Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 20

1287:

of an article. I am taking the former view, and for fictional elements here, and while I can understand keeping that type of stub around because maybe an editor just needed to avoid the redlink, once someone has taken time to fill in the in-universe concepts for the element in great detail, that means someone has taken time to advance the article and the general allowances for retaining stub articles no long apply (eg, deciding if it is notable and if it should be merged). The issue with fiction element stubs compared to the large number of stubs for, say, towns in Ireland, is that in nearly every other case, there is only a real-world aspect of that element -- it may require a lot of time searching for sources to get verification down as well as making sure that when the article is expanded it doesn't exceed discussing too many details, but these only can be expanded in that fashion. But when we talk about fictional element stubs, there are two possible areas the article could be expands: the real world context and its details in the fictional universe (or, ideally, a balance of both). Unfortunately, the general trend of such stubs is that their expansion is primary in the fictional universe details, simply because newer editors not familiar with all guidelines can usually easily apply this.

3433:. Unless someone outside of that community discusses the use of those terms with regard to the show, then they are nothing more than indiscriminate pieces of information. If I try and attribute some form of notability to those terms, like is being insinuated for "spoo space", by providing a Google search result that only shows a keyword hit, that doesn't change the fact that the terms are insignificant beyond the handful of people that use them. The only reason "spoo space" is on the page is because someone was trying to show reason that the article itself is notable, and decided to stretch the idea of notability thin enough to encompass such non-notable, non-significant data. Just to point out another discrepency, you only have 1 source that says they are using "spoo space" as a play on "spoiler space", with none of them actually saying that it has anything to do with the 3837:

about it. The other way is to adopt whatever compromise can keep the greatest possible number of us satisfied and productive. A third is to adopt whatever strategy seems best to accomplish what we individually want--power if we're powerful, satisfying everyone if we aren't. For example, if my driving purpose were to write a scholarly encyclopedia here, I might want to encourage those who thought otherwise to get out of the way of it, if necessary by making them fight for every individual article through as many layers of process as available. If I primarily wanted to make sure that we covered popular culture fully, I might want to encourage those who think it appropriate to leave, by whatever means possible, including accepting low quality of articles on their favorite subjects to discourage them. I do not think those last two sentences entirely theoretical.

1222:- exactly. And I see the exception when the stubs can and/or do establish notability, which is what WP:FICT already states for article creation, but not for the undoing of the cases where this procedure was not followed). If the stubs can't or won't demonstrate notability and it seems like their stub status is becoming the permanent solution, these stubs should IMO be "emphatically discouraged" instead of being eternally protected from a merge because a guideline "allows" them. Masem made some interesting points below, but I am also not sure that it is the right way to wait for a stub to develop into a PLOTty ORish article before the guideline encourages their (usually-trim-and-)merge, not to mention the time it takes for "discussion" (usually a month) before the merge can be performed in order to avoid being accused of "vandalizing" à la TTN. – 2952:

that word, then it isn't noteworthy. What you are saying is that "a read this forum, and this guy used 'spoo' in a funny way...I think it should be mentioned on Knowledge". No one else noted "spoo space" anywhere else. There were zero hits on Google News. There were zero hits in scholarly works. Given that, according to its article, Usenet pages are globalized, and you only get 1600 hits (many of those having tons of hits on a single comment), that says that it isn't a notable enough phenomenon to even mention. If you have no source that actually discusses this term outside of the Usenets, then it's an indication that it doesn't exist anywhere else other than with a few people that use it when they posts comments. This is a fan term that is nothing but indiscriminate information, given that no secondary source has actually noted its existence.

2050:" -- The information that is being cited is using a source that says "go Google the word and you'll see". You cannot generalize something and provide a single forum chatroom (not a reliable source itself), and then say "if you put it in Google you'll see that it's used". First, Google numbers don't show anything but google numbers. Unless you are saying "Spoo got 94,000 hits on Google", and then cite the Google search page, then how many hits it gets is irrelevant. A Google search might give you an idea, but it doesn't validate anything. First, you have to go through all the sources to find out what they are saying and how they are saying it. If 50,000 people are talking about the same forum post, that doesn't mean that the internet community is saying the same thing, it means that the internet community is reporting on that single post. 3429:" -- That is what is being done. The editor's opinion on that page is that "spoo space" is being used a significant amount of the time that it needs to be mentioned on Knowledge. To prove that they are sourcing a forum (where is is being used) and a link to a Google search result. Neither of those things prove anything other than someone has used it more than once. You cannot disguise the original thought with vague terms (i.e. "segment of the science fiction community") and claim that it's all reliably sourced. If no one is noting this "trend" in Usenet forums, then it obviously isn't that large of a significance with regard to "Spoo". People say "Chlark", "Chlois", "Clana", "Lexana" all the time on forums with regard to the relationships between Clark, Chloe, Lois, Lex and Lana on 3344:

claiming the phenomenon which was initially described at the start of this discussion above, then it's merely stating some indiscriminate fact about this fan term -- which is not seen anywhere else except among those people that use it (which is a limited number of people at that). No one has saw fit to connect the term to its original source, except those few people who explained what it meant when there were chatting in their forums. By that standard, if I found "spooch" used 1000 times on Google hits then I should be able to add it, and claim that it's an insult used in place of the term "bitch". That doesn't say anything other than Google found it 1000 times. If it's so important to note, why hasn't someone outside of the people that use the term actually noted it somewhere?

3906:

other articles on fictional elements that are presently in danger of being deleted or have been deleted (I'm an admin, I will recover the text as a subpage here for review) that should also be considered an exception to FICT in that notability is approached but not strongly demonstrated. I think if we can see any parallels in these for the other articles or demonstrate the differences in the approaches that make the other articles non-notable, then we can make strides to resolving this. (This may mean that we take Spoo through the ringer again if there is no clear difference). I point out Nydas as (s)he's aware of many such cases, but anyone else that can provide 3 to 5 examples of cases that I'm talking about should do so. --

3685:, has left wikipedia some months ago, so I don't think we will get more insight from him. When the article got under fire, I thanked Jeffrey for inspiring me to write a kickass article about a barely notable fictional subject that hadn't really been written about at the time, but I still !voted to merge Spoo in the AfD for non-notability. I have since merged my non-notable article into a bigger article that can actually establish notability. And that's also what I would say about Spoo now: it is a very good example for what can be achieved in the fiction area, but it is not necessarily a good example for what a fiction-related article should be in the end. – 1002:(the German WP notability guideline for works of literature) states that "Stubs for works of literature are emphatically discouraged because they can be presented in the article of the author" (and then goes into a MOS-type list of what an article must contain to be allowed to exist). I realize that adding a similiar sentence to WP:FICT (and potentially changing this sentence in a future revision of WP:EPISODE) may be controversial, but its spirit is already included in sentences like "Generally, these fictional elements are described in the plot summary of the main article and do not need to demonstrate independent notability." What do others think? – 2855:

fiction community". Well, how many is "some"? That's a peacock term that should be removed. Is some 1600? If so, then you might want to cite 1600 sources, because citing Google doesn't prove that there are 1600 places that use "spoo space", it proves that the term "spoo space" has been tagged 1600 times on the net, some of those being where someone uses multiple times themselves (look at the second and third source in your list). You cannot generalize anything by simply looking at a Google search page. You must find a secondary source to support your "phenomenon". Otherwise, I can search

3289:

only in your case you don't have two reliable sources, you have two unreliable sources. OR, you're basically providing indiscriminate information, which is so minor and ungeneralizable on the scale in which you are placing it, that it has no business being on the page to begin with. So, my "interpretations" are not wrong, you're simply trying to side-step them because you think Spoo is a "scholarly work" (which is odd, given that I've found no peer reviewed journals in this work to indicate its scholarly status, only a bunch of primary episode sources and some forum citations).

262:

article without any sources that requires finding such to complete. And while fansites and forums are again generally not reliable sources (because, even more so than dialogue, nearly any possible viewpoint can be "sourced" from these), as long as care is taken to understand the forum/fansite source to make sure it's not just some kook writing something, that it is not being used to source a highly contentious point, and that there are a significant amount of other, much more significant sources to backup the rest of the article, they are ok to be used. --

1338:

Fiction should have the same criteria. A fictional character should have to meet the same standards as a real person. This has always really bothered me that fiction articles get a free pass through the creation process. If fictional stubs that do not establish notability are fine then there should be no CSD category A7. Try posting a stub about a new band without making any claim to notability and see what happens. Yes we want stubs, yes we want them to grow, but there needs to be basic information in the stub before I even consider it a stub.

3437:. You're assuming it has to do with that, which is the problem with interpreting primary sources; you don't always get what you are trying to get. In this case, you are saying that "spoo space" is not only a play on "spoiler space", but the "spoo" part is meant to reference the Babylon 5 "spoo". I don't think any of those sources on the Google search page indicate any of that. You can assume they do all you want, but the fact remains that the Google page does not 3589:. You can call it original research, or just plain ol assumption, but the fact remains that you have sources that do not accurately represent the information you are presenting. You can try and side step your way around it all you like, but you know as well as I do that those sources don't hold water whatsoever. But this debate wasn't initially about Spoo, as we've gotten extremely sidetracked, so we can call it quits here. Have a nice day. :) 31: 4142:"Charles in Charge" as "Lost" and "CSI", and I reasonably postulate the former two are certainly not considered "major" shows. The problem with considering the word "major" for works of fiction is that its meaning changes with time because it is not directly related to notability, it implies "importance" and "popularity" but not notability; works may wax and wane within this over time, but notability is constant once demonstrated. 606:

of exhaustion. A little rest can lead to renewed strength. It can also, I hope, lead to confirmation of the feeling that peace via compromise is worth it. I am more concerned with how long the compromise will last--we must meet the objections of the people who will see what we think is consensus, belatedly realise it affects them one way or another, and try to go back to zero. It's happened elsewhere.

1027:

is that the wiki presentation medium is best adapted to short articles, with large articles replaced by schematic outlines. I suggest that a reasonable guideline for plot elements and characters in series is that if they extend over more than one part or novel, they are always worth a separate article or a part in a list of minor characters. If not, they should almost always be included in the part.

4090:

work that character that in has been reproduced by various people over the years, and is considered sufficiently popular or classic, and likely there are scholarly or similar sources for articles to back up the discussion of the major characters. And while I would love "common sense" as the exception, it's clear that personal feelings towards various fandoms will prevent this from being the case.

1319:. If it's about a real person, include something that shows what they are notable for; if it's about a album, give a clue that it has charted or had professional reviews; if it's about a fictional character or TV episode, give a clue that there has been some real world impact. I'm much more inclined to defend a stub where I, as an uninvolved editor, can see some hope that it will eventually meet 572:

NOTABILITY is a vague thing in itself). Once FICT gets its disputed tag removed, I'd move over to EPISODE to get that rewritten and/or merged in whatever way consensus prefers. Arbcom and FICT and EPISODE are kind of interrelated (if not officially, then at least inofficially), and I don't know if the new FICT / EPISODE should be finished before arbcom, or the other way around. –

4154:

other examples (not necessary of food items) where the article has or is surviving AfD or similar nominations due to reliance on questionable reliable sources and lack of good secondary sources, to see if there is existing articles and how their consensus was met. If Spoo is truly an island because of having the "tenure" of FA, we should serious (community-wise) discuss that. --

3509:"Original research" is making assertions that other people cannot readily check via publicly available, unchanging sources; this is not the case with the "spoo space" example. It's an unconventional example, but the claim is entirely supported and readily checkable via the sources given. You could claim that it's still "an analysis" of the sources, but then the description of 641:

how they are subject to change and that comments and proposals are encouraged). I feel that having a reasonably authoritative approach tightens the text and stresses the need to discuss things on talkpages instead of finding loopholes - but that's a minor gripe. And since this is has exploded into a large, sensitive issue, I understand the rationale behind the approach.

1291:

adding details, it'll just be in a single list with other similar descriptions (and where more experienced editors can assist in trimming and the like). Again, I note that once someone has spent time to expand a fiction element stub to give a lot of details, then it becomes a regular article and the normal means of dealing with issues of notability come into play. --

3339:

cannot do is use sources to either insinuate something that isn't there, or provide such a vague idea that it becomes indiscriminate information. The whole idea behind listing "spoo space" should be about someone noting its existence beyond the forums in which it is used. Just because someone has used it 1500 times doesn't change the fact that, given the lack of

232:, and there is no effective distinction between them save perhaps that in lieu of any reliable source to put forward a POV point (that is, forum shopping to get the right opinion). Limited dialog excerpts, however, are perfectly fine reliable primary sources (assuming an official translation for foreign works) to help substantiate an article. -- 1422:

be a list of characters and other elements from the series, in the article or in a spinoff subarticle. It seems to me that we should allow, if not even encourage, the creation of redirection pages from the non-notable elements on those lists to the appropriate page, as well as populating any disambiguation pages with those terms.

1236:. The solution to stopping original research is not to create more rules, it is to involve other editors in using the ones we already have. If their are articles you know of where this is a problem, widen the pool of editors and allow consensus editing to take place. On Knowledge, we do not have a wrong version of an article. 3585:

context in which those other people intended to use "spoo space". You can do whatever assumptions you want, but it doesn't change the fact that citing Google search does not verify the example given before it. The second problem, you also cannot verify that the use of "spoo space" on Google search has anything to do with the

4051:'Exceptions' to the notability guideline should be for clear, understandable reasons, when there is a case of 'common sense' notability. For example, major characters in major works of fiction. Or characters which have been played by a very large number of actors (as opposed to a list of actors who have played X). 662:

topic through to AfD. Basically, once it is realized that particularly for most articles on fiction topics that there's infinitely better ways than pushing the article to deletion, the rest of the guideline is there to help identify how to present topics on fiction to avoid any need to delete such an article. --

4178:

It may be hard to accept that non-animated family sitcoms are just as important as sci-fi and forensic shows, but a guideline which forces us to challenge our biases is a good guideline. When the mainstream media composes lists of the best TV shows ever, they're wildly different from what Wikipedians

3944:

Pokemon cases are tricky. I do agree Bulbasaur has information that few other pokemon (outside of Pikachu) can possible on it's notability and thus I would give it the same pass as Spoo, while the Torchic article would seem to be a general framework that one could write any other pokemon towards (eg,

3623:

has survived FAR and AfD (aka community consensus) influence how we evaluate fictional notability? I am not suggesting we ding the article with another FAR or AfD, but take time to consider exactly if Spoo does somehow fit the guideline, if it is an exceptional case of the guideline, or if Spoo does

2951:

You're still using peacock terms. "Segment", exactly how much is a "segment"? Here's the problem, in 10 years a word has only garned 800 unique hits a Usenets, and nothing else? That says to me that that particular word isn't that noteworthy. If no one outside of the usenets have mentioned the use of

1352:

The problem, Rider, is the discrepancy over what is needed to establish notability of a fictional character or episode. Certainly, most stubs about a television series make some showing regarding their notability. However, many editors consider that if the series is notable the same evidence can be

1286:

and as I see it, a stub is just a sentence or two, just enough to have something at the end of link to establish a meaning for a term but not enough to go into enough detail, but I've seen people argue that a stub can be several paragraphs long and basically should be considered a "preliminary draft"

1089:

articles (formerly about 450 including episode articles) plus hundreds of episode articles from various now-cancelled TV shows. Except for a handful of articles, these articles didn't even remotely comply with WP:FICT before I started editing them. And as one of the initiators of the still-ongoing SG

605:

Actually, there probably needs to be another good look all around after they finish--though the result is h not likely to be all that directly relevant, the discussion will be &already is interesting. I wouldn't be very quick to take silence for consent about this--it is more likely to be because

581:

At no point did I say deletion is not sometimes an improvement. Instead I was looking to use language which emphasised that the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, since the greatest consensus on Knowledge is that we want to improve the encyclopedia, and that overwhelming consensus should frame our

552:

The consensus amongst those who invested time in the debate seems to be that the rewrite is acceptable, has consensus and is no longer disputed. However, I think the consensus is also that the page not be used as a deletion tool but as a tool for improving the encyclopedia. Attempts have been made to

527:

Lets remember that, while waiting for the arbcom case to conclude, the arbs won't be making decisions for us regarding guidelines. Whether intentional or not, a lot of us (including myself) have become less active on these pages because of the arbcom case. I propose we rekindle the fire (fire meaning

193:

verification (ideally, a good non-notable list should be maintained in a state that makes it one or two good secondary references away from being a Good Article or better). This sorta goes with Depth of Coverage as well, and some of "should strive to include notability" was moved to WP:WAF as well.

4141:

I disagree there. "Major fiction" is, admittedly, going to be defined based on the number of editors that like that fiction. We could try to make rules that define major, say "network prime time show that lasted more than one season" but that means the same weight will be given to "Full House" and

3317:

a "scholarly work" but, rather, a very well written article. Goose's whole argument (if I am synthesizing it right) is that Knowledge needs to have article's that are not "scholarly works." If we only have "scholarly work" articles, we might as well just call ourselves online Britannica and get it

3161:

All these rules you're trying to invoke, one after the other -- many of which don't support your assertions anyway -- say nothing about what kind of encyclopedia we want Knowledge to be, or at least should want it to be. Unless you can talk about principles that make sense on that level, instead of

3131:

do not belong in Knowledge. It even means that things that actually exist, but cannot in any way be verified, also do not belong in Knowledge. Everything else? Yes. That restaurant down the street? Yes. Small-scale public figures? Sure. The real-world aspects of fictional concepts? Yes. If

2859:

and look at the results and come to the conclusion that "some people talk about purple sheep". Does that have any relevance whatsoever if I can't find a secondary source discussing the phenomenon? No, it doesn't. What you have is a single source where someone in a forum explains what "spoo space" is

2734:

because there isn't any source provide (nor one that I could find searching) that shows that terminology used by a large enough group of people that makes it actually noteworthy. Just because I might personally say "this is spoorific", does not mean that it is in any way noteworthy. Not unless I can

2407:

I understand not every band should have an article on wikipedia, but I see no problem with every song, single album, unreleased album by notable artists being included in the project. There really should be no gray area here you either judge every article by the same standards or you get rid of what

2402:

and get rid of notability guidelines, or we get rid of this article. Keep in mind I'm in general totally against the concept of notability on wikipedia, my point is you can't have it both ways either you allow well written articles that use questionable sources or you have notability guidelines. You

1486:

to "create" redirects as to block the creation of articles, though obviously it is a side effect of the larger goal of just making non-notable topics easier to find. This comes the small stumbling block that newer editors may not know to get around redirection links, but this is a one-time learning

1421:

Right now, most of the redirections that are being done for fictional works are those of existing non-notable topics being merged to lists. But lets consider the hypothetic case of a new fictional work that, for purposes of discussion, is presumed to be notable itself. Obviously, there will likely

1200:

You want to "emphatically discourage" something and yet claim that doesn't amount to disallowing? I'm sorry but I can't quite follow that semantic sleight of hand. I don't really see anything in your reply to DGG that softens your position either. You want stubs to be the exception rather than the

1026:

The German approach is the opposite of ours: they favor large comprehensive articles and try to avoid even the articles on individual works we encourage. where this balance lies is a matter of style not notability. Most German paper encyclopedias similarly had very long articles. My personal feeling

732:

As a general comment, I was looking through some of the December archives - specifically, I was cringing at a few of my drive-by comments. I guess it just proves why people shouldn't come back while on extended Wikibreaks. With that aside, I think it's safe to say that I'm back in some form, so I'll

698:

And I don't think much has changed from the original version that you wrote, but it's just things that are or aren't acceptable are made more explicit. I've come to learn that while we'd love to have people use the spirit of policies and guidelines, there's a lot more that tend to use the letter of

683:

a rewrite, so they automatically assumed the guideline was pro-deletionist without even reading it. Indeed, I don't think the original version was vague; if I recall, it was polished by some of Knowledge's best copy-editors. Instead, it was buried in argument, as each side wanted a spin that favored

146:

Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it

4031:

Yeah, I agree - there's a lot of fluff, and when you get down to it, there's two sections of OR (the comparison to other gene techniques of other sci fi shows and to the real world) and then one small section for how it was created, which would be better suited in the episode that had that device.

3831:

Whether notability is called guideline or policy is irrelevant--the rules we work under should not only permit but encourage such articles. We can have whatever rules we want, and call them what we want. The differences between us here are not technical or verbal, they are about what the content of

3288:

Goose, I've told you you're doing one of two things in that article: You're either incentuating a phenomenon when there isn't one (that is where SYN comes in, because you are using two sources-neither of which explicitly state there is such a phenomenon-to advance the position. That is what SYN is,

2984:

Ah, we're back here again: if it isn't in a secondary source, it doesn't exist. These are not logical arguments you're presenting here, just prejudicial ones. There are rules against including unverifiable information in Knowledge, but not against including obscure information. In fact, the more

2494:

Sure, that's a beautiful case for fixing that guideline -- or ignoring it if it doesn't get fixed. Whenever a guideline, or, yes, even a policy, produces a result that is bad for the encyclopedia, we should say so, and slap it down, instead of shrugging and walking away. We are not victims of the

1712:

Have to agree Spoo really is a poor example to use as it really has no reason to be on here. Look at the references it uses nothing but usenet, various other forum posts, and episodes of the show. It's a pretty clear example of AFD failing. In any case it is not something an example we want people

1467:

fictional article (though this extends to any article at all, I suppose). It's good because if a article title already is set as a redirect, I expect it makes it a little less likely for it to be created as a new article by a random user not following WP:SUMMARY, though I think I'm just rephrasing

1453:

I support this. I guess I'm not the only one who wikilinks the names of fictional characters/elements almost automatically, and having redirect-links ("I want to know who/what this is and click") instead of redlinks ("I want to be the first to write an article about this and click") would certainly

1426:

suggests this is a completely appropriate purpose (it does not differentiate between redirecting an term because the article used to exist there, or redirecting because it helps to find the term). By doing this, readers will be able to go to the search box and type for a specific character name or

1337:

exactly if an article is truly notable it took should take literally seconds to establish it's notability. There needs to be certain things present in the article to begin with or it's not even a stub. For example A band needs to at least make a claim to notability or it will be speedily deleted.

1118:

wikilayering. As for characters from literature - what makes them notable? They don't don't get their notabiliy attested by Emmy Awards after all. Their character arc doesn't need to be repeated because it is already summarized in the work they appear in (for the sake of argument, I am only talking

870:

Some of those articles are made by established users, and some of our best articles were started by drive by editors and anons. This isn't bias, this is a realistic observation: most new users are normally not familiar with our guidelines (not all, but most). Having a guideline to help them, rather

818:

As I said above, the belief is a result of fiction deletionist editing patterns and probable adherence to the anti-fan subculture found on Something Awful and elsewhere. If you look at criticism of Knowledge in the mainstream media, fancruft doesn't get nearly as much attention as BLP issues, admin

507:

I'm not sure which comment you are responding to, but if this comment is regarding a merge between say, a list and a character article, a normal histmerge wouldn't be desired. It would look very disjointed, because it would mix the edits by time-stamp, and not by page. It would be a great technical

456:

to an extent that the content is small enough and is not expected to signifigantly expand with appropriate content in the foreseeable future without crystallballing. (or the size of the parent article decreased in a similar fashion such that it can accomidate it being readded). The subarticle can

165:

the wording does not make such lists undeletable: they are still subject to ordinary editing--unsourced information can be deleted, and excessively extensive information removed. If there is not enough left for an independent article, the material can be merged back again. It does make it harder to

152:

Can we have a clearer wording that non-established notability is not a free pass for every subarticle lists, or at least encourage real-world content? (I realize that one formulation is rather inclusionistic and allows wikilayering against cleanup, while the other will likely be used to take a list

4093:

I've never heard of a ten-year rule. Remember that notability is not temporary (though arguably, Spoo may not have demonstrated it). And I was looking more for examples, not necessarily of fictional foods, but any fictional element that may have been sourced but is/was targetted for deletion (as

3584:

Whether this is your last reply or not, it still doesn't change the fact that the sources for "spoo space" have 2 problems. First, you have one example that you are attempting to generalize to the entire lot of hits you've found on Google Groups. The problem with this is that you cannot verify the

3482:

involves Dr. House solving a different medical mystery in each episode" was SYNTH? What I'm doing in that case is giving a collective description of a group of primary sources (the TV series). It's the same for the Usenet posts -- although the link given is a Google search, the search is not the

3423:

The fact is that you are using not only an unreliable source (Google hits are not indicative of anything other than just that, how many times Google finds the word you type), but you are presenting it like it's some kind of cultural phenomenon; when it is not. Just to point out on WP:NOR, it says:

3204:

The problem is that Spoo does contain untrue and probably untrue information. 'Many' fans have tried making it, sourced from one forum post about one instance of this (which may never have happened). JMS being 'deluged' by fan questions is unsourced (the source only says his use of the Internet is

2854:

Please do not confuse 1600 hits with 1600 sources. Read through all of them, they repeat themselves. You need to understand the concept of statistical data, and the idea behind generalizing. If it's a small group of editors using that term, then it isn't notable. You're saying "some of the science

2339:

I don't doubt that someone used "spoo space", but I do doubt the phenomenon that it claims, when all it cites is a Google search. Sorry, but that doesn't prove that it is the abundant usage the statement claims it is. Try actually finding a source that literally says that "spoo space" is so widely

1538:

back to the point - if it's a seemless case, then there's no reason for the statement, like you said, it's mentioned in the help area, and the general idea of creating redirects and populating DA pages with related topics is not unique to fiction. in the cases that it's not seemless, it's usually

1254:

to (not quoting) a policy/guideline is enough). But it is cases like the Firefly and 24 character articles (which I see as originally researched stubs with excessive plot) and the stubby Scrubs episode articles (which I take as the tip-off point for the second arbcom case) where protective editors

1231:

I'd rather collaborate with people in a collegiate manner towards a common goal of encyclopedic tone and let that decide content to be perfectly honest. I believe that emphatically discouraging anything is emphatically at odds with the wiki spirit and collaboration in general. I don't like playing

711:

It's probably the very nature of policy rewrites; the initial versions are very short and concise, but as people begin adding their insight and opinions, they grow in size. From what I've watched copy-editors do, it's hard to get policies and guidelines tightened (with consensus, anyway) until the

640:

Likewise, I disagree with the style in some parts; it almost sacrifices succinctness for a defensive stance at times. Perhaps it's because I'm from a different camp than the editors here, but I've always been an advocate of "reasonably" authoritative policies and guidelines (with clear emphasis on

4153:

If the existence of Spoo directly conflicting with these guidelines is a stumbling block and there is nothing else to compare against it as an example, should we just go ahead and see about getting it removed or changed to be a better reflection on the new consensus? That's why I was looking for

4089:

Who defines "major character" and "major fictional work"? If you go by this "exception" standard, people will find a way to argue through this to create articles on every major and minor character from a very minor work. On the case of a character played by multiple actors, that would imply the

3844:

in particular? Yes, we are all here because of our desire to participate in a a large free open source project, yes, but there are many of them. This one is distinctive because it has the goal of cooperative writing and editing and organizing in a supportive environment to produce a really useful

3836:

to be. Since we have different goals here, the question then becomes how we are decide it, and how flexible we should be about it. One way of dealing with it is to see which side can make use of the existing rules and practices and their knowledge and power and popularity at WP, to get their way

1773:

I disagree that 7 people out of thousands of editors that voted it to be a featured article should carry as much weight as it carries. I don't put that much faith in the FA system. It's not the holly grail of a standard that people hold it up to be. For example the featured lists crew seem to be

1290:

Neither of these means that we ban stubs on fictional elements. However, I do believe we need to watch such stubs carefully and consider (truely) merging if such stubs are created but then never improved upon for a good amount of time; merging stubs into lists doesn't disallow newer editors from

661:

I think much of the reason for both duplication and defensiveness is a result of the people that have questioned this guideline due to it being used so heavily to put articles up for AfD; if the guideline was more vague, then the so-called "deletionists" would be able to push nearly any fictional

350:

I don't understand your argument. This is the support for non-notable sub-article lists of characters, and all that should be done is to maintain the standard of WP:V if such a list will exist. This is what has been established from the Minor Characters deletion arguments, appropriate by WP:N.

261:

Any type of source (primary, secondary, etc.) can be abused as a reference to push a POV point, including dialog, but of course this fails NPOV. However, I much rather see a non-notable sub-article written with too many sources that can be trimmed down to contain the best ones instead of such an

3905:

Spoo is one of those "exceptions" that usually occurs for all guidelines; the article meets encyclopedic standards and though the level of notability is not as strong as the guideline suggests, it approaches this level. Given this, and that this is one exceptional case, I would like to see what

2499:

exists, despite some rules seemingly conflicting with it. The reason why we don't delete it is because it's a good article. The fact that it is out of step with a rule or two does not in itself make it a bad article. The fact that it's a comprehensive, verifiable, and scholarly article on the

1534:

of material in contentious subjects that is problematic. i'm not sure what you mean by merge/redirect-cleanup in the instance of TTN but that's a little off topic. I think you feel this encouragment would prevent people like TTN from having to do what they did, nip it in the bud, but rather i'm

1514:

To clarify: I have no problem with editors (experienced and unexperienced) starting new articles, but with the month(s)-long wikilayering until these stubs & non-notable articles can finally be merged into appropriate main articles. Granted, in most cases, the (bold) merges take place quite

1435:

This sorta bridges FICT and WAF, in the sense that non-notable topics should not get their own article, but we should encourage making it easy for editors to link (even if they link to a redirect or a double redirect) and readers to find information. Basically, it would add language to "Summary

1431:

page with the information they are looking for. If the redirections aren't done like this, they'll end up in the usual search results page, which for some characters or element names, will provide a rather limited set of results, but if the name is more common like "John Smith", obviously there

989:

that "stubs are allowed". However, the large-scale actions of the past months (which have led to the arbcom cases) are not in sync with this (old?) consensus. Furthermore, the last few years of letting fiction articles develop from stubs have shown that the most likely type of expansion for such

3426:

Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly

3343:

secondary sourcing, that is such a small number that no one considers that worth writing about anywhere but on Knowledge. Knowledge is not about reporting original research, it's about reporting historical research (that is, research already been done by someone else). So, if the section is not

3338:

Per Goose in an above comment: "The fact that it's a comprehensive, verifiable, and scholarly article on the subject of spoo is what makes it a good article." You can have an article that has absolutely zero scholarly references in it, that's fine because that isn't a requirement. But, what you

2739:

turns up just about nothing. Using that "Google Groups" link provided, a lot of those "spoo spaces" are on the same couple of websites. It does not show that "spoo space" is anything more than a fan term used by a select group of fans, who may or may not use the term on multiple forum websites.

1164:

Absolutely disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a perfect stub. If you are concerned about articles expanding beyond that out of step with guidance, something I too believe there is an issue with, then we need to learn how better to deal with that step. Disallowing stubs is not the

3661:

If it was just the second half of the article without the major focus B5 then it would be a much stronger article. It's seems one of those case where someone wanted an article on minor non-notable fictional subject then created the rest of the article to try to justify the original B5 article.

3645:

My personal thought is that if the article was inverted, making it less dependant on the B5 aspect and instead focusing on the use of the word "spoo", including a section on the B5 usage, it would be a better article that would fall less under FICT; but as it is, it is presented as a fictional

3023:

worthy of mention on Knowledge. You might as well include any term said by a dozen people on any forum, because that's about how encyclopedic that statement actually is. You are presenting it like it's some sort of notable phenomenon, but it isn't (at least not by the sources provided). You're

1499:

i too like your meaning, but not the phrasing. it would be clearer if you left it at "... topics covered in an article." i'm a little concerned though about the admitted side-effect that this would effectively discourage people from making new articles, i feel even prevent them from initially

4149:

take out the opinions of the editors behind it with regards to the content of the work of fiction, and focus those into the content of the article about that work of fiction. There are still subjective matters, in the case of Spoo being are the JMS posts on USENET and other forums considered

3816:

we like to keep them if we can, because we are an encyclopedia, not a guide to notable topics. Although some editors do not appreciate the difference, there is one. We are not Brittanica, we are not paper and we are not a bureaucracy. We are an encyclopedia which anyone can edit, making our

1808:

Not if the featured article is not a good example of a featured article, or an article that managed to slip through the cracks into status. The FA process is not fool proof. I've seen plenty of articles pass into FA with only a couple of "supports" (and that was from people that worked on the

571:

I am more or less fine with the current rewrite, although I'd argue re:Hiding that deletion is sometimes improvement, and that I'd accept this guideline in deletion discussions when the same point could be made by citing a handful of other policies and guidelines (OR, NOT, RS, etc., although

410:

applies even if the list is separated off from the main article. Secondary sources are only necessary to verify the notability of the main topic itself; after that, primary sources are acceptable for content. If that means splitting the topic up into multiple parts for readability, the same

1077:

with no claims of notability. Yes, there are common-sense situations where stubs are clearly appropriate, but this should (IMO) generally be the exception ("discourage") instead of the rule ("allow"). But I guess since WP:FICT already gives advice how to handle articles with no demonstrated

3136:. Or spoo. Unless there's a specific reason to get rid of an article, such as it being spam, or an invasion of privacy, or something else demonstrably harmful, then every extra layer and dimension of information that we can manage to add to Knowledge should be considered a triumph. 2156:

At some point in an article about a fictional concept, describing how that concept is treated within the work of fiction is not only useful, but necessary. That description is given in the lede, and the rest of the article is composed primarily of out-of-universe information. What

3487:

demonstrate that the phrase "spoo space" is used in exactly the manner described, with little controversy. You are throwing up objections to it for various reasons, but I doubt parties with no stake in this argument would assert that the posts do not back up the assertion quite

2726:, that consists of some forums and a lot of websites pulling information direction from the Knowledge article? Even if all 116 sources did use "spoo space" in the manner that the article claims it is used, that still does not show any relevance. First, the sentence is using a 3101:! Insane! And it's a pretty good article. We should have 100 million more articles just like it. We really should. I hope that we can get 100 million FA-class articles some day, on every imaginable subject, from mainstream to zany. That's what we should be striving for. 840:, we can't trust the default judgement of most drive by editors and anons to know what should be included and how it should be presented when it comes to fiction. That isn't speculation, that isn't something I read on SA, that's something that has (and still does) happen. -- 3969:

allows for a lack of notability? currently, all pokemon but a couple (literally) have been merged into lists of 20. is the current guideline saying that only an article in list format is acceptable for a NN character? I fail, then, to see any distinction between the term

751:

I agree that the guideline is not written succintly. It could be cut down by at least two thirds. Though even a well-written version will struggle to command real support; the 'notability is absolute' attitude is too flimsy and counter-intuitive compared to other, superior

188:

Ok, the reason I added that is that I've seen a lot of appropriate non-notable lists (per guideline) except they fail to site any sources, even primary ones. I agree, we don't want to encourage the creation of such lists that heavily cite primary sources, but we also want

3770:, which is pretty much all verifiable and factual. And someone would actually have to write them, keeping them at the level of quality that spoo has -- that's a formidable task, all just for the purpose of keeping spoo in the encyclopedia? Spoo stands alone just fine. 1113:

Two American sci-fi TV shows do not represent fiction in general, yes, but they represent a lot of the problems that fiction-related articles (especially popular television shows) have, which is incidently also where the application of this guideline is fended off by

1567:

There are eight examples, seven of which are sci/fi fantasy, and the remaining one is a Simpsons character. The section should be rewritten in general terms with a short, balanced list of examples. As it stands, it's embedding a very mixed bag of articles as 'good'.

1069:(reply to DGG) I am not suggesting to imitate the German wikipedia to disallow individual works per se (in fact, I regard their blanket-hostility towards fiction as their weakest point and a major turn-off). But I am seeing a decrepancy between allowing (existing) 3126:

Now, I'm not saying Knowledge should contain untrue information, because that clearly sabotages its whole mission as an encyclopedia. And the only way to ensure that what is in it is true is to insist that all statements within it be verifiable. This means that

2312:

Using common sense, I am able to treat the examples given as believable and reliable. Again, is this a case of rigidity for its own sake? Do you believe that the use of the phrase "spoo space", as described, is not a real phenomenon? Are you basically saying,

166:

inappropriately remove them via Afd or redirection. That's the point. The current RfArb shows why we need to be explicit about that. Subarticles are a matter of style, as well as of notability. We need a practical way to break out large sections of articles.

1255:

will defy any well-founded (in policy and guideline) cleanup attempt while not doing anything themselves to address the expressed concerns, where I would see a sentence about the discouragement of stubs as beneficial. But this thread seems to head towards a

2403:

can't have a set of rules and then say "this article breaks all the rules but it's good so not only are we going to keep it, lets give it awards." This is a clear example of the basic flaws in notability, they go way beyond just this guideline. For example

321:

I see what you mean by this; I've included the last few sentences of the previous revision as to make it clear that non-notable subarticles are fine, but should still be sourced and encouraged to aim towards notability, in order to avoid the wikilawyering.

857:. Would you agree that in the mainstream media, fancruft on Knowledge is not seen as an especially serious problem? 'Drive by editors and anons' as being behind fancruft is an over-simplification; some of it is created by established editors and admins.-- 645:

With that said, I think it generally keeps the spirit of the original rewrite (the current version isn't so much as a rewrite as it is an expansion), which means that my only major issue is with the questionable handling of the matter on the talkpage. —

3396:

As for the "importance" of the claim made in the article, you're exercising a personal standard. As am I, as is the person who wrote the article, as would anyone else who might have something to say about the article. On that point we'll just have to

3132:

there is some way to include verifiable, reliable information about it in Knowledge, then Knowledge is a better encyclopedia for having a good-quality article on Joe's Cafe of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Or Assemblywoman Jean Smith of Brooks, Alberta. Or

674:

That seems like a fair reason, and it's unfortunate that extremists on both sides force the need for a somewhat wordy guideline. But it still has good points. The ironic this is that the intent of the original rewrite was to prevent both inclusionism

4110:

As I've said, I dislike the idea that articles suddenly become worthy of consideration if they've been injected with dodgy sources like forum posts and search engine results. That rewards pointless paperwork, and privileges experienced Wikipedians'

3477:

The portion of SYNTH you quote could be taken the way you claim, in the absence of context, but the example given right after the portion you quote shows it to be something very different. Would you say, for instance, that the claim "The TV series

4072: 3740:

or whatever where the current 10kB prose of Spoo would fit nicely, and you'd still have 30 to 50kB to fill with obviously notable and "well"-sourced stuff before it becomes too long. Chances are there would be less critics about the article. –

1815:

is a featured article, but there are plenty of problems with that page (some of which I pointed out to the regular editors a month ago). Just because it's featured doesn't mean that it is a good example - and on the contrary, just because it

945:(1) "To support the understanding of the work, provide a concise plot summary."—This is of a different tone from the rest of the guideline; it addresses the reader directly. Can the tone be consistent? (2) I see quite a few redundant words. 336:

It's unreadable gobbledegook that will be used to prop up crappy lists for our favourite fiction, whilst killing off equivalent lists for fiction we don't like. In other words, a continuation of the status quo. The entire section should be

3483:

source; the posts that the search turns up are what backs up the claim. (Normally Google searches don't turn up such a clean and consistent "group of sources" like that, but Usenet is very different from the Web.) That group of sources

2094:, this is what spoo is and how it's regarded". Yes, every sentence in that paragraph could repeat the words "fictional universe", but would that really constitute an improvement, or would it just be a case of rigidity for its own sake?-- 2730:, "some", to generalize about the science fiction community. Finding "spoo space" on a forum does not translate to a representative sample of the "science fiction community". Sure, I don't doubt that "some" person does use it, but it's 3513:

I gave above would also qualify as an analysis, and at that point, practically any writing found on Knowledge would qualify as "original analysis" unless Knowledge never contained any form of writing aside from paraphrases of existing

871:

than having 10 million different definitions of notability chaotically clash together, is a pretty good idea. Fancruft is a major problem on Knowledge, and it's not a matter of judgment, but a matter of consideration and consensus. --

214:

It's terribly unfair to draw a distinction between non-notable lists with no sources and non-notable lists with rotten sources (fansites, forum posts, dialogue fragments). The article stays or goes based on how much paperwork has been

1947:

Using dodgy sources like forum posts and search engine results means it's unverified. The article exaggerates the weak sources that it has; i.e. 'many' fans have tried to make spoo themselves, sourced from a forum post talking about

3639:

to participate here, not as a witch hunt or trial (again, I don't want to send this to FAR or AfD just because we're bringing it up), but simply to get a different view on this and to see where Spoo sits with respect to notability.

1867:

I agree, Spoo is a bad example. It's already been FARed twice since it was promoted (and only seems to have been kept from a glut of fans stacking the deck), and even AfDed. That is not a good example of a good featured article.

1201:

rule. I simply want the encyclopedia to inform people in an encyclopedic manner, and I agree with DGG that stubs are a better part of that than long lists. Stubs allow for better linkage and build the web better. As Knowledge

365:

Why not just say "Lists of characters from important fiction can be acceptable, even if they don't satisfy the notability criteria." That's all that needs to be said. Everything else is common sense, common practice, trivial or

4054:

Spoo is neither notable by our standards, nor by any other standard. It has already failed the ten-year rule, and even in its heyday it was probably only known to a few hundred fans. As for equivalent removed articles, there's

3627:

I will note I previously suggested the use of developer comments from commentary or interviews as reliable secondary sources (aka the 1.5 source idea) which Spoo would have fit into neatly, but this approach from both here and

147:

were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should provide as much real-world content as possible.

1665:

I had thought we all agreed that Spoo could stay as an example since we all agreed that we should demonstrate that exceptions can exist to this guideline if the consensus exists that the article improves the encyclopedia.

1099:

Two American sci-fi TV shows do not represent fiction in general. What about the hundreds, (if not thousands) of characters from literature? If I were to 'review' them, I would find a great many notable ones (stub or

913:

we sometimes "rub shoulders", because one size won't fit every single situation. A more liberal guideline could say "dude, just edit" and we wouldn't have any conflicts (in theory), but we'd have crappy articles. --

4047:

I am opposed to 'exceptions' granted for flimsy reasons like 'encyclopedic' or 'has greatly improved'. It's a safe bet that these exceptions will be granted for Wikipedians' favourite franchises and not a lot else.

1515:

seemless, but it is the merge-cleanup (and redirect-cleanup where the main article already has all the important information) of currently popular fiction that got people like TTN into trouble with the community. –

2595:

is also one of the most liberal (and realistic) guidelines for inclusion, which explains its support. People follow it because it's reasonable and makes sense. FWIW, an album to-be-released with a single source

2456:, it's mentioned in at least 2 published books, I'm also sure I can source more information from USENET and various other mailing lists/forums. Guess what it won't mater it's going to be deleted by someone citing 1500:

contributing. it's my opinion that the process of article creation, and then a trim & merge into the more relevant article, creates more comprehensive articles on the whole... but that's purely speculative. -

1090:

mergers and as a major contributor to the GA/GAN SG article burst of January/February 2008 (the last Good SG article before that was in 2006), I certainly feel that I notice and know what's good and what's bad. –

632:

I've been inactive lately, so I thought I'd contribute my two cents to show that I'm not just abandoning everything. On the whole, I like the current version. Right now, I can only think of a couple suggestions:

2222:

McClure is a washed-up actor, frequently shown presenting infomercials and educational videos. He is vain and self-centered, marrying Selma Bouvier to aid his failing career and quash rumors about his personal

1824:

a good example. All the "Example" articles should be agreed upon with consensus. This should also help with biased editors wanting their work to be used as an example, and listing it whenever it gets promoted.

2676:

Goose, ignoring WP:RS doesn't change the fact that what is being cited in Spoo is not verified by the sources presented. You cannot verify that "spoo space" is so universally used by saying "check Google".

888:

have different definitions of notability rubbing shoulders. A more liberal fiction guideline would be less chaotic than a strict one that is ignored or relaxed for Wikipedians' favourite sci-fi/cartoons.--

3162:

This Is How Things Must Be Because I or Someone Else Said So, then you're never going to make a cogent point. The kind of arguments you keep coming back to, it really makes me think you're striving for

1908:

It's based on whimsical creator usenet posts and little else. It is debatable whether these are authoritative, serious sources, or the online equivalent of a Q&A session at a low-key fan gathering.--

2646:

Well, don't despair, just keep at trying to make Knowledge the most comprehensive and reliable source of information on the planet -- and reminding people that those two goals are entirely compatible.--

387:? If reliable secondary sources have not made much of a certain part of a piece of fiction, we shouldn't be writing full articles on that part, we should briefly mention it, following their example. We 3817:

decisions based on consensus and writing our encyclopedic articles in a neutral manner, providing references so that the information can be verified and people will know we haven't simply made it up.

2701:

But you can verify it by actually checking Google. Quite plain to me there. Doesn't seem like a false claim. There's page after page supporting the claim. You got eyes, you got a brain, use 'em!--

528:

just general motivation, not the dispute bad fire), and continue our discussions here. The arbcom case is one for behavior, so we still have a lot of work to do, even after the case is concluded. --

2068:

there are other issues with the article that never seem to get mentioned. Like the fact that the first paragraph of the intro is 100% in-universe. I really would expect more from a featured article.

1463:

I'm not quite sure about that wording, but I approve of the intent. It seems to it doesn't have to be just the "topics covered in a summary-style article", but instead any non-notable subtopics of

2460:

because for some reason according to notability guidelines unreleased albums are not notable. I can make the article pass the core policies, but a guideline says it's not allowed for some reason.

1232:

with loaded dice. The solution you are suggesting, if it is aimed at tackling original research, is far too large. You are using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. All you need is the nutcracker of

3840:

Sure, we are here to write an encyclopedia, but not just what kind, but in what manner. We are here not just to gather content together--there are many ways of doing this outside WP. Why are we

2120:

You're right, it isn't 100% IU...it's 90% IU. The first paragraph is 69 words long, and only 7 of them discuss it from a OOU perspective, and that's only to set up the following IU information.

274:

I would prefer we judged fiction lists by a more objective standard, rather than taking bells and whistles into account. The bulk of fiction does not have fansites or forum posts to link to.--

4120:'Major characters + major fiction' is more objective than 'encyclopedic' or 'almost there'. We can at least set the definition of 'major' as something understandable, transparent and fair. -- 3945:

the focus on its appearances in the anime/VGs) - that is, there's nothing notability specific about Torchic that one couldn't easily support from primary sources for any other Pokemon. --

1315:

guideline for a stub is that it needs to a) give the reader a clue what the article is about, and b) give the reader and other editors an indication that this article will eventually meet

699:

them and will wikilaywer anything if things aren't stated in such terms; given the size of the editing community w.r.t. fiction, this made for a very big deal that had to be addressed. --

2888:

Re-scrutinizing the hits, I see that on the order of half the results include quoted replies. That still gives approximately 800 unique instances of its usage across more than a decade.

444:

I think I agree with both of you. This is a discussion of Notability and fiction. A major idea involved with these changes is the question of subarticles recieving the protection of

3992:

i realized that i'm taking the discussion in a different track, i'll spell this out in a new section about the summary style section, i look forward to a response in either place :) -

3375:

doesn't bear upon this situation; SYN says (my paraphrase), "don't take one source and append another source to it that changes what it means". What is being done in the case of the

2809:, and shows 1600 uses, the most recent from April 2007. Perhaps the article should say "Usenet" instead of "online message boards", although Usenet is a form of online message board. 1952:

incidence of this. Original research, in other words. The article takes the view that everything JMS says is canon, and describes spoo as 'classic and hilarious', not very neutral.--

244:

Forum posts and fansites are used on at least two of the 'example' articles. I disagree about dialogue fragments, they inflate the references section and they can be cherry-picked.

1682:

Fictional concepts that may possess limited notability or limited third party reliable sources but can be written in a consensus-agreed encyclopedic manner can also merit articles.

1438:

It is appropriate and encouraged for editors to create redirection pages and populate entries on disambiguation pages for the non-notable topics covered in a summary-style article.

2495:

rules here -- they are meant to serve us in our quest to build an encyclopedia. When they fail to do that, they get ignored. That is how it works. And that's why the article

3383:

allows for describing the content of a primary source, and one is allowed to make summarizing statements on Knowledge in general if they are borne out by the sources available.

2597: 963:

I agree that this new version needs more passes. I also noticed the tone thing; further down an entire section uses "you" to address the reader. It's probably intentional. —

2937:

and assert that it wasn't backed up by the source given? (I rewrote the passage slightly to get rid of the peacock words and mention its particular prominence on Usenet.)--

194:

Maybe at least one more sentence to encourage that such subarticles should be written considering Depth of Coverage, and still should strive to include notable coverage. --

134:

This makes supercrufty lists of nonnotable in-universe elements practicably undeletable. List of weapons, list of powers, something that gets deleted in AfD all the time...

2046:

do, but it isn't a good example of a featured article on a fictional topic, not when it's using sources of skeptical reliability. For example, this source which states - "

596:

Point taken. I fear that I have just become too sensitive to the deletionists-are-evil attitude that I missed the fineprint, and we seem to be on the same page anyway. –

637:

I think it's a little redundant in some areas. At times, the article stresses points already covered in other guidelines or sections, so some reorganization may be good.

3254:

Okay, I've rewritten it to address those complaints, plus the earlier one that the lede was couched too strongly in in-universe terms. The article isn't chock full of

2550:

on the other hand is blindly followed. I have no doubt that no matter how welll written an article on an unreleased album that lacks tons of sources will be deleted.

2048:

Internet example at Jedi Council Forums, and numerous USENET examples can be attained via a Google search, (linked at Google groups). Both retrieved on August 11, 2007.

1012:

Instead of saying that, you can just expand upon the concept of spreading out when the topic gains enough encyclopedic information instead of creating them "unjustly".

457:

then be remerged into the parent article. As far as delete or redirect, that's an entirely separate issue that I'm told gets into GFDL issues, so forget I said that. -

1044:

Furthermore, the last few years of letting fiction articles develop from stubs have shown that the most likely type of expansion for such articles is in violation of

3097:

Let me state things generally. I marvel at Knowledge's ability to cover even weird and obscure topics in a verifiable, encyclopedic manner. We have an article on

4094:

the Bulbasaur example above). The sourcing for Spice, Blood Wine, and Butterbeer was very weak and certainly not comparable to what Spoo is trying to provide. --

3024:

stretching that all statement thin, because you have no sources to back up anything other than to say "spoo space has 1590 hits on Google Groups". You cannot use

1530:, there would have been less of a backlash. I'm actually more familiar with his/her actions in another area (still having to do with fiction), and it's the mass 1353:

used to establish notability for a list of episodes or even individual episode articles. I turly believe that consensus is that stubs are allowed on the en:WP.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4018:(I have never read the in full because I dislike reading in-universe essay-like articles, and I consider the DNA Resequencer a minor fictional element in the 137:

It allows many stubby lists (e.g. character factions), although a more desirable approach would (sometimes) be to have one longer list (common sense applies).

679:

deletionism from running rampant. For the most part, it said the same things as the latest version. I think people just got caught up in the idea that there

582:

decisions and debates. Every guideline and policy is geared towards improving the encyclopedia. The approach taken is left to the consensus of Wikipedians.

2014:

Can you verify that the sources support what is asserted in teh article? Can you evaluate the sources as being reliable for the information they present?

538:

I've been waiting on the arbcom decision and not paying attention to any possible consensus that's devoloping here. Would you or someone else summarize? -

1250:

I prefer the nutcracker version of policy X over a sledgehammer any time, and it is usually working (in which case a bold edit with a concise edit summary

1996:

is a good example of how to create a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia article on a fictional subject without insisting that anything that doesn't

1543:, is disputed and that needs to be resolved anyways. in short, i agree overall, but it doesn't need to be said here, and would do more harm than good. - 287:

But we're a guideline - the best we can do is be descriptive and suggest what is appropriate, and describe the intent of what should be aimed for. Even

2985:

obscure (yet verifiable) information it includes, the better an encyclopedia it is. I cannot imagine why you are insisting that the opposite is true.--

3931:

a certain level of encyclopedic appearance to their articles, even if almost none of it was the desired third-party-analytical real-world content). –

3790:

I've got nothing against true article mergers, but all too often in the past, when "merge" has been the suggestion, "purge" has been the result.--

1597:; it would be nice to get other genres represented, but given that FA is our measure of quality, it makes sense to take examples from there. -- 1078:

notability (thereby implying that the same applies to stubs), it's probably better to address this issue again when WP:EPISODE gets its rewrite.

3698:

In the process of such a merge, it would probably be reduced to a paragraph or two at most so as not to be disproportionate to the rest of the

2408:

is a rather arbitrary standard. I think the core policies do a fine job of this and that notability is a major step in the wrong direction.

1811: 2723: 1282:

Stubs involving fictional articles are a tricky beast. First, there's no single definition of "stub" that people seem to agree: based on

999: 4068: 909:

should be a stand alone article, but it doesn't completely conflict with the guidelines either. WP:FICT is a guideline and not a policy

47: 17: 3997: 3983: 1548: 1505: 3861:

I don't really disagree with anything you say. You're right, it is about beliefs and how we pursue them, rather than anything else.

1191:

them unless they meet certain regulations, making them the perfect stub as you say. I already elaborated in my reply to DGG above. –

1081:(reply to Nydas) Of course I am not familiar with every fiction article on wikipedia, but I base my experience on my review of all 4022:

series). The article got promoted to GA in 2006, but the current GA sweep, which put the article on hold, confirms my concerns. –

3706:

and well-written) information be in any way considered an improvement to Knowledge? Why is there this emphasis on getting rid of

2802: 2736: 2735:

find a reliable secondary source that says, "the term spoorific has become commonly used among science fiction communities". Even

793:

the wikilawyered version. There's no reason not to trust in our editors judgement, given that fancruft is not a serious problem.--

391:

to something. Summary style is not a pass from notability. If we don't have multiple parts of a subject, all of which are notable

4196:

If 'encyclopedic' is compelling editors to look at the content, rather than the topic, then that's another reason to abandon it.

2542:

Here's the problem consensus is against fixing the guidelines. Some of the notabilty guidline have almost no support for example

4150:

reliable sources, and there is editor bias there, but the other principles of WP, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOR, are still to be met.

3213:

is sourced from a search, and regularly could also be described as 'less than once a month and not for the last six months'.--

3812:

What Spoo tells us is that notability is guidance, not policy, and that we are here to write an encyclopedia. When we write

1142: 765:

If we cut it down too much, we're back at the old version which as I've noted above was wikilaywered around all the time.--

2453: 307:

More of the old phrasing should be incorporated, because I promise you that non-notable lists will be defended with this.

395:, we don't have any reason to use summary style. We may have good reason to trim, if the article's grown overly bloated. 3619:

is contentious, so lets not use it as an example just for now. But this brings up a good point: how does the fact that

2830:

I can see why, in looking at the wrong source, you might assert that it did not back up the claim made in the article.--

434: 3766:

does. In fact, they'd probably face more: they sound like inherent OR-bait topics, unlike what we currently have in

3710:

instead of making an extraordinarily informative encyclopedia? Madness! Madness. It all makes me shake my head.--

1653:

I've added both characters as examples (with Fowler replacing Spoo, since that could be taken as too contested). --

1613: 543: 38: 1123:, this analysis should not be by the wiki-editor. So you need to show reliable sources. Bingo, the stub satisfies 2856: 312: 1845:

kind of sad that they seem very active on that article, but have so far seemed to totally ignore your comments.

3682: 2731: 3535:

As for the "notability" of the information, again, we can only argue on the basis of our personal standards.

3072:

matches what you're claiming here. I'm not sure if that's a deliberate misrepresentation on your part or not.

1535:

worried it might be used as a carte blanche by them, saying, "A redirect is desired above increased material."

1374: 1165:

answer; educating users and building a strong consensus on keeping them encyclopedic in style and tone is.

1119:

of one-off characters here). But the characters become notable through literary analysis/reception. And per

4208: 4161: 4128: 4101: 4083: 4039: 4026: 4001: 3987: 3952: 3935: 3913: 3888: 3870: 3856: 3826: 3799: 3745: 3719: 3689: 3671: 3655: 3604: 3569: 3456: 3406: 3359: 3327: 3304: 3267: 3221: 3175: 3043: 2994: 2967: 2946: 2879: 2839: 2780: 2755: 2710: 2692: 2655: 2611: 2559: 2513: 2469: 2447: 2417: 2381: 2355: 2326: 2299: 2269: 2170: 2135: 2103: 2077: 2023: 2009: 1960: 1942: 1916: 1903: 1877: 1854: 1840: 1783: 1768: 1754: 1740: 1722: 1707: 1691: 1675: 1660: 1640: 1604: 1587: 1552: 1519: 1509: 1494: 1477: 1458: 1447: 1408: 1387: 1362: 1347: 1332: 1298: 1267: 1245: 1226: 1214: 1195: 1174: 1146: 1108: 1094: 1064: 1038: 1021: 1006: 972: 958: 918: 896: 875: 865: 844: 827: 813: 801: 772: 760: 742: 721: 706: 693: 669: 655: 617: 600: 591: 576: 562: 547: 532: 512: 502: 466: 448:. If this idea is accepted, the existence of non-existence of sub-articles becomes dependent on issues of 439: 420: 401: 374: 358: 345: 329: 316: 302: 282: 269: 256: 239: 223: 201: 177: 157: 3795: 3715: 3629: 3565: 3402: 3263: 3171: 2990: 2942: 2914: 2835: 2706: 2651: 2509: 2443: 2377: 2322: 2265: 2166: 2099: 2005: 1873: 3737: 2897:

If you weren't trying to win this argument right now, would you really, independently look at this claim:

1745:

can you honestly say you want to show people an example that contradicts basically the entire guideline?

3881: 3707: 1617: 1328: 854: 539: 4056: 3733: 2860:

being used for, and then a Google search source to show that it's being used on the net. That's called

1115: 553:

broaden the consensus, and by their silence we can only assume that there is consensus there as well.

4015: 3323: 1358: 1316: 1130: 1124: 308: 2772:

If we're analysing what Google spits out, it's clear that the expression has long since died out.--

968: 738: 717: 689: 651: 491:

Yes,when a merge takes place properly, the histories are merged to preserve the GFDL requirements.

3667: 3255: 3166:

or something. What are we really here for? Why on Earth do I have to be asking that question?--

2555: 2465: 2413: 2073: 1850: 1779: 1774:

more interested in promoting articles to justify having featured list rather then actual quality.

1750: 1718: 1473: 1404: 1343: 1138: 462: 396: 4060: 3927:, seem to be such cases. (I can't comment on how good the sources were to begin with, but there 2602: 2290: 412: 2438:

WP:RS whenever we're capable of exercising our own good judgement to achieve a better result.--

2193:

Incidentally, the paragraph in question is not unsimilar to the following from the lede of the

3993: 3979: 3791: 3711: 3599: 3561: 3451: 3398: 3354: 3299: 3259: 3167: 3038: 2986: 2962: 2938: 2874: 2831: 2750: 2727: 2702: 2687: 2647: 2505: 2439: 2373: 2350: 2318: 2261: 2162: 2130: 2095: 2060: 2001: 1869: 1835: 1544: 1501: 986: 850: 4200:

shouldn't help an article if it's about an exceedingly minor concept with no real sources.--

3866: 3822: 3128: 2317:, it's clearly real but the source provided is nontraditional and therefore unacceptable"?-- 2019: 1938: 1899: 1764: 1736: 1671: 1324: 1241: 1210: 1170: 809:

wait, what? I think it's safe to assume that most will disagree with you on that, Nydas. --

587: 558: 3898:

Obviously we are at odds over Spoo, so I have a suggestion for how to try to resolve this.

3560:

That'll be my last reply on this subject; we can only rehash our arguments at this point.--

508:

feature to be able to have some way of histmerging merged pages without it mixing them. --

4206: 4126: 4081: 3319: 3219: 3163: 2922: 2778: 2592: 2547: 2457: 2404: 1958: 1914: 1705: 1638: 1621: 1585: 1354: 1106: 1062: 998:, and stubbifying often (but not always) just leads to a new round in the vicious circle. 953: 894: 863: 825: 799: 758: 429: 416: 388: 372: 343: 280: 254: 248:

is an awful slanted article, but it could be entirely 'sourced' from dialogue fragments.--

221: 3762:

Somehow I doubt either of those hypothetical articles would face any less criticism than

1052:, and stubbifying often (but not always) just leads to a new round in the vicious circle. 3885: 3380: 1930: 1887: 1629: 1625: 1283: 965: 915: 872: 841: 810: 735: 714: 686: 648: 529: 509: 449: 122: 3845:

product of long term value on a very large scale--to go where no one has gone before.

3427:

related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research

4023: 3932: 3852: 3742: 3686: 3663: 3372: 3069: 3025: 2861: 2551: 2543: 2461: 2435: 2409: 2069: 1926: 1891: 1846: 1775: 1746: 1714: 1516: 1469: 1455: 1423: 1400: 1339: 1308: 1304: 1264: 1233: 1223: 1202: 1192: 1134: 1091: 1045: 1034: 1017: 1003: 991: 613: 597: 573: 498: 458: 453: 445: 407: 173: 154: 1632:

are two sound featured articles, representing soap operas and horror respectively.--

3966: 3813: 3590: 3442: 3345: 3290: 3211:

Comes up regularly on the Usenet group devoted to discussions of Straczynski's work

3029: 2953: 2865: 2741: 2678: 2399: 2341: 2257: 2194: 2121: 2051: 1997: 1826: 1759:

can you honestly say you don't believe featured articles improve the encyclopedia?

1594: 1569: 1540: 1394: 1383: 1120: 1049: 995: 288: 245: 229: 1432:

would be way too many hits (though likely this should hit a disamb page as well).

117:

Though such sub-article need not demonstrate notability, they should still remain

3624:

truly fail notability and we should not be worried how it fits into the picture.

3862: 3818: 3703: 3539:

explicitly covers only topics as a whole, not the content found within articles.

3536: 3438: 2090:

It's not 100% in-universe; it says (paraphrased), "in the fictional universe of

2015: 1934: 1922: 1895: 1883: 1760: 1732: 1667: 1579:

As a point of honour, we should not use articles we have personally worked on.--

1320: 1237: 1206: 1166: 583: 554: 292: 118: 46:

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

291:

isn't a bright line for what is reliable or not, and yet it's a cornerstone of

4202: 4155: 4122: 4095: 4077: 4064: 4033: 3946: 3907: 3649: 3215: 2864:, because you're taking source A, and source B, and saying they conclusion C. 2774: 2197:

article, given as a counterexample of a "good" article on a fictional subject:

1954: 1910: 1701: 1685: 1654: 1634: 1598: 1581: 1488: 1441: 1292: 1102: 1058: 946: 890: 859: 821: 795: 766: 754: 700: 663: 426: 368: 352: 339: 323: 296: 276: 263: 250: 233: 217: 195: 452:. So to properly remove a subarticle, you will have to edit it according to 3920: 902: 684:

their side. I guess that could explain why it took a defensive direction. —

2372:

So, rigidity, then. If it isn't in a secondary source, it doesn't exist.--

1809:

article), because no one else bothered or had time to review the article.

1680:

We should then preface it by stating that such exceptions exist, such as:

1056:

Have you considered that you would not notice the good fiction articles?--

3847: 3133: 1417:

Encouraging the creation of redirection articles for non-notable elements

1029: 1013: 608: 493: 168: 1373:

My 2 cents: stubs are allowed, as long as the subjects are notable. See

2917:

has used the term "spoo space" on online message boards (especially on

1378: 1127:

and already passes WP:FICT, which I didn't question for valid stubs.

228:

Excluding dialog fragments, both examples you give qualify as lacking

4145:

Using "encyclopedic" is not perfect, but it is more subjective as it

2918: 2806: 2288:

Maybe the problem is with your expectations rather than the article?

3207:

Regarded as a classic and hilarious element of the Babylon mythology

1526:

if people like TTN were actually doing something along the lines of

3732:

Who said anything about massive trimming? Write an article about

3379:

article is describing hundreds of primary sources in aggregate.

1073:

with no claims of notability, and strongly suggesting a merge of

3767: 3763: 3678: 3636: 3620: 3616: 3586: 3434: 3098: 2496: 2398:

The fact that it has never spread beyond USENET, either we redo

2249: 1993: 1696: 1573: 906: 881: 985:

Some editors in current fiction-related AfDs (correctly) quote

1085:

articles (formerly 35 plus about 80 episode articles) and all

25: 3209:

is unsourced (the source is just JMS's original Spoo post).

1311:, as well as someone who creates a lot of stub articles. My 3919:

Two (or more) of the formerly featured Pokémon characters,

4067:. Note that not only did we redirect Blood wine, but that 4032:

That, I would say, does achieve what Spoo is trying to. --

712:

concepts are clearly embedded in Knowledge's practices. —

3258:, though it did endulge in hyperbole at various points.-- 1205:, I am unclear how you would go about establishing them. 3015:

Sorry, but a handful of people, who have not been noted

1539:

because the notability of elements, or applicability of

3924: 2546:

I see it totally ignored in the vast majority of AFD's

1729:

it is not something an example I want people following.

1482:

I want to note that my intent with this suggestion was

1220:

You want stubs to be the exception rather than the rule

111: 3965:

But aren't pokemon cases like this an example of when

2248:

That's completely in-universe. How would you change

1882:What exactly are the issues with Spoo with regards 4069:List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek 411:secondary source notability applies to each part. 1454:help getting guidelines across to new editors. – 1921:And in what sense is that an issue with regards 832:Yes, and you're completely wrong about that. In 3632:is suggested to be too frought with loopholes. 1699:doesn't have limited notability, it has none.-- 3313:Big, I think Goose is claiming that "spoo" is 3702:article. How would the elimination of such ( 3635:To that end, I propose we ask the editors of 8: 1000:de:Knowledge:Richtlinien Literarische Werke 1303:A comment from someone who works a lot in 3880:Jeff is still around, he just edits with 2801:The reference provided in the article is 1263:of my proposal, which I'll accept. :-) – 3611:Spoo: identifying it in context of FICT? 3028:to claim some kind of generalizability. 2909:Since its advent and popularization in 2042:Spoo is a good example of what you can 1593:All the examples have been pulled from 1436:Style Sub-Articles" along the lines of 106:Summary style approach for sub-articles 2260:, and why don't you make the change?-- 819:issues, deletionism and bureaucracy.-- 389:don't give more weight than sources do 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1812:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) 880:Since this guideline is ignored for 3646:element, and thus comes under here. 2254:(eating spoo, ha-ha, that's a joke) 125:such as the work of fiction itself. 18:Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction) 2504:is what makes it a good article.-- 1377:, a Heroes episode stub. See also 383:is sourceable, else merge it back 24: 2161:are you complaining about here?-- 1576:fails this guideline completely. 628:Comments from the original author 3129:things made up in school one day 1998:welcome our new insect overlords 1399:s. Seems to make sense to me. - 29: 3772:What weird sentences these are. 3681:'s main editor, (former) admin 2065:02:43, 14 February 20:08 (UTC) 733:definitely be participating. — 3894:Suggestion to Nydas and others 3019:, using the term "spoo space" 1820:featured doesn't mean that it 130:I see two problems with that. 1: 4209:17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 4162:16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 4129:16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 4102:22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 4084:22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 4040:13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 4027:11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 4002:02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 3988:01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 3953:16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 3936:16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 3914:16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 3889:00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3871:14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3857:19:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3827:16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3800:03:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3746:00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3720:21:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3690:15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3672:15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3656:15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 3605:15:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 3570:09:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 3457:06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 3407:05:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 3360:12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3328:12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3305:12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3268:08:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 3222:09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3176:08:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 3044:03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 2995:03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 2968:22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2947:21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2880:12:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2840:10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2781:07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2756:04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2711:04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2693:04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2656:10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2612:08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2560:05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2514:04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2470:04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2454:The_Ballad_of_Stuffed_Trigger 2448:03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2418:03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2382:03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2356:03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2327:03:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2300:08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2270:03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2171:03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2136:03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2104:03:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2078:02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2024:14:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 2010:02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1961:17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1943:16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1917:15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1904:13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1878:01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1855:23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1841:22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1784:22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1769:22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1755:22:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1741:22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1723:22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1708:21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1692:20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1676:19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 1661:19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1641:18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1605:17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1588:17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1553:19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 1520:15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 1510:02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 1495:18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1478:18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1459:17:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1448:16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1409:18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1388:12:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1363:11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1348:10:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1333:17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1299:15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1268:09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1246:00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1227:00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1215:23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1196:12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1175:12:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1147:15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1109:15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1095:10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1065:08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1039:07:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1022:00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1007:00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 973:23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 959:10:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 919:05:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 897:15:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 876:12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 866:09:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 845:09:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 828:09:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 814:08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 802:08:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 773:22:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 761:21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 743:19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 722:19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 707:18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 694:18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 670:18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 656:18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 618:03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 601:16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 592:15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 577:15:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 563:13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 548:06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 533:00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 513:00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 503:14:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 3441:that particular assumption. 2737:using more detailed searches 2252:to be "fit for consumption" 990:articles is in violation of 981:Stubs and WP:FICT/WP:EPISODE 467:00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 440:00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 421:23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 402:23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 375:22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 359:21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 346:21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 330:19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 317:18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 303:15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 283:15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 270:13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 257:07:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 240:14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 224:08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 202:02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 178:01:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 158:01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 141:WP:FICT's old version said 3615:Obviously, from the above, 1468:what has been said above. - 1427:episode name and end up on 1392:My 2 cents are the same as 4231: 2732:indiscriminate information 523:Things have seemed to stop 379:How about "Keep it if the 4014:Another article could be 3683:User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2915:science fiction community 836:experience, in what I've 1624:are only good articles. 1375:Truth & Consequences 1183:I was not suggesting to 905:, and I'm not convinced 2315:delete this information 1614:Characters of Carnivàle 153:to AfD immediately.) – 1381:, notable but stubby. 3814:encyclopedic articles 2724:You mean this search? 1618:Smallville (season 1) 901:I never really liked 855:attitude polarization 42:of past discussions. 2000:should be deleted.-- 393:in and of themselves 3738:Fandom of Babylon 5 2913:, a segment of the 2598:will survive an AfD 2256:in the same way as 4205: 4125: 4080: 3882:User:Mr. Gustafson 3708:shit we don't like 3587:the Babylon 5 item 3218: 2857:for "purple sheep" 2777: 2452:here's an example 1957: 1913: 1704: 1637: 1584: 1572:is solid article, 1203:has no regulations 1105: 1061: 893: 862: 824: 798: 757: 371: 342: 279: 253: 220: 4201: 4121: 4076: 4057:Spice (Star Wars) 3869: 3832:the encyclopedia 3825: 3773: 3734:Food in Babylon 5 3602: 3597: 3454: 3449: 3435:spoo on this page 3357: 3352: 3326: 3302: 3297: 3214: 3164:purity of essence 3041: 3036: 2965: 2960: 2877: 2872: 2773: 2753: 2748: 2690: 2685: 2353: 2348: 2255: 2133: 2128: 2063: 2058: 2022: 1953: 1941: 1909: 1902: 1838: 1833: 1767: 1739: 1727:I think you mean 1700: 1674: 1633: 1595:Featured articles 1580: 1361: 1244: 1213: 1173: 1149: 1133:comment added by 1101: 1057: 889: 858: 851:confirmation bias 820: 794: 753: 590: 561: 400: 367: 338: 275: 249: 216: 110:Masem's addition: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4222: 4159: 4099: 4037: 3950: 3911: 3865: 3821: 3771: 3653: 3600: 3595: 3591: 3452: 3447: 3443: 3355: 3350: 3346: 3322: 3300: 3295: 3291: 3039: 3034: 3030: 2963: 2958: 2954: 2875: 2870: 2866: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2688: 2683: 2679: 2608: 2605: 2434:Or, we can also 2351: 2346: 2342: 2296: 2293: 2253: 2131: 2126: 2122: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2018: 1937: 1898: 1836: 1831: 1827: 1763: 1735: 1689: 1670: 1658: 1602: 1492: 1445: 1357: 1296: 1240: 1209: 1169: 1128: 956: 951: 884:and company, we 770: 704: 667: 586: 557: 540:Peregrine Fisher 437: 432: 399: 385:and trim it down 356: 327: 300: 267: 237: 230:reliable sources 199: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4230: 4229: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4157: 4097: 4035: 4016:DNA Resequencer 4000: 3986: 3948: 3909: 3896: 3651: 3613: 3593: 3445: 3348: 3293: 3032: 2956: 2868: 2744: 2681: 2606: 2603: 2344: 2294: 2291: 2124: 2054: 1829: 1687: 1656: 1622:Squall Leonhart 1600: 1565: 1551: 1508: 1490: 1443: 1419: 1294: 983: 954: 947: 768: 702: 665: 630: 525: 435: 430: 354: 325: 309:Judgesurreal777 298: 265: 235: 197: 123:primary sources 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4228: 4226: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4151: 4143: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4105: 4104: 4091: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3996: 3982: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3939: 3938: 3895: 3892: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3838: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3693: 3692: 3675: 3674: 3612: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3308: 3307: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2883: 2882: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2805:, specific to 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2696: 2695: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2012: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1630:Jason Voorhees 1626:Pauline Fowler 1608: 1607: 1564: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1547: 1536: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1504: 1461: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1288: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1187:stubs, but to 1178: 1177: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1079: 1054: 982: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 746: 745: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 643: 642: 638: 629: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 603: 568: 567: 566: 565: 524: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 442: 425:Oyez! Oyez! -- 363: 362: 361: 334: 333: 332: 207: 206: 205: 204: 183: 182: 181: 180: 150: 149: 139: 138: 135: 128: 127: 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: 4227: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4199: 4198:Looking right 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4179:would choose. 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4163: 4160: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4130: 4127: 4124: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4092: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4082: 4079: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4052: 4049: 4041: 4038: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4012: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3968: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3954: 3951: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3912: 3904: 3899: 3893: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3849: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3747: 3744: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3654: 3647: 3641: 3638: 3633: 3631: 3625: 3622: 3618: 3610: 3606: 3603: 3598: 3596: 3588: 3583: 3582: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3486: 3481: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3458: 3455: 3450: 3448: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3361: 3358: 3353: 3351: 3342: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3298: 3296: 3287: 3286: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3223: 3220: 3217: 3212: 3208: 3205:well-known). 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3135: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3071: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3045: 3042: 3037: 3035: 3027: 3022: 3018: 3017:ANYWHERE ELSE 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2969: 2966: 2961: 2959: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2926: 2924: 2923:spoiler space 2921:) instead of 2920: 2916: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2878: 2873: 2871: 2863: 2858: 2853: 2852: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2782: 2779: 2776: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2757: 2754: 2749: 2747: 2738: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2691: 2686: 2684: 2675: 2674: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2613: 2610: 2609: 2599: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2357: 2354: 2349: 2347: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2224: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2137: 2134: 2129: 2127: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2064: 2059: 2057: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1951: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1834: 1832: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1807: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1703: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1690: 1683: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1562: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1518: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1493: 1485: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1460: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1439: 1433: 1430: 1425: 1424:Help:Redirect 1416: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1396: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1317:WP:Notability 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1126: 1125:WP:NOTABILITY 1122: 1117: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1104: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1055: 1053: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 988: 980: 974: 971: 970: 967: 962: 961: 960: 957: 952: 950: 944: 943: 920: 917: 912: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 895: 892: 887: 883: 879: 878: 877: 874: 869: 868: 867: 864: 861: 856: 852: 848: 847: 846: 843: 839: 838:actually seen 835: 831: 830: 829: 826: 823: 817: 816: 815: 812: 808: 805: 804: 803: 800: 797: 792: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 774: 771: 764: 763: 762: 759: 756: 752:guidelines.-- 750: 749: 748: 747: 744: 741: 740: 737: 731: 723: 720: 719: 716: 710: 709: 708: 705: 697: 696: 695: 692: 691: 688: 682: 678: 673: 672: 671: 668: 660: 659: 658: 657: 654: 653: 650: 639: 636: 635: 634: 627: 619: 615: 611: 610: 604: 602: 599: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 580: 579: 578: 575: 570: 569: 564: 560: 556: 551: 550: 549: 545: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 531: 522: 514: 511: 506: 505: 504: 500: 496: 495: 490: 468: 464: 460: 455: 451: 447: 443: 441: 438: 433: 428: 424: 423: 422: 418: 414: 409: 405: 404: 403: 398: 397:Seraphimblade 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 377: 376: 373: 370: 366:irrelevant.-- 364: 360: 357: 349: 348: 347: 344: 341: 335: 331: 328: 320: 319: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 304: 301: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 281: 278: 273: 272: 271: 268: 260: 259: 258: 255: 252: 247: 243: 242: 241: 238: 231: 227: 226: 225: 222: 219: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 203: 200: 192: 187: 186: 185: 184: 179: 175: 171: 170: 164: 163: 162: 161: 160: 159: 156: 148: 144: 143: 142: 136: 133: 132: 131: 126: 124: 120: 115: 114: 113: 112: 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: 4197: 4146: 4053: 4050: 4046: 4019: 3994:ΖαππερΝαππερ 3980:ΖαππερΝαππερ 3975: 3971: 3928: 3902: 3900: 3897: 3879: 3846: 3841: 3833: 3792:Father Goose 3712:Father Goose 3699: 3644: 3642: 3634: 3626: 3614: 3601:(Contact me) 3592: 3562:Father Goose 3510: 3484: 3479: 3453:(Contact me) 3444: 3430: 3425: 3399:Father Goose 3376: 3356:(Contact me) 3347: 3340: 3314: 3301:(Contact me) 3292: 3260:Father Goose 3210: 3206: 3168:Father Goose 3040:(Contact me) 3031: 3020: 3016: 2987:Father Goose 2964:(Contact me) 2955: 2939:Father Goose 2912: 2908: 2876:(Contact me) 2867: 2832:Father Goose 2752:(Contact me) 2743: 2728:peacock term 2703:Father Goose 2689:(Contact me) 2680: 2648:Father Goose 2601: 2506:Father Goose 2501: 2440:Father Goose 2374:Father Goose 2352:(Contact me) 2343: 2319:Father Goose 2314: 2289: 2262:Father Goose 2258:Troy McClure 2221: 2195:Troy McClure 2163:Father Goose 2158: 2132:(Contact me) 2123: 2096:Father Goose 2091: 2062:(Contact me) 2053: 2047: 2043: 2002:Father Goose 1949: 1870:AnmaFinotera 1837:(Contact me) 1828: 1821: 1817: 1810: 1728: 1681: 1578: 1570:Troy McClure 1566: 1563:The examples 1545:ΖαππερΝαππερ 1531: 1527: 1502:ΖαππερΝαππερ 1487:process. -- 1483: 1464: 1437: 1434: 1428: 1420: 1393: 1382: 1312: 1261:no consensus 1260: 1256: 1251: 1219: 1188: 1184: 1086: 1082: 1074: 1070: 1043: 1028: 984: 964: 948: 910: 885: 837: 833: 806: 790: 734: 713: 685: 680: 676: 647: 644: 631: 607: 526: 492: 392: 384: 380: 246:Nelson Muntz 190: 167: 151: 145: 140: 129: 116: 109: 78: 43: 37: 3976:sub-article 3397:disagree.-- 3318:overwith. 3068:Nothing in 2500:subject of 1713:following. 1325:Fabrictramp 1129:—Preceding 1046:WP:NOT#PLOT 992:WP:NOT#PLOT 381:part itself 36:This is an 4075:as well.-- 4071:was later 4065:Butterbeer 4061:Blood wine 3998:Alexandria 3984:Alexandria 3704:verifiable 3630:WT:EPISODE 3431:Smallville 3320:Ursasapien 1549:Alexandria 1506:Alexandria 1355:Ursasapien 1189:discourage 987:WP:EPISODE 807:hahahahaha 337:removed.-- 121:by citing 119:verifiable 98:Archive 25 90:Archive 22 85:Archive 21 79:Archive 20 73:Archive 19 68:Archive 18 60:Archive 15 4111:fancruft. 3921:Bulbasaur 3886:Ned Scott 3700:Babylon 5 3134:deadheads 3026:synthesis 2911:Babylon 5 2862:synthesis 2092:Babylon 5 1116:WP:ILIKIT 916:Ned Scott 903:Babylon 5 873:Ned Scott 842:Ned Scott 811:Ned Scott 530:Ned Scott 510:Ned Scott 4024:sgeureka 4020:Stargate 3933:sgeureka 3743:sgeureka 3687:sgeureka 3664:Ridernyc 3594:BIGNOLE 3514:sources. 3446:BIGNOLE 3349:BIGNOLE 3294:BIGNOLE 3256:bollocks 3033:BIGNOLE 2957:BIGNOLE 2869:BIGNOLE 2803:this one 2745:BIGNOLE 2682:BIGNOLE 2593:WP:MUSIC 2552:Ridernyc 2548:WP:Music 2462:Ridernyc 2458:WP:Music 2410:Ridernyc 2405:WP:Music 2345:BIGNOLE 2125:BIGNOLE 2070:Ridernyc 2055:BIGNOLE 2044:possibly 1847:Ridernyc 1830:BIGNOLE 1776:Ridernyc 1747:Ridernyc 1715:Ridernyc 1532:deletion 1517:sgeureka 1470:Verdatum 1456:sgeureka 1401:Verdatum 1340:Ridernyc 1313:personal 1265:sgeureka 1224:sgeureka 1193:sgeureka 1185:disallow 1143:contribs 1135:Sgeureka 1131:unsigned 1092:sgeureka 1087:Stargate 1083:Farscape 1075:articles 1004:sgeureka 598:sgeureka 574:sgeureka 459:Verdatum 155:sgeureka 4073:deleted 3925:Torchic 3901:Let us 3381:WP:PSTS 2159:exactly 1931:WP:NPOV 1888:WP:NPOV 1528:merging 1379:Ji Yeon 1284:WP:STUB 1252:linking 1100:not).-- 966:Deckill 911:because 736:Deckill 715:Deckill 687:Deckill 649:Deckill 450:WP:SIZE 215:done.-- 39:archive 4147:should 3903:assume 3863:Hiding 3819:Hiding 3485:should 3439:verify 3373:WP:SYN 3324:(talk) 3070:WP:SYN 3021:IS NOT 2919:Usenet 2807:Usenet 2544:WP:BIO 2436:ignore 2340:used. 2016:Hiding 1935:Hiding 1927:WP:NOR 1896:Hiding 1892:WP:NOR 1822:is not 1818:is not 1761:Hiding 1733:Hiding 1668:Hiding 1359:(talk) 1309:WP:DEP 1305:WP:NPP 1238:Hiding 1234:WP:NOR 1207:Hiding 1167:Hiding 955:(talk) 584:Hiding 555:Hiding 454:WP:WAF 446:WP:NNC 408:WP:NNC 4203:Nydas 4123:Nydas 4078:Nydas 3967:WP:SS 3884:. -- 3834:ought 3648:) -- 3511:House 3488:well. 3480:House 3216:Nydas 2775:Nydas 2400:WP:RS 2223:life. 1955:Nydas 1911:Nydas 1702:Nydas 1635:Nydas 1582:Nydas 1541:WP:SS 1121:WP:OR 1103:Nydas 1071:stubs 1059:Nydas 1050:WP:OR 996:WP:OR 891:Nydas 886:still 860:Nydas 822:Nydas 796:Nydas 789:This 755:Nydas 413:Torc2 406:No. 369:Nydas 340:Nydas 295:. -- 289:WP:RS 277:Nydas 251:Nydas 218:Nydas 16:< 4158:ASEM 4098:ASEM 4063:and 4036:ASEM 3974:and 3972:list 3949:ASEM 3923:and 3910:ASEM 3853:talk 3842:here 3796:talk 3768:spoo 3764:spoo 3716:talk 3679:Spoo 3668:talk 3652:ASEM 3637:Spoo 3621:Spoo 3617:Spoo 3566:talk 3537:WP:N 3403:talk 3377:spoo 3264:talk 3172:talk 3099:spoo 2991:talk 2943:talk 2836:talk 2707:talk 2652:talk 2556:talk 2510:talk 2502:spoo 2497:spoo 2466:talk 2444:talk 2414:talk 2378:talk 2323:talk 2266:talk 2250:spoo 2167:talk 2100:talk 2074:talk 2006:talk 1994:Spoo 1929:and 1923:WP:V 1890:and 1884:WP:V 1874:talk 1851:talk 1780:talk 1751:talk 1719:talk 1697:Spoo 1688:ASEM 1657:ASEM 1628:and 1620:and 1601:ASEM 1574:Spoo 1491:ASEM 1474:talk 1444:ASEM 1429:some 1405:talk 1395:Will 1384:Will 1344:talk 1329:talk 1321:WP:N 1307:and 1295:ASEM 1139:talk 1048:and 1035:talk 1018:talk 994:and 949:Tony 907:Spoo 882:Spoo 853:and 849:See 769:ASEM 703:ASEM 666:ASEM 614:talk 544:talk 499:talk 463:talk 417:talk 355:ASEM 326:ASEM 313:talk 299:ASEM 293:WP:V 266:ASEM 236:ASEM 198:ASEM 191:some 174:talk 3978:. - 3929:was 3848:DGG 3736:or 3341:any 3315:not 2607:rc. 2604:—To 2295:rc. 2292:—To 1950:one 1484:not 1465:any 1323:.-- 1259:or 1030:DGG 1014:TTN 681:was 677:and 609:DGG 494:DGG 427:Kiz 169:DGG 4059:, 3855:) 3798:) 3718:) 3670:) 3568:) 3405:) 3266:) 3174:) 2993:) 2945:) 2838:) 2709:) 2654:) 2600:. 2558:) 2512:) 2468:) 2446:) 2416:) 2380:) 2325:) 2268:) 2169:) 2102:) 2076:) 2008:) 1933:? 1925:, 1894:? 1886:, 1876:) 1853:) 1782:) 1753:) 1731:. 1721:) 1684:-- 1616:, 1476:) 1440:-- 1407:) 1346:) 1331:) 1257:no 1145:) 1141:• 1037:) 1020:) 969:er 834:my 791:is 739:er 718:er 690:er 652:er 616:) 546:) 501:) 465:) 419:) 351:-- 322:-- 315:) 176:) 94:→ 64:← 4156:M 4096:M 4034:M 3947:M 3908:M 3867:T 3851:( 3823:T 3794:( 3714:( 3666:( 3650:M 3643:( 3564:( 3424:" 3401:( 3262:( 3170:( 2989:( 2941:( 2925:. 2834:( 2705:( 2650:( 2554:( 2508:( 2464:( 2442:( 2412:( 2376:( 2321:( 2313:" 2264:( 2225:" 2220:" 2165:( 2098:( 2072:( 2020:T 2004:( 1939:T 1900:T 1872:( 1849:( 1778:( 1765:T 1749:( 1737:T 1717:( 1686:M 1672:T 1655:M 1599:M 1489:M 1472:( 1442:M 1403:( 1397:' 1342:( 1327:( 1293:M 1242:T 1211:T 1171:T 1137:( 1033:( 1016:( 767:M 701:M 664:M 612:( 588:T 559:T 542:( 497:( 461:( 436:r 431:o 415:( 353:M 324:M 311:( 297:M 264:M 234:M 196:M 172:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 20 - Knowledge

Index