Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 23

2392:

those sources in one article. On the other hand, a series of books, television shows, or video games could have a commonality of elements which are better covered in a spinout article, helping to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series. However, articles about individual elements (i.e. a specific character or location) or individual segments of serialized works (i.e. episodes of a television program or issues of a comic book) should establish individual notability as opposed to inherited notability. At times, better depth of coverage may be accomplished by combining notable and non-notable elements into a single topic, such as a character cast or a single season of a television show instead of individual elements. WikiProjects that deal with fiction have guidelines describing what depth of coverage should be provided for plot information relative to the length of the original work. The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as

2197:

just define a more restrictive case than without that statement because without it, people will PROD any character they feel non-notable; here, at least, we give them several considerations of thought before that tag is slapped on an article (and yes, there will still be people that PROD anyway, regardless if its mentioned in the guideline or not; all we can do is if their PRODs consistently are on contested articles, they need to be told that). And most importantly, article creation (including patently bad articles) is easy, getting rid of patently bad articles (ones that I don't believe even the inclusionists would say merit an article) on fictional elements is difficult because CSD cannot be applied: we need a process that provides a streamlined route to remove such articles which is what PROD is; the difficulty of getting article content restored via an admin is a very minor barrier to this process. --

751:. What I'd like is to establish some loose notability criteria for the lists which would give them notability of their own, rather than having them have to inherit it from their parent. Now, if there's enough sourced information to expand a section into a spinoff article, then it's likely that we can use those sources to show that the spinoff article is notable in and of itself, and reach compromise that way without having to make an exemption. With that in mind, I'd delete the part that reads "viewed as an spinout of the parent article, judged as if it were still a section of that article, and" and add to the end of the same paragraph, "Real-world sources can provide significant coverage for a spinoff article by covering a small part of the topic in depth, or by covering many elements of the topic to a smaller depth." 2893:"It is usually inappropriate to spin out an element or elements from a spinout article that lacks real-world coverage." I had to read this passage a couple times before understanding it's intent. I have no strong specific arguments about the wording, but I wonder if it could be improved (IOW, I couldn't think of a better wording, but I suspect one might exist). My larger concern is, the statement begs the question "Why?" I think the idea is a reasonable compromise, because making a spinout from a spinout article (that is to say, a grandchild article) without real world coverage is a strong sign of undue weight towards plot elements. Perhaps a similar justification is sufficient and should be added to clarify/justify the statement. Thoughts? - 1229:(a fundamental policy BTW) if you just have to write up all that fictional information about a character". I don't agree with this. We shouldn't be creating articles (not even spinning them out) just because we have some overzealous editors that want to include all this fictional information about a character. If they need that much fictional information to be able to understand who they are, then there must be real world information about them somewhere. People are going to abuse that section by spinning out every character under the guise that it would require too much space to list everything that happens to them in their respective fiction. I think if you have to have that there, then you need to make it clear that though 775:

Again, this spinout likely cannot ever hope to demonstrate notability, but written properly, it fails no other aspect of our core policies. Requiring these to have notability is a very very dangerous step to disrupting WP too much; it's a goal for these to have notability and thus should be broken out with the possibility of notability eventually being demonstrated, but for the present, it is a spinoff section from the main article. Notability is generally not inherited, and again, in this case, notability applies to a topic, so as long as these spinoffs are written to avoid coming across as their own topic, I think we can safely give them the pass. --

1608:

modification of existing articles to help bring them to spec, allowing for lists of non-notable fictional elements, to a degree they meet with V, OR, PLOT, and other policies, is still acceptable, and do not need to show notability, as long as they are written in a way to support the parent article. This is not necessarily an ideal case, but it is a compromise that needs to be in place in the current environment between inclusionists and deletionists. (At least, last time the issue came up, this was a necessary inclusion that had to be made). --

1545:"small amounts of coverage of each topic", and thus this will become a wikilaywering point, particularly since the requirement for notability (in the current sense) is now being called out. If anything, I'd argue what you are defining is a list that by the present definition of notability is notable itself without any need for additional protection of the spinout considerations. While having lists require this is a good thing, under the present atmosphere of editors here, this can only be set as a goal, not as a requirement. -- 419:. Trimming the article down to talk about his personality, family, relationships with other characters, and key events in the show that affected him, would be sufficient to put into a list, with what is presently there can be transwiki'd to a GFDL-compat wiki. The other way to go is that this is MASH, and I would expect there are actor interviews in addition to other notable information that can be used to support a lengthier character article (though some trimming is recommended), thus allowing it to meet 1658:(←) This is where the aspect of undue weight comes into play, which, yes, is highly subjective but if approached this way, I find helps convince some that want a lot in place to be able to cut it down. The way to "quanitify" this would be to imagine that the text of the list is put back into the main article (excluding lead and footer stuff), along with all other similar spinoffs as well as truly notable topics such as individual characters or episodes. Then, one must ask two questions: 626:"For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that are notable collectively but not individually. A spinout article on a single character or element may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style." ... "Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements..." 2994:; both of which is not active anymore, but I would argue still applicable, which states that "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.'". It also states "The difference between major and minor characters is intentionally vague; the main distinguishing criterion is how much nontrivial information is available on the character." 31: 1933:(merging/redirecting is not always the solution). In addition, prods can be removed by anyone, and the deleting admin makes the final decision if the deletion rationale is valid. The last two sentences of the paragraph already account for that. Even if this paragraph is removed from this guideline, I will continue prodding where I see fit, so the guideline may as well provide some guideline (pun intended) when a prod is reasonable. – 702:

multiple necessary sources can be spread over the many topics. If it was clarified that a small amount of coverage of each entry in one source can be counted as a significant amount of coverage in that source for the list as a whole, then I think that most of the existing such lists would meet the guidelines. I'd rather see a system where valid articles met the guidelines than one in which some articles were exempt from them.

2574:

different sub-plots, time travel, flashbacks, or other creative elements that break the "A, then B, then C" mold of events (which would be impossible to fully enumerate because there's an infinite number of ways a story can be told), then the coverage should be allowed to expand to make sure it is clearly understood what is going on; in some cases, this can actually reduce the amount of text and coverage,

1473:

is invoked, thus avoiding the need to consider the notability of its content (though the main article should, of course, be notable). If it is not a list, then most likely people will then evaluate its inclusion per our topic inclusion criteria: our notability guidelines (which is why singular elements from fiction without notability should be a carefully considered case, because they usually aren't seem

320:

decisions can be made on a case-by-case basis using concensus. But it makes it difficult to use as a tool to cite as a justification for major edits. Still, I believe this is acceptable and good because I believe that interpretation of this policy is the role of WP:WAF. I do not believe it is the role of NP:N(F). I can justify this position on request, but I'm trying to remain brief. -

368:), in and of itself, is not notable. But they deserve mention because of their part in the body of work. But any mention of them would quickly grow too cumbersome for the article. If we try and spin these characters off into articles of their own we can't support them based on their own notability as they are only really notable as a part of the show. How would we handle that situation? 2259:. None of these articles are showing real-world notability in the least, so my thought would be to merge them into a spinout article on races / characters in the main book or series article. This is where I run into a brick wall -- what is the main article? It's unclear from the article if the Humanx Commonwealth is a feature of just one book series or if it is used in many books by 1722:

consider this is that if you approach the authors of the page in a helpful manner, making suggestions for how to trim an existing list or merging it within a larger list, so that coverage is not lost but better balanced (no undue weight), you likely don't have to take the list to AfD to begin with, which may be why it's hard to draw a box around what is completely unacceptable. --

847:. Yes, notability is still not demonstrated in the article, and there's a few other points of cleanup, but as a spinoff from the video game article to describe the characters, it would be an acceptable spinoff under the suggested policy, and there's a possibility that if the designers talked about the characters in interviews or the like, more notability could be demonstrated. -- 3015:; which defines the term as "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." 1908:. An article about a character in a TV show that only appeared on-screen for a few seconds and is never referred to otherwise is probably non-notable; however, by using the proposed deletion process, someone may be able to provide the required notability. If you are unsure if this is the correct step, then do 1524:

something like "significant coverage for a collection of topics can include a large amount of coverage for the collection as a whole, or small amounts of coverage of each topic in the collection". This should be sufficient to retain the good spinout lists; some sourcing is required already by WP:V and WP:NOR.

131:

discussions degenerate into flame wars, but such disagreements are still, by definition, a lack of consensus. When there is no consensus to uphold a rule, are those who failed to uphold the rule wrong? I maintain in such circumstances that it is the rule that is wrong because it failed to match consensus.--

1688:. Further, how do you judge whether the list supports real-world aspects without requiring real-world coverage? If you're concerned about wikilawyering, then saying we have to judge on a case-by-case basis should concern you greatly; it turns a comparison with a set of guidelines into a shouting match. 3086:

I think you are getting into a realm where different philosophies clash. From my point of view, it is impossible for a general guideline to answer a question like this. Whether to include minor characters in a list needs to be determined on a situation specific basis. I could think of hypothetical

2447:

I don't see anything in WAF that talks about undue weight, beyond the pointer back to here and WP:UNDUE. Mind you, some points in WAF suggest what already is here, but it is necessary to talk about depth/undue weight and notability at the same time, because the amount of notable information is going

2196:

type of article that receives low traffic; the best thing we can do is rely on those that partake in deletion sorting to include both PRODs and AFDs to the approach sections, and that those interested in those areas watch and review them. Furthermore, not mentioning PROD will not make it go away, we

2087:

Put it back as it needs discussion. The fiction board is not for that purpose, it is for dealing with discussions where peopel can't agree on how to deal with issues. A PROD is a normal part of the process and should be mentioned, and as sgeureka notes, people will use it regardless of the guideline.

1721:

The last point, I grant you; unfortunately, I think this is because we have a lack of experience to know how these articles fare up through AfD and other discussions. We know some types have no problem, but I have yet to see an archetype for a list that is absolutely not acceptable. The way I would

1666:

aren't just making a list because we can make a list. (A "List of Planets in Star Trek", outlining every planet ever mentioned, would be indiscriminate, but a "List of Major Planets in Star Trek", outlining the key homeworlds of certain races or where key series-altering events occurred, would not be)

1620:

It would help me if you used the word "coverage" rather than "notability"; coverage refers to stuff written in the real world, and notability refers to our guidelines. If we can change the guidelines, then articles without coverage can be notable. If consensus wants coverage-free articles included,

1562:

coverage, we reach a compromise, rather than going 100% inclusionist by allowing each and every element to be spun out. Looking at WP:PSTS, I think it might be useful to have the collective notability sentence be "significant coverage for a collection of topics can include a large amount of coverage

1480:

Does this make sense? I think we're having the problem here because "notability" is generally thought of our only inclusionary requirement, but it is in reality not; what you seem to be asking for is a stronger statement of that implicit "spinouts are included in WP" to help protect such articles at

897:

Phrased the way it is, it absolutely is an exemption. So, I'm asking for it to be phrased differently. Remember, all notability is, is the criterion for acceptance. So if the articles are acceptable, they're notable. Saying that articles are allowed to cover non-notable topics, it that article is

232:

The trouble there may be that there is no clear consensus for applying IINFO to anything but the five specific types of info listed under it. People's definitions of what is "indiscriminate information" vary widely, and if you find people aren't agreeing with you, you're either applying too broad an

1969:

Standard PROD procedure does say to drop a message to the article's main editor(s), that can be added. I am unaware if PRODs are sorted like AFD's, however - I've never seen such a list; maybe there needs to be a similar one in general? However, I recommend against using the FICT/N board for PROD

1946:

I agree with much of what you wrote. A PROD is reasonable when an editor feels that the deletion would be uncontroversial. This common editing policy and does not need to be rehashed in this guideline. An admin (in my experience) rarely questions an undisputed PROD. This could be problematic for

1711:

Second point: if part of the real world aspect of The Simpsons is to say how caring the family is for each other, or how Bart's antics are genius, or anything that calls out specific characters (including concisely describing a work's plot), then it makes sense that we have to mention the characters

1529:

The first two of those changes received some support above, and I'd like to make them if that would be OK. You've convinced me that on their own, they may be too open to a restrictive interpretation, so I'd like to add the third one too. Would it be OK by you for me to make those changes, and then

1472:

Lists of non-notable elements (not singular elements) are generally easy to recognize, so when looking at such an article if it were in AfD, it should be recognized that it is not covering a topic but supporting one as a spinout should, and this implicit "spinouts satisfy inclusionary criteria" rule

1410:

Again, I feel confident that the current policies and guidelines and MOS already provide the guidance that is needed to say that appropriate non-nonable lists articles and, at select times, non-notable fictional elements articles, are appropriate, primarily because notability is a concept applied to

1130:

The part I particularly object to in the current guidelines is the use of 'non-notable' in "A spinout article on a single non-notable character..." and "Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements...". I'd be far happier if that were phrased in terms of coverage,

1093:

I agree with Hiding. I don't think it is nessisary or wise to tie issues of PLOT with inclusion criteria for spinout articles. If plot content does not belong, then editors can remove it, this is obvious. If this results in a blank spinout article, then the spinout article can be merged/deleted.

795:

and by doing that we can keep the worthwhile articles without opening ourselves up to the bad ones. Saying "spinoff articles don't need notability" opens the floodgates to a world of fancruft. Saying "spinoff articles need to meet a lighter set of guidelines, here they are" doesn't. Please can we

746:

What notability is and isn't is up to us to define. I'd rather we worked out what we want the list articles to be like, and call that notable, than to say that they're exempt from the notability criteria. That would be a better way to form guidelines; the inclusionists are pleased because the good

334:

I agree with you about the terms later in WP:IINFO, such as "excessive", giving us room in which to debate. However, "Knowledge articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis" is unambiguous. Sources are required, both by WP:IINFO and

2944:

If, in a list of characters, one or two have sufficient coverage to warrant an article, then those characters' articles wouldn't be spinouts; they'd be articles on a notable topic. If, on the other hand, they didn't, then it would be inappropriate to break them out of the spinout list article, In

2797:

or another template with similar intent) from the begining of the rewrite of this guideline. It would serve to protect from AfDs that fail to make any argument beyond WP:N. Now that arbcom is completed and controversy about the cahnges here seem to be begining to decline, perhaps it's a good time

2709:

I agree, we need some way to do so. Far to many people attempt to claim something was a "spin-out" when in reality it never even existed in the main article and they just recreated it because they wanted to. It is fairly easy to tell if something started as a spin out or not by looking at the date

2583:

despite the guidelines being vague, the point is that coverage is a function of sources of notability; a subject that is barely notable should not be given several pages of text, while those that can be sourced many ways can be given a lot, but there is no attempt to define a ratio that is required

2174:

The section is pedantic instructioncruft and should be removed. The viewpoints being used to defend it are naive. Most fiction has no specific wikiproject to look after it, and low traffic fiction articles are the norm, not the exception. Asking an admin to restore it is not 'easy', it's a nuisance

1916:

I removed this from the draft. First, I thought we had agreed that deletion should be the last resort. Second, I truly do not think this needs to be suggested. Deletion-minded editors will certainly take this course. Third, I agree with Nydas that this is biased against articles that do not get

1671:

Unfortunately, as noted, these are very touchy-feely requirements that is extremely difficult to codify, which is why the guideline presently talks about and around them, but gives very little detail of their content. We can state that certain cases are appropriate, like lists of characters (major

1544:

Keeping what changes can be done on FICT and nowhere else, the wording for the 3rd change is a possible problem as this still marks any list of completely non-notable fictional elements (individually or as a whole) as being unacceptable, by strict reading (which people will take). These lists lack

1233:

may be the basis for splitting that information out, it still violates Wiki policy and that will be the reason other editors contest its existence. I think it needs to be clear that the contesting of the article split is most likely going to come from adherence to policy and not simply editors that

1070:

That's only a solution if you happen to subscribe to a particular view of what Knowledge is. Notice that arb-com are pointing out the contradictions that exist between policies and guidance. A better solution and one which fits better with the wiki practose and the principles upon which Knowledge

1022:

There are two types of articles we consider in that section: list-style articles on non-notable elements which generally are not contested at all, and a singular non-notable element article: this latter type is regularly not as well accepted and so the caution note that such articles will likely be

701:

Well, I'm not sure I agree that it should be acceptable. It should be reasonably easy for them to attain notability, certainly, but I still think they should have to do so. As it stands, it's already slighty easier for a minor topics list to meet the guidelines than for most articles, because the

601:

the following lines is to say that once in a while a singular element is given an article without notability, but you better be ready to defend it to other editors. I don't see this as being a free pass for inherited notability, even though it opens the door. The previous version (that said that

482:

I've been offline for about two days, so I'm not sure if I'm totally up to date on the discussion, but from what I understand is that we want some way to indicate good spinout articles and to discourage "not-so-good" spinout articles. In the older version of WP:FICT, when the section was added that

466:

analysis, either directly or through synthesis, and should be removed or sourced. Most of the trivia is trivial and can be removed. The Quotes section should be moved to wikiquote. The plot holes section can be removed as either trivial or original research. His character arc needs to be sourced to

190:

Why can we not have an exception? Is having a guideline that interprets how we apply WP:IINFO to fiction abandoning WP:IINFO? I think not. I think your black and white, right or wrong, on/off approach is not conducive to a collaborative project that proceeds through consensus. If you would like

2873:

OK, identifying spinouts' sources in the lead section seems to have a fair amount of support, so how would people feel about replacing "Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article, and identified in the lead section as an article covering elements within a

2696:

We can't (though at one point I offered up a "in-universe rationale" talk page template that would describe when and how the spinout was created). The idea is that barring any shifts in policy from here on out, all new spinouts and all existing non-notable lists can be brought to the same type of

2391:

Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of information which can be sourced. A single movie, book, video game, or other work of fiction has most likely not generated large coverage in sources which Knowledge can summarize. Therefore, the article will be able to summarize

1523:

I'd then want to go on to describe collective notability somehow. As a base, we want to look at the sentence from WP:N that the article quotes, saying "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So we'd want

1505:

notable, not because they had inherited notability from the article they were spun out from. We're free to do this because there is no definition of notability as a guideline beyond that which we provide, and it's desirable to do so because it means that the articles can be kept without having to

815:

to deal with the existing mass of articles on other series. If we only had to worry about future article creation, we'd likely be able to set a different tone and approach, but we have to deal with a lot of pages that, if we took a very heavy hand and required notability, will cause several worse

774:

wasn't a problem, they'd be included as part of the main article, but we do allow for spinouts when SIZE is a problem, and cutting this section out and putting it as a spinout is completely appropriate, as long as editors don't see the spinout as a new glass they can fill with excess information.

622:

My feeling is that minor topic lists are an important part of wikipedia, helping to include topics that are notable as a whole but which fail individually. They don't take their notability from the parent topic, but rather from the notability of their own topic on aggregate. So, there might be a

319:

I acknowledge the fact that IINFO is worded very carefully. But even speaking as an article editor, as opposed to someone trying to influence policy, using IINFO alone, I'm extremely confused on how to apply it to editing decisions. terms like "excessive" are intentionally left undefined so that

2468:

There's nothing in this section that can be understood or followed without first interpreting the ambiguous or meaningless language. Like the lists section, it's a license for favouritism. No doubt 'commonality of elements' and 'suitable background' will apply to fiction which is important in the

2027:

This may be something that should be suggested at a higher level, to have PROD sorting like there is with deletion sorting? I know there's a few editors that keep active here (Pixelface for one) for fiction-related topics (including TV and games) for AfD's, I would think that adding PROD to that

1734:

That's nice in theory, but in practise there are a lot of people who will AFD anything that happens to be fictional. We shouldn't hamstring them by taking away notability concerns entirely, but we do need to have a firm set of guidelines based on something other than opinion which can be used to

1715:

If part of the real world aspect of The Simpsons is to say how caring the family is for each other, or how Bart's antics are genius, or anything that calls out specific characters, then either (1) there is coverage of that, or (2) that's opinion/OR and doesn't belong on wikipedia; so that's not a

1665:

Is the content of the list in balance with the rest of the discussion of the topic - that is, the list content does not unduely weigh down the rest of the article? This means we provide concise plot information for supporting these lists but shouldn't be going into every plot detail, and that we

1459:

that states that non-notable spinout lists and in a handful of other singular coverage cases for fictional elements are protected from being deleted due to lack of secondary sources. (Which, yes, that's the intent). What I think is throwing a wrench into the works is that you're trying to group

1299:

Meta Knight doesn't have enough coverage shown, and if you tackle the text of the article (there's a lot of game-guide type content in that) you're left with something that fits nicely into a list of other Kirby characters. Carter's article does need work, but it has some coverage (awards Amanda

236:

The one part of IINFO that does plainly apply to fiction is WP:PLOT, and if anything, I wish it were more restrictive, personally. Ten-paragraph "plot summaries" are ridiculous, even in featured articles. I don't believe WP:N(F) is undermining WP:PLOT. It is however pointing out that we do not

2874:

fictional work." with "Spinout articles are an expanded version of a section of a parent article, and should be judged as if they took the place of that section. The parent section should link to the spinout, and the spinout should identify and link to the parent section in their lead section."

2345:

I think it would be more appropriate here; WP:WAF is about what should be in a spinout; the question of when spinouts are and are not appropriate is more of a notability than a style issue. I do note, however, that WP:WAF includes the caution "Editors are cautioned to not immediately create such

1324:

I'm not trying to call out Percy or the like here, nor trying to escalate this, I want to make sure I understand what he is saying with respect to the current guideline, as such because there may be some language or confusing issues here. So, just to reset the base from where we're starting the

383:

That's one of the many issues being discussed on this page. Most of the editors here will tell you to gut the page and merge it into a list of characters article or into the main article itself. Knowledge precedent and past practice on the other hand is that an article on Hunnicut is fine as a

2317:

Should we include a section advising that if a spinout article shrinks to the stage where it would no longer be excessively long in the parent, it should be merged? This might happen if a user span an article out, but another user realised that the spun-out content was unverifiable or original

1629:

lists of fictional elements without any is appropriate as a spinoff article". I'd like to take that qualification - the reason you say "certain" lists rather than "all" lists - and work out how to codify that, then call that notability. If we can do that, then we can have a set of notability

1369:

The manner in which the current wording includes spinout articles is by granting them an exemption from notability. What I want to see is a version of WP:FICT that does not say "non-notable articles are OK", but rather says "spinout articles are notable if ", where the conditions are chosen to

733:

to be notable, but we allow for flexibility for elements underneath that topic that help to balance between "WP is not paper" and "WP is not indiscriminate collection of info". Mind you, such lists have had the potential to become notable in the past, compared to individual characters or other

2573:

The point of this part is that if you are describing the plot or fictional elements of the work, that you should "exactly" as much language and discussion to make sure the content is clear. Of course, "exactly" is impossible to define, but what this means is that if your plot involves several

1661:

Is this list supporting the notable, real-world aspects of the fictional work or its elements in some way? For a tv show, a list of characters can help to offset describing the character over and over again in plot descriptions, for example. This is why lists of major and minor characters is

130:

There is no such thing as a "procedural AfD", in the sense of "just a formality". Speedies serve that role. AfDs are for ascertaining consensus for the deletion of indvidual articles. Measuring consensus is not procedural in nature; it requires discussion and evaluation. It's not good when

769:

type of fictional element article (list or singular); this is covered by the first case about notable topics meriting their own articles. That part is not in question. However, the problem is that from the inclusionist side is that people want to include descriptions of characters and other

1864:

who's argument also seeks to allow importance based on primary sources to justify articles on non-notable characters. My concern is less about lists than about allowing a loophole for non-notable characters. The standard of notability being required must be maintained or we'll see hoards of

1607:

at the spinout and work back to the main article (a situation reflected in several older articles), and one can see the spinout being much more expansive and descriptive than it would be had it been part of the main body of text. However, regardless if it started from the main body or is a

1932:

As long as any editor can create new articles at will, there needs to be a way to propose the deletion of articles without much bureaucracy. Fiction-related articles already have a de-facto protection from speedy deletion, so prodding remained the only alternative for clearly nn material

126:

I may have misunderstood both what you said and what you meant. But how you phrased what you said sounded plainly to me like a presumption of guilt. The consequences of such a presumption in a different context are obviously horrifying, and they should be disturbing in this context as

1424:

page since this transcends just fictional works, though likely fiction is the area where such a change would have the most impact. Mind you, I'm not trying to speak for everyone, but my feeling is that the general consensus is there's no special need to extend notability to spinouts.

990:

Editors are cautioned that articles on singular, non-notable fictional elements may be contested by other editors; more often, the contents of such an articles can be included into some grouping ("Characters", "Setting", or the like) within a spinout article list of the notable parent

414:

There's two ways this could be taken. First, without any notability information, the article has too much detail - fictional characters should not be given a biography like one would a real person unless the biographic information of the character is notable; this tends to go against

2910:

more generally, because if the 1st level spinout doesnt have independent notability, a further level will probably be carrying the detail too far. But this is not at all true if , for example there is a spinout article on characters, and one or two of them are notable and the rest

1108:

In practise, that's unworkable. If an editor, in good faith and with the full justification of all policy and guidelines, blanks a page they will be reverted by a bot; if the bot is disabled, they will be reverted by another editor. What should be an AFD becomes an edit war.

1336:(The other two questions, in which notability is demonstrated for both cases, I think Percy would agree to by his previous answers, but please correct me if I'm wrong). The issue becomes if Percy disagrees with both statements, and in which case we need to discuss further. -- 810:

But its arguable that the floodgates have already been breeched with the amount of fancruft, as most of the actions that users like TTN have done is to prune it off. The goal of this guideline is to not only describe how to build out a good series of articles on a new series

1947:

articles that are not well-monitored. However, I would be ameanable to the inclusion of this clause, as long as the caveat that the editor that applies the PROD tag should also put a PROD warning on the creating editors talkpage (and preferably the fiction noticeboard).

1254:

Added points about UNDUE and PLOT in the "editors are cautioned..." line. The first line of the para mentions "concise" within the construct of PLOT, and between there and WAF, it should be obvious that spinouts are not free passes to expand to 32k of text on the topic.

1300:

Tapping's won for the character), and thus the likelihood of showing more is there - though if more beyond the awards can't be found, ultimately it should be merged. The bio needs to be less structured around the order of the series, however, to get the rest in shape. --

1286:(appeared in 11 seasons as main character of two shows) be appropriate as a (temporary) spinout article? There don't seem to be any substantial sources for real-world content for Meta Knight, but the Carter character seems to have enormous potential per the article of 107:

Reading Percy Snoodle's words above ("By leaving ambiguity..."), a chill went up my spine. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but imagine if those words were, "By leaving ambiguity we turn what should be simple procedural executions into drawn-out trials."

205:

If the "guideline interprets how we apply WP:IINFO to fiction" is an exemption then it says, "don't apply WP:IINFO". That is indeed abandoning WP:IINFO. I'm not asking for the approach you describe; I'm asking for guidance rather than the absence of guidance.

175:

Agreed, but I don't think there is an absence of consensus. Most editors want the better lists to stay. Do most editors want to completely abandon WP:IINFO? No. So we can't have an exemption, we should find a way to keep these articles within the guidelines.

770:

elements that will likely never be able to demonstrate notability (due to age, obscurenss, and genre of the material); these can be sourced to the primary work to remain verifiable, but otherwise are included for sake of completeness in discussing the work. If

1705:

I think you're using "notability" when you mean "coverage" again. "Imagine it's the main article when determining notability" is equivalent to saying "Notability is inherited", so I can't accept it. Perhaps you could rephrase, using "coverage" where you mean

1563:

for the collection as a whole, or small amounts of coverage of each topic in the collection, and may be found in secondary or tertiary sources"; so that if a source has decided to collect very small amounts of coverage together then that can still be used.

2132:(Edit conflict - reply to AnmaFinotera) Agreed. I believe that proposed deletions are in fact one of the least disruptive ways to go about this, since they are easy to contest, and can furthermore be restored by any admin upon reasonable request (Refer to 284:

That says A LOT more than just we shouldn't have excessive plot summaries. In fact, it is fairly straightforward; the problem is that those who disagree with our policies muddy the waters in promotion of their own views. That can be disingenuous, however.

3150:(ignore the first two characters) for what I mean. Generally, only recurring characters (two-three episodes minimum) deserve mention at all, but still some one-time characters can be mentioned if they had major impact or are referenced a lot later on. – 1056:

The solution is a 'major characters from major fiction' criteria. It would certainly be better than the current system, which is essentially whim-based notability. Masem claims that no concievable definition could work, but this is based on subjective

688:

acceptable. That's a position that is readily accepted, and the slight change in the first sentence suggests that people may wikilaywer over such lists. We need to be careful that is not being implied (that spinout lists require notability).

1592:

An article about a notable show; due to size limitations, there is a separate article with the list of characters; the list of characters is not sourced to anything but the primary work and there's no discussion of the real-world aspect of the

1468:

inclusionary criteria (though it is use 99.99..% of the time as the only one). Mind you, I'm unaware of any higher or other inclusionary criteria guideline that we have around that calls itself explicitly that, and maybe this concern reflects

1035:

It's not a conflict, only because the exemption trumps the right to complain. Saying "articles don't have to be notable" completely neuters the AFD process. Going on to say that the process can still happen isn't a compromise, it's taunting.

1808:

Then we can go that way (and I'm going to start a new section for); if we outline exactly what types of lists are appropriate, people can tailor their lists to that. However, there will always be exceptions - this is a guideline, not policy.

1393:

I don't disagree with what you are trying to end up with (preventing such articles from being deleted at AfD), but the method you're asking for this seems to be introduce more rules to a system that we should be trying to avoid adding more.

3047:

You won't find any general answers here or anywhere else in the guidelines. What you might do is mention how many episodes these characters have been in, and drum up some support for inclusion/exclusion of these particular characters. -

1851:

Jumping in. I've just read through all of the above and see a camel's nose inside the tent. This needs to be tightened-up. I see that this is only intended for limited cases, but others out there are already seeking to exploit this. See

281:

Knowledge articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's

2213:

The instructioncruft could be condensed into a sentence or less in the deletion section after the other options. All it needs to do is to provide a link to proposed deletions. Nobody will pay any attention to these pointless rules and

1602:

to create that list. This is the generally accepted policy on this. Mind you, the idea is that the list is truly a "spinout" in that in may have been present in the main article but was forced out due to size; too many times, people

3117:

Nothing is wrong with situation specific consensus:) But I also figure that if I am struggling with this, that a lot of other editors are struggling as well. In any case, all guidelines include "Editors should follow it, except where

1414:

Again, the topic/article distinction is just a way of saying that notability is inherited. The topic of an article on a character from a series is the character, not the series, and the character does not inherit notability from the

3066:

What I would like to know is the current consensus in this regard – a more general guideline to work by – as opposed situation specific advice. Long ago the guideline helped in this regard, which makes this the obvious place to ask.

2927:

I think the wording does have to be revised, to cover the situation of breaking a List of characters in X article, to a list of minor characters in X and articles about individual notable characters. Any suggestions for wording?

363:

T.V. show which has proven itself notable) but the characters are not BUT the characters have such an enormous body of work that including sections would make the main article too large and cumbersome? The character (let's say,

2850:. An article is only truely a spinout article if it is referenced by a parent article in a proper summary style. If it is not worth summarizing in the parent article, it is not worth existing as an "abandoned child" article. - 1879:

standard of notability must be maintained for those reasons, which is why I'm against an exemption. However I do think that well-sourced minor topic lists are beneficial, so the standard that we establish should include them.

683:

Just caught something in rereading this. We have still come to a previous conclusion that a spinout list of characters that neither individually or overall have notability but is written as a spinout of a parent notable topic

2060:

Actually, most projects del sort areas also have sections there for listing PRODs (as well as other xFds). I think people do, however, tend not to make as much effort in finding and noting those as they are with AfDs.

2156:

I've reworded your addition slightly, as technically no prod is "not contestable" and anyone could contest it for any reason, even just being bored. So changed to "unlikely to be contested." Hopefully that will work?

1821:

That sounds like an excellent idea. (I'm assuming you mean here, so that we can use the outline to form guidelines, rather than having a bunch of examples in the article, which wouldn't address Nydas' concern at all)

898:

a spinout of an article on a notable topic, exempts them from notability by making notability inheritable. Saying that articles are notable under certain additional conditions does not. Please,, try to understand:

2513:

The complexity of the work should also be taken into a consideration; uses of certain creative elements (such as time travel or flashbacks) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic

2578:

is a good example of this. The entire jist of this section is that there are no exact rules for depth of coverage; the "exact" amount of depth of coverage that a work should get is a case-by-case judgment call.

1557:

True, but a list of fictional elements for which there's no coverage, individually or as a whole, would probably be disallowed under concerns of OR or verifiability anyway. By keeping a weakened requirement for

2296:

Merging them into lists might work, but the ambiguity around lists essentially makes it down to whether Wikipedians have heard of/like the fiction in question. I suspect these works aren't in the 'in-crowd'.--

1007:

It doesn't address them at all - in one breath, the guidelines say "notability is not required" and in another they say "some editors may complain". That makes the guidelines empty and permanently disputed.

1588:

An article about a notable show has a list of characters within the article; the list of characters is not sourced to anything but the primary work and there's no discussion of the real-world impact of the

3145:

Suggestion for compromise: Give each major character that cannot support his own article, his own section, and bullet-point-summarize each non-major character in a section called "Minor characters". See

3023:

This leads to the question: When should a character be regarded as "trivial" and as such be omitted from the list: When they only appear in one scene? How about just in one episode? In just two episodes?

359:

I have a question that has been cropping up in a lot of the Dragonlance articles but I have been noticing more and more (TV shows etc,). What do we do when the main subject matter is notable (Say, the

2002:

try to give a list of prods, but they are usually out-of-date (and they also seem to get ignored). Some of the more popular fiction-related wikiprojects have sections where prods/Afds can be noted. –

1182:

lacks (demonstration of) real-world coverage. When these articles are "contested by other editors" then, it is time to demonstrate notability or make a merge proposal (or go to AfD) after a while. –

2969:

I and another editor are currently reworking an anime series's character articles and character list, and require an opinion as to when minor characters should be omitted from an character list:

716:

If a list has a proper lead (which is usually what appears in the main article per summary style), notability (or at least encyclopedic relevancy) is usually satisfied, at least for my part. –

1999: 255:

I agree totally with the above, except for "I don't believe WP:N(F) is undermining WP:PLOT." As long as it's worded as an exemption, it sidesteps WP:PLOT and indeed all of WP:IINFO entirely.

2333:

That might be better in WP:WAF, as that's moving away from what notability has to do with spinouts. It's also implied by merging (the reverse of a spinout) and other aspects covered here. --

859:

I'm still not sure you have understood me. Are you saying that you would prefer an exemption to a guideline, even if it meant the same articles are kept? I cannot agree to an exemption.

1146:

The suggesting being to change "A spinout article on a single non-notable character" to "A spinout article on a single character lacking real-world coverage..." and a similar change? --

398:

But even a "List of Characters" article, if it holds all the nn characters from a series like M*A*S*H, is going to be too large and cumbersome. Hmm, let's see where the discussion goes.

551:

I think it needs to be clear that spinning out an article should not be done if the only information you have is what that charcter does in the fictional story they are a part of (i.e.

467:

episodes. If you do all of this properly, you will see that the article can be merged quite easily because it is so short, or the article can stay because it demonstrates notability. –

747:

articles stay, and the deletionists are pleased because the guidelines are upheld. The topic/article distinction is just a way of saying that notability is inherited, and consensus is

438: 831:, that under breaking out a list of non-notable characters or other fictional elements from the work of fiction's article is an acceptable approach that is still valid under both 437:

He's not a good test case since he's going to turn out to be notable. Even without being able to search newspaper archives, google news turns up a lot articles that mention him.

2682:

OK, but we how should we distinguish between genuine spinouts (which exist because of size concerns) and articles which wouldn't have appeared as sections in a parent article?

2536:

Firstly, it contradicts the rest of the section. To what extent does complexity overrule the need for sources? Secondly, 'creative element' is a protologism. We are told that

2659:

I took out the good faith addition of "Articles which do not begin as sections of an article are not spinouts of that article." I think we can all agree that, for example,

2116:

This should help to prevent zealous editors from PRODing a lot, by implying that if there's going to be an issue over the PROD, it shouldn't be done in the first place. --

1995: 1402:

I can't see how we can create a special considering of notability for spinout articles (not just for fiction, but for any type of spinoff) without expanding our rules.

495:

have some really interesting example sections that might be useful. Not sure if that format would work nor not, but some kind of check list like this would be nice. --

1790:

Agreed. Firm guidelines are necessary, and they should relate to something other than the opinions of the interested editors. I don't see a way to do that without

796:

discuss what those lighter guidelines might be? A "compromise" that gives a blanket exemption to spinoff articles is no such thing - it's inclusionism all the way.

335:

WP:V. The role of WP:N(F) is to clarify how WP:N applies to articles on fictional topics; it is outside its remit to repeal WP:IINFO. The current wording does so.

2346:

sub-articles that lack real-world coverage, even if such articles exist for a similar fictional work." which I think would be and appropriate caution on this page.

1506:

overhaul the system (which, as you point out, should be done elsewhere if at all). Rather than go on trying to clarify my position, let's look at how I'd do that:

1329:

Do you agree or disagree that an article, describing in list fashion a series of fictional elements from a work without demonstration of notability, is appropriate?

279:

I disagree with the above sentiment. We have been working on the wording of WP:IINFO for a while and the prescriptive and proscriptive have always remained intact:

1672:

and minor, but not one-offs), lists of key locations, terms, etc, but when such are challenged, we need to evaluate each as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. --

299:

That sentence is quite clear; it's asking for coverage. Notability is worded in terms of coverage, so an exemption from notability is an exemption from WP:IINFO.

94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2469:

Wikiverse, whilst everything else gets hosed. If that's the case, we might as well remove the section, since all it does is add flab to this bloated guideline.--

156:. If there is ambiguity, it is present in the consensus (or absence thereof), and if any procedure does not reflect that there may be an absence of consensus, 2411:

I would like to know his specific objections to this section, and what could be done to improve or clarify the section. I strongly hold that the guideline

2380:. The size of a plot summary is often determined by building consensus for each article on a case by case basis. Editors should compare approaches taken on 631:

This removes the presumption of inherited notability, and clarifies the purpose and notability of minor topic lists, without expressly forbidding anything.

819:

I complete agree that notability is generally not inherited, and that we should not be creating exceptions for notability. However, again, as I read both

1702:

To the first point, this is not done in considering notability, it is simply to compare the amount and type of content between spinouts and main article.

1290:. Yet the current articles of Meta Knight and Carter are IMO in the same inappropriate bad shape, with the Carter article potentially even being worse. – 1437:

I'm not talking about extending notablility - I'm talking about not retracting it. You're still trying to convince me that we should include spinouts.

2697:

presentation, making it impossible to tell if the article started as a spinout or not, rendering the history of that article moot for the reader. --

1634:

articles. So: Could you say a bit about what you think the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable spinout is, if it isn't coverage?

1598:

Assuming that the list of characters in both cases is exactly the same text, there is no distinction between these cases beyond the application of

1441:, and have done from the start. I want to include them by defining notability to include them, not by throwing away notability and its benefits. 1131:

because it wouldn't explicitly exempt articles from WP:N, it would just explain that there are other considerations. Would anyone object to that?

1917:

much traffic. Especially with this being the first suggestion. I think a better suggestion would be to take it to the new Fiction Noticeboard.

1332:

Do you agree or disagree that an article, describing a singular fictional element from a work without demonstration of notability, is appropriate?

597:

This may be more how guidelines should be approached - we don't want to come across "no,, you can't do that", so the reason this line exists

787:

I disagree, and I think you've missed my meaning. I don't think we can safely give any article any pass - that way lies madness. What we

1857: 1071:

is based would be to ignore notability full stop and try and make each article the best encyclopedic article it can be through consensus.

2743: 1904:

If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere, place the article up for

729:

having notability, but right now, with the inclusionist/deletionist conflict, we need a position of compromise. Thus, we still require

241:

undermining some other rule, that means that other rule is wrong. The rules are an expression of our views, not the other way around.--

47: 17: 3009:; which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is verifiability...", without specifying the need for secondary sources. 3020:

Taking the above into mind, it seems that minor characters should be included in the list, but might excluded when they are trivial.

1397:

I'm just asking to clarify the existing ones, in a more inclusive fashion. Adding an exemption to the existing rules is a new rule.

2798:

to voice my opinions there. (If you read the discussion on that template, and the arbcom, it's a bit hairy, so I chose to wait.) -

1662:

generally appropriate, but lists of one-off characters can be taken as excessive because it doesn't support the overall topic well.

1497:

non-notable articles to be allowed, that we redefine notability, rather than dropping notability as a reason for deletion. So the

1970:

notices: FICT/N is part of a dispute resolution process, and I don't think we need to fill it up with incoming PROD notices. --

3159:

Agreed. If you can find a (verifiable) sentence to say about a minor character, do so; if all you have is a name, omit them.

602:

such articles shouldn't exist) was too negative for other editors here, but we can still fix it if it's too loose this way. --

3126:

will improve an article." — so I won't say that this is cast in stone. Which unfortunately brings me no closer to an answer.

2981:, which states: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content"; there are one exception (not applicable here). 2263:. Either way, the place for the spinout article isn't clear to me, unless it's from the Alan Dean Foster itself. Thoughts?-- 2997:

Again the deletion policy; which also states that "Trivial characters from major works should be deleted as unencyclopedic"

2724:

Perhaps we should require there to be a corresponding section in the parent article? It's common and beneficial to leave a

3003:; which states that featured lists should be "Comprehensive". It does not explain the issue of trivial list items, though. 2779:

Yes, that would be ideal. I do think it should appear at the head of the article (like a dab link) not on the talk page.

521: 1385:

There's a point where we should be treating policy and guidelines as not simply words, but as a thought and principle.

511: 487:, I tried to propose some form of example section that would greatly help give better guidance on when do spin them out. 3087:

instances where it would be appropriate to include a character that only appears in one episode, but I would not want a

873:

But it is not an exemption, again when you consider that notability is at the topic level and not at the article level,

1509:

Replace "rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" with "are notable collectively but not individually"

3091:

that one episode characters were always acceptable for inclusion. What is wrong with situation specific consensus?

1858:

Talk:Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)#Weighing in on the use of Dungeons & Dragons Source Materials as references

2372:

Articles on fiction should be structured around evaluations and critiques of the work or topic, with an appropriate

3147: 3123: 3119: 3053: 445: 389: 38: 2734:

tag and sometimes a copy of the lead section behind in the main article when creating a spinout. So, for example,

2244:

Given the recent, er, "passionate" discussion on the matter, I'd like a second opinion on how to proceed on this.

1769:

This wishy-washyness is effectively a license for favouritism. It means blanket coverage for unpopular flops like

1362:

Current consensus is that spinout articles should be allowed; there is dispute that the notability criteria do so.

1352:

To comply with WP:IINFO, we need a criterion for deciding what is and is not appropriate. We call that criterion

936:

To summarize: The only change is from "these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements

734:

elements, and thus that is why it is better to encourage non-notable lists and discourage non-notable elements. --

2672: 2622:

Depth of coverage should be governed by the fiction's importance and to a lesser extent by the complexity of the

1853: 840: 623:

list of characters none of whom met WP:N on their own, but who between them do so. What I'd propose instead is:

2816:. It would potentially affect the content of this guidline, so it may be worth reading to interested parties. - 2628:

That's all that needs to be said. A sprawling paragraph sprinkled with neologisms is unnecessary and damaging.--

2482:

No, you're wrong, it has nothing to do with favoritism, and your continued assertion of that is not helpful. --

967:

Had missed that word. So yes, I would be much more comfortable with this rewrite than what we currently have. –

2813: 2106:

If you believe the article will never have a chance of demonstrating notability or cannot be merged elsewhere,

1276: 1585:

lists of fictional elements without any notability is appropriate as a spinoff article. Consider two cases:

3164: 2950: 2879: 2784: 2751: 2687: 2351: 2323: 1885: 1827: 1799: 1740: 1693: 1639: 1568: 1535: 1446: 1375: 1196: 1163: 1136: 1114: 1041: 1013: 958: 911: 864: 801: 756: 707: 636: 541: 340: 304: 260: 211: 181: 117: 3179: 3168: 3154: 3132: 3100: 3073: 3057: 3033: 2954: 2939: 2922: 2902: 2883: 2859: 2825: 2807: 2788: 2774: 2755: 2719: 2704: 2691: 2676: 2636: 2591: 2548: 2486: 2477: 2455: 2438: 2424: 2355: 2340: 2327: 2304: 2272: 2231: 2204: 2183: 2166: 2145: 2123: 2097: 2070: 2035: 2006: 1977: 1956: 1937: 1926: 1889: 1869: 1831: 1816: 1803: 1785: 1744: 1729: 1697: 1679: 1643: 1615: 1572: 1552: 1539: 1488: 1450: 1432: 1379: 1343: 1307: 1294: 1262: 1249: 1212: 1200: 1186: 1167: 1153: 1140: 1118: 1103: 1080: 1065: 1045: 1030: 1017: 1002: 971: 962: 948: 915: 892: 868: 854: 805: 782: 760: 741: 720: 711: 696: 668: 654: 640: 609: 588: 570: 545: 499: 471: 449: 430: 407: 393: 377: 344: 329: 308: 294: 264: 250: 215: 200: 185: 169: 140: 121: 2735: 2715: 2162: 2093: 2066: 1685: 748: 529: 246: 165: 136: 877:

that this is a guideline, which meant to be advisory, not hard policy. This was previously discussed at

839:) that if they go too far off this path, they need to be put back into shape. For example, compare what 3049: 2268: 2104:

Given some of the above, I have added one adding phrase to the first sentence re PROD, which now reads:

1770: 441: 423:. However, leaving it in its current state is going to likely cause people to consider its deletion. -- 385: 2491:

It's a side effect of the poor state of this guideline, this section in particular. Take this sentence:

2991: 953:

No, the bold part would be deleted. We wouldn't explicitly say that the article is exempt from WP:N.

3096: 2668: 2420: 1952: 1922: 881:

as well with the consensus that spinouts as part of a larger notable topic do not have to show this (

196: 2278:

It is really not appearent what the main article should be (I have never heard of these books), but

2256: 2794: 2764: 2283: 2248: 1493:

Sort of; you've nearly got my position there. What I'm asking is that, given that consensus wants

2000:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_characters#Fictional_character_Proposed_deletions

765:

Let me review the problem here: We have no problem when real-world sources can be used to support

581: 237:

agree that IINFO (and WP:N itself) should apply to various other types of information. And if we

3160: 3012: 2946: 2898: 2875: 2855: 2821: 2803: 2780: 2747: 2683: 2347: 2319: 1881: 1866: 1823: 1795: 1736: 1689: 1635: 1564: 1531: 1442: 1371: 1192: 1159: 1158:

That's right. I'd probably say "sources of real-world coverage" just for the sake of precision.

1132: 1110: 1099: 1037: 1009: 954: 907: 860: 797: 752: 703: 664: 650: 632: 537: 532:? Isn't that an open invitation to create articles on non-notable topics? Isn't it therefore a 488: 403: 373: 336: 325: 300: 290: 256: 207: 177: 113: 2223:

There's no need for a 'streamlined' route, since the mythical flood of fancruft doesn't exist.--

835:

and meets our MOS. Mind you, there is an approach these articles should take (outlined more in

2403:

If there is an imbalance of fictional information in an article, consider trimming the text or

1405:

By allowing spinouts a more flexible definition of substantial coverage, as I suggested above.

2847: 2711: 2158: 2089: 2062: 1599: 1359:

To comply with WP:PAPER, the notability criteria should become more inclusive as time goes on.

1244: 882: 565: 242: 161: 132: 2028:

area of coverage would also help. (However, this is likely above and beyond FICT's area). --

645:

I really like this new wording, and I think it adheres more to the spirit of the guidelines.

2710:

it was created, then checking the main pages edits on the same date to see if it was there.

2537: 2264: 2260: 1076: 998: 492: 1234:

don't believe it should be split because they don't believe the character is that notable.

3092: 3000: 2634: 2546: 2475: 2436: 2416: 2373: 2302: 2252: 2229: 2181: 1948: 1918: 1783: 1774: 1283: 1063: 459: 365: 192: 1094:

This second concept (when last I checked) is appropriately addressed in this guideline. -

2430:

It's redundant with writing about fiction and adds unnecessary bloat to the guideline.--

1621:

then that's what I'm asking for. Now, assuming I've read you rightly, you say that "it

2985: 2575: 2483: 2368:

Nydas removed the following section from the guideline and I subsequently restored it.

2133: 2111: 1905: 1287: 1226: 771: 552: 496: 420: 416: 3151: 2935: 2918: 2894: 2851: 2840: 2817: 2799: 2771: 2728: 2664: 2400:) may require more detail to clearly explain the concepts in an encyclopedic manner. 2377: 2287: 2003: 1934: 1861: 1291: 1183: 1178:

Your suggestion of rewording would also take care of the many cases where an article

1095: 968: 945: 836: 824: 717: 660: 646: 585: 468: 399: 369: 321: 286: 2978: 2385: 2381: 1235: 1230: 828: 556: 463: 462:- the sections "Personality" and "Relationship with wife and family" appears to be 2138:

If an article is not well monitored, it is likely that it is not notable either.

1455:

Ok, I think I see what you're trying to get at. You're asking for some language

940:" to "these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements 3006: 2393: 2279: 1421: 1072: 994: 878: 832: 820: 46:

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

1996:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television#Television_Proposed_deletions

1365:

Therefore, we should alter the notability criteria to include spinout articles.

3175: 3128: 3069: 3029: 2739: 2698: 2630: 2585: 2542: 2471: 2449: 2432: 2334: 2298: 2225: 2198: 2177: 2141: 2117: 2029: 1971: 1810: 1779: 1723: 1673: 1609: 1546: 1482: 1426: 1337: 1301: 1256: 1206: 1147: 1059: 1024: 886: 848: 776: 735: 690: 675: 603: 582:#List vs. sub-article in discussion of WP:SS, and related paragraph in WP:FICT 424: 2746:

which would identify spinouts and provide a link back to the parent article.

827:

that states that notability does not regulate the content of an article) and

2623: 2397: 1630:

criteria that meets with consensus, without opening wikipedia up to all the

112:

I didn't say or mean that, and I find it insulting that you suggest I did.

2415:

contain a section detailing how editors decide "depth of coverage" issues.

3042:

If deemed necessary, please put this discussion on the fiction noticeboard

1370:

include the spinout articles that we all agree, I think, are beneficial.

191:

to work on an encyclopedia with rigid rules, there is always Britannica.

2930: 2913: 2667:, without having to go all the way back through the article histories. 674:

Perfectly fine here, please feel free to modify the guideline for it. --

2660: 1735:

tell whether they're right when they say an article should be deleted.

360: 1530:

discuss that form of the guidelines and revert it later if necessary?

1684:

I don't like the "imagine it's in the main article" - that smacks of

902:- as you point out, consensus says they should stay. I'm asking for 944:". So the sentence at the beginning of this thread would stay.(?) – 938:

that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own

2793:

I agree and have been fairly strongly in favor of this idea (using

1205:

I've gone ahead and may this phrasing change in given section. --

584:), but no-one replied, so I guessed no-one else saw the issue. – 148:

I don't embrace flame wars, but Knowledge's mandate is to uphold

2742:. We should probably also provide a template along the lines of 1512:

delete "non-notable" from the next sentence - we're keeping the

2110:

that its deletion is not contestable, place the article up for

2404: 1348:

I disagree with both statements. Here's my chain of thought:

508: 25: 1716:

good example of a situation in which coverage isn't required.

988:

you're reading it wrong. You seem to have completely missed

1225:

Ok, but now the section basically says, "it's ok to violate

580:

I already expressed the same concerns as Percy Snoodle (see

3173:

Thank you, the advice and example are greatly appreciated.

2286:, is still an active editor, and he may be able to help. – 1023:

contested. It is not a conflict between the statements. --

485:

articles are sometimes added for reasons of style to length

1577:

But this is one of the key points why WP:FICT exists; it

1501:

non-notable topics would be included because they would

2988: 2770:, which barely survived TfD as recently as February. – 1268: 844: 578: 355:

Question about non-notable characters vs. Body of Work.

2965:

Guidance requested — inclusion criteria in list of ...

2836:

I further agree with percy's comment about the use of

1865:

non-notable stuff being argued for endlessly. Cheers,

1325:

discussion, if Percy could respond to the following:

906:, rather than having them say that they don't apply. 553:

not even spin-out articles can ignore our PLOT policy

528:

So... spinout articles don't have to have notability

2945:

neither case is a spinout of a spinout appropriate.

1275:

be appropriate as a spinout per PLOT and WAF, or is

233:

interpretation of IINFO, or it's too broadly worded.

1854:

Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance)#Regarding notability...

1288:another character from the same fictional universe 942:that are notable collectively but not individually 900:I am not asking for these articles to be deleted 519:character or element may be appropriate when... 2388:about fiction for examples of length and tone. 2192:deletion route is biased technically against 725:There is nothing wrong with a goal of having 577:Masem made this change quite a few weeks ago. 8: 1464:inclusionary criteria for WP, but it is not 2973:The applicable policies and guidelines are: 1279:a better presentation (got merged by TTN)? 993:This completely addresses your concerns. 2655:Identifying spinouts (Was: Partial revert) 1420:This might be a better discussion on the 1320:Section break - request for clarification 2407:to an appropriate GFDL-compatible Wiki. 1460:this under "notability". Notability is 2378:Manual of Style (Writing about fiction) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1712:at some point to provide that basis. 7: 2846:. I believe this is defined within 2812:Update: Ok, I put forth my proposal 2584:to be met or not to be exceeded. -- 2376:of plot information, as outlined at 1900:Regarding the following suggestion: 1277:List_of_Kirby_characters#Meta_Knight 2744:User:Percy Snoodle/Spinout template 2247:I recently came across the article 2175:and intimidating for new editors.-- 904:the guidelines to reflect consensus 793:change what we say notability means 18:Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction) 2620:You seem to be trying to say that 2448:to drive the depth of coverage. -- 1777:have to fight for every article.-- 1271:(appeared in a dozen video games) 24: 489:WP:LINKLOVE#Link assessment table 2405:moving the fictional information 29: 2364:RE: "Depth of coverage" section 1773:, whilst successful shows like 1267:Out of interest, would you say 816:problems than what TTN created. 2251:, and through it the articles 515:A spinout article on a single 1: 2134:Knowledge:PROD#After deletion 1896:Regarding the PROD suggestion 1411:a topic, not to an article. 493:WP:CANVAS#Types of canvassing 1625:been commonly accepted that 1581:been commonly accepted that 749:firmly against that position 2992:the basis of that guideline 841:List of characters in Bully 3200: 3180:10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3169:09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3155:09:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3133:08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3101:08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3074:08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3058:07:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3034:05:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 2955:07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2940:19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2923:15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2903:17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2884:10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2860:18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2826:18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2808:17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2789:15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2775:15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2756:15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2720:15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2705:15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2692:14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2677:14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2637:09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2592:16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2549:15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2538:flashbacks and time travel 2487:12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2478:10:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2456:13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2439:13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2425:10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2356:14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2341:13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2328:12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2305:09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2273:16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2240:Question on how to proceed 2232:22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2205:21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2184:21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2167:14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2146:14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2124:14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2098:14:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2071:15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2036:15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 2007:14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 1978:12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 1957:11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 1938:10:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 1927:08:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 1890:11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1870:10:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1832:16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1817:16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1804:16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1786:16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1745:16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1730:16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1698:16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1680:16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1644:15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1616:15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1573:14:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1553:14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1540:11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1308:14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1295:13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1263:12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1250:12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1213:12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1201:11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1187:18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1168:11:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1154:17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1141:16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1119:16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 500:08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 472:19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 450:19:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 431:19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 408:19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 394:19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 378:19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 345:15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 330:21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 309:10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 295:20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 265:10:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 251:19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 216:11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 201:09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 186:07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 170:04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 141:08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 122:07:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 2540:'may' count, what else?-- 1860:; primarily the posts by 1489:15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1451:12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1433:21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1380:18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1344:15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1104:22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 1081:22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 1066:21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 1046:15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1031:12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1018:09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1003:21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 972:16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 963:15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 949:15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 916:15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 893:12:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 869:09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 855:21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 806:21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 783:18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 761:17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 742:16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 721:16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 712:15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 697:15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 681:14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 669:14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 655:14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 641:14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 610:14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 589:14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 571:13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 546:13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2738:is clearly a spinout of 2663:is a spinout article of 505:Am I reading this right? 3148:Characters of Carnivàle 384:stand alone article. - 2736:Companion (Doctor Who) 2409: 1914: 1794:reliance on sourcing. 843:is now to what it was 2740:Doctor Who#Companions 2370: 1902: 1771:Star Trek: Enterprise 42:of past discussions. 2313:If a spinout shrinks 3122:and the occasional 2984:The old version of 2795:Template:SubArticle 2284:Humanx Commonwealth 2249:Humanx Commonwealth 1912:perform this step. 883:relevant discussion 464:original researched 458:(ec 2x) My view on 103:Rules and consensus 2889:Spinout of spinout 2633: 2545: 2474: 2435: 2301: 2228: 2180: 1782: 1062: 530:on their own merit 3099: 3043: 2629: 2541: 2470: 2431: 2423: 2297: 2224: 2176: 2139: 2112:proposed deletion 1955: 1925: 1906:proposed deletion 1778: 1247: 1242: 1079: 1058: 1001: 845:about a month ago 568: 563: 526: 525: 199: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3191: 3178: 3131: 3095: 3072: 3050:Peregrine Fisher 3038: 3032: 2845: 2839: 2769: 2763: 2733: 2727: 2702: 2589: 2453: 2419: 2338: 2261:Alan Dean Foster 2202: 2144: 2137: 2121: 2033: 1975: 1951: 1921: 1814: 1727: 1677: 1613: 1550: 1486: 1430: 1341: 1305: 1260: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1210: 1151: 1075: 1028: 997: 890: 852: 780: 739: 694: 679: 607: 566: 561: 557: 509: 442:Peregrine Fisher 428: 386:Peregrine Fisher 195: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3174: 3127: 3068: 3028: 2967: 2891: 2843: 2837: 2767: 2761: 2731: 2725: 2700: 2669:UnitedStatesian 2657: 2587: 2451: 2366: 2336: 2315: 2242: 2200: 2140: 2119: 2031: 1973: 1898: 1812: 1725: 1686:WP:NOTINHERITED 1675: 1611: 1548: 1484: 1428: 1339: 1322: 1303: 1284:Samantha Carter 1258: 1238: 1208: 1149: 1026: 888: 850: 778: 737: 692: 677: 605: 559: 534:really bad idea 507: 480: 478:Example section 460:B. J. Hunnicutt 426: 366:B. J. Hunnicutt 357: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3197: 3195: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3061: 3060: 3025: 3024: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3010: 3004: 2998: 2995: 2982: 2975: 2974: 2966: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2925: 2890: 2887: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2576:Memento (film) 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2442: 2441: 2365: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2314: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2291: 2290: 2282:, who started 2257:Ulru-Ujurrians 2241: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214:modifications. 2208: 2207: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2127: 2126: 2101: 2100: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1941: 1940: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1775:Grey's Anatomy 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1510: 1478: 1477:as a spinout). 1470: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1334: 1333: 1330: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1057:impressions.-- 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 817: 723: 714: 671: 657: 629: 628: 627: 615: 614: 613: 612: 592: 591: 574: 573: 524: 523: 520: 513: 506: 503: 479: 476: 475: 474: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 412: 411: 410: 356: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 314: 313: 312: 311: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 234: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 146: 145: 144: 143: 128: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3196: 3181: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3161:Percy Snoodle 3158: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3143: 3134: 3130: 3125: 3121: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3075: 3071: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3041: 3036: 3035: 3031: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3011: 3008: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2987: 2983: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2964: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2947:Percy Snoodle 2943: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2932: 2926: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2888: 2886: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2876:Percy Snoodle 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2842: 2835: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781:Percy Snoodle 2778: 2777: 2776: 2773: 2766: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748:Percy Snoodle 2745: 2741: 2737: 2730: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2684:Percy Snoodle 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665:Dune universe 2662: 2654: 2638: 2635: 2632: 2627: 2625: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2593: 2590: 2582: 2577: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2550: 2547: 2544: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2515: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2476: 2473: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2457: 2454: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2440: 2437: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2408: 2406: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2389: 2387: 2386:good articles 2383: 2379: 2375: 2369: 2363: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2348:Percy Snoodle 2344: 2343: 2342: 2339: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2320:Percy Snoodle 2312: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2245: 2239: 2233: 2230: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2203: 2195: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2147: 2143: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2115: 2113: 2109: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2086: 2085: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2037: 2034: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2008: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1979: 1976: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1913: 1911: 1907: 1901: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1882:Percy Snoodle 1878: 1875:I agree that 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1867:Jack Merridew 1863: 1862:User:Dalamori 1859: 1855: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824:Percy Snoodle 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796:Percy Snoodle 1793: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1781: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737:Percy Snoodle 1733: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1720: 1714: 1713: 1710: 1704: 1703: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1690:Percy Snoodle 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1670: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1657: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1636:Percy Snoodle 1633: 1628: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1606: 1601: 1597: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565:Percy Snoodle 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1532:Percy Snoodle 1528: 1522: 1520:them notable. 1519: 1515: 1514:same articles 1511: 1508: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1479: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443:Percy Snoodle 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1431: 1423: 1419: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1392: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372:Percy Snoodle 1364: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1319: 1309: 1306: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1243: 1241: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1214: 1211: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193:Percy Snoodle 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160:Percy Snoodle 1157: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133:Percy Snoodle 1120: 1116: 1112: 1111:Percy Snoodle 1107: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1055: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1038:Percy Snoodle 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1010:Percy Snoodle 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 973: 970: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 955:Percy Snoodle 952: 951: 950: 947: 943: 939: 935: 917: 913: 909: 908:Percy Snoodle 905: 901: 896: 895: 894: 891: 884: 880: 876: 872: 871: 870: 866: 862: 861:Percy Snoodle 858: 857: 856: 853: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 823:(particulary 822: 818: 814: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 798:Percy Snoodle 794: 790: 786: 785: 784: 781: 773: 768: 764: 763: 762: 758: 754: 753:Percy Snoodle 750: 745: 744: 743: 740: 732: 728: 724: 722: 719: 715: 713: 709: 705: 704:Percy Snoodle 700: 699: 698: 695: 687: 682: 680: 672: 670: 666: 662: 658: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 633:Percy Snoodle 630: 625: 624: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 611: 608: 600: 596: 595: 594: 593: 590: 587: 583: 579: 576: 575: 572: 569: 564: 562: 554: 550: 549: 548: 547: 543: 539: 538:Percy Snoodle 535: 531: 518: 514: 510: 504: 502: 501: 498: 494: 490: 486: 477: 473: 470: 465: 461: 457: 451: 447: 443: 439: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 429: 422: 418: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 396: 395: 391: 387: 382: 381: 380: 379: 375: 371: 367: 362: 354: 346: 342: 338: 337:Percy Snoodle 333: 332: 331: 327: 323: 318: 317: 316: 315: 310: 306: 302: 301:Percy Snoodle 298: 297: 296: 292: 288: 283: 278: 277: 266: 262: 258: 257:Percy Snoodle 254: 253: 252: 248: 244: 240: 235: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 217: 213: 209: 208:Percy Snoodle 204: 203: 202: 198: 194: 189: 188: 187: 183: 179: 178:Percy Snoodle 174: 173: 172: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 142: 138: 134: 129: 125: 124: 123: 119: 115: 114:Percy Snoodle 111: 110: 109: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3120:common sense 3088: 3039: 3037: 3026: 2968: 2929: 2912: 2892: 2872: 2712:AnmaFinotera 2658: 2621: 2580: 2512: 2412: 2410: 2402: 2390: 2371: 2367: 2316: 2246: 2243: 2193: 2189: 2173: 2159:AnmaFinotera 2107: 2105: 2090:AnmaFinotera 2063:AnmaFinotera 1915: 1909: 1903: 1899: 1876: 1850: 1791: 1631: 1626: 1622: 1604: 1582: 1578: 1559: 1517: 1513: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1474: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1438: 1368: 1353: 1347: 1335: 1323: 1280: 1272: 1246:(Contact me) 1237: 1179: 1129: 989: 941: 937: 903: 899: 874: 812: 792: 788: 766: 730: 726: 685: 673: 598: 567:(Contact me) 558: 533: 527: 516: 484: 481: 358: 280: 243:Father Goose 238: 162:Father Goose 157: 153: 149: 147: 133:Father Goose 106: 75: 43: 37: 3013:WP:FANCRUFT 2394:time travel 2280:User:Paul A 2265:Fabrictramp 1593:characters. 1589:characters. 1475:immediately 1269:Meta_Knight 1191:Precisely. 517:non-notable 158:it is wrong 36:This is an 3093:Ursasapien 2848:WP:SUMMARY 2765:SubArticle 2417:Ursasapien 2398:flashbacks 2318:research. 1949:Ursasapien 1919:Ursasapien 1600:WP:SPINOUT 1354:notability 193:Ursasapien 95:Archive 30 87:Archive 25 82:Archive 24 76:Archive 23 70:Archive 22 65:Archive 21 60:Archive 20 3124:exception 3027:Regards, 2624:narrative 2484:Ned Scott 1706:coverage? 1499:currently 1495:currently 1457:somewhere 1180:currently 497:Ned Scott 154:procedure 150:consensus 3152:sgeureka 3001:WP:WIAFL 2895:Verdatum 2852:Verdatum 2818:Verdatum 2800:Verdatum 2772:sgeureka 2382:featured 2288:sgeureka 2004:sgeureka 1935:sgeureka 1292:sgeureka 1239:BIGNOLE 1184:sgeureka 1096:Verdatum 969:sgeureka 946:sgeureka 727:articles 718:sgeureka 661:Eusebeus 647:Karanacs 586:sgeureka 560:BIGNOLE 469:sgeureka 400:Padillah 370:Padillah 322:Verdatum 287:Eusebeus 2986:WP:FICT 2661:Arrakis 2581:However 2514:manner. 2374:balance 1627:certain 1583:certain 1518:calling 1481:AFD. -- 1439:I agree 1415:series. 1388:Always. 1227:WP:PLOT 772:WP:SIZE 659:Agree. 421:WP:FICT 417:WP:PLOT 361:M*A*S*H 39:archive 3097:(talk) 2990:, and 2911:arent. 2421:(talk) 1953:(talk) 1923:(talk) 1503:become 1073:Hiding 995:Hiding 991:topic. 885:). -- 837:WP:WAF 825:WP:NNC 791:do is 731:topics 197:(talk) 152:, not 3176:G.A.S 3129:G.A.S 3070:G.A.S 3040:Note: 3030:G.A.S 2979:WP:NN 2631:Nydas 2543:Nydas 2472:Nydas 2433:Nydas 2299:Nydas 2226:Nydas 2178:Nydas 2142:G.A.S 1994:E.g. 1780:Nydas 1632:other 1605:start 1469:that. 1231:WP:SS 1060:Nydas 829:WP:SS 282:plot. 127:well. 16:< 3165:talk 3089:rule 3054:talk 3007:WP:V 2951:talk 2936:talk 2919:talk 2899:talk 2880:talk 2856:talk 2841:main 2822:talk 2814:here 2804:talk 2785:talk 2760:See 2752:talk 2729:main 2716:talk 2701:ASEM 2688:talk 2673:talk 2588:ASEM 2452:ASEM 2413:must 2384:and 2352:talk 2337:ASEM 2324:talk 2269:talk 2255:and 2253:AAnn 2201:ASEM 2163:talk 2120:ASEM 2094:talk 2067:talk 2032:ASEM 1998:and 1974:ASEM 1886:talk 1856:and 1828:talk 1813:ASEM 1800:talk 1792:some 1741:talk 1726:ASEM 1694:talk 1676:ASEM 1640:talk 1612:ASEM 1569:talk 1560:some 1549:ASEM 1536:talk 1516:but 1485:ASEM 1447:talk 1429:ASEM 1422:WP:N 1376:talk 1340:ASEM 1304:ASEM 1259:ASEM 1209:ASEM 1197:talk 1164:talk 1150:ASEM 1137:talk 1115:talk 1100:talk 1042:talk 1027:ASEM 1014:talk 959:talk 912:talk 889:ASEM 879:WP:N 865:talk 851:ASEM 833:WP:N 821:WP:N 802:talk 779:ASEM 757:talk 738:ASEM 708:talk 693:ASEM 678:ASEM 665:talk 651:talk 637:talk 606:ASEM 542:talk 491:and 446:talk 427:ASEM 404:talk 390:talk 374:talk 341:talk 326:talk 305:talk 291:talk 261:talk 247:talk 212:talk 182:talk 166:talk 137:talk 118:talk 2931:DGG 2914:DGG 2396:or 2194:any 2190:Any 2136:). 2108:and 1910:not 1623:has 1579:has 1466:the 1281:May 1273:may 875:and 813:and 789:can 767:any 599:and 239:are 160:.-- 3167:) 3056:) 2953:) 2938:) 2921:) 2901:) 2882:) 2858:) 2844:}} 2838:{{ 2824:) 2806:) 2787:) 2768:}} 2762:{{ 2754:) 2732:}} 2726:{{ 2718:) 2690:) 2675:) 2354:) 2326:) 2271:) 2165:) 2096:) 2069:) 1888:) 1830:) 1809:-- 1802:) 1743:) 1696:) 1642:) 1571:) 1538:) 1462:an 1449:) 1425:-- 1378:) 1255:-- 1199:) 1166:) 1139:) 1117:) 1102:) 1044:) 1016:) 961:) 914:) 867:) 804:) 759:) 710:) 689:-- 686:is 667:) 653:) 639:) 555:) 544:) 536:? 522:” 512:“ 448:) 440:- 406:) 392:) 376:) 343:) 328:) 307:) 293:) 263:) 249:) 214:) 184:) 168:) 139:) 120:) 91:→ 3163:( 3052:( 2949:( 2934:( 2917:( 2897:( 2878:( 2854:( 2820:( 2802:( 2783:( 2750:( 2714:( 2699:M 2686:( 2671:( 2626:. 2586:M 2450:M 2350:( 2335:M 2322:( 2267:( 2199:M 2161:( 2118:M 2114:. 2092:( 2065:( 2030:M 1972:M 1884:( 1877:a 1826:( 1811:M 1798:( 1739:( 1724:M 1692:( 1674:M 1638:( 1610:M 1567:( 1547:M 1534:( 1483:M 1445:( 1427:M 1374:( 1356:. 1338:M 1302:M 1257:M 1207:M 1195:( 1162:( 1148:M 1135:( 1113:( 1098:( 1077:T 1040:( 1025:M 1012:( 999:T 957:( 910:( 887:M 863:( 849:M 800:( 777:M 755:( 736:M 706:( 691:M 676:M 663:( 649:( 635:( 604:M 540:( 444:( 425:M 402:( 388:( 372:( 339:( 324:( 303:( 289:( 259:( 245:( 210:( 180:( 164:( 135:( 116:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 23 - Knowledge

Index