawk_Gazetteer 578:is a for-profit site for 143:. At the highest levels. 2198:Draft #7 - snippy snippy 1482:according to Jimbo Wales 752:I believe this version: 429:. Instead, use this URL 1489:and still appears to be 437:" and replace it with " 106:Understanding the anger 2300:I prefer the original 1211:Are you stalking TTN? 356:. For the second, go 113:meta:Wiki is not paper 2724:as a good example is 2490:doesn't speak to it. 1928:Did I just hear that 1515:what Knowledge is not 608:the Annex Hath Spoken 567:cross-posted from my 481:the Annex Hath Spoken 456:The Annex Hath Spoken 412:The Annex Hath Spoken 42:of past discussions. 2560:limited plot summary 500:, with shortcuts of 168:Wikimedia Foundation 164:consensus can change 2454:is a subsection of 2382:Third paragraph of 2152:" yeah, I wish. -- 1509:Just remember that 760:It needs a nutshell 3766: 3120: 2182: 2075: 2007: 1955: 1828: 1779: 1711:appropriate amount 713: 610:00:56, 30 December 435:</username: --> 3762: 3673:, which that nor 3445: 3392: 3195: 3138:instruction creep 3116: 3010: 2552:secondary sources 2178: 2071: 2003: 1951: 1824: 1775: 1076:Dragonlance). -- 1072:for more details. 1003: 998: 709: 273: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3871: 3857: 3818: 3803: 3798: 3739: 3708: 3671:reliable sources 3645:Peregrine Fisher 3640:reliable sources 3615: 3581:Peregrine Fisher 3565:Peregrine Fisher 3527: 3503: 3478:Peregrine Fisher 3460: 3436: 3429:Peregrine Fisher 3413: 3400:does not follow 3388: 3371: 3247: 3191: 3006: 2973: 2966:Speical:Newpages 2804: 2746: 2690: 2651:should be about 2605: 2463: 2417: 2333:not do the same? 2281: 2242: 2213: 2173:Under a year is 2116: 2041: 1980: 1915: 1857: 1802: 1748: 1634:Peregrine Fisher 1619:Peregrine Fisher 1604: 1549: 1330:Red Hand of Doom 1277: 1234: 1194: 1111: 1081: 1070:reliable sources 1026:Red Hand of Doom 1001: 996: 992: 982: 818: 701: 631: 625: 513: 440: 436: 432: 405: 396: 380:Next, go to the 376: 361: 340: 321: 288:Peregrine Fisher 269: 240: 211:Peregrine Fisher 197: 184:present rewrite. 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3879: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3855: 3816: 3801: 3796: 3737: 3706: 3613: 3525: 3501: 3458: 3424: 3411: 3369: 3245: 3238:sub-guidelines. 3205: 2971: 2882: 2802: 2778: 2744: 2688: 2637: 2603: 2461: 2415: 2350:popular culture 2279: 2240: 2211: 2200: 2114: 2039: 2033:PythagoraSwitch 1978: 1913: 1855: 1800: 1746: 1602: 1547: 1530: 1485:rule number one 1273: 1230: 1190: 1148: 1109: 1079: 994: 980: 816: 750: 699: 629: 623: 511: 438: 434: 430: 403: 392: 374: 357: 336: 332: 319: 238: 195: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3877: 3875: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3824: 3823: 3809: 3808: 3788: 3776:decades time. 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3700: 3695: 3678: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3607: 3603: 3592: 3591: 3560: 3559: 3545: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3512: 3508: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3466: 3465: 3423: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3253: 3252: 3239: 3231: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3134:Colonel Warden 3127: 3126: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3089: 3088: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3057: 3056: 3046:Colonel Warden 3035: 3034: 3015: 3014: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2905: 2904: 2897:stating that: 2881: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2832: 2831: 2815: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2796: 2793: 2790: 2787: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2751: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2715: 2714: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2642: 2641: 2636: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2611: 2610: 2594: 2593: 2572: 2571: 2564: 2563: 2556: 2555: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2474:part. In the 2433: 2428:as this is in 2406: 2396: 2380: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2334: 2324: 2309: 2304:coverage over 2295: 2294: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2199: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1944: 1943: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1808: 1807: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1733: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1693: 1692: 1660: 1659: 1656: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1529: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1497:65.184.129.246 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1292: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1147: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1073: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1039: 1034: 1029: 1020: 1019: 960: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 891: 823: 765: 764: 761: 749: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 651: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 614: 613: 612: 611: 601: 600: 573: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 540: 539: 538: 537: 519: 518: 498:help:transwiki 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 449: 448: 427:Special:Export 408: 407: 400:Special:Export 394:Special:Import 391:Now go to the 389: 385: 382:Special:Export 378: 363: 354:Special:Export 331: 328: 327: 326: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 224: 223: 222: 221: 203: 202: 185: 176: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3876: 3861: 3858: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3822: 3819: 3811: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3799: 3794: 3789: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3768: 3765: 3760: 3756: 3743: 3740: 3732: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3712: 3709: 3701: 3699: 3696: 3693: 3688: 3683: 3679: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3619: 3616: 3608: 3604: 3601: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3546: 3543: 3539: 3538: 3531: 3528: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3507: 3504: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3464: 3461: 3454: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3444: 3441:was added at 3440: 3434: 3430: 3427:missed it. - 3421: 3417: 3414: 3407: 3403: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3375: 3372: 3365: 3361: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3320:1403 articles 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3265: 3262: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3251: 3248: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3146:Gavin Collins 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3119: 3113: 3112: 3101: 3098: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3069: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3024:Gavin Collins 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2977: 2974: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946:Gavin Collins 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2915:Gavin Collins 2911: 2903: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2896: 2891: 2887: 2884:Returning to 2879: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2817: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2797: 2794: 2791: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2775: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2758: 2752: 2750: 2747: 2740: 2736: 2731: 2730:primary focus 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2684: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2613: 2612: 2609: 2606: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2583: 2577: 2574: 2573: 2569: 2568:summary style 2566: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2540: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2411: 2407: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2352:listing (see 2351: 2346: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2275: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2214: 2205: 2204: 2197: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2120: 2117: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2045: 2042: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2012: 2009: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1984: 1981: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1957: 1954: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1919: 1916: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890:Gavin Collins 1886: 1885:predominately 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1861: 1858: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1752: 1749: 1742: 1740: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719:Gavin Collins 1716: 1715:predominately 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1701: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1670: 1666: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646:Gavin Collins 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1608: 1605: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1569: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1527: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1276: 1271: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1145: 1115: 1112: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1074: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1043: 1040: 1038: 1035: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 999: 997: 988: 987: 986: 983: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 961: 959: 956: 952: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 928: 924: 910: 906: 902: 898: 896:, second AFD 895: 892: 890: 886: 882: 877: 876: 875: 872: 868: 863: 862: 861: 857: 853: 848: 847: 846: 842: 838: 834: 833: 832: 829: 824: 822: 819: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 796: 795: 794: 790: 786: 781: 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 762: 759: 758: 757: 755: 754:FICT 04/25/06 747: 731: 728: 724: 720: 719: 718: 715: 712: 707: 706: 705: 702: 694: 693: 692: 688: 684: 679: 678: 677: 674: 669: 668: 667: 663: 659: 658: 652: 648: 647: 646: 645: 638: 635: 634:Jack Merridew 628: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 609: 605: 604: 603: 602: 599: 596: 595:Jack Merridew 592: 588: 584: 581: 577: 574: 572: 570: 565: 564: 557: 554: 550: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 536: 533: 528: 523: 522: 521: 520: 517: 514: 507: 503: 499: 495: 494: 485: 482: 477: 476: 475: 472: 467: 466: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 451: 450: 447: 444: 428: 424: 423: 422: 421: 417: 413: 401: 395: 390: 386: 383: 379: 372: 368: 364: 360: 355: 351: 350: 349: 346: 342: 339: 329: 325: 322: 314: 309: 305: 297: 293: 289: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 244: 241: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 220: 216: 212: 207: 206: 205: 204: 201: 198: 190: 186: 182: 177: 174: 169: 165: 161: 160: 159: 158: 155: 150: 146: 142: 137: 135: 131: 126: 123: 122: 116: 114: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3752: 3729:Adding that 3697: 3691: 3686: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3561: 3549: 3541: 3519: 3515: 3511:non-notable. 3473: 3451: 3425: 3382: 3359: 3331: 3324:948 articles 3209: 3206: 3175:WP:TV-REVIEW 3171: 3078:Father Goose 2988:WP:CONSENSUS 2906: 2901: 2894: 2883: 2838: 2781:diff from #7 2779: 2755: 2729: 2698: 2616: 2580: 2575: 2567: 2559: 2551: 2507: 2483: 2479: 2471: 2387: 2354:vorpal blade 2349: 2338:vorpal blade 2316: 2305: 2301: 2290: 2271: 2206: 2201: 2174: 2149: 1972: 1934:Digimon Wiki 1884: 1757: 1736: 1714: 1710: 1697: 1696: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1661: 1615: 1596: 1571: 1566: 1564: 1531: 1513:, including 1404: 1400: 1325: 1299: 1295: 1286: 1283: 1278: 1274: 1243: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1203: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1181: 1177: 1149: 1002:(Contact me) 993: 766: 751: 655: 566: 409: 347: 343: 333: 251: 188: 180: 148: 144: 140: 138: 133: 129: 127: 120: 119: 117: 109: 78: 43: 37: 3636:significant 3437:—Preceding 3040:Please see 2306:substantial 2302:significant 1532:Now, while 1478:deletionist 1326:overly long 869:caused. -- 36:This is an 3831:Carcharoth 3778:Carcharoth 3386:Ursasapien 3337:Carcharoth 3308:Talk:Elros 3278:Carcharoth 3214:Carcharoth 2658:difference 2486:balance? 2399:WP:SELFPUB 2341:lightsaber 2327:WP:SELFPUB 2146:import log 1973:in English 1760:Doctor Who 1709:The words 1166:Extremely 951:WP:EPISODE 893:First AFD 591:"Refugees" 580:monetizing 375:export.xml 149:Especially 121:encouraged 98:Archive 20 90:Archive 16 85:Archive 15 79:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 3554:Ned Scott 3261:Ned Scott 3179:Ned Scott 3160:Ned Scott 3136:mentions 3097:Ned Scott 3065:Ned Scott 2853:Ned Scott 2776:Draft #7a 2653:star wars 2649:Star wars 2512:Ned Scott 2154:Ned Scott 1938:Ned Scott 1817:Babylon 5 1764:Babylon 5 1542:WP:WEIGHT 1534:WP:WEIGHT 1493:consensus 1442:J.D._Hill 1322:WP:WEIGHT 955:Ned Scott 927:Ned Scott 871:Ned Scott 727:Ned Scott 673:Ned Scott 569:talk page 553:Ned Scott 532:Ned Scott 471:Ned Scott 443:Ned Scott 173:consensus 3632:multiple 3550:reliable 3453:sources. 3142:Draft #7 2930:Ridernyc 2886:Draft #7 2536:sgeureka 2508:WP:UNDUE 2488:WP:UNDUE 2452:WP:UNDUE 2426:WP:UNDUE 2384:WP:UNDUE 2345:one ring 2313:WP:UNDUE 2255:Ridernyc 2251:Bionicle 2224:Ridernyc 2203:Draft #7 1815:No, the 1665:sources. 1632:I think 1568:sources. 1423:Ridernyc 1320:Firstly 1300:at least 1213:Ridernyc 1178:convince 1093:Ridernyc 995:BIGNOLE 901:Ridernyc 881:Ridernyc 852:Ridernyc 828:sgeureka 785:Ridernyc 587:Kool-Aid 506:WP:WIKIA 502:WP:ANNEX 3759:WP:PLOT 3687:however 3682:WP:FICT 3439:comment 3402:WP:FICT 3300:nascent 2476:WP:NPOV 2456:WP:NPOV 2450:I know 2430:WP:NPOV 2410:WP:PLOT 2393:WP:PLOT 2377:WP:NOTE 2331:WP:FICT 2321:WP:NPOV 2000:Digimon 1950:page.-- 1930:Digimon 1880:Masem's 1821:Digimon 1772:WP:NPOV 1768:Digimon 1182:the law 867:WP:FICT 683:Renmiri 583:traffic 371:WordPad 367:Notepad 313:WP:NOTE 255:WP:NPOV 39:archive 3406:WP:BIO 3390:(talk) 3364:WP:AGF 3189:Hiding 3004:Hiding 2996:WP:NOT 2839:should 2722:WP:WAF 2683:WP:WAF 2660:. ( ] 2274:WP:VPP 1296:spirit 1270:Charon 1227:Charon 1187:Charon 1151:easy? 441:". -- 308:WP:NOT 267:Hiding 263:WP:NOR 141:should 134:always 3764:Nydas 3600:WP:RS 3118:Nydas 3000:WP:DP 2992:WP:EP 2890:Nydas 2862:Hobit 2821:Hobit 2704:Hobit 2699:point 2662:Hobit 2492:Hobit 2484:undue 2480:undue 2472:undue 2438:Hobit 2403:WP:RS 2363:Hobit 2180:Nydas 2175:loads 2073:Nydas 2005:Nydas 1953:Nydas 1876:Nydas 1826:Nydas 1795:WP:OR 1777:Nydas 1669:about 1446:Hobit 1438:Vecna 1409:Hobit 1372:Hobit 1342:Hobit 1255:Hobit 1168:civil 1053:Hobit 965:Hobit 936:Hobit 837:Hobit 800:Hobit 769:Hobit 725:. -- 711:Nydas 576:Wikia 338:Annex 16:< 3856:ASEM 3835:talk 3817:ASEM 3782:talk 3757:and 3755:WP:N 3738:ASEM 3707:ASEM 3649:talk 3614:ASEM 3585:talk 3569:talk 3542:less 3526:ASEM 3520:some 3516:some 3502:ASEM 3482:talk 3474:will 3459:ASEM 3455:) -- 3433:talk 3412:ASEM 3370:ASEM 3341:talk 3328:here 3316:here 3282:talk 3246:ASEM 3235:WP:N 3218:talk 3150:talk 3082:talk 3050:talk 3028:talk 2998:and 2972:ASEM 2950:talk 2934:talk 2919:talk 2866:talk 2825:talk 2803:ASEM 2762:talk 2745:ASEM 2708:talk 2689:ASEM 2666:talk 2623:talk 2604:ASEM 2587:talk 2496:talk 2462:ASEM 2442:talk 2416:ASEM 2367:talk 2280:ASEM 2259:talk 2241:ASEM 2228:talk 2212:ASEM 2115:ASEM 2040:ASEM 1979:ASEM 1914:ASEM 1894:talk 1856:ASEM 1850:Spoo 1819:and 1801:ASEM 1797:. -- 1793:and 1791:WP:V 1747:ASEM 1723:talk 1679:talk 1650:talk 1623:talk 1603:ASEM 1599:. -- 1593:WP:N 1578:talk 1548:ASEM 1501:talk 1450:talk 1427:talk 1413:talk 1405:plot 1391:talk 1376:talk 1361:talk 1346:talk 1312:talk 1284:talk 1259:talk 1241:talk 1225:No. 1217:talk 1201:talk 1173:dick 1157:talk 1110:ASEM 1097:talk 1080:ASEM 1057:talk 981:ASEM 969:talk 940:talk 905:talk 885:talk 856:talk 841:talk 817:ASEM 804:talk 789:talk 773:talk 700:ASEM 687:talk 662:talk 632:. -- 627:Prod 512:ASEM 460:talk 416:talk 359:here 320:ASEM 292:talk 261:and 259:WP:V 239:ASEM 231:See 215:talk 196:ASEM 145:That 130:told 3793:Kiz 3435:) 3360:new 3322:to 3227:2) 2910:RFC 2757:DGG 2618:DGG 2582:DGG 2424:On 2343:or 2291:way 1766:or 1674:DGG 1638:DGG 1573:DGG 1401:are 1387:TTN 1357:TTN 1332:or 1308:TTN 1153:TTN 657:DGG 187:It 154:CBD 3852:-- 3837:) 3784:) 3734:-- 3692:is 3651:) 3638:, 3634:, 3610:-- 3587:) 3571:) 3484:) 3343:) 3284:) 3220:) 3152:) 3084:) 3052:) 3030:) 2994:, 2990:, 2952:) 2936:) 2921:) 2868:) 2827:) 2764:) 2710:) 2668:) 2625:) 2589:) 2498:) 2444:) 2405:.) 2386:: 2369:) 2319:) 2317:in 2261:) 2237:-- 2230:) 2036:-- 1896:) 1762:, 1725:) 1702:.' 1681:) 1652:) 1625:) 1580:) 1503:) 1487:, 1452:) 1429:) 1415:) 1393:) 1378:) 1363:) 1348:) 1314:) 1306:. 1261:) 1219:) 1159:) 1106:-- 1099:) 1059:) 971:) 942:) 907:) 887:) 858:) 843:) 806:) 791:) 775:) 689:) 664:) 630:}} 624:{{ 504:/ 462:) 418:) 294:) 257:, 217:) 189:is 181:is 152:-- 115:. 94:→ 64:← 3854:M 3833:( 3815:M 3802:r 3797:o 3780:( 3736:M 3705:M 3647:( 3612:M 3583:( 3567:( 3524:M 3500:M 3480:( 3457:M 3431:( 3410:M 3368:M 3339:( 3280:( 3244:M 3216:( 3193:T 3148:( 3080:( 3048:( 3026:( 3008:T 2970:M 2948:( 2932:( 2917:( 2864:( 2823:( 2801:M 2760:( 2743:M 2732:. 2706:( 2687:M 2664:( 2621:( 2602:M 2585:( 2494:( 2460:M 2440:( 2414:M 2395:. 2379:. 2365:( 2278:M 2257:( 2239:M 2226:( 2210:M 2113:M 2038:M 1977:M 1912:M 1892:( 1854:M 1799:M 1745:M 1721:( 1677:( 1662:' 1648:( 1621:( 1601:M 1576:( 1565:' 1546:M 1521:. 1499:( 1448:( 1425:( 1411:( 1389:( 1374:( 1359:( 1344:( 1310:( 1281:/ 1275:X 1257:( 1238:/ 1232:X 1215:( 1198:/ 1192:X 1155:( 1108:M 1095:( 1078:M 1055:( 979:M 967:( 938:( 903:( 883:( 854:( 839:( 815:M 802:( 787:( 771:( 698:M 685:( 660:( 571:: 510:M 458:( 414:( 318:M 290:( 271:T 237:M 213:( 194:M 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 14 - Knowledge

Index