Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 19

2668:. Now, I'm not sure if any of these separate articles (the first is very iffy, the second is already redirected, and the third is borderline edging on being undue weight). Let's assume they aren't and the page contents are merged into lists somewhere. I see no problem in keeping these links (or the correct redirection) on the Disamb page because each of them is still a possible result if someone were to search on the term "X". (as noted on the Mega Man X , the character is sometimes simply referred to as "X", so someone may try to search on that). In other words, even if merged from non-notable pages into an appropriate main topic or subarticle that we're suggesting we allow, the disambiguition pages should still provide the links to those merged topics. Yes, "X (Metroid enemy)" is likely not what 99.9% of the readers searching on X will be looking for, but there is that 1% that might be looking for it. Basically, as long as they are complete appropriate on the disamb page, I see no reason why the disambig page cannot contain the links for non-notable fictional topics. -- 3793:

details to be moved to a separate Wiki and better chances of convincing editors to go to those Wiki's, then their would be less anger and issues with Knowledge and some of the more people can stay to work on editing articles. One thing that can't be denied is that the environment on Knowledge is very stressful with differencing views on editing and following rules and without assisting on handling these issues would only cause more people to leave Knowledge and cause more disputes against the editors who actions ignite these conflicts through their actions despite their need to bring the article within the rules. At the same time numerous wiki's are underdeveloped and need more attention. In a way, if handled correctly adding in a Wiki or Wikia link to a policy will not create a conflict of interest but rather it can lead the way to a fair compromise in the event of a dispute. -

3039:, they should be created only when it is necessary to break out such lists from a larger article, such that they remain an appropriate sub-article of the main topic. When they are not done like that, with the list created not as a breakout of material from the main article but as a separate entity, that generally is what grows to give us lists that are excessively long in in-universe details that stretch the intent of what a summary-style sub-article should be like. This should also be true for series lists; character and other aspects should not be broken out until there is a need to do so, though there is likely to be the case with a longer TV show or long running book/movie/video game series. Furthermore, it is not a rule, it is simply meant for the reading editor to understand the nature of what depth of coverage should mean. -- 638:). There are editors that will challenge an article's notability and will want to be bold to correct it. We know now that outright being BOLD with 0-day warning is not a solution. That's why we use notability tags, discussion, and a sufficiently long waiting period to see if anything can be done to improve the article. If there's no response, BOLD makes sense. If there is response to address the issue, even to the point, "I'm trying but having no luck!", you give them the benefit of the doubt and wait. If there's a dispute, you take it to appropriate dispute resolution channels. If there are several articles in the same area, you try to attract the attention of a larger group before changing things. You use redirection to be able to get the information back, so even if someone jumped too quickly, it is not irreversible. -- 3956:(1) I'm okay with tabling interviews, since it's a bit of a hard point and there's a lot of variability: They're often initiated and done as part of PR campaigns, but not always, and there's still some indication of interest from a third-party (although, given media consolidation, not as much as one might think or hope). (2) But as for the DVD commentaries, I just don't see how they can provide evidence for notability: They simply are not "independent". And including them in as evidence of notability is going to open this whole debate wide-open over the next couple of years, as the studios & companies re-release their works on blu-ray & HD, which have a LOT more space for this kind of stuff. I realize that some people have 3408:

and that there's likely other incidental material about that work. If a movie wins an Academy Award, there's likely a listing of awardees that can be sources, but for a movie to reach that pinacle, there's bound to be tons of reviews and other information to go along with it. The burden of demonstrating notability still has to be done, but it should be an easy job. Anything else can be shown to be notable, but it is up to those that want to include it to provide the verifiable information to demonstrate why a topic is notable, and that task may not be as easy if it doesn't meet the given criteria, but that doesn't mean it automatically fails either. --

468:

ethos of Knowledge is that we work out how to present it collaboratively, and that as long as information is verifiable it's pretty much okay to keep it within reason. Ack, I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess what I am asking is that we perhaps end the divisiveness, stop pretending that one set of words will please everyone, or even that we will all agree on what that one set of words means, and that we just learn to collaborate on editing. That we learn to accept that we might be wrong, even when we're right. That we learn that our way osn't the only way. That we learn that guidance doesn't have to be obeyed. Apologies. Rant over.

999:

editing in breach of guidelines don't have a voice in establishing consensus. I am prepared to stand corrected on this, but if we accept that all editors are equal, which is a basic tenet of Knowledge, there being no cabal, then it stands to reason that if quite a few editors are editing in breach of guidelines, in sufficient number, the guideline may not have consensus. Our rules are not set in stone, we do not write the rules and then edit the encyclopedia, we started writing the encyclopedia and then developed the rules. David Gerard started an excellent essay which is now at

4006:) should always allow an article to stay (except when there is consensus that a merge would be better for presentation). WP:FICT goes further and states that a topic is also allowed its own article when sourced encyclopedic treatment occurs. Unfortunately (and I am no exception), "the topic can have its own article" is often phrased as "demonstration of notability". Therefore, I support to have the guideline make the distinction of real-world-information!=notability clearer, while amplifying the connection of real-world-information==separate article. – 463:

articles than I would argue about notability. If the goal of the guidance is to produce well written articles, and if people are prepared to compromise on their definition of what is a reasonably well written article, then I don't really have a problem. My concern is that instead the guidance is turned into a set of rules in which to "play" Knowledge, converting articles which don't meet one's interpretation of the rules into something else, regardless of whether they are reasonably well written. Look, our editing policy states that

3859:. DVD commentaries are very directly not independent. Interviews might be argued to be "independent", but in fact, interviews while the work is still being published (originally broadcast, released on DVD, etc.) are often scheduled and operate as promotions. There's a reason all the actors show up on comedy shows when their movies are coming out; I have a lot of trouble seeing that sort of thing as "independent" -- more independent than the creator commentaries, maybe, but not "independent" as generally understood. These sources are 2957:(@Nydas) It's a rule of thumb that applies to non-notable characters and elements described as part of a larger topic. That means that first, notable elements do not follow this guideline (Captain Ahab should not fall into this, because he would be a character that should have significant academic analysis for notability), that there are always exceptions, and that it is meant to help limit the creation of "List of X" articles for every single fictional work until it is appropriate for a 3940:

at work already completed. But when I brough the use of commentary up for the discussion of tv episode notability, it was sounded rejected as a notability issue. Unfortunately, TTN's merges and reverts have lately included (before I put in the new FICT) "don't bring back until development or real-world information can be found", and the issue of the episodes of Scrubs has basically been that there are commentaries on the DVD releases, and so they were going to use them in that fashion.

1556:

in all of plot, characters, setting, and production , and reception, proportions depending on the individual situation. the solution to articles which are mainly plot is to write the other sections, holding fast to the idea that it is the fiction as a whole that needs to be notable, even if the article is divided. The RS for plot character and setting is of course the work of fiction. the RS that the ficton is notable, of course, must be reviews and outside discussion.

3193:, but rather to meet the conflicting goals of brevity in the main article and comprehensiveness. To me, a brief summary in the main article rather than a complete recap is usually to the main article's credit, and no angst need be shed over the creation of a new article with more detail. A forced merge or redirect will invariably short one of these principles, as either the section balloons far beyond its proper size, or the coverage is not comprehensive. 31: 1615:

the most discussion are the large ones, and this does not take account of the discussion below. And I wouldnt evev say characters should necessarily be discussed "within" the plot. this is getting into MOS questions. I think it should read simply: : "Normally, these fictional elements are described as part of the article or group of articles for the fictional work and do not need to demonstrate notability on their own."

3267:

be immediately bold but notify and wait for good faith edits, or make sure there's consensus to do so. Also, there is a push to never delete (off the server completely) existing content, but a strong push to make sure things are redirected (to allow recovery and restoration) as well as transwiki'ing the material. These concepts are part of the rewrite already but if ArbCom suggests any thing else, they will amended.

596:

occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however.

4058:

prevents completely in-universe works or those that add trivial/non-notable data (actors, dates, etc.). The only caveat here is that these articles should be, not so much perfect, but that the issues of undue weight or excess PLOT come more into play; if a paragraph of development information and a statement about a review are used to offset 5000 words of in-universe/plot information, there's a problem. --

670:. Be bold, edit in collaboration and discuss when you can't agree to a reasonable compromise. I don't think there has to be tagging first, there can be a bold redirect first. But that bold redirect should not be followed by revert after revert after revert after revert. It should be followed by, well alright, if we're not redirecting then we need to do this, this and this to improve the article. 3944:

interviews on development is not the most ideal case, but as long as still written to general standards, is likely ok. I'd also argue that if there is the existance of DVD commentary or interviews, the work is very likely notable in some other way, otherwise, why would that person be interviewed, or the DVD publishing studio put out the expense for the commentaries (or the DVDs themselves?) --

3964:, so I don't think we can say that this use represents consensus. It's a lot easier to demonstrate use of a source in a particular way than non-use of such a source, but while people properly use these as sources in articles, I haven't seen any consensus that they constitute "independent" sources for notability. (If there are links to such discussions I'd really like to see them, though. I did 1008:

encyclopedia rather than hashing out rules. What strikes me is this; if we edited overly plot-centric articles back to the current style, why does the article have to also be merged? I can understand that it could be merged, but it seems an arbitrary point to say it must be merged. What problem does merging actually solve? Ah, never mind, I'm ranting again.

433:, I will warrent that the dsicussion on TV episodes presently going on conflicts with the one part in this about using development information straight from the developers (aka the 1.5 sources I previously mentioned) as a source of notability (not that this information cannot be used alongside other third-party sources to establish notability). (See 4039:), but it would have non-trivial real-world information. I would be very much against a forced merger just because notability has not been demonstrated. However, ratings and IGN saying "yeah, good episode" alone (i.e. no production information) do not establish notability, and the article should be strongly considered to be merged. Notability =: --> 3842:

include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is self-published. While data such as actors or voice actors, people involved with production, publication or airing dates, and length of work can be taken from reliable sources, such information does not demonstrate notability.

3159:

WP:FICT with its "minor characters and entities should be merged into the main article or into list articles." Nevertheless, clearly something is off, because fiction requirements have tightened beyond what I think the guideline warrants, whether due to a different crowd at AfD or because the guideline is being interpreted in a different way.

776:"Ideally we'll take the proposals from Hiding and Masem and others, and come up with something that most of us on the talk page can agree with. Then we'll present the ideas to the greater community in a cleaner format, so that users new to this discussion can get a good feel for things without having to hunt through all the past discussion." 4199:), I think it would be okay to take out the DVD commentary as evidence of notability, so long as it is still available as a reliable source for relevant information; and I'll agree to not touch the interview question. With those compromises, I think it will be something we can live with, and -- bonus -- I think it handles the 3363:

a topic. NOTE still is the baseline for those guidelines; there are no "special cases" where notability doesn't have to be demonstrated, but there are likely scenarios where based on past editor experience that if certain conditions are met, there will be sources and thus there's a short-cut path to demonstrating notability.

3367:

major character in a prime time television series" more often than not does not led to a character with notability that can be demonstrated). Thus, we start with NOTE, and really can only build on from there that within the context of PLOT we can allow for summary style articles for collecting non-notable elements. --

497:

the other. Notability on Knowledge, despite what anyone says and any guidance states, is highly subjective. You only have to look at deletion debates to spot the inconsistencies. We all have blind spots and we all have a standard at which, if an article exceeds it, we will pretty much give it a free pass. That's why

4211:

are not generally independent and therefore do not support notability. However, they may be reliable sources for production information, such as actors, voice actors, people involved with production, publication dates, airing dates, and length of work. Such sources are generally not as reliable as an

3774:

We're asking people with a COI to decide their COI, a COI (unless uninvolved law talking guys have weighed in). They may be right, but it's still a COI. Even without mentioning Wikia by name, it's a COI, because Wikia is the other big wiki. On the other hand, we may as well mention Wikia since it's a

3407:

That may be "notable" as defined outside WP, but within WP, it still needs to be sourced. However, if an album wins an important award, there should be almost no difficulty in finding sources for stating that, which is why those various criteria exist: most of the time, sources can be readily found,

3274:

articles should, appropriately, be considered as extended coverage of the topic they are split from; clearly they don't need to display notability, but the key point is that they need to be a "summary style" article; there are many singular character articles that are all in-universe information that

3266:

that tells editors to go ahead and make changes as they see fit. The place that where these meet is to see if there's involvement and consensus with such articles to make these actions. Part of what seems to be part of the ARbCom is that if an editor thinks articles are non-notable, they should not

3108:

I don't know if it's the intent of this section, or just what I'd like to see, but it seems that sub articles can be appropriate for aspects that span multiple parent articles of fiction. So if a character, or organization, or whatever appears in multiple works (for example, I had an issue regarding

1555:

The wording of NOT#PLOT is not quite fixed--the idea is correct, but there may be some changes there. In fact, it's even be suggested that it be removed altogether, though I opposed that suggestion. There is however a fairly strong feeling, that the articles of fiction should have substantial content

998:

I think the long-tail needs to be developed somewhere, unless I've managed to miss an essay on it. It's a very good point. I think the problem I have with a lot of this is the seeming misunderstanding of how Knowledge works that some editors appear to have. They appear to me to think that the editors

803:

Too much time is being spent by too few people on a guidance document. The group of contributers is too small to be meaningful. My first vote would be to remove WP:N and WP:FICT at this point. I think AfD and the like will produce things that look more like the wikipedia consensus than this will.

496:

But that's my point, you'll never get agreement as to what constitutes notability. It's a redundant exercise trying to. I don't want to argue as to whether this information alone establishes notability because sometimes it can and sometimes it can't and I would hate to see a blanket rule one way or

467:

If people think there is redeeming merit, then what you are left with is a content dispute. These guideline pages are great at offering guidance. But let no-one lose sight of the fact that they are not policy and they are not the answer in a dispute. If there is redeeming merit in any article, the

128:

I am going to suggest that we create a similar one for fictional elements, and name it "FER to list entry" for the cases of merging non-notable characters and elements into an acceptable non-notable summary style sub-article list. (FE being short for "fictional element"). Technically, this would be

4242:

As long as it's understood that there's likely to be a good handful of episode articles that currently claim notability mostly resting on commentary and thus will need to be reviewed, I think this is a reasonable compromise. I'm trying to this if there's an example less specific than listings in TV

4147:

As a matter of common sense, the information would have to be sufficient and important enough that it cannot fit within the LOE formats that we have derived. Real-world information provided as grounds for retention needs to demonstrate notability, not existence. Every broadcast show has some kind of

3943:

I would argue we need to make a comprimise here, in that commentary and the like should be carefully used to demonstrate notability, and better notability can be shown by included other real-world aspects like reviews and so-forth. An article who's only claim to notability is from DVD commentary or

3894:

Creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic are not generally independent and do not support notability. However, they may be reliable sources for production information, such as actors, voice actors, people involved with production, publication dates, airing dates, and length of

3362:

per WP:NOTE; that is, if per these guidelines one of these works were true, editors should be aware that sourcing needs to be provided for the notability aspects but there is a benefit of a doubt that it is likely notable but ultimately, if it cannot meet NOTE, then the work should not be covered as

3113:

sub-articles) it's easier and more informative to discuss them in greator detail over the entire franchise then in one paragraph per article. In this case, television series would not fall into this clause, but series involving multiple movies, novels, video games, etc. would. Whether that was the

1808:

Please assume good faith. Taking the fringe theories noticeboard as the basis means I copied the format of that noticeboard. Specifically, they transcluded the header in, so I did, I copied what templates were on that page and I copied the categories and other format issues. I hope that addresses

1580:

Although I've been following the discussion at the WP:EPISODE, I actually came here from the Village Pump notice. I really like the new proposed guideline, and I am happy that it stresses significant coverage in reliable sources. The only thing I think I would change is to make Be Bold and fix the

879:

It's regularly stated that fancruft is a serious danger to Knowledge, accompanied by lurid anecdotes about fictional minutae growing out of control. But compared to, say, gossip on living people, unsourced medical articles or nationalist tub-thumping, fancruft is never going to hurt anyone. In fact,

384:

Is there any reason we can't move the draft live and let the editing process work out any more kinks, and see where we go from there? I wouldn't suggest removing the disputed tag yet, but it may get more attention if it is on the main page. If we do move it across, I'd suggest blanket reversions be

4109:

of course it does--even to the extent that a really major production is notable per se. It will generally attract conventional sourcing also. At this point, being Blu-ray doesnt give much notability; the first releases in it, maybe. the point of this guideline in general is that notability is the

3939:

The first and third point is fine and the rewrite to that is better than I could put it. As to the second point, I mentioned this before: we had initially come here to the idea that commentaries and interviews are something between primary and secondary sources since they are typically a look-back

2920:

Well, we are definitely supposed to not change episode or character articles until the end of the arbitration. I am not sure how other editors (or administrators) would interpret this injunction in regards to guidelines. I think I see where you are coming from (with the rule of thumb) but I think

2035:

Like Masem said, there's a lot of research and analysis for pretty much all of Shakespeare's major characters (and many of the minor characters). Shakespeare's works, and the elements within them, are often considered ground-breaking, and have impacted and inspired other writers for years. It might

1691:

I guess that depends on one's view of the see also section. In the past I've just seen them as "of interest to the reader" or "would likely be looking for as well", and would put whatever was related. But I can see limiting it to keep the section from getting huge. *shrug* I could go either way. --

1356:

The only reason that we have the reliable sources stuff is that that is the consensual position on what is encyclopedic. Given a topic its own article imparts a "weight" or "worth" to that information, and we need to make sure we are not being biased in deciding what information to give that worth

1135:

Maybe we should remove all of those tags for now and just use a custom message? Something like, "this is generally a guideline, some parts were/are disputed, therefor this page has been updated with proposals" then maybe a diff? Just to help people follow what's going on. We could even manually add

702:

of trying to play intermediary between all the opposing viewpoints. The issue of development being used for notability or not may be something that we stick in there and keep for now, make the proposed version into the current FICT (marked proposed, of course), and see where things fall. The only

501:

exists. It fails almost every notability guidance going, but it is well written, it is sourced and it is a current featured article. I'd rather our notability guidance simply said, look, mostly we want multiple independent cites to reliable sources, but if you can write an encyclopedic article, by

462:

Sorry, but this is getting far too bogged down in bureaucracy for me and is part of teh reason why I and I think a few others oppose this guidance at all. For me using development information straight from the developers to build a good article is not a problem, and I would rather see well written

3841:

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 sources. Such sources can

3792:

My thoughts toward Wiki's is that if article material needs to be deleted or removed by redirect then from Knowledge then it would have an emotional impact towards editors and other IP's and would only anger them to the point where they leave Knowledge. But if there were a chance for more unneeded

3200:

On the same train of thought as above, one of the founding pillars of Knowledge is that it prefers a bad article to no article. The bad article is at least a starting place and can be improved by others. An article's current quality has rather little to do with its long-term status on Knowledge;

3196:

No deadline means no deadline. If for some strange reason the Sherlock Holmes article still sucked right now, that doesn't mean it should be deleted or even pre-emptively merged. Especially as Knowledge slowly starts to build up a corpus on lesser but still relevant works pre-1930, many of these

2402:

I'm not at all sure what you are talking about, or how it relates to this article. Perhaps you should explicitly state what "this problem" is, or "the point I'm trying to make" instead of alluding to it. Plotcruft and copyright violations are two entirely separate things. No one here is arguing

1614:

another point: "Normally, these fictional elements are described as part of the plot within the main article for the fictional work and do not need to demonstrate notability on their own." This is not "normally," this is for relative small articles. The ones that actually concern us most and cause

1365:

if we so desire. But we have to demonstrate why the article in question improves the encyclopedia. The reason why a deletion debate is not a head count is because sometimes people aren't engaging in discussion. An admin is supposed to close in line with the discussion, not the head-counts. There

1175:

I have a little proposal here. Since too many articles on various fiction franchises appear to be created in an effort to mirror the fictional universe itself rather than the real-world franchise, I think it is important to educate editors that this is encyclopedically inaccptable. This notability

826:

needs to be fixed or changed or disputed. If you really feel that how Knowledge defines notabiility should be brought into question, it needs to be addressed there. And I still don't see how the draft is worse than the present version -it clearly allows subarticles, and defines better routes for

4057:

is where dependent notability comes about: The main work is notable, this aspect of the work, as part of the main work, is not necessarily as notable, but we can cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner w.r.t. real-world aspects and has further potential for additional notable information. This

3725:

There's a conflict of interest issue when Knowledge explicitly promotes moving content to Wikia, as the current draft of this policy does. The problem is that Knowledge is a nonprofit, Wikia is a for-profit company, and they some share officers and board members. Knowledge's tax-exempt status can

1113:

I have taking the advice, and have been BOLD and updated FICT with the last present copy of my original proposed version. Please note that I have marked it "disputed" (since it still is) and "proposed", so please do not revert back to the old version without good reason (given that that was also

719:

I'd stay clear of marking it proposed. Mark it as a guideline and disputed, because it is still a disputed guideline whatever text you have up there, and then after a while if there's no outrage we can remove the disputed tag. This isn't a proposal, this is a rewrite. That's why rewrites should

4206:

4180:

are not helpful in terms of establishing notability. In other words, DVD commentaries are generally useful as a "reliable source" (use as a reference in a wikipedia article to support some kinds of claims and information); but they are not generally useful as an "independent source" to establish

4162:

DVD commentaries are not necessarily only about production information; they might be about anything at all. What they are reliable for depends on what the information is -- I would say that in general they would be reliable for production information about the work itself, and less reliable for

3366:

Unfortunately, we cannot do the same in FICT: the breadth and depth of how fictional characters and elements are just too large and varied to be able to even give ground rules, and I've yet to figure out any likely criteria where notability can be demonstrated if some other aspect is met (eg, "A

3312:

guideline of requiring significant coverage in secondary sources; that category really does need an enema to clear it out. Without WP:FICT (if it remains disputed and never achieves consensus), notability falls back to wP:NOTE, and the same requirement is still there for all articles; FICT only

2251:

Seriously, folks. Stop stonewalling. This policy needs to get through and if it doesn't, it won't just make Knowledge a bad resource of information, but it would also lead to copyvio. And when Knowledge gets sued, every user here who voted "no, keep fan mat, i like it, its good, its useful, its

595:

the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we do not have to like it; we may

283:

that was me--at least I was one of them. At this point, I think we should revisit section 3, which I am not sure represents the current consensus about single episodes, and what is necessary to show their individual notability, though I am not yet sure how to reword it. I do think that the final

3287:

that for purposes of merging non-notable content, copying all of the in-universe information without cleanup is better than no copying at all; that can always be trimmed down later, if needed. Again,I think this is suggested by the new guideline, and more could (though unlikely, since it's not

3158:

Mmm. I'd taken a break from looking at fiction in Knowledge, and see another stab at this. As best I can tell, this new revision looks fine. Then again, I liked the old revision too, as well as the old old one. In fact, I think that these new guidelines are only restatements of the original

4052:

That I agree with, as it is in the spirit of trying to establish notability, but does hit non-trivial real world aspects as required by PLOT. I think Ned Scott mentioned this before too, but particularly for these articles that may be considered deeper coverage of a larger topic (but not in a

3870:

type listings. But it would also exclude detailed discussions in the academic literature of production details for long-lost works. Moreover, there's something strange about using notability in this way. The information itself is notable, because we would generally include it in the Knowledge

2725:

The depth of coverage should also be appropriate for the size or length of the work in addition to notable information. A singular work of fiction (such as a single movie, a book, or video game) will likely not require sub-articles to describe parts, instead covering these details in the main

1007:

Editors who edit the article space but not the project space have as much of a voice as those that do. Yes, our guidance is good, but it has to reflect what we all believe, and since no two wikipedians can ever agree on what an encyclopedia actually is, the best way to decide is by writing the

585:

do judge articles on a case by case basis and I'd thank you for not telling me otherwise. I'd also point out that that is what our policies tell us to do, and that anyone holding the belief that bad articles shouldn't exist because they encourage more bad articles need to find another project

4070:

I totally disagree with that. That's an episode that has sufficiently established notability. Critical reception, sales figures, ratings, etc. absolutely establish "notability". Otherwise, what's left? Some sort of vague, shifting threshold that is subject largely to the whims of guideline

3511:

How exactly does this guideline now extend past NOTE? It would really help to achieve consensus to know the issues that you may have with it (knowing from past discussion here that you feel this shouldn't be necessary at all to have, but as we've argued, we need to describe how PLOT and NOTE

2018:

Unfortunately, not knowing how they present it on the CD (how much detail, what references, or the like), I would assume that given these are Shakespeare characters that there's probably some academic works that support it (the real-world notability or in this case, analysis and synthesis and

1870:

Er, I think it's fair to say that that is covered under the board's theme. I see nothing wrong with offering advice as to how to improve non-notable fiction-related articles, or any content questions regarding fiction-based articles as part of a dispute-related process. Even if this FICT is

4171:

because they are not "independent". (Of course, one could imagine an independent commentary -- some later director commenting on a special edition of a DVD of an earlier work -- and that would be a great source to establish notability, and a great source for information of various sorts. But

849:

it should be changed, some of it is discussed on the mailing lists. --attempts at change in the past have not reached consensus, but they continue to be suggested. It's one thing being unhappy about it--the problem is those of us who are do not know how to deal with it and find an acceptable

2680:

Pop culture, whether you like it or not, is the dominant culture of our age. The amount of it on Knowledge is appropriately reflective of its importance and relevance to the general populace. If anything, given Knowledge's intellectual slant and pro-academic, anti-populist policies, it's

3891:

3846:

Sentence 1 lists the sorts of sources available for demonstrating notability. Sentence 2 says "such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews". Sentence 3 then lists some kinds of information that does not demonstrate notability. I've got several issues with this.

2589:

Pop culture can be encyclopedic. Only one of those radio station names seemed to be stretching it. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the radio station section altogether, since I think it's very unlikely anyone will look for them in that way, but I don't see it as a problem either.

149:, and categorially-wise, we'd make sure this was a sub-cat. We could also add sub-cats ("fictional characters" , "fictional settings" ,etc) but that may be excessive Thus, if you do redirect characters, using this as part of the redirect reason will help track those aspects. -- 3393:

It's impossible to prove that sources don't exist for something, making your position logically untenable. An album winning an important award, with no other hard sources, doesn't suggest notability, it is notability. The guidelines don't fall back on notability, they override

3580:

Weak synthesis at the most, not complete OR - you may have noticed that each and every film has an accompanying reference. As the counting has already been performed by an external source, simply placing these onto a table with automatic sorting enabled is a trivial task.

172:(which are probably done as often, if not more so, than episodes since its also done with films, books, etc). Then one more for other fictional elements. Then, of course, make sure the applicable projects know about such goodies. I already put it up on the TV project :) 2429:. The article still stayed up, under two AfDs. I brought up the above example as a specific case where you again have fans of anime\videogames\movies\television and other popular media attempting to upload stuff into absurd places. Why on Earth should the article on 1117:

As Hiding suggested, it is probably time to take off the training wheels and see what sort of problems or non-problems this version creates. Please edit to help fix any wording issues, though major deviations from what is written should be discussed in depth. (see

2813:

I've re-removed it. This awkward rule of thumb needs a stronger justification than 'majority' or the theoretical behaviour of new editors. The 'series = notable' attitude is not one we should be supporting in any way, lest we discourage people creating articles on

2696:

What is of "importance and relevance to the general populace" is not the same as what is "importance and relevance to an ENCYCLOPEDIA." It's true that pop culture predominates, but that doesn't mean Knowledge should resemble Playstation magazine or the Enquirer.

235:

for an example of how this works.) What is nice about both is then if there are show-specific categories, these sub-topics can be included as to still list them in there, but have a separation of what is an article and what is a redirection. (See, for example

349:

For goodness sake, click on the link above for the newest guideline. For the diff between the current guideline and this proposal, open both in two different windows and compare them. In a nutshell, they are completely different. While it still assumes that

2921:

it may be better to start small, wait, and let that change sink in before making so many changes. Perhaps, if you just changed the "rule-of-thumb" paragraph. You could even do as I suggested and post the change to this page, to get other editors comments.

482:"For me using development information straight from the developers to build a good article" The problem is not if we can use development information to improve an article. We certainly can. The dispute is over this information alone establishing notability. 3986:(this is what lead off the ArbCom case). But a larger discussion on using commentary in general for notability is probably buried in the archives on this page (look for the phrase "1.5 sources" which I introduced). But we probably need to revisit that. -- 2002:

have not had much "real-world" notability, even though they are in a lesser-known play by Shakespeare. All their notability is "in-universe", being major characters. Yet the CD version of the 1998 Britannica, a "real" encyclopedia, has articles about them.

3595:

It's synthesis, but acceptable synthesis since the topic of the number of times the word "fuck" is used in a movie is notable. There are several sources that discuss it, and the editors are not creating the synthesis; they're just reporting on it. But

114:

debate (which, for obvious reasons, I'm holding off pushing FICT forward until that's settled), it was suggested that a new redirection template for episodes be created as this helps to ID what episodes have been merged and for tracking of such merges.

3210:

Aggressive merging that is actual merging is fine. Aggressive "merging" that is really deletion is not, unless it's blatantly obvious that something shouldn't have an article. I suppose this goes more with the arbitration case that seems to be going

4042:

no article. Which is, I believe, what WP:FICT already intents, although it states that critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development establish "notability", which is often the wrong conclusion as Lquilter already stated. –

788:

I actually thought we'd put out more notices quite recently to be honest. A few new people drifted by recently. I doubt many more will pass by until it's on the main page. That's when people suddenly take notice, and realise they had an objection.

3755:

Agreed, and we've tried to write the external wiki stuff to say "any GFDL-compat wiki, such as Wikia" (if an explicit example is given), so that while people know where they can go, it doesn't endorse or require the material to be moved only there.

2847:

I re-reverted the changes. I think we need more discussion. Your changes made this guideline less readable. Perhaps you could put a proposed revision here so we can work on it. Besides, we may need to wait until ArbCom makes some decisions.

748:

It's not you or anyone in particular, just,... I think about how much time I've spent trying to figure this out, and I think there's a few full weeks in that. :-) I see a light at the end of the tunnel, so at least there's encouragement there.

612:

I agree. Let's work the editing policy more strongly into the guideline. A specific undertaking that fiction stubs with reasonable potential are acceptable and a stronger statement on the unacceptability of arbitary clean-up deadlines would be a

2882:

Either we do have to wait or we don't. I feel strongly that this rule of thumb will have a damaging effect on the comprehensiveness of Knowledge, and it needs to be removed. My changes made the guideline more readable by removing repetition and

960:

The war against cruft is just bigotry rooted in pseudointellectual snobbery. In centuries to come the Simpsons and Star Trek will be regarded as classics and scholars will analyse and obsess over them as they do the works of Shakespeare now.

3114:

intention or not, this needs to be worded very carefully (or perhaps as others argue, not at all), otherwise this could be a point of contention used to argue for the retention/creation of articles not intended to be endorsed by this effort. -

437:). It needs to be clear that unless I am missing something of a disconnect between fiction in general and tv episodes, FICT and what is suggested for EPISODE need to be on the same terms or else we're going to start this all over again soon. 2767:

and try to create similar lists for less significant one-shot works, seeing such a list for a different show, but we should guide them that this is generally a uncommon, but allowable, case, so care should be taken before creating such.

3474:

even makes that very point. This is the kernel of the argument, some people follow the rules, some people ignore them. Both approaches are equally valid, and compromising or agreeing to disagree are the only options. That's consensus.

2993:

The wording is unclear, the justification even more so, and the distinction between series and standalone is arbitary. It's rule creep and should be avoided. Is there actually a problem with highly non-notable 'list of' articles being

4227:

language for clarity. I believe this addresses all concerns raised in this section of discussion. It leaves "interviews" alone and my guess is they will mostly end up being treated as third-party sources for the time being. Thoughts?

940:

You're right, it doesn't. Funny that, isn't it. But that essay has existed a long long time, and represents the thinking of a lot of Wikipedians and covers most arguments. It could probably be worth a see also link in this guidance.

3642:

yes, assembling obviously relevant well-sourced data in a straightforward manner isnt synthesis--in fact, it's the general way all WP articles should be written. Sometime the information is best shown as a table; sometimes as prose.

1366:

may only be two people discussing at the bottom of an afd, but if they agree on an approach, and none of the other respondents have bothered debating, you can decide that the initial consensus has changed. I don't mind people using

1883:

I agree with you that this should be an option for those cases, I just don't want to make it a requirement that any time someone wants to redirect an episode, for example, that they aren't required to post at the noticeboard first.

880:

compared to almost any real-world topic, fancruft is pretty harmless. Nor is it especially common or pernicious. The belief that it is a problem is probably a result of the editing and viewing patterns of the fiction deletionists.

3420:

Notability is defined by us, it didn't descend from the heavens. It's ignored for geography stubs, as long as they are verifiable, because we use a different notability standard for them. It's ignored in the other direction using

703:

thing that doesn't make me do this now is that we should actually probably create the fiction-related noticeboard that we talked about as it is present as part of "what to do with non-notable topics". Otherwise, I'm ready to be

2726:

article. On the other hand, a book, TV, or video game series may benefit by having a few common fictional element lists that can help to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series.

3197:

topics will be specialist-only and grow with out-of-universe information only slowly. The same problem exists with works composed by authors/producers in non-English speaking countries. That doesn't mean they should be AfDed.

2762:

This statement should be taken as advice, not so much a rule (which is why it was made less bitey). Characters lists for single-shot works can and do exist, but these are not the majority. Newer editors may take the spirit of

303:? Mind you, when I wrote that sentence , I was thinking of the "100 words per 10 minute" concept used by TV and Films, but I see where it may be appropriate to add in other notability considerations other projects have. -- 2744:

Why do standalone works typically not need character lists? An important standalone work will definitely merit character articles, whilst a unimportant serial work may not. Serial or standalone shouldn't come into it at

3170:). The real logic (to me, at least) behind merges, etc. is not notability, but rather that unified articles are often the best way to present the content. That's it. (I seem to recall a proposed merger of this with 3313:

tries to outline many common cases that occurs when writing fiction and how to deal with them within WP's policies and guidelines, and to help prevent much of the edit warring that has gone on for a long time. --

3291:

Overall, I think the guideline, to some extent, covers the concerns, but most of these are behavioral, moreso than content, and because ArbCom is still considering this case, we may have more to add after this.

2619:

Torc2: I'm not saying the articles aren't appropriately listed. I'm saying that it's friggin' bizarre to see a disambiguation of X list 50% fan-material. There is plenty of stuff on there that shouldn't belong.

1596:

I see no problems with the new guideline, except that I believe that deletion should be after the consideration of merging, and I believe transwiki should always be a major consideration of deletion discussions.

3252: 536:

I really would love to include a simple sentence that states this, because this helps to establish this is truly a guideline. Maybe, after "a fictional topic is presumed notable if it has blah blah blah.

2470:

article. The AfD results were correct. Everything in it is descriptive (thus no OR), and there is no copyright violation. There is no reason for Knowledge to fear any from this article. The article on

3854:

Second, I take this paragraph to mean that DVD commentaries and interviews could "count" for demonstrating notability, which I find troubling since they are not generally "independent of the subject" per

1795:

Adding to the bureaucratic mire always seems like a good idea. Taking the fringe theories noticeboard as the basis legitimises that view that fancruft is a profound problem, rather than a trifling one.--

2731:

I have reverted this with the edit to make it less bitey. One-shot works should typically not need a completely separate character list, but we should not prevent it, just offer guidance against it. --

854:

WP:N as it stands, or Notability in an absolute defined sense for a topic, or popularity, also defined for a topic. I do not necessarily mean to be more inclusive, just more consistent and predictable.

284:

sentence ought to be not just "relative to the length of the original work", but "relative to the length and importance..." That something is long, doesnt mean its worth discussing in detail (and v.v.).

1424:

I'll be honest: While the spirit of the change is good, the results in editing won't be. Read the new paragraph from the perspective of an editor interested in in-universe details, who thinks that plot

1502:

WP:NOT#PLOT like "Keep information but follow WP:NOT#PLOT". The way it is now, it reads like "These are the policies and guidelines, but ignore them because we really need to preserve information". –

1091:

Does anybody know the percentage of Knowledge's articles that are fiction articles? I've seen it mentioned that about 10% are biographies, but I haven't seen a figure for fiction articles. I've seen

3189:, and this is no big deal. No one complains that the spinoff is somehow harming Knowledge. The same should be true for largely in-universe articles that would be too long in the parent article. 3550: 3337:

take it as a starting point, not a brick wall. For example, the film notability proviso allowing articles on little-known films if they represent an important milestone for a particular country.--

1236:

be retained, even if not in its own article. That's the substance behind merging, basically. So suddenly it struck me, why not go back to the source. Because this guidance doesn't just draw on

3162:

My main concern remains that fiction articles should be treated exactly like other articles on Knowledge are. Right or wrong, Knowledge has chosen to be an encyclopedia of practically anything

1724:

We need to create it? :-) (I took out the mention of it in the version as I didn't want people trying to use something that didn't exist yet, but we should now go ahead and get that going.) --

4148:

critical reception & ratings info. But such info needs to establish notability to permit a standalone article since - after all - that is what the article will principally be about.

3528:

I think I got that from a previous revision, sorry. I guess I'll go back to saying we should rely on NOTE since it's way more stable and leave what this page is discussing up to WAF. -

4031:

episode: If someone wrote an episode article with two paragraphs of production info from a DVD commentary, and then added one trivial reception sentence based on the ratings and a poor

2311:

The revised version is now up (though marked disputed), and there's been a few live edits but certainly not enough time to determine if there's major opposition for it or not yet. --

358:

have not moved, it does give more guidance regarding what is considered a RS and suggestions regarding where to find them. However, you need to do the work of comparing yourself.

2656:

may have a few pop culture topics in it, but most of these are works, not characters, and works are likely to be notable. So ignoring those, there are three characters on there:

4176:

most DVD commentaries are directors, producers, and actors, directly affiliated with the show, talking about their experiences on the show. Highly reliable for those things, but

1959:(in general, not the specific article dealing with what it is) get their own articles, as a subpage summary of whatever the series is? What about important series concepts, like 2479:

sure should. I still don't know where you got your list. Did you just make it up? It sounds more like you want the rules to change because other editors don't think like you.

4196: 2788:

You're assuming that the 'majority' in Knowledge is representative of the real world. I think it might be, but the impact is so slight that it should not be mentioned at all.--

1264:, that we collectively decide on how to proceed. Or something like that. Anyway, I've made the tweak, and I hope I've explained why and why I think it represents consensus. 2055:

I'm not understanding your point, so perhaps you could restate it. Either there are sources which cover Hermione and Leontes or there are not. You seem to be saying both.

465:

in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however.

1898:

Totally agree - I actually added text that local consensus should be sought first; the board should not be the first place if you want to do something to an article. --

1912:

I think the noticeboard would be a good idea--they really do work in the other places they are being used, PW:RS in particular. . Centralizing discussions is a way to

3466:

simply restated what was common in a large number of other guidelines on notability, and then crept to where it is now. This page came first, and can go further than

1531:. But I'm not fussed where it goes. I just feel it needs to be in there as it is the policy on which the merging, tagging and so on described later is founded upon. 3675:

I have to agree with the above - this list is notable. Mind you, the lead needs to be cleaned up because this feels more like a list for list's sake (eg edging on

2527:

I think Zen is missing a major point in why we have disambig pages, and also that the title of the work is named "X" instead of simply having an X in the title. --

1851:

It's encouraging to see that someone is already using the board, but we should be careful it's made clear that it is for questions about notability, not a step for

3866:

Third, the last sentence lists some information that is not "notable" even if the source is "reliable". I take issue with this. It seems this is crated to exclude

1675:

It's a bit too little about notability of characters, but I would think that WP:MOS-AM would be good to include on WP:WAF (MOS for fiction works) as a See Also. --

1043:

It's an opinion that some people hold. What do you want us to do about it? Kidnap them and brainwash them so they think how we want them to think? Get over it. --

1092: 771: 568:

You don't judge articles on case-by-case basis. The belief that fiction stubs and start-classes are bad because they 'encourage' more fancruft contradicts this.--

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 804:

My second vote would be to stick with WP:FICT as it stands. I appreciate all the (very) hard work, but I just don't think it's close to where consensus lies.

389:. If enough of us here are happy with the shape if not every word, I think it would need more than the odd reverter to counterbalance that weight of opinion. 413:

Agreed. I think it can be tweaked while live. I think Masem wanted to present it to a larger audience, but I think that can be done while "live," as well.

3807:

I have pointed this out before. Beyond the COI re policy concern, there is the fact the inter-wiki links such as those with a wikia: prefix do not include a

2652:

Now I've got a good feel what Zenwhat's complaint is about... and, while I'm all for notability, I'm not sure if I agree with what Zen's talking about. Ok,

3166:. It's just part of the identity of the project. That doesn't mean that there isn't a certain hurdle topics must clear, but it's very low (case in point: 4181:

notability. They can be used as sources but not notability. Is that distinction clear to everyone? Can we agree to make that distinction as appropriate? --

1361:

as a consensual position to fall back on when we disagree and can not find a consensus. But if we can agree that a topic is worth covering, we can ignore

231:, respectively. Both templates support an additional parameter to allow the work the element of fiction represents to be sub-categorized further. (See 3128:

I believe your approach is what was intended, however I must dispute your comment regarding TV series - the unit of fiction in terms of TV is not the

2605:

or something very similar. That is the point of a disambig page, to list those pages. If you don't think they should be listed then maybe some of the

4195:

So, thinking about the above comments on interviews, and looking at the discussion Hobit & I had on this issue in the (ever lengthier) RFC (at

3895:

work. Such sources are generally not as reliable as an independent source for claims about the importance or impact of the work. Listings, such as

268:

restates the nutshell to make it more clear that sub-articles are appropriate (I know this was a concern of someone and I can't remember who...) --

4002:(ec) I would put it this way: Demonstration of significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject (i.e. notability as defined by 3819:

of the target. For a COI to exist there does not need to be a nefarious plan, there just needs to be an appearance of a conflict (and, of course,

2281:"But compared to, say, gossip on living people, unsourced medical articles or nationalist tub-thumping, fancruft is never going to hurt anyone" 1783:. It is meant to help smooth out issues with fiction and notability, not to create any new rules, nor a required step in content disputes.-- 1766:

I oppose this noticeboard. It's another layer of bureaucracy and will contribute to the hysteria which surrounds the notability of fiction.--

1248:. We used to do policy trifectas, because of triangulation and tripods and all of that, three being a strong shape, and it seems to me that 2569:

What are you talking about? What on that list doesn't belong, aside from the math links, half the science links, and the radio stations?

3875:

does, and specifically state that "listings", indexes, and general reference material that does not provide significant coverage, such as

1310:

guideline. However, I think Hiding's trifecta is more simple and more in the spirit of Knowledge than repeating "significant coverage in

3794: 232: 47: 17: 539:

However, notability of topics should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and should consider the spirit of Knowledge's core policies of

224: 2681:

underrepresented. What seems trivial to you is not trivial to a good chunk of the population, and therefore is not trivial at all.

228: 3079:

So it's actually the extent of the narrative, not anything to do with being in a series or not. Why not just state that instead?--

522:. We'll also give you some time to get it there, but the worse the shape the article is in, the more likely it is to be deleted. 2728:(the "will likely not" was changed from "should rarely"). Nydas cited this as not needed as too many exceptions to the rule. 3358:

But each of those fall back on WP:N , stating that there are cases where it is very likely a film or book will be notable, but

3186: 2019:

critical review per secondary sources) that is needed) in addition to the general analyses of Shakespeare plays that exist. --

1103: 1047: 992: 970: 895: 237: 3851:

First, it's unclear -- it took me a while to parse it and I'm a lawyer, used to difficult sentences with overlapping criteria.

3329:

We do not have to fall back on the general notability guideline if we do not want to. Better notability guidelines, such as

2243: 1737: 770:

Whether it's "live" or not, it seems to be time to put more notices out about it, and request comments, like mentioned at

434: 1073:

Exactly. Since objective facts about the 'threat' of fancruft is lacking, it's only natural to seek other explanations.--

3983: 2388:. This guideline, again, has nothing to do with it. I also don't see anybody besides you suggesting we add any of it. 217: 207: 166: 1005:

We're here to write an encyclopedia — not to write rules on how to write one, or to write rules on writing those rules.

3239: 2467: 2418: 1000: 556:, but not the complete freedom to write a 4 page article about a minor character that showed up once in an episode. -- 265: 2536:

Nothing about his comment suggests he's a newcomer. If I was attempting to bite him, I would do so on his talkpage.

3780: 3623: 3533: 3501: 3215:

Does this sound reasonable? Are these principles consistent with the guideline as written, or am I misreading it?

2764: 1841: 328: 38: 1458:

This is already policy, so I'm not sure I understand your objection. This is not a "new" paragraph it is policy.

3741:

Legal guidance to date has said this is a non-issue, but feel free to take this up with the foundation's lawyer.

444: 119: 966: 143: 4132:

notability, but since it's giving real-world context (making WP:PLOT happy), and is a part of a larger topic (

4040:

separate article; significant amount of non-trivial real-world information from non-independant sources =: -->

4015:

Don't quite follow exactly what you're trying to get at here ( I think I do, but could you restate that? :) --

2079:

Sorry. Just saw this gem and thought I'd throw it into the conversation as an ideal example of this problem:

3798: 3305: 3167: 2286: 1315: 923:

That essay doesn't discuss or justify the danger or scale of fancruft, described as the 'crapflood' above.--

4250: 4237: 4190: 4163:

information about the work's influence on other works. My main concern is using DVD commentaries to assess

4157: 4140: 4121: 4103: 4080: 4065: 4047: 4022: 4010: 3993: 3977: 3951: 3934: 3917: 3827: 3802: 3784: 3763: 3750: 3735: 3704: 3686: 3654: 3627: 3609: 3590: 3574: 3537: 3519: 3505: 3484: 3433: 3415: 3402: 3374: 3345: 3320: 3299: 3244: 3224: 3177:

I'm not exactly sure how the guideline should be changed (if at all) in response to these concerns, but...

3145: 3123: 3087: 3046: 3002: 2968: 2930: 2891: 2857: 2826: 2796: 2775: 2753: 2738: 2713: 2690: 2675: 2646: 2613: 2582: 2563: 2531: 2521: 2502: 2488: 2460: 2412: 2397: 2374: 2344: 2335:

instead, but it's not a faulty question to ask. It also has absolutely nothing to do with this guideline.

2318: 2305: 2272: 2064: 2048: 2026: 2012: 1987: 1972: 1944: 1927: 1905: 1893: 1878: 1864: 1845: 1818: 1803: 1790: 1774: 1761: 1749: 1731: 1718: 1696: 1682: 1669: 1645: 1626: 1605: 1590: 1567: 1540: 1506: 1493: 1467: 1453: 1415: 1401: 1379: 1351: 1301: 1273: 1205: 1162: 1145: 1129: 1081: 1064: 1035: 1017: 950: 931: 914: 887:. I suspect that our fiction deletionists are more stung by criticism from them than is really warranted.-- 866: 834: 813: 798: 782: 756: 743: 729: 714: 679: 645: 621: 607: 576: 563: 531: 491: 477: 457: 429:

If people think this is ready to go live, I've no problem (tagging it, of course, as proposed, etc. etc.)

422: 408: 398: 367: 332: 310: 295: 275: 255: 195: 181: 156: 3284: 3136:(with respect to comparison with games - any alternative comparison is obviously absurd in this context). 2665: 2591: 1960: 404:

I read over Masem's latest draft again, and it has my support. I would therefore also support the move. –

177: 111: 3776: 3619: 3586: 3529: 3497: 3141: 1837: 1665: 1216:

Last night whilst trying to sleep an idea came to me about tweaking the opening to contain a portion of

1181: 988: 324: 133: 2661: 2624: 2351: 3982:

Off the top, I know discussion of using commentaries to make Scrubs episodes notable was talked about

3925:

Disagree because interviews can establish notability and are independent and do constitute coverage.

4212:

independent source for claims about the importance or impact of the work. Listings, such as those in

3746: 3308:

is not necessarily a demonstration of consensus; in fact, every topic on WP is guided by the general

2926: 2853: 2441: 1601: 1489: 1411: 1347: 1297: 418: 363: 2494:

The person in the linked talk page made a perfectly innocent comment. What exactly is the problem?--

4223:

The interview section & extraneous language is struck out, and I inserted some of the original

4099: 2253: 2007: 1968: 1481: 1335: 1261: 962: 667: 386: 2121: 4233: 4186: 4153: 3973: 3913: 3824: 3700: 3259: 3220: 3119: 2653: 2544: 2540: 2517: 2476: 2408: 2381: 2332: 1999: 1889: 1860: 1586: 902: 883:

There's an Internet subculture devoted to mocking of over-zealous fans as typified by sites like

631: 487: 4072: 3863:, generally, for all kinds of information, but I don't see how they go toward adding notability. 3601: 2682: 2574: 2480: 2389: 2336: 1326:

Do not introduce unencyclopedic information. Take the time to remove unencyclopedic information

241: 3837:

The language in the paragraph with creator commentaries is unclear to me. It currently reads:

3570: 3422: 3036: 2958: 2709: 2657: 2642: 2573:

Mega Man X, but the rest are totally valid. There isn't any "cruft" on that list whatsoever.

2559: 2456: 2422: 2370: 2301: 2268: 2136: 1635:

I wish to thank everyone for their contributions to the new guideline. Well done, you have my

1319: 976: 173: 3775:

COI either way, and will only be resolved when WP and Wikia aren't run by the same people. -

323:

In a nutshell, what's the latest guideline and its difference from the previous guideline? -

4216:, are independent, but would not generally provide the "significant coverage" that supports 3930: 3597: 3582: 3480: 3137: 2060: 1814: 1745: 1714: 1661: 1657: 1536: 1463: 1397: 1375: 1269: 1201: 1177: 1158: 1013: 984: 946: 910: 819: 794: 739: 725: 675: 603: 586:

because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of Knowledge. They may like to review our

527: 473: 394: 191: 3251:

Your last 2 (3) points are part of the ArbCom case dealing with aggressive merging over at

1754:

Modified a bit of the text and added where we should fit in to the process, but awesome. --

905:, that's an essay which sums up the consensus on what fancruft is and how to deal with it. 4076: 3742: 3731: 3605: 3431: 3400: 3343: 3280: 3234: 3085: 3000: 2922: 2889: 2849: 2824: 2794: 2751: 2686: 2578: 2500: 2484: 2475:

doesn't need to mention anything aside from details about the letter 'X' itself; however,

2393: 2355: 2340: 2186: 2150: 1983: 1801: 1772: 1598: 1485: 1407: 1343: 1293: 1079: 1060: 1031: 929: 893: 884: 809: 619: 574: 552:". I think adding that gives the wiggle room that people are looking for for things like 450:

in place for fictional characters and then other fiction but that's not too hard to do. --

414: 359: 2597:

need to be removed. Other than that... this is a disambig page listing articles that are

3899:, are independent, but would not generally provide "significant coverage" that supports 2252:

interesting" should receive a portion of Wikimedia's legal bills, proportional to their

1384:"Do not take the time to remove remove unencyclopedic information" actually contradicts 4137: 4095: 3276: 3263: 2610: 2528: 2509: 2196: 2045: 2004: 1964: 1941: 1693: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1249: 1241: 1225: 1142: 1096: 1044: 779: 704: 655: 627: 507: 355: 4229: 4182: 4149: 4117: 4044: 4007: 3969: 3909: 3696: 3676: 3650: 3216: 3171: 3115: 3110: 2513: 2426: 2404: 2385: 2226: 2216: 2106: 1923: 1885: 1856: 1780: 1622: 1582: 1563: 1503: 1477: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1385: 1325: 1253: 1233: 1229: 1193: 1150:

Yes, thanks to Masem. I added a pointer to the pump to try and drive eyes this way.

1119: 862: 698:

I think more along the lines that, understanding Hiding's frustration, I am mentally

651: 519: 511: 483: 405: 351: 291: 1220:. I think it is the consensus of all of us that information which does not violate 4136:), "dependent-notability" is often enough to make an article on that sub-topic. -- 4133: 3565: 3334: 3330: 3271: 3230:

That sounds completely reasonable and not in line with the guideline as written. --

3032: 2815: 2704: 2637: 2554: 2451: 2365: 2296: 2263: 2176: 1528: 1389: 1330: 1311: 1257: 1245: 1217: 663: 659: 635: 587: 503: 3871:

article. I think it would be better to simply talk about significant coverage, as

2627:"a parasitic organism and primary antagonist in Game Boy Advance Metroid Fusion." 2354:) above would pretty much solidify the point I'm trying make. (Don't do that, per 2156: 435:

this thread where I introduce that as a possible notability guideline for episodes

203:

Ok, I've gone ahead (using what I did over the weekend for TV episodes) to create

4094:

So, development information is nice, but does not help to establish notability? -

4224: 4217: 4168: 4036: 4003: 3926: 3900: 3880: 3872: 3856: 3692: 3476: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3163: 2130: 2056: 1940:

talk page to watch, but I'm all for giving it a try. Lets see where it goes. --

1810: 1741: 1710: 1532: 1524: 1459: 1393: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1289: 1285: 1265: 1237: 1221: 1197: 1154: 1055:

Ii think he's looking to understand why those opinions are held. I know I am.

1009: 942: 906: 823: 790: 735: 721: 671: 599: 548: 540: 523: 515: 469: 390: 187: 46:

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

1836:

Doesn't look good to me either, although I'm sure it was made in good faith. -

4244: 4059: 4016: 3987: 3945: 3757: 3727: 3680: 3513: 3427: 3409: 3396: 3368: 3339: 3314: 3293: 3231: 3081: 3040: 2996: 2962: 2885: 2820: 2790: 2769: 2747: 2732: 2669: 2543:. There's a good chunk of fancruft there. When the majority of the article on 2496: 2312: 2146: 2020: 1979: 1899: 1872: 1797: 1784: 1768: 1755: 1725: 1676: 1641: 1185: 1123: 1075: 1056: 1027: 925: 889: 828: 805: 750: 708: 639: 615: 570: 557: 451: 304: 269: 249: 150: 2327:

only has one person posing a question about a series they heard about called

1916:

bureaucracy and encourage ordinary interest WP editors to participate fully.

1406:

No, I fixed it. I simply could not get the words to say what I intended. :)

1306:

I know I am probably going to be misunderstood. Yes, I understand this is a

1095:

image of the English Knowledge broken down, which is funny but not accurate.

2434: 2231: 2221: 2191: 2166: 2111: 2101: 1956: 1284:

You have great thoughts while you are trying to get to sleep. I think this

3275:

would not meet the requirements of summary style, as well as at issue with

980: 850:

substitute. I'll have an essay on this eventually, maybe. Saying it should

1336:

Use discussion and collaboration to gain the wisdom to know the difference

4112: 3816: 3810: 3645: 2171: 2141: 1918: 1617: 1558: 857: 286: 3679:, but I'm sure there's a broader topic this list can be connected to. -- 3496:

I don't like it. This guideline should go no further than than NOTE. -

3181:

Summary style breakoffs for lists and compilation articles are a-okay.

2323:

I honestly can't figure out what you're complaining about. The link to

3968:

on relevant talk spaces but haven't had a chance to go thru it yet.) --

2201: 2161: 1871:

rejected, I think the noticeboard should stay for the same purpose. --

734:

Oh, and I apologise to you Masem for draining you with my frustration.

186:

The middle earth and comics projects already have templates for this.

2723:

Nydas took out the following, I've added it back in with one change:

2324: 2211: 2116: 2082: 245: 772:

Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 15#Lack of participation

2236: 2126: 2091: 1429:

information. And yes, plot technically is information, but so are

3253:

Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

2403:

that we should keep copywrited material in fictional articles. -

4110:

result of many aspects, all together, to make the work notable.

3965: 3309: 2206: 1141:

And again, thank you to Masem for all the hard work on this. --

553: 498: 1936:

I'm a bit reluctant on the idea only because it does seem like

3560: 3182: 2699: 2632: 2549: 2446: 2360: 2291: 2258: 1963:, detailing what makes a character be mutant in X-Men etc.? - 544: 25: 3823:— as there often is when millions of dollars are a stake). -- 3721:

Plugging Wikia in a policy may create a conflict of interest.

4035:

review, the article would not demonstrate notability (as in

3288:

content resolution we're expecting from) result from ArbCom.

1658:

Wikiproject Anime and Manga guidelines on character articles

1581:

article number one on the list of options instead of two.

3879:, does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of 3618:

This comes up every so often. It's an acceptable page. -

3174:

awhile back, that I guess went nowhere? I'd support it.)

2444:. All of this unencyclopedic content needs to be flushed. 2472: 2430: 2183:, but they're close enough, besides it's 2tally teh kewl) 2180: 2087: 2072: 3726:

become an issue. We need legal guidance in this area. --

2044:

has been the subject of great discussion in history. --

1370:

as a starting position. I mind when they won't debate.

1288:

is what this guideline should truly harken back to, not

162:

I think maybe two more, one specifically for characters

2331:. They might be off a bit and should have asked it at 1151: 3551:

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

3546:

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

3185:

cheerfully breaks off the long, boring, and technical

3031:

Yes, because if we are saying that these are fine by

1809:

your concerns which I personally take exception too.

1498:

Maybe, if we want to keep the new paragraph, move it

2547:

contains pop culture references, we have a problem.

3458:It's worth remembering this was a guideline before 3691:And there is at least one major secondary source, 975:I have already commented on this in depth over at 1740:, I based the format on the Fringe theories one. 1256:, that we delete items which are unencyclopedic, 3960:commentaries in this way, but other people have 1511:Personally I thought it was better coming after 1114:"disputed", this is the attempt to correct it). 4203:issue. So here's my revised proposed language: 2097:Ideas of anime\fan material\spam we could add: 1994:On real-world notability and real encyclopedias 1331:Edit in and retain all encyclopedic information 225:Category:Fictional character redirects to lists 3191:This is not done to "save" in-universe content 2358:-- I'm just saying, that's what it would do). 1656:Does this guideline also want to link to the 229:Category:Fictional element redirects to lists 8: 3600:is correct, there is no OR in this article. 626:There has to be some meeting ground between 4209:and interviews regarding the work or topic 4167:: By and large, they do not qualify under 3283:. One thing I suggested in ARbCom and at 1998:Characters like Hermione and Leontes from 1322:). We should follow this simple formula: 1853:Dealing with non-notable fictional topics 1260:, that we retain useful information, and 983:from the talk page for my reasoned view. 440:Also, I do want to get the equivalent of 1474:editor interested in in-universe details 3558:Wonderful original research, isn't it? 1392:. Are you sure that is what you mean? 301:length and sourced coverage of the work 2719:Depth of coverage - one shot vs series 2539:Ned, you're right: But take a look at 2244:List of things containing the letter X 2242:We could also maybe make a list, like 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3262:states there's no rush, there's also 2040:as some of his other works, but even 827:dealing with non-notable content. -- 7: 1523:was to be complied with first, then 1176:guideline is the very place for it. 654:, pretty much, which is pretty much 518:, we'll give you a free pass called 4220:; feature articles certainly would. 3555:Something else I just came across. 2421:is also "already dealt with" under 1709:What happened to the notice board? 506:, which stays within the spirit of 233:Category:Episode redirects to lists 18:Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction) 3258:Part of the problem is that while 2075:needs more anime\fan material\spam 385:blanket reverted as unhelpful per 24: 4243:guide to apply to all fiction. -- 2466:There was nothing wrong with the 2277:To respond to one comment above: 874: 4207:sources. Creators' commentaries 4041:separate article; neither =: --> 634:(er, that's an essay, let's say 240:. Test cases for these are are 29: 3360:still require reliable sourcing 3187:List of FTP server return codes 1978:I'd say important ones should. 238:Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes 2630:Come on. How is this notable? 720:happen in situ, to be honest. 125:is the new template for this. 1: 1738:Knowledge:Fiction/Noticeboard 4251:22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4238:21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 4191:16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 4158:20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 4141:04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4128:(ec) It might not establish 4122:04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4104:02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4081:19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4066:16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4053:summary style manner), that 4048:15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4023:15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4011:15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3994:15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3984:Talk:List of Scrubs episodes 3978:15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3952:14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3935:13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3918:13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3887:So, my proposed rewrite is: 3828:08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 3803:08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 3785:05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3764:05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3751:05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3736:04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3705:15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 3687:15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3655:15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3628:04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3610:21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 3591:20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 3575:20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 3538:19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 3520:18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 3506:18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 3485:13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3434:09:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 3416:14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3403:14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3375:13:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3346:08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3321:06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3300:06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3245:06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3225:06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3146:18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3124:18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3088:20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3047:17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3003:16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2969:14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2931:11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2892:10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2858:09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2827:08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2797:09:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2776:14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2754:14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2739:13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2714:20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2691:21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2676:15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2647:14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2614:01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2583:01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2564:01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2532:09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2522:10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2503:08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2489:04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2461:02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2413:02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2398:02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2375:02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2345:00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2319:00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2306:00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2273:00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2179:(Z isn't the same letter as 2065:13:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2049:08:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2027:07:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2013:07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1988:03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 1973:06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1945:20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1928:19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1906:20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1894:20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1879:19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1865:19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1846:19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1819:13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1804:21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1791:17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1775:17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1762:16:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1750:15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1732:12:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1719:11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1697:22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1683:22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1670:22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1646:05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1627:03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1606:00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1591:20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1568:06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1541:13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1519:primacy, made it clear that 1507:12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1494:12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1482:discussion and collaboration 1468:12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1454:12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1416:11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1402:11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1380:11:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1352:11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1302:10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1274:10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1206:10:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1163:11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1146:06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1130:01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1104:14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1082:22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1065:01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1048:23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1036:01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1018:23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 993:23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 971:23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 951:23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 932:23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 915:23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 896:22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 867:04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 835:02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 814:01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 799:23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 783:23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 757:22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 744:22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 730:22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 715:20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 680:00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 646:00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 622:23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 608:23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 577:23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 564:22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 532:22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 492:19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 478:15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 458:14:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 423:12:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 409:12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 399:11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 368:09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 333:08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 311:07:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 296:07:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 276:15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 256:19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 196:13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 182:17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 157:16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 4027:I'll try to explain with a 3695:, dealing with this topic. 2609:should be taken to AfD. -- 2468:Back to the Future timeline 2419:Back to the Future timeline 1001:Knowledge:Practical process 818:I have not seen anyone, at 266:User:Masem/wp-fict-proposed 4269: 3833:creator commentary section 1136:the categories if we want. 3304:Also adding: pointing to 2380:Adding all that stuff to 1576:Support for new guideline 1449:has to say about that. – 244:(Doctor Who element) and 4197:Hobit's line in the sand 3168:Category: Internet memes 2508:Agreed, why the need to 2384:is already forbidden by 2350:Adding all the stuff to 1602:Koromon survived intact. 979:- please take a look at 875:The 'danger' of fancruft 707:and see what happens. -- 261:Slight revision in draft 106:New redirection template 3306:Category:Internet memes 2287:two wrongs make a right 1171:proposal by Dorftrottel 1026:It's a darn fine rant. 1003:, and which notes that 4222: 3109:this with some of the 2666:Mega Man X (character) 2592:Mega Man X (character) 1961:Mutant (Marvel Comics) 1951:What about MacGuffins? 1252:is a triangulation of 1192:Actually, that's what 650:You've just described 248:(pokemon character) -- 4204: 3425:as a justification.-- 2256:on Knowledge policy. 1599:Not even Mr. Lister's 1480:and follow that with 1318:of the subject" (see 42:of past discussions. 3270:On the first point, 3183:FTP#FTP return codes 3154:Revision comments... 2442:List of X characters 2254:democratic authority 3821:there may be a plan 3815:and thus boost the 2765:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1244:, it also draws on 593:, which notes that 218:FictR to list entry 208:CharR to list entry 167:CharR to list entry 3430: 3399: 3342: 3084: 2999: 2888: 2823: 2793: 2750: 2654:X (disambiguation) 2545:X (disambiguation) 2541:X (disambiguation) 2510:bite the newcomers 2499: 2477:X (disambiguation) 2382:X (disambiguation) 2333:X (disambiguation) 2153:, awesome cartoon) 1800: 1771: 1515:because that gave 1472:Simply point the " 1078: 928: 903:Knowledge:Fancruft 892: 618: 573: 129:a special case of 3933: 3749: 3483: 3426: 3395: 3338: 3255:, as you mention. 3205:should be judged. 3080: 2995: 2929: 2884: 2856: 2819: 2789: 2746: 2662:X (Metroid enemy) 2658:X (Marvel Comics) 2625:X (Metroid enemy) 2495: 2440:And then there's 2352:X (disambiguation 2063: 2042:The Winter's Tale 2010: 2000:The Winter's Tale 1817: 1796: 1781:assume good faith 1767: 1748: 1717: 1604: 1539: 1492: 1466: 1414: 1400: 1378: 1350: 1300: 1272: 1204: 1196:is for and does. 1161: 1074: 1016: 949: 924: 913: 888: 797: 742: 728: 678: 614: 606: 598:Hope that helps. 569: 530: 476: 421: 397: 366: 223:, which populate 194: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4260: 4248: 4063: 4020: 3991: 3949: 3929: 3777:Peregrine Fisher 3761: 3745: 3684: 3620:Peregrine Fisher 3568: 3563: 3530:Peregrine Fisher 3517: 3498:Peregrine Fisher 3479: 3413: 3372: 3318: 3297: 3242: 3237: 3044: 2966: 2925: 2852: 2773: 2736: 2707: 2702: 2673: 2640: 2635: 2557: 2552: 2454: 2449: 2368: 2363: 2316: 2299: 2294: 2266: 2261: 2059: 2024: 2008: 1903: 1876: 1838:Peregrine Fisher 1813: 1788: 1759: 1744: 1729: 1713: 1680: 1644: 1597: 1535: 1488: 1462: 1410: 1396: 1374: 1346: 1312:reliable sources 1296: 1268: 1200: 1157: 1127: 1101: 1012: 945: 909: 832: 793: 754: 738: 724: 712: 674: 643: 602: 561: 526: 502:which we mean a 472: 455: 449: 445:ER to list entry 443: 417: 393: 380:Time to move on? 362: 325:Peregrine Fisher 308: 273: 253: 222: 216: 212: 206: 190: 171: 165: 154: 148: 142: 138: 132: 124: 120:ER to list entry 118: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4268: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4246: 4061: 4018: 3989: 3947: 3835: 3759: 3723: 3682: 3564: 3559: 3548: 3515: 3411: 3370: 3316: 3295: 3240: 3235: 3156: 3042: 2964: 2771: 2734: 2721: 2703: 2698: 2671: 2636: 2631: 2553: 2548: 2450: 2445: 2364: 2359: 2314: 2295: 2290: 2262: 2257: 2187:Final Fantasy X 2151:Powerpuff Girls 2077: 2071:The article on 2022: 1996: 1953: 1901: 1874: 1850:<undent: --> 1786: 1757: 1727: 1707: 1678: 1654: 1640: 1578: 1357:too, so we use 1342:Works for me. 1214: 1173: 1125: 1111: 1109:Updated version 1097: 885:Something Awful 877: 845:Lots of people 830: 822:, suggest that 752: 710: 641: 559: 453: 447: 441: 382: 306: 271: 263: 251: 220: 214: 210: 204: 169: 163: 152: 146: 144:R to list entry 140: 136: 130: 122: 116: 110:In the current 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4266: 4264: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4193: 4160: 4144: 4143: 4125: 4124: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4068: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3941: 3937: 3906: 3905: 3885: 3884: 3864: 3852: 3844: 3843: 3834: 3831: 3814: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3722: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3613: 3612: 3593: 3547: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3523: 3522: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3364: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3324: 3323: 3302: 3289: 3268: 3256: 3248: 3247: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3194: 3155: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2757: 2756: 2720: 2717: 2694: 2693: 2678: 2617: 2616: 2586: 2585: 2525: 2524: 2492: 2491: 2416: 2415: 2400: 2348: 2347: 2321: 2240: 2239: 2234: 2229: 2224: 2219: 2214: 2209: 2204: 2199: 2197:Romeo x Juliet 2194: 2189: 2184: 2174: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2144: 2139: 2134: 2124: 2119: 2114: 2109: 2104: 2076: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2030: 2029: 1995: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1736:First stab at 1706: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1686: 1685: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1609: 1608: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1470: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1382: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1333: 1328: 1304: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1138: 1137: 1110: 1107: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1068: 1067: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1021: 1020: 963:Colonel Warden 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 935: 934: 918: 917: 876: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 840: 839: 838: 837: 801: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 732: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 438: 427: 426: 425: 381: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 316: 315: 314: 313: 298: 262: 259: 201: 200: 199: 198: 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: 4265: 4252: 4249: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4226: 4221: 4219: 4215: 4210: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4179: 4178:those sources 4175: 4170: 4166: 4161: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4142: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4126: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4114: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4069: 4067: 4064: 4056: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4046: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4021: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3995: 3992: 3985: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3950: 3942: 3938: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3904: 3902: 3896: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3869: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3853: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3832: 3830: 3829: 3826: 3825:Jack Merridew 3822: 3818: 3812: 3808: 3805: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3795:71.59.237.110 3786: 3782: 3778: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3765: 3762: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3720: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3685: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3594: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3567: 3562: 3556: 3553: 3552: 3545: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3521: 3518: 3512:interact). -- 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3435: 3432: 3429: 3424: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3376: 3373: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3322: 3319: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3301: 3298: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3273: 3272:summary style 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3246: 3243: 3238: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3209: 3204: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3175: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3160: 3153: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3112: 3111:Resident Evil 3107: 3106: 3089: 3086: 3083: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3048: 3045: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3004: 3001: 2998: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2970: 2967: 2960: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2893: 2890: 2887: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2817: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2798: 2795: 2792: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2777: 2774: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2749: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2737: 2729: 2727: 2718: 2716: 2715: 2711: 2706: 2701: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2677: 2674: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2639: 2634: 2628: 2626: 2621: 2615: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599:X (something) 2596: 2593: 2588: 2587: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2551: 2546: 2542: 2537: 2534: 2533: 2530: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2501: 2498: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2458: 2453: 2448: 2443: 2438: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2372: 2367: 2362: 2357: 2353: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2325:Talk:X#Anime? 2322: 2320: 2317: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2265: 2260: 2255: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2238: 2235: 2233: 2230: 2228: 2227:JetX Airlines 2225: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2217:Speed Racer X 2215: 2213: 2210: 2208: 2205: 2203: 2200: 2198: 2195: 2193: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2140: 2138: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2118: 2115: 2113: 2110: 2108: 2107:Star Ocean EX 2105: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2095: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083:Talk:X#Anime? 2080: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2006: 2001: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1950: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1934: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1877: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1704: 1698: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1575: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435:WP:NOT#LYRICS 1432: 1428: 1423: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1332: 1329: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1170: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1121: 1115: 1108: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1100: 1094: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1006: 1002: 997: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 973: 972: 968: 964: 952: 948: 944: 939: 938: 937: 936: 933: 930: 927: 922: 921: 920: 919: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 894: 891: 886: 881: 868: 864: 860: 859: 853: 848: 844: 843: 842: 841: 836: 833: 825: 821: 817: 816: 815: 811: 807: 802: 800: 796: 792: 787: 786: 785: 784: 781: 777: 773: 758: 755: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 731: 727: 723: 718: 717: 716: 713: 706: 701: 697: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 648: 647: 644: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 623: 620: 617: 611: 610: 609: 605: 601: 597: 592: 589: 584: 580: 579: 578: 575: 572: 567: 566: 565: 562: 555: 551: 550: 546: 542: 535: 534: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 500: 495: 494: 493: 489: 485: 481: 480: 479: 475: 471: 466: 461: 460: 459: 456: 446: 439: 436: 432: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 411: 410: 407: 403: 402: 401: 400: 396: 392: 388: 379: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 334: 330: 326: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 312: 309: 302: 299: 297: 293: 289: 288: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 274: 267: 260: 258: 257: 254: 247: 243: 239: 234: 230: 226: 219: 209: 197: 193: 189: 185: 184: 183: 179: 175: 168: 161: 160: 159: 158: 155: 145: 135: 126: 121: 113: 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: 4213: 4208: 4205: 4200: 4177: 4173: 4164: 4129: 4111: 4093: 4054: 4032: 4028: 3961: 3957: 3907: 3898: 3893: 3886: 3876: 3867: 3860: 3845: 3836: 3820: 3806: 3791: 3724: 3644: 3557: 3554: 3549: 3495: 3359: 3214: 3202: 3190: 3176: 3161: 3157: 3133: 3129: 2883:wordiness.-- 2816:Captain Ahab 2730: 2724: 2722: 2695: 2629: 2622: 2618: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2570: 2538: 2535: 2526: 2493: 2439: 2417: 2349: 2328: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2250: 2247: 2241: 2177:Dragonball Z 2122:Animeplanetx 2096: 2086: 2081: 2078: 2041: 2037: 1997: 1954: 1937: 1917: 1913: 1852: 1849: 1835: 1708: 1705:Notice board 1655: 1636: 1616: 1579: 1557: 1499: 1473: 1439:WP:NOT#STATS 1426: 1307: 1280: 1279: 1262:WP:CONSENSUS 1215: 1174: 1116: 1112: 1098: 1090: 1042: 1004: 974: 959: 882: 878: 856: 851: 846: 775: 769: 699: 668:WP:CONSENSUS 594: 590: 582: 538: 464: 430: 387:WP:CONSENSUS 383: 300: 285: 264: 202: 174:AnmaFinotera 134:R to section 127: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4130:independent 3693:Fuck (film) 3598:LinaMishima 3583:LinaMishima 3260:WP:DEADLINE 3138:LinaMishima 2131:Professor X 2090:needs more 1662:Quasirandom 1527:, and then 1447:WP:NOT#INFO 1445:- see what 1443:WP:NOT#NEWS 1431:WP:NOT#FAQs 1316:independent 1286:triumvirate 1232:as well as 1182:Dorftrottel 985:LinaMishima 901:Go look at 632:WP:DEADLINE 352:WP:NOT#PLOT 36:This is an 4218:notability 4165:notability 3908:Thoughts? 3901:notability 3743:Ursasapien 3728:John Nagle 3677:WP:NOT#DIR 3423:WP:NOTNEWS 3310:notability 3285:WT:EPISODE 3164:verifiable 3037:WP:SPINOUT 2994:created?-- 2959:WP:SPINOUT 2923:Ursasapien 2850:Ursasapien 2423:WP:Copyvio 2149:(from the 2147:Chemical X 2038:as notable 1957:MacGuffins 1660:as well? — 1486:Ursasapien 1476:" back to 1408:Ursasapien 1344:Ursasapien 1308:notability 1294:Ursasapien 1186:January 30 977:WP:EPISODE 415:Ursasapien 360:Ursasapien 112:WT:EPISODE 98:Archive 25 90:Archive 21 85:Archive 20 79:Archive 19 73:Archive 18 68:Archive 17 60:Archive 15 4138:Ned Scott 4096:Malkinann 4071:junkies. 3203:potential 2611:Ned Scott 2529:Ned Scott 2435:X (manga) 2248:/sarcasm 2232:Gloizer X 2222:Samurai X 2192:RahXephon 2167:Pokemon X 2157:ÉX-Driver 2112:Megaman X 2102:X (manga) 2046:Ned Scott 2005:Sjakkalle 1965:Malkinann 1942:Ned Scott 1694:Ned Scott 1314:that are 1143:Ned Scott 1099:Bláthnaid 1045:Ned Scott 780:Ned Scott 242:Time ring 4230:Lquilter 4214:TV Guide 4201:TV Guide 4183:Lquilter 4150:Eusebeus 4045:sgeureka 4008:sgeureka 3970:Lquilter 3966:a search 3910:Lquilter 3897:TV Guide 3877:TV Guide 3868:TV Guide 3861:reliable 3817:PageRank 3811:nofollow 3697:23skidoo 3281:WP:UNDUE 3217:SnowFire 3132:but the 3116:Verdatum 2818:, etc.-- 2607:articles 2571:Arguably 2514:Verdatum 2433:mention 2405:Verdatum 2356:WP:POINT 2172:Gundam X 2142:XxxHolic 2137:X-Factor 2009:(Check!) 1886:Karanacs 1857:Karanacs 1652:See also 1583:Karanacs 1504:sgeureka 1451:sgeureka 613:start.-- 484:Dimadick 406:sgeureka 3566:Zenwhat 3277:WP:PLOT 3264:WP:BOLD 2705:Zenwhat 2638:Zenwhat 2555:Zenwhat 2452:Zenwhat 2366:Zenwhat 2297:Zenwhat 2285:That's 2264:Zenwhat 2202:Sonic X 2162:Deus Ex 1955:Should 1938:another 1779:Please 1637:support 1521:WP:PLOT 1517:WP:PLOT 1513:WP:PLOT 1320:zombies 1281:Eureka! 1250:WP:FICT 1242:WP:PLOT 1226:WP:NPOV 1212:A tweak 1188:, 2008 1184:04:39, 981:point 6 656:WP:BOLD 628:WP:BOLD 588:editing 508:WP:NPOV 431:However 356:WP:NOTE 39:archive 4174:by far 4029:Scrubs 3927:Hiding 3747:(talk) 3477:Hiding 3172:WP:WAF 3134:season 3130:series 2927:(talk) 2854:(talk) 2745:all.-- 2427:WP:NOR 2386:WP:DAB 2129:(also 2117:Animex 2057:Hiding 1811:Hiding 1742:Hiding 1711:Hiding 1533:Hiding 1500:before 1490:(talk) 1478:WP:NOT 1460:Hiding 1441:, and 1412:(talk) 1394:Hiding 1386:WP:NOT 1372:Hiding 1348:(talk) 1298:(talk) 1266:Hiding 1254:WP:NOT 1234:WP:NOT 1230:WP:NOR 1198:Hiding 1194:WP:WAF 1155:Hiding 1122:). -- 1120:WP:BRD 1010:Hiding 943:Hiding 907:Hiding 852:either 791:Hiding 736:Hiding 722:Hiding 672:Hiding 652:WP:BRD 600:Hiding 591:policy 547:, and 524:Hiding 520:WP:IAR 512:WP:NOR 470:Hiding 419:(talk) 391:Hiding 364:(talk) 246:Pidgey 188:Hiding 4134:WP:SS 4073:Torc2 3809:rel=" 3602:Torc2 3428:Nydas 3397:Nydas 3394:it.-- 3340:Nydas 3335:WP:BK 3331:WP:NF 3082:Nydas 3033:WP:SS 2997:Nydas 2886:Nydas 2821:Nydas 2791:Nydas 2748:Nydas 2683:Torc2 2623:I.E. 2603:The X 2595:might 2575:Torc2 2497:Nydas 2481:Torc2 2390:Torc2 2337:Torc2 2237:Big X 2212:B't X 2127:X-Men 2092:anime 1980:Hobit 1914:avoid 1798:Nydas 1769:Nydas 1642:G.A.S 1529:WP:EP 1390:WP:EP 1258:WP:EP 1246:WP:EP 1218:WP:EP 1076:Nydas 1057:Hobit 1028:Hobit 926:Nydas 890:Nydas 847:think 806:Hobit 700:tired 664:WP:DR 660:WP:EP 636:WP:EP 616:Nydas 571:Nydas 545:W:NOR 504:WP:FA 16:< 4247:ASEM 4234:talk 4225:WP:N 4187:talk 4169:WP:N 4154:talk 4118:talk 4100:talk 4077:talk 4062:ASEM 4055:this 4037:WP:N 4019:ASEM 4004:WP:N 3990:ASEM 3974:talk 3958:used 3948:ASEM 3914:talk 3881:WP:N 3873:WP:N 3857:WP:N 3799:talk 3781:talk 3760:ASEM 3732:talk 3701:talk 3683:ASEM 3651:talk 3624:talk 3606:talk 3587:talk 3571:talk 3534:talk 3516:ASEM 3502:talk 3472:WP:N 3468:WP:N 3464:WP:N 3460:WP:N 3412:ASEM 3371:ASEM 3333:and 3317:ASEM 3296:ASEM 3279:and 3221:talk 3201:its 3142:talk 3120:talk 3043:ASEM 2965:ASEM 2961:. -- 2772:ASEM 2735:ASEM 2710:talk 2687:talk 2672:ASEM 2664:and 2643:talk 2579:talk 2560:talk 2518:talk 2485:talk 2457:talk 2425:and 2409:talk 2394:talk 2371:talk 2341:talk 2315:ASEM 2302:talk 2269:talk 2207:Xbox 2023:ASEM 1984:talk 1969:talk 1924:talk 1902:ASEM 1890:talk 1875:ASEM 1861:talk 1842:talk 1787:ASEM 1758:ASEM 1728:ASEM 1679:ASEM 1666:talk 1623:talk 1587:talk 1564:talk 1525:WP:N 1388:and 1368:WP:N 1363:WP:N 1359:WP:N 1290:WP:N 1240:and 1238:WP:N 1228:and 1222:WP:V 1178:User 1126:ASEM 1093:this 1061:talk 1032:talk 989:talk 967:talk 863:talk 831:ASEM 824:WP:N 820:WT:N 810:talk 753:ASEM 711:ASEM 705:bold 666:and 642:ASEM 630:and 581:No, 560:ASEM 554:Spoo 549:WP:V 541:WP:V 516:WP:V 514:and 499:Spoo 488:talk 454:ASEM 354:and 329:talk 307:ASEM 292:talk 272:ASEM 252:ASEM 227:and 213:and 178:talk 153:ASEM 4113:DGG 4033:IGN 3962:not 3646:DGG 3470:. 3462:. 3232:Kiz 3211:on. 2601:or 2512:? - 2036:be 1919:DGG 1618:DGG 1559:DGG 1484:. 1292:. 858:DGG 778:-- 287:DGG 139:or 4236:) 4228:-- 4189:) 4156:) 4120:) 4102:) 4079:) 3976:) 3916:) 3903:. 3801:) 3783:) 3756:-- 3734:) 3703:) 3653:) 3626:) 3608:) 3589:) 3573:) 3536:) 3504:) 3292:-- 3223:) 3144:) 3122:) 2768:-- 2712:) 2689:) 2660:, 2645:) 2581:) 2562:) 2520:) 2487:) 2459:) 2437:? 2411:) 2396:) 2373:) 2343:) 2304:) 2289:. 2271:) 2094:. 1986:) 1971:) 1926:) 1892:) 1863:) 1855:. 1844:) 1668:) 1639:. 1625:) 1589:) 1566:) 1437:, 1433:, 1427:is 1224:, 1153:. 1063:) 1034:) 991:) 969:) 865:) 812:) 774:: 749:-- 662:, 658:, 543:, 510:, 490:) 448:}} 442:{{ 331:) 294:) 221:}} 215:{{ 211:}} 205:{{ 180:) 170:}} 164:{{ 147:}} 141:{{ 137:}} 131:{{ 123:}} 117:{{ 94:→ 64:← 4245:M 4232:( 4185:( 4152:( 4116:( 4098:( 4075:( 4060:M 4017:M 3988:M 3972:( 3946:M 3931:T 3912:( 3883:. 3813:" 3797:( 3779:( 3758:M 3730:( 3699:( 3681:M 3649:( 3622:( 3604:( 3585:( 3569:( 3561:☯ 3532:( 3514:M 3500:( 3481:T 3410:M 3369:M 3315:M 3294:M 3241:r 3236:o 3219:( 3140:( 3118:( 3041:M 3035:/ 2963:M 2770:M 2733:M 2708:( 2700:☯ 2685:( 2670:M 2641:( 2633:☯ 2577:( 2558:( 2550:☯ 2516:( 2483:( 2473:X 2455:( 2447:☯ 2431:X 2407:( 2392:( 2369:( 2361:☯ 2339:( 2329:X 2313:M 2300:( 2292:☯ 2267:( 2259:☯ 2181:X 2133:) 2088:X 2073:X 2061:T 2021:M 1982:( 1967:( 1922:( 1900:M 1888:( 1873:M 1859:( 1840:( 1815:T 1785:M 1756:M 1746:T 1726:M 1715:T 1677:M 1664:( 1621:( 1585:( 1562:( 1537:T 1464:T 1398:T 1376:T 1270:T 1202:T 1180:: 1159:T 1124:M 1059:( 1030:( 1014:T 987:( 965:( 947:T 911:T 861:( 829:M 808:( 795:T 751:M 740:T 726:T 709:M 676:T 640:M 604:T 583:I 558:M 528:T 486:( 474:T 452:M 395:T 327:( 305:M 290:( 270:M 250:M 192:T 176:( 151:M 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 19 - Knowledge

Index