Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 25

2181:

position, my position has been stated many times here there and everywhere. You link to the essay on Independent Sources above. Before you assume anything more about my position, maybe you should review the history of that essay, and then attempt to better paint my position. I have stated that my view and yours differs, and that I have no wish to enforce my view, and that should be enough ground upon which to start a defence of your position. Do you have a desire to enforce your position? If not, what does it matter if someone wishes produce an unlimited number articles to an unlimited degree of detail, so long as the top-level topic passes the notability requirements? Is that a view you wish to eradicate or prevent? If so, then I strongly oppose you because I believe there is no current consensus by all editors of Knowledge that that view holds no sway and should be barred, opposed, prevented or otherwise eradicated, discouraged or thought lacking, inane or treated in any way as being detrimental to producing Knowledge. Hope that helps, and all the best.

2812:, but not with the process of change (i.e whether it is the dogs or tails doing the waving, I am not bothered). Where I do have a problem with is that I think the proposed changes are based on POV. A good example of this is Percy's suggestion that an article on a topic without good coverage may be justified because it has won an award. Percy and myself have crossed swords on this before (so don't take my view as gospel), but in my view awards are not reliable evidence of notability on their own, and I have had this issue discussed at village pump and elesewhere. In my view this is an example of Percy believing a topic to be notable by looking into crystal ball and thinking coverage will appear, when in reality he can't see into the future. Since only Percy sees evidence of notability in his crystal ball, I don't think this is a basis for a change to this guideline, as other editors might not see it the same way. In my view, evidence of notability in the form of good coverage, not opinion, is the only basis for guideline on fictional topics. -- 3317:"plot" to mean exactly that, being the plot of the work, but anything that is not plot (characters, etc.) is not covered by that and thus can be discussed at depth. However, I take the position that plot is anything in-universe, including characters and the like. So yes, arguably without considering notability, we should not have spinouts of just fictional elements, and in the long run I agree not allowing these is a better long term solution for Knowledge. However, to suddenly disallow these will create a major uproar from the inclusionists and the result of that will not be good for the short-term of Knowledge's social health. The fact that we have spinouts that exist, but tested through process, that "violate" plot means that current practices seem to have cases where it does not apply. Again, if one considers a spinout being spun out strictly on a technical basis to reduce article length, then the spinout information is being presented alongside (though in another article) real-world information on the overall topic. -- 1692:

other material that can be used to better demonstrate notability, such as sources to state the popularity of the work. There's also a possible argument that, particularly for works that are produced by numerous people, that individual commentary could be seen as a secondary source, since that one person is providing their interpretation and analysis of the original work particularly if the commentary was created some time (months to years) after the distribution of the work. Again, if we are going for a compromise position to get us to a point where, like non-notable list/elements, we can then all collectively take a breather and decide if we need to shift around from the tentative middle point, we should be allowing for the use of commentary as the only means for notability should be considered - it's not an absolute guarantee either way, but it's better than no demonstration at all. --

2300:. I don;t think there is a consensus for Knowledge writing about everything, I don't think there is a consensus on what notability really means, but I do think there is a consensus that we write an encyclopedia, and that the featured article standards are what we aim for in an article. Maybe it is time to deprecate notability and a number of other ideas and tags and simply have one tag which states, this article does not meet the following standards, and then list where it fails. Let us not forget in all of this that notability developed as a way of discussing how to build the encyclopedia. Like all tools, we can put it aside and use a different one. The goal is to create an encyclopedia. Let's build it rather than continue to debate this issue. The guidance on this page clearly has no consensus, I think it is time to put it away. It is starting to become divisive. 666:

note that creating a spinout should not be the first step. I.E. Don't just create a character article if the main is a stub or there is no existing character list first, and that discussion within the article before spinning out would be appropriate to confirm that such a spinout is suitable? It amazes me how many fictional articles will have a stub for a min article, while having lengthy plot filled individual articles for every character. Also, for the issue of size, to make sure the main article isn't to big due to needing clean up. In my experiences, many times people claim they spunout something because of size, but the size issue was caused by the main article having a beyond overly long plot section, bad formatting, excessive unsourced fan rumors, etc.

2041:

possibility to have notable character articles. Another possible one is "Characters whose portraying actors have won a major award for portraying that character", as there are likely to be interviews with the actor and possibility the creator of the character, pre- and post-award ceremony. Any other quick passes for fictional notability need to have the likelihood that sources exist to establish them, so that's why we need to avoid "major works"; how is the work major? - what is major due to popularity, or was it major because of the influence on the arts, or .. and so forth. A more exacting definition of "major works" is necessary to consider how to take this further. --

622:(edit conflict) Yes, but say one reliable source makes a comment about some element of fiction, like work x was set in the fictional town Y. What stops anyone from claiming "okay, now I can write a huge lengthy article about topic fictional Y because some source happened to mention it in passing. It needs to be clearer that reliable sources (more than one) have actually given the topic extensive coverage, not passing mention, and that it needs to be a non-primary source. It also needs to be clearer that the focus should still be on the real-world aspects, otherwise one is likely adding excessive plot detail in attempting to spin out the article. 1892:

be made into a single article (notable, no question) and describe Hannay and other major themes within it. Regardless, yes, you'd never have lists, but if I were writing the Hannay stuff fresh, then the character description of Hannay would appear in the first book's article, using templates to reference it, and if I felt there were character changes throughout, a spinout may make sense. But still, that's shouldn't be done until I'm sure that a spinout would work better than just see-also templates to the first book or to a series article (effectively a notable wrapper around the character).

2624:, that does not mean widespread practise should be used as the basis for writing guidelines: Far from it, the tail does not wag the dog. Percy makes a subtle point that there are topics without good coverage which (in his opinion) merit an article; I would counter that by saying that if it merits an article, coverage will be found eventually, but that the guidelines should not be cater for a category of article which may or may not be notable, depending on whose crystal ball you are gazing into. I agree with 31: 2037:

to demonstrate that. For fiction, saying anything from "major works" or even "really major works" gets a quick pass at notability may be ok, but I argue that the word "major" in the context of "major works" is a highly subjective term, to a point that a quick pass criteria will not very likely have sources. (in comparison, "major" in the context of "major characters" is generally more objective, particularly when limited to just one work).

1109:, which requires sources to be independent of the authors, publishers, their publicists, agents and distributors. Deleting this section does not preclude citing such sources as references, however, this sentence is a reversal of exisiting policy because it attempts to establish notability of a fictional subject through sources that are not independent. "Intellectual independence" is a safeguard to ensure that 283: 788:

or "proposed" for nearly a year now, let's make it stable, even if it is not 100% meshing with policy and guidelines. We make sure we say that certain aspects (spinouts) are often questioned so that editors are aware it's not a perfectly resolved issue (and possibly one covered in a separate guideline). Get all that set, let it sit for a few months and make sure that there's no major issues with it.

278: 3175:

spinouts (the D&D cases), in the past year the number of such has decreased, so it is not like people are rapidly creating spinouts, we just need to make sure to spell these out to make sure that number stays in check; come fall when a fresh abatch of students get new internet accounts at high school and college, the process could start up again. --

2679:, though. An article which is entirely verifiable from, say, a fansite isn't OR - but it could be entirely taken up by an in-universe plot summary. WP:PLOT allows for a short plot summary, so without backup from the notability guidelines an AFD is likely to fail on grounds that "real-world coverage can be found", or something equally insipid. 1947:

elements. We have to assume good faith for editors, but we also need to assume a lowest common denominator for editors' understanding of principles, and we should never assume something should be obvious to all if it's written out in a guideline or policy, because "really major" is going to mean 100 different things to 100 different editors. --

2474:

that there are non-notable articles which deserve inclusion, but we're basically saying the same thing. WP:N does make provision for the specific guidelines to add extra criteria beyond coverage, and we're debating what circumstances there are under which we should do that. Shall we take it that you, like Gavin, would say "no circumstances"?

3244:

acceptable, needs to be defined, making sure that editors are forewarned these will always been seen by someone as being inappropriate. Mind you, I've changed the introduction a bit of the draft to make the creation of spinouts a negative but still possible solution, as to emphasis that these are not completely accepted by the community. --

837:

results. It would be reached by random article. That sounds like good characteristics. Does anyone object to that idea, apart from people who think that there should never be this sort of "sub-article", however it's arranged? Barring there being a technical or core-policy reason not to do things in this way, of course.

1186:"if a reliable source describes a fictional element as necessary or critical for the understanding of a notable topic, and the amount of detail necessary to explain that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within either the parent topic or in an aggregate article, then that topic merits its own article" 1820:

characters, and thus will have sourcing. But any other definition of "really major" is open to a lot of interpretation. Given enough effort, I would likely be able to argue that "Spongebob Squarepants" is "really major" (within the area of modern cartoons) to the same degree that "Romeo and Juliet" is.

2336:

I agree with Masem. I see more agreement than disagreement here, and also more engaging discussion than divisive argument. There are plenty of middle ground editors here, e.g. Masem and Percy Snoodle. There are disagreements on matters of approach, but not, fundamentally, on what should or should not

2284:

You know, from where I sit it is quite apparent both sides in this debate need to rethink their positions and put things on the table and accept they aren't going to get their way on everything. Until that happens there is no point in even debating this issue, because everytime a consensus develops a

1891:

And, not having read the work, I will assume that yes, Hannay would be a singular element, though since some of the works have been made into movies and film, there's a possibility that further notability can be provided for the character, though one could also argue that the book series itself could

1823:

Also, in the creation of new articles on a work of fiction, one should be creating the main article first with a list of characters within it, breaking out the list of characters (notable or not) to a separate list per spinout, and only breaking out individual characters if notable on their own or in

1745:

was cited in this very guideline as a 'good' redirect. Google is not research, and Digimon and Stargate are not 'really major works'. For century-old literature and certain kinds of film (Blade Runner or the Hitchcock films, for example) there is a superabundance of critical commentary which supports

1609:

they have their places--it is simply contrary to common sense to insist on a full article for really minor characters. On a practical basis, such insistance will forfeit sympathy. what we need to do is make certain it is plainly stated that a list can grow and spin off into articles as necessary, and

1523:

It ended in keep all because it was too many in one with many saying delete some but not X or Y. That's why the first probably was train wrecked. In general, such group noms are a bad idea as people will not look at each individual article. If nominated on an individual basis, I suspect most would be

836:

to use subpages in mainspace? If not, then why can't we use that to indicate where an article is intended to be considered a "sub-article"? It would be unlikely to be found on first-search in the search box by people who don't already know what they're looking for, although it would turn up on search

787:

Here's what I think we need to do. We need to step back, revert recent changes on this and get back to a FICT that reflects current consensus even if it is contrary to certain policies. (What would be missing then would be outlining what types of spinouts are appropriate). This has been "disputed"

191:

And those types of errors are exactly the sort of thing we are attempting to deal with in this guideline: we must prevent the over-simplification or exclusion of in-universe information vital to understanding the subject, while also preventing the over-division or expansion of in-universe information

114:

My two cents are that few combined pages are always better than many stand-alone pages. This is better for editorial oversight. Even if we allow lots of plot summary, it would be duplicated on each character page, the episode pages and whatever other pages there are. This duplication allows errors to

3174:

Again, the best we can do is state situations that are generally accepted, situations that aren't accepted, and warn as much as possible that any spinout may be challenged at any time. Remember, this is stating the situation we have now, and while there are some areas where there are out of control

3166:

Unfortunately, that's just not going to be enough. You start by allowing all spinoffs, and then say that spinoffs on certain sorts of topic are "generally" unacceptable. Spinoffs on those sorts of topics will be constantly presented as the exceptions, and spinoffs on other topics can go as deep as

3158:

I have in the draft. It is absolutely not a blanket exemption as you're stating, because there are cases that I've included where spinning out is not acceptable to the community (such as individual character or episode articles). The problem is that each case is going to depend on the body of work

3036:

If the language makes it POV, that can be changed, but I argue that non-notable spinouts are within the bounds of WP:N as WP:N deals with topics (not articles nor their contents), and that a typical case, of merging of minor characters into a list, is mentioned explicitly within the notes. Now, I'm

2135:

We can state that this guideline doesn't make an allowance for them, which would amount (in the context of an AFD) to the same thing. It would be better, I think, to add a note to that end now and remove it later, than to allow an infinity of articles on every fictional topic. I'll make the change

2118:

While it's very likely that a spinout of a spinout is excessive, I feel we don't know enough of where exactly consensus/AFD handling of these cases sit to be able to say that. Also, we can't "prohibit" something, we're a guideline, not even policy can prohibit something, but only strongly discourage

2036:

No, I understand that, and no, I'm not against establishing any "quick pass" to fictional notability; the key is that any such "quick pass" needs to be an assured criteria that will likely have real-world context. WP:MUSIC and WP:FILM have several quick passes, but ultimately each topic still needs

1928:

Lists are 'easy and acceptable' because they fit fiction deletionists' pre-conceived notions of what fiction is 'supposed' to look like. Fiction which doesn't fit is bashed until it does, no matter how distorting or counter-intuitive. Bodging the Richard Hannay character info into the first novel is

1828:

notability is demonstrated or necessitated by spinout. Of course, what we have now is a lot of separate pages to begin with as this approach is relatively new compared to the life of WP, and that newbies don't always read policy/guideline before creating articles. We need to make sure the approach

1733:

The false sense of equality is a problem because it encourages undue weight to be given to characters who are relatively unimportant to the narrative, misleading people who are unfamilar with the fiction. If there are three main characters who account for 90% of the dialogue, they're unlikely to get

756:

We need to be trying to make this less complex, even if that means we need to rely on sub-guidelines for highly detailed guidance. However, the core of FICT needs to be clear and concise, otherwise, new editors will "tl;dr" and ignore it completely. (Yes, I know it wasn't there before, the problem

712:

I know what you are trying to do with this, and its a good effort. The problem is, before these recent changes, this guideline was already just a bit too long; now we've got two new conditions (even though they are using existing text). I think this new case is a subcase of the first, most general

2378:

we used to see a lot more debate in afd's, because people had to present a case for every article. Now it's all drive-by. I agree there is a lot of agreement here, I just think the more caveats and words you introduce, the less good you will actually do. Look at the amount of time already spent on

2319:

I don't feel these present arguments are bad. We have a guideline that's 90% of the way there in describing the current practice that is acceptable on WP, and the one area on spinouts is the one that we just need to be careful with as to match current expectations: it should not be a free pass for

2315:

Notability in general, not just for fiction topics, has much more support for it, even though there's always disagreers. Unless WP:N (and then by extension, WP:IINFO) is depreciated, saying that FICT is invalidated will not make the problem go away: deletionists will use WP:N as their main tool to

2180:

My first sentence means that if this guidance is to actually not comment on spinouts of spinouts, it should not comment on them even to the point of stating that it makes no allowances for them. Commenting on them from either side of the debate pre-loads the debate. As to what you assume about my

2053:

Whether or not a work is 'major' is not the issue here; the problem is identifying major elements within works, as those elements are the topic of the articles in question. "Major characters from works that have received significant academic coverage" isn't relevant unless the academic coverage is

792:

we can start proposing alterations, using RFCs and other notifications to get community-wide consensus. Restrict spinouts to certain types? Sure, if the community goes for it. Prevent any spinouts on fictional elements lacking notability? Again, sure, if that's how we want to proceed. But let's

589:

Not really. The way the section is written, it basically gives carte blanc for people to write tons and tons of articles filled with fancruft and minute details of their favorite bit of fiction because they can use the excuse of "well, it was just so much detail I had to put it in its own article."

3360:

That's why I'm trying to emphasize that what was in FICT up to a few weeks ago reflect common, if fallible, practice with respect to spinouts, with my suggested addition to expand on the current status of spinouts. We want to establish that as the metering stick to say "ok, here's where everyone

3333:

is not being enforced or that there is a different way that the policy is read by those that really want these articles. It just means we are a work in progress. The answer is to fix the articles rather than attempting to find the perfect piece of legislature that will solve all ills. We've been

2906:

an article but not have enough reliable, verifiable content to actually create one. Also, would this extend beyond the winners to all the nominees, which in some cases are staggering in numbers, or just the winners themselves? And what if there isn't a differentiation between nominees and winners?

1895:

Remember, spinning out content is the justification to allow non-notable elements to have lists or their own articles - their approach and creation needs to be handled as such; lists are generally easy and acceptable, but there's often times that a singular element can be approached in a different

1814:

That's fine to say that for "really major" fiction, stub articles for characters are acceptable because yes, they are likely notable, no one's gotten around to sourcing them that way. But we're back to how to define "really major". I'm sure there's a good subset of works that are clearly "really

1691:

Commentaries are a sticky wicket - that's why there's a cautionary note in the guideline about SELFPUB sources. An article sourced only on commentary is likely to be questioned about notability, but if the work was sufficiently popular enough to warrant the creation of commentary, there is likely

665:

That's better...though should something be noted to also defer/refer to the relevant MOS when trying to determine spin outs? For example, with television episodes, DVD releases should almost never be spun out, but included in the main or the relevant episode lists without excessive detail. And to

636:

That's a problem, yes; we should definitely mention WP:PLOT in that section, and the source(s) involved definitely need to be secondary. I'm trying with this section to specify the individual elements that are suitable spinouts, so it's possible that the condition may be weaker than the full WP:N

496:

Subpages are a technical feature that are strongly discouraged for any page in mainspace, which is why we started using "spinout" over "sub-article". This is not to say we cannot have some template on a talk page that identifies a spinout article for future editors, while the prose on the content

425:

I think we currently lack a good model for the second case, where one topic is split into several (sub-)articles. I'm prepared to make a more detailed proposal on that, which would be somewhat more complex, involving changes in a wide range of areas. It would also not be restricted to fiction. But

2955:

Sorry, but that's just an extended version of the disputed section here. It still fails to establish a lower bound, except in a very watered-down way for certain sorts of article. It explicitly makes all lists of characters acceptable, which isn't right, and vaguely waves that individual elements

2749:

indicates clearly that the primary method of defining policies/guidelines is documenting current practice and getting consensus that this documentation is accurate. Following WP:POLICY, that should be how we start out. That would pretty much mean saying "spinouts are great, go right ahead", which

2473:

I have a lot of sympathy for that position. There is, however, some feeling that there are topics that lack such support, which nonetheless merit articles. Confusingly, people have been saying that lots of different ways; I've been saying that some topics without coverage are notable, and Masem

2040:

I have offered one idea: "Major characters from works that have received significant academic coverage", as if the works have been established in academics in that fashion, likely there has been analysis of the characters and so forth; this would make nearly any book that has Cliff Notes a likely

1784:

The point is that notability is a given for principal characters from 'really major' fiction. There should not be a problem with stubs and start-classes for them, any more than there should be a problem with a town or politician stub. As for lists, even a 3:1 paragraph ratio is too much. In some

1359:

I accept that you dispute them. All I have done is shown that the grounds for your disputing them are baseless. If you want to remove them, remove them, but state your grounds. If you want to add the disputed tag, add it, but state your grounds. Be aware, however, that other editors are within

769:

Well, what I'm hoping with these two sections is that we'll be able to do away with the spinouts section, and still keep the good spinouts. The spinouts that are left after these two sections are added in are lists with little or no coverage, as a whole or of their parts, and individual elements

459:

The current wording applies this only with respect to notability. However, I think one needs to be consistent. If it's only one topic - then treat it so. Do not list non-notable subaspects of the topic on disambiguation pages, for example. Do not list the sub-articles in categories. Make it clear

3383:

have been consistently rejected. So far, therefore, consensus has upheld that injunction (however it is interpreted). The real problem is that admins don't close AfDs consistently enough with an eye to policy - that applies to BLP, V, as well as NOT - they tend to count vores, even though we all

3316:

The fact that we have in non-notable fictional element spinoffs (surviving AFD, etc.) that go against this policy implies that this policy is either not being enforced, or that there is a different way that this policy is read by those that really want these articles. I believe some people read

2150:

You can't state that this guideline doesn't make an allowance for them, since it amounts to the opposite, which is also true. This guideline, quite rightly in my mind, doesn't comment either way because consensus is unclear and we don't want to load the debate. My view of Knowledge differs from

1819:

coverage, then characters of that work are likely to be notable and stubs of such characters shouldn't be merged away with the same tenacity as modern or contemporary works. The academic coverage requirement would mean that people have likely written essays to explain the motivations of certain

1767:

For lists, taking the example that if 3 characters have 90% of the dialog, then obviously those three are major characters and likely will get 1 to 3 paragraphs in a list (assuming none are non-notable). Any other supporting characters should get one paragraph at most, and this assumes they are

1558:

The discussion is revolving around lists, but this will lead to a hardening of the attitude that the only quasi-notable fiction article allowed is a list. Lists inevitably lose 'basic' real world info, get their pictures removed by the fair use people and create a false sense of equality between

1175:

goes into great detail why this style of article is just not appropriate for Knowledge, primarily because it encourges content that does is devoid of real-world content, context, analysis or critisism. A grouping of elements can only establish notability if there is sufficient real-world content

3139:

The current environment doesn't support a blanket exemption for all spinouts - the harm that would do by allowing absolutely every possible article is far greater than the harm in excluding a few. But we don't even need to do that, if we can identify the ones we need to keep. Will you help to

1626:

Not really. Even "the principal characters of really major works" rarely are notable enough for their own articles. Only a relative few have more that can be said about them, with proper, reliable, third-party sourcing, beyond just the plot. Real-world info from commentary and other materials

3191:

The out-of-control spinouts may be few in number now, but by exempting them from notability requirements, your spinout advice is likely to cause a huge upswell. We can't start by saying "you don't need notability" then offer style advice. We have to extend notability to cover the articles we

2872:

currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable". "Real world coverage sourced from reliable secondary sources" is evidence for notability, and it's possible that there are other sorts of evidence.

2601:

Sometimes it's contradicted, sometimes it's agreed. Both are widespread. If we can find a difference between the cases where WP:N is applied and where it isn't, we'll have our answer. However, I suspect that the difference is usually either (a) popularity of the work in question, or (b) the

210:

Well said, erachima. This seems like a minor discrepancy, in and of itsself. However, I think the majority of editors would agree with your concern for scholarship and verifiability. I think the spinouts this discussion is speaking of are different than the one you referenced. The solution

2871:

I know. That's what I meant, too. "Real world coverage sourced from reliable secondary sources" is not the same as notability. You can tell that because WP:N uses the word "presumed"; if they were the same, there'd be no need to presume, you'd have proved it. Also, it says "If an article

2102:

This thread raises another argument about allowing spinouts of all fictional topics based only on length, rather than notability of subtopics; it gives a false equality to top-level fictional topics. To avoid that there needs to be, at the very least, a prohibition of spinouts of spinouts.

1946:

If "really major" was easily understood and transparent, there would have been no ArbCom cases against TTN, instead of the two that resulted when TTN was trying to merge characters articles that weren't "really major"; our AFDs wouldn't be filled with highly contested disputes over fictional

2744:

is not one of the non-negotiables; it's not one of the pillars, and it isn't a policy. It's a guideline. That doesn't mean I' suggesting chucking it out; far from it. Personally, I come down on the side of permitting fewer spinouts than we currently seem to have. On the other hand, there is

2708:

All that said, it would be good if this guideline said, pretty plainly, that "if a fiction-related subject is notable, it will always be possible to include more in an article than plot summaries, in-universe information, and referenced from popular culture". Carving a suitable exception to

1459:

even though the articles were in a fairly poor state. My impression is that this sort of thing is notable in the practical sense of passing AFD easily but quite hard to find good sources for. Some sort of inherited notability is needed for major franchises like Monty Python, The Simpsons,

1170:

directly. I disagree that fictional topics can possess notability simply by aggregating primary sources or coverage from unreliable sources. Although aggregation may at first appear attractive where there is a large volume of material that can be used in an in universe plot summary based on

3243:

it is not a requirement, and furthermore, as it is written, it is applied to the topic level and not to the article level; this however is not a free pass to right every possible spinout as part of a larger topic. That's why the types and appropriateness of spinouts, as they are currently

2165:

I don't understand your first sentence. Do I take it from "My view of Knowledge differs from yours" that you believe that every fictional topic should be allowed to produce an unlimited number articles to an unlimited degree of detail, so long as the top-level topic passes the notability

1712:

This is not a problem: the lists can be ordered and have subheaders to give a rough approximation of the main/recurring/minor/etc nature of the characters, and then the text can explain the relative importance of each character. In fact, stand-alone articles are worse in this regard.

2777:

So lets all try and compromise, eh? And basing guidelines on current practice isn't the "tail wagging the dog", it's the way it's supposed to be done on wikipedia. If you have a problem with that method, you need to be talking about it on a much wider basis. Try the village pump, or

1865:

You're wrong about lists being the only correct way to expand fictional coverage. I suspect this is down to the omnipresence of SF in fiction deletionist thinking, where the 'fictional universe' is king, driving the creation of minutae-stuffed lists. It would be ridiculous to have a

1837:

to 90% content of the major characters. If the other 10% of the dialog is made up of 100 characters, obviously trying to list and describe each one is undue weight; the list here I'd convert to quick lists to group the characters but spend little time explaining each in detail.

3077:(@Percy) the suggestions you made are basically already covered by FICT; if it's notable, it can be spunout, though what may result may not necessarily be what is considered as a spinout (it may be its own , fleshed out topic). If it's non-notable, we need to restrict it. -- 1829:

to bring together non-notable articles into lists or main bodies gets us to the same result as if the articles were all new, and parts were split off per notability and spinoff requirements. As for the ratio of what major characters to minor characters get, this is where

1225:"A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage 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" 2642:

It may be possible to identify the circumstances where coverage will be found eventually, using other means - for example, many of the other notability guidelines include winning a notable award. If we can identify those means, they should be added to our guidelines.

501:

be populated in redirects and disambig pages to allow for ease of searching, even if the term itself is non-notable; at worst, the reader is redirected to the main page of the work of fiction containing that character and thus will now know where to go to learn more.

3361:

agrees where we are". If, from that, the encyclopedia continues to improve, great, we don't need to touch anything. If we find people wikilawyering the language and the encyclopedia is not being improved, then we can talk about how to adjust that metering stick. --

590:

Where are the limits? It is too ambiguous and gives far too much leeway and wiggle room to allow for fansite creations within Knowledge. It is not necessary to understand every last element of a fictional topic in order to understand it from an overview perspective.

1262: 1433:

that inspired it (which I've not read and wish I'd picked-up during a recent visit to one of the best book stores on the planet). The real irony is that I posted this request a few minutes before Masem raised much the same concern in the following section. Cheers,

805:

I think we can do that simply be removing the spinouts section. I know you've put a lot of time into it, but it's the only part that is substantially disputed, and now it's largely redundant. Reverting to before it was added seems like a huge step backwards.

736:

though adding the condition that if the RS saying it is important to understand an element to understand the main work, people will bend that to think that if a review or the like mentions an element but does not elaborate on it, that means it can be included.

1025:

The point is that the subarticles would provide an alternative structure to categories: (Notable) topics would be organized in categories, while (not independently notable) detail material is organized in subpages to the "main article" (which alway exists per

2247:

is a necessary list), then this must be established by consensus and editorial practice, not just us saying so. Once the guidelines on spinout articles have had a bit of time in the field, we'll be able to assess real consensus on the matter, but not before.

3439:

Hm, after thinking about it for a moment, I see your point. I believe that wording was intentially left vague because this is an article on topic notability, not on inclusion criteria for content. But it could be misunderstood as some implicitly defined

1117:

Agreed. Notability can not and should not be established from self-published sources. That opens the door for every fan-written work ever created to claim their stuff is notable for inclusion on no other basis than their writing a commentary about it.

951:

Subarticles (i.e., subpages of the main article space) were disabled because they are a bad way of organising articles. Instead, the category system was introduced. I give two examples which illustrate some of the many problems with subarticles. First,

3342:. I am unclear what makes people think that other people won't wiki-lawyer whatever their magic set of words is. It's quite clear some editors simply will not agree on any given approach. The best way forward is to write and improve articles to our 2237:

I believe Hiding's point is that we cannot use a guideline, or for that matter its footnotes, as a podium from which to state "Also, while this sentence doesn't have consensus and hence can't be part of the guideline proper, we'd like to say view

1740:

The view that 'most' principal characters of really major works aren't notable is just an opinion. My impression is that the fiction deletionists don't have any training or qualifications to make such a claim. Let's not forget that for two years,

1059:

is "Singles and albums by Janie Fricke" (not "Janie Fricke"). These topics are notable: they can surely be found in reliable secondary sources, even if the current articles don't always cite such sources. There is no reason to make them subpages.

3159:

its from and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Yes, it would be great if the lowest common denominator was demonstration of notability, but that will not be an acceptable solution to the WP-wide community in the current environment.

2852:

Sorry, when I said good coverage, I meant real world coverage sourced from reliable secondary sources. Anything less is not evidence of notability; awards in my view are not substitutes for good coverage, they are usually just the icing on the

2453:

is an result, not a criterion. Once you apply the basics (is the topic notable, and supported by real-world information), you get a list of acceptable spinouts. Everything else, no matter how much the author feels he would like to say, must be

1387:

I'm concerned about the spinout of non-notable stuff. This is somehow necessary? No, it is merely desirable from a fan perspective. I just referred Gavin to a very notable commentary on an underlying concern about commercial pop culture; see

2886:

Awards are, by definition, evidence of the notability of a subject. If a field-specific major award is given to a subject, then the subject is, by the standards of that field, notable. I'm not sure that "coverage" should trump major awards.

1677:, which may or may not be overly strong depending on what you interpret "directly tied to the creators of the work" to mean. This guideline should address the concerns raised at WP:IS, to some extent, but perhaps less strongly than that. 2492:

I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case. Articles on things like

2320:

all material to be included, nor a free pass to remove all non-notable spinouts. Having this argument,, even if it is highly split, is not a bad thing; this is likely a lot more range of input than we've had in the past for this. --

2796:

I don't think anyone has a problem with the fact that these guidelines should reflect current practise - but some of us disagree about what that practise is, and some of us disagree about the terms in which they should reflect that

3122:

is sufficient to allow notable spinouts for fictional topics, a point covered by "Notable topics merit individual articles". However, I disagree that the exception cannot be present without harming the current environment of WP.

3037:

fully aware that these rub against PLOT as well, but again, this common practice today, and a necessary stake in the ground to establish in order to go forward with restricting these further, if the community wants that. --

2242:

is a load of rot." If spinouts of spinouts are going to be disallowed (which as a general rule they probably will be, with the exception of some shows that are particularly ridiculous in length or character density so that

2713:

might accurately define what's an acceptable spinout in some senses, but it would also be a very good rule of thumb; "if it's notable, you can write more than that plot summary; if you can't, it's not notable, *splat*".

1261:. The reason why I object so strongly is that I have seen the damage caused by the spamming of articles with no real-world content that have no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. If you take a look at 1932:

As I've already explained, 'really major' is a free pass, since there is no way to prove non-existence of sources. As long as the principles are easily understood, transparent and likely to lead to sources, there is no

1265:, you will see that not only are they mainly comprised of in universe plot summary, but the style of the articles is almost identical to that employed by the publisher. If we are to stop the steady creap of publisher's 354:

An encyclopedia should be organized by topic. While typically each topic should be covered in one article (or on one page), we all know that in some situations, more than one article is needed per topic. (Just think of

999:

I understand, but this suggestion is unlikely to gain encyclopedia-wide support, because of the many problems involved in enabling main space subpages. Also the concept of a spinout depends on article history (I think

1887:

Remember, any other definition of "really major" has to lead to a path where sources are highly likely to exist, because just satisfying "really major" is not a free pass to not ultimately showing notability through

2054:

of the characters, since notability is not inherited. "Characters whose portraying actors have won a major award for portraying that character" is fine, since the award is in a sense coverage of that character.

3384:

pretend AfD is not a vote (uh-huh). But that is not grounds for not striving to work out best practices grounded in our policies. I am unconvinced that defining notability in limpid terms is a Bikeshed issue.

1452: 2405:

So - as Masem suggests (and without worrying too much about where they'll eventually go) let's try (again) to come up with the cases when spinouts are definitely acceptable, and when they're definitely not.

2151:

yours. Fortunately, both have equal primacy. Let that situation continue, rather than attempting to enforce your own particular view. That's one of the principles Knowledge was founded upon. All the best,

3410:? That just seems to be another can of divisiveness waiting to be opened. One side will argue that you can cut an article back to one word, and the other side will argue it is all valuable information. 2285:

new voice enters and drags the consensus in a different direction. Knowledge and consensus forming simply cannot move to cover every voice, sometimes the voice has to move to where the consensus forms.

1360:

their rights to re-add them. And in fairness, make sure you quote the exact portions of policy you believe contradict with this guidance, because it may simply be your interpretation that is the issue.

1288:

I'm working towards a point at which we can remove this section; most of the cases it was created to include are now adequately covered by the previous two sections. That's my belief and hope, anyway.

260:

It should only just be proposed, but there are editors that feel the fact that it is a notability guideline needs to be there too. However, there's no standard for a "proposed notability guideline". --

856:... Subpages have once been used in mainspace, later they were disabled; I think we could now re-enable them for a well-described purpose (in fact a different one than they have once been used for). -- 1627:

directly tied to the creators of the work can not be used to establish the notability for having their own articles, only act as supplements for expanding said article once notability is established.

1503:

Individual works, yes; individual characters and other elements are a much more mixed bag. Episodes tend to get more coverage because of listings magazines, so they have an easier time meeting WP:N.

2902:

didn't deserve content. However, if, for some bizarre reason, there wasn't any independent review of the work in question, then we might have a situation where the subject would seemingly in a sense

363:

The topic can be divided into two (or more) sub-topics, related but clearly separated, each of which is notable (as evidenced by sources). Then, Knowledge should treat them as two separate topics.

1384:

This page is 386Kb and my print preview says it would be 123 pages. To someone seeking to follow this without having been here all along, this is daunting. Please archive, summarize, something.

1833:

provides the right guidance. In the hypothetical example if it is truly the case that 90% of the dialog is around 3 characters, then I'd expect that the balance of the character list would be

2497:

may be a common practice, as is asserting that every actor on the Disney Channel is gay, or substituting "penis" for the noun of the author's choice. Doesn't make them acceptable or desirable.

2374:, it's just not mentioned in reasonable company because it's accepted. So not having it wouldn't really add more conflict between policy. It might make Knowledge less divisive. Before we had 1317:"A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." 3192:

actually want. Please, please, please help us to do that. I realise you've put a lot of work into your spinout advice, and I applaud you for it, but we can't go about things that way.

1768:

reoccurring; one-offs should rarely be discussed at all. This is more a manual of style approach that should tie in with such non-notable lists, but isn't a notability issue itself. --

3008:"...spinout articles dealing with fictional topics that do not have demonstration of either general notability or notability for fictional elements.. are appropriate at certain times.." 1051:

Your thoughts contain a lot of good ideas, but fundamentally, as Percy Snoodle has pointed out, a "subarticle" is usually about a particular topic within the parent topic. The topic of

445:

I don't see the difference between this and the wording of the current section on spinouts ("Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article...")

1815:

major" (aka, pretty much any work studied in high-school English course, for a start), but I think the only save guideline here is if the core work itself is a basis for significant

1404:

Of course even that article has lots of unsourced statements, several peacock words, and, arguably, "trivia" (viz. some parts the section entitled "Miscellenea"). Ironic isn't it?

1641:

This is where a few editors of guideline pages disagree with thousands of editors of editors of article pages, although I agre with the many myself. Let's build a list of AfDs. -

1245:

I am not sure how my objections can be catered for within the context of current discussions, as I am seeking a rollback to the point where this guideline more strictly adheres to

1764:

why individual character articles should be very limited to those that have the abundance of critical commentary; this removes any bias that the user may have towards the work.

784:

As a long term goal, yes, but not in the short term. We need a process to ween such dependancies away (if that is the ultimate direction WP wants to go), but not cold turkey.

3225:

is a policy, which states that articles not meeting notability criteria should be deleted. So while WP:N is only a guideline, it is still a policy that it's a requirement.

3210:

This stems from the conception that notability is a requirement for articles. It is not; it is strongly recommended, but because notability is a guideline and not policy,

2628:, real world coverage from reliable secondary sources is not only good evidence of notability, it is also a bulwark against in universe plot summaries based on synthesis.-- 983:

But this suggestion wouldn't suggest a complete hierarchical-organisation of articles, the only subarticles would be spinouts. I see there are other difficulties, though.

172:". The outlines of this scene, one of the most important in the whole series, is given or alluded to in several other Babylon 5 articles, with varying levels of accuracy. 2528:

Understood. I came to this page with pretty much that viewpoint, though perhaps with more of a soft spot for minor topic lists. I've since been convinced that there is

528:

which tries to explain the non-list spinouts we want to include without allowing a blanket exemption for all spinouts. What are people's thoughts about the new section?

524:

Since the section I added to try to explain which list and list-like spinouts we want to include doesn't seem to have been too controversial, I've added another section,

2587:

But given that these guidelines are supposed to be more descriptive than prescriptive, that doesn't work, because that's definitely contradicted by widespread practice.

1657:

Real-world info from commentary and other materials directly tied to the creators of the work can not be used to establish the notability for having their own articles.

2657:

If in-universe plot-summaries are what you're worried about, that also covered by guidelines (writing about fiction, forget the link name) and by a nice solid policy (

969: 1085:

I have reason to believe that this whole section and its related subsections should be removed from this guideline, as they conflict with the existing consensus of

2834:

for notability; there may be other types of evidence. I think that some awards do constitute that evidence. But we should always require some sort of evidence.

2532:

consensus support for a weaker position, so we should try to find a compromise between a blanket exemption for fictional topics and a strict application of WP:N.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1198:

Furthermore, one reliable source is not enough: there must be multiple reliable secondary sources containing real-world content to justify a stand-alone article.

1610:

that in general separate articles are appropriate for the principal characters of really major works or series. that's something we might be able to agree on.

1489:

Individual noms for single eps don't fare that well either. It's the difference between the wider community and editor who frequent these guideline pages. -

2244: 1241:

Where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should be cut out not not spun out.

1103:"Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is self-published" 2898:

The question then becomes, does this apply to all awards, all nominees for awards, etc. Certainly, I wouldn't for one second say that the winner of the

1196:. Where content is not substantiated by real-world content from reliable sources that are independent of the topic, it should be cut out not aggregated. 464:. Then we may disagree as to what level of detail coverage is required, but the impact of this disagreement on the overall encyclopedia will be low. -- 2502:

I'm also strict about sourcing. You can't demonstrate notability because the author of a work mentioned it in a DVD commentary. Notability comes from

1929:

a very poor solution. A series article is more sensible, although it's an open question as to which is more high profile, the series or the character.

1896:

way as to make the spinout unnecessary, though not all times, but this is why non-notable articles for singular elements are very commonly at AFD. --

1034: 637:

criterion, which is why I put it in the singular; if you feel that making the requirement be for multiple sources to say that, then I'm OK with that.

793:

get an updated stable FICT that reflects what has happened over the past year in place before trying to create new issues and potential problems. --

290: 545:"Generally, these fictional elements are described in the plot summary of the main article and do not need to demonstrate independent notability." 414:, not something one would expect to find separately in the alphabetic index of an encyclopedia. Treating this as sketched above will not solve 497:

page should be very clearly obvious what article the spinout supports. However, just as redirections are cheap, sub-topics in a spinout page

2907:

And what do we do about really minor awards? And will this yutz ever stop with the questions already? Happily, the last one is now answered.

770:

that are not important to understanding the parent topic. Both those categories of spinout seem to be the sort we can agree we don't need.

165: 120: 351:

I've been following the "spin-out article" debate here for a while, and would like to propose a solution that hasn't been discussed yet.

3334:

tweaking notability guidance for, um, four years now? In all that time, have we got more articles on topics deemed non-notable or less?

296: 47: 17: 1867: 1538:

Yeah. Such AFDs should probably be closed as no consensus rather than keep - the articles stay, but it doesn't prejudice future AFDs.

3448:..." though I think that wording can be further improved, so I'll leave any edits to someone with greator conviction on the matter. - 2195:

Sorry, I lost track of the negatives there again. You seem to be saying there's no consensus. Shouldn't we be working towards one?

3093:

They're covered because the blanket exemption for spinouts is present. What needs adding, if we remove the exemption for spinouts?

2112: 1754: 1567: 3379:

cannot be deprecated by this guideline and the net result needs to make that clear. Various recent efforts to eliminate or weaken

1595:

which distort a topic by fitting its elements into a uniform format. The proper format for a topic on Knowledge is the article.

1345:

In fairness then, if you do not accept that this section and its subsections are disputed, then I request that they be removed.--

3302:

is policy, can someone clarify how a guideline, a proposed guideline which also appears to be disputed, can deprecate a policy?

1394:

and listen for the message. The title derives from a comment by a future alien anthropologist about what happened here. Cheers,

1160:"In many cases, while individual elements cannot establish notability individually, a grouping of elements may be able to do so" 407: 406:

For fictional topics, I think we often meet the second case: There's a lot of material, but it's still only one notable topic.

3375:

What Masem says above is very true and we need to ensure that we approach these issues with flexibility. But the fact is that

1319:

On that basis I've removed the tag, and hope that serves to rebutt Gavin Collins assertion that this guidance must adhere to

525: 2514:. Once you apply those criteria, most cases that appear controversial become quite simple. Very few fictional spinouts pass. 115:

persist by diluting the number of experienced editors working on each page. For example, look at this contradiction between

561:

That's referring to the section in the notable article, not to an independent article. Perhaps that should be made clear.

176:

After all, even if our goal is a compendium of all human knowledge, we owe it to the readers to get the information right.

1674: 972:!! These are just my favourite (even slightly silly) examples, but they illustrate why subpage organization doesn't work. 149: 1824:

rare cases where it is needed for spinout. The key is that separate pages from a work of fiction should only be created

143: 386:

in categories, disambig pages, the alphabetic index, etc. Distribution of content across pages would not be an issue of

3444:

trimming. My suggestion would be along the lines of "Topics that can be trimmed in accordance with guidelines such as

3114:

the exception is not present, then there's no need to make any mention of spinouts, because what is already present in

1991:'s many criteria. People may disagree, but they can contest it, and a acceptable standard can gradually be developed.-- 219:. Each of these list would contain a short summary and may not contain the answer or the question in either article. 2761:. While Masem isn't saying we should include all spinouts, he's trying to defend a phrasing that does exactly that. 910: 1573:

Even if they did create a "false sense of equality between characters", which I doubt, why is that cause for worry?--

3057:

bows to topic specific notability guidance. If you don't like the changes, that's fine, but that's just your POV.

2621: 1646: 1494: 1429: 304: 300: 38: 2956:

aren't, which isn't right either. I *do* like the last section, though. Perhaps you would care to comment on the

1136:

Yes, doubly agreed. Creators' commentary and interviews are good sources for meeting WP:V, but not notability.

124: 1600: 1465: 1056: 1052: 740:

Yes, that's a problem; the one which AnmaFinotera is worrying about. We should find a way to deal with that.

192:

into an impenetrable labyrinth from which the non-fan cannot distinguish essential information from trivia. --

2458:. If it isn't notable and supported by real-world information, it just doesn't get an article, spinout or no. 1475:

It's very common for mass listings to fail like that - it doesn't always reflect on the individual articles.

299:, it represents a generally accepted standard that editors should follow. However, it should be treated with 3467: 3430: 3330: 3230: 3218: 3197: 3145: 3098: 3023: 2965: 2877: 2858: 2839: 2817: 2766: 2684: 2648: 2633: 2607: 2537: 2479: 2440: 2228: 2200: 2171: 2141: 2108: 2059: 1682: 1543: 1508: 1480: 1350: 1294: 1278: 1208: 1141: 1042: 939: 918: 861: 811: 775: 745: 725: 685: 656: 642: 613: 580: 566: 552: 533: 487: 469: 450: 435: 3471: 3457: 3434: 3419: 3393: 3368: 3355: 3324: 3311: 3285: 3251: 3234: 3201: 3182: 3149: 3130: 3102: 3084: 3066: 3044: 3027: 2997: 2969: 2948: 2916: 2891: 2881: 2862: 2843: 2821: 2791: 2770: 2723: 2688: 2670: 2652: 2637: 2611: 2596: 2574: 2541: 2523: 2483: 2467: 2444: 2392: 2343: 2327: 2309: 2257: 2232: 2218: 2204: 2190: 2175: 2160: 2145: 2126: 2096: 2063: 2048: 1999: 1954: 1941: 1903: 1882: 1845: 1801: 1775: 1722: 1699: 1686: 1668: 1650: 1636: 1621: 1604: 1582: 1547: 1533: 1512: 1498: 1484: 1469: 1438: 1413: 1398: 1369: 1354: 1340: 1298: 1282: 1212: 1145: 1127: 1066: 1046: 1018: 992: 978: 943: 934:(re SamBC): I would be interested in a discussion, perhaps let's prepare a more detailed proposal first. -- 922: 900: 886: 865: 846: 815: 800: 779: 764: 749: 729: 689: 675: 660: 646: 631: 617: 599: 584: 570: 556: 537: 509: 491: 473: 454: 439: 340: 328: 267: 254: 228: 201: 185: 2339: 1632: 1578: 1529: 1123: 1062: 1014: 974: 671: 627: 608:

has described the topic as essential. If it's only the editor's opinion that it's essential, tough luck.

595: 336: 2553:

is the kind of attitude which scares me. If you think that the creation of articles like that amounts to

3406:

Not sure if this has been addressed, this talk page has been busy today, but how on earth do you define

3272:

Just to raise Bignole's point again, it is important to stress that fictional spinouts cannot deprecate

2912: 2830:

It's not a matter of looking into a crystal ball. Coverage is not the same as notability. Coverage is

2779: 1718: 1642: 1490: 832:

This keeps coming back to me when I look things over, so I'm actually going to ask; is there any reason

181: 2941:

is my first attempt, but it is not yet completed, in writing this as I see it needing to be written. --

359:.) I think there are two cases in principle, and one has to decide for each topic which case applies. 1664: 1409: 224: 2938: 2569: 2288:

People need to focus on what we're actually debating. Some people want all articles written to an

1596: 1461: 3463: 3453: 3426: 3389: 3281: 3226: 3193: 3141: 3094: 3019: 2961: 2873: 2854: 2835: 2813: 2762: 2680: 2644: 2629: 2603: 2533: 2475: 2436: 2253: 2224: 2196: 2167: 2137: 2104: 2055: 1678: 1539: 1504: 1476: 1435: 1395: 1346: 1290: 1274: 1204: 1137: 1038: 1009: 1001: 961: 953: 935: 914: 872: 857: 807: 771: 741: 721: 681: 652: 638: 609: 576: 562: 548: 529: 483: 465: 446: 431: 324: 197: 157: 128: 116: 2701:

considered reliable. So while it may not be, strictly speaking, OR, it would still fall foul of

411: 2982:, and that should be the main point of a guideline dealing with spinning out fictional topics. 1987:

You misunderstand. I'm proposing a standard for 'major' be established on this guideline, like

1081:

Disputed sections & subsections which conflict or are inconsistent with existing guidelines

3115: 2992: 2362:. I don't follow that reasoning at all. The two are un-related, and developed differently. 1742: 1628: 1574: 1525: 1119: 1027: 667: 623: 591: 356: 282: 3415: 3351: 3307: 3062: 2908: 2746: 2388: 2305: 2214: 2186: 2156: 1714: 1365: 1336: 1323:. I suggest if Gavin wants to pursue that agenda, he discusses such a fundamental change to 177: 1176:

supported by reliable secondary sources to justify a stand alone article for each element.

2787: 2719: 2666: 2592: 2359: 2297: 1997: 1988: 1939: 1880: 1830: 1799: 1790: 1752: 1660: 1565: 1405: 1390: 1270: 988: 896: 842: 370:

topic, which is covered on more than one page for reasons of size, readability, etc., per

250: 220: 1012:, but I'm not sure) whereas content guidelines should be independent of article history. 2697:, either; that requires that stuff be sourced to a reliable source, and fansites aren't 3380: 3376: 3346:. Everything else is discussing the bikeshed. Save all this talk for deletion debates. 3339: 3291: 3273: 3119: 2979: 2809: 2566: 2562: 2380: 2371: 2093: 1871: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1266: 1246: 1232: 1189: 1163: 1110: 1086: 1862:

So that's one definition of 'really major'. We can just as easily come up with others.

3449: 3445: 3385: 3343: 3335: 3299: 3295: 3277: 3222: 3011: 2702: 2694: 2676: 2658: 2551:

I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors

2519: 2463: 2367: 2249: 2089: 1617: 1258: 1250: 1228: 1172: 461: 419: 415: 395: 391: 320: 193: 460:

that a sub-article is not a main article, even on a technical level, e.g. using the

2983: 2899: 2289: 1254: 1236: 1106: 371: 877:

Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.

853: 1659:" I think this runs directly counter to the current version of this guideline. 277: 3411: 3347: 3303: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3015: 2888: 2741: 2384: 2375: 2363: 2355: 2301: 2293: 2210: 2182: 2152: 1361: 1332: 1193: 1167: 1090: 387: 46:

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

132: 3362: 3318: 3245: 3176: 3124: 3078: 3038: 2942: 2783: 2715: 2662: 2617: 2588: 2321: 2120: 2042: 1993: 1948: 1935: 1897: 1876: 1839: 1795: 1769: 1748: 1693: 1592: 1561: 984: 892: 880: 838: 794: 758: 503: 261: 246: 2092:, as they also had the side effect of creating a false sense of equality. -- 927:(re Masem): Yes, that's precisely the passage that I would propose to change. 526:

Knowledge:Notability (fiction)#Some topics are necessary to understand others

3167:

they like. The spinout loophole remains unclosed. 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2494: 2245:

Characters with names starting with 'Ba' through 'Bu' from the ______ series

3462:

Yes, I like that approach - it keeps the style guidance on the style page.

1734:

50% of the list if there are many minor characters jostling for attention.

1315:

accepts that specific notability guidance can offer differing definitions.

422:

on the overall structure of the encyclopedia. Maybe this is a compromise.

2625: 2515: 2459: 1612: 1113:

and other promotional material cannot be used as evidence of notability.

891:

Is this possibly something worth opening up a discussion on more widely?

1269:, then we have to be firm about insisting on guidelines that discourage 382:, not for each individual page. But it also means that the topic should 1331:, rather than attempting to circumvent that established guidance here. 1005: 965: 957: 2088:

This thread reminds me of the drive to discourage succession boxes on

757:

is that we are still adjusting it, wordsmithing should come later). --

1171:

synthesis, it is a poor substitute for reliable sources. This is why

169: 3408:

Topics that can be trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article

2451:

Topics that can be trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article

2428:

Topics that can be trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article

3329:

We have articles which do not cite any sources. That doesn't mean

3425:

That's certainly an issue - could you suggest a better wording?

2418:

Topics essential for understanding others (subject to (1) below)

418:

issues; but it will reduce the impact of possible violations of

479: 140: 25: 347:

New concept for sub-articles - a possible line of compromise?

1785:

cases, the correct approach is to have character articles

1055:

is "Episodes of 30 Rock" (not "30 Rock") and the topic of

1033:

I have put up some private thoughts in that respect here:

1789:. Colonel Warden is absolutely right about lists being a 245:

a generally accepted notability guideline. Which is it?

2431:

Topics with no verifiable real-world information at all

2415:

Minor topic lists that can establish overall notability

1455:

of a stack of Monty Python sketch articles resulted in

309: 3049:

As I keep pointing out, you can't actually go against

293:

has been under continuous revamping for months on end.

127:, as his life hangs in the balance after he nuked the 2379:

this issue. Is that really productive? Is this the

2693:

A fansite isn't actually acceptable as a source per

426:I'd first like to see whether you think that this 2808:I do have a problem with the proposed changes to 2456:trimmed to fit into a parent or aggregate article 1868:List of characters in the Richard Hannay universe 1154:Notable groups of topics merit aggregate articles 2759:It is not current practise to allow all spinouts 1093:that are applied in other Knowledge guidelines. 970:List of recurring human characters from Futurama 720:topic and a non-notable but essential subtopic. 241:The page is currently tagged as both a proposal 1874:, the protagonist of John Buchan's thrillers.-- 1737:Re principal characters of really major works: 968:: this is not, one would hope, a subarticle of 604:It only allows for an independent article if a 1180:Some topics are necessary to understand others 520:Some topics are necessary to understand others 3014:, and is totally disputed as it goes against 1097:Demonstrating notability for fictional topics 374:. Then Knowledge should treat these articles 8: 3053:in topic specific notability guidance since 2449:Driving by for a moment, I have to say that 1870:, but it's reasonable to have an article on 478:Ah, I see; we've talked about this above at 2223:Sorry, I'm confused by this conversation. 1422:I wasn't referring to the article; rather, 1219:Summary style approach for spinout articles 909:Subpages also interfere with articles like 480:#Identifying spinouts (Was: Partial revert) 408:List of recurring characters in XYZ Comics 272: 2565:for what vandalism is and what it isn't. 1188:again conflicts with the requirements of 1035:User:B. Wolterding/New subarticle concept 543:I nearly coughed blood when I read this: 398:apply.) The topic should also be viewed 2978:No fictional spin out article is above 2957: 1263:Dungeons & Dragons spinout articles 394:. (Of course, content policies such as 378:. That means that notability is judged 147:Do you have anything worth living for? 1553: 1447:... or do you want the full half-hour? 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2757:No, it wouldn't, and yes, they are. 1746:the creation of character articles.-- 402:with respect to the AfD process, etc. 7: 1307:and by definition cannot contradict 2296:, and some people want articles on 852:Well, that was about my suggestion 174:This is shamefully bad scholarship. 166:Whatever Happened to Mr. Garibaldi? 160:it says that Sheridan answers, but 121:Whatever Happened to Mr. Garibaldi? 18:Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction) 1203:This section now uses the plural. 680:Yes, that's probably a good idea. 24: 2740:It's also worth noting here that 2602:sympathies of the closing admin. 2292:, some want articles only on the 2209:What makes you think we aren't? 1235:and is an attempt to cirucumvent 237:Proposal or notability guideline? 2745:definitely cause for some, IMO. 2504:independent, third-party sources 1591:Lists are not NPOV - they are a 716:This is when there is a notable 713:case of being a notable topic, 289:The following English Knowledge 281: 276: 29: 1: 2754:on this page is suggesting. 1675:Knowledge:Independent sources 410:is not a separate topic from 2675:The style guidelines aren't 2136:now and see what you think. 1730:Re false sense of equality: 1554:Don't institutionalise lists 1004:may have been spun out from 213:List of Babylon 5 Characters 911:Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt 3490: 3276:. That needs to be clear. 2344:19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 2337:be included in Knowledge. 2328:12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 2310:08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 2233:13:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2219:12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2205:12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2191:16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 2176:15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2161:15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2146:12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2127:12:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2113:11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2097:08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2064:10:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 2049:12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2000:09:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 1955:12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 1942:10:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 1904:13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1883:10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1846:22:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1802:22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1776:22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1755:22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1700:15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1687:14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1673:It's an interpretation of 1669:06:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1651:06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1637:06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1622:06:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1605:02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1583:19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1568:14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1548:19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1534:18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1513:19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1499:18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1485:17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1470:16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1439:14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1414:14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1399:14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1370:15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1355:14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1341:14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1299:13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1283:13:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1213:13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1146:13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1128:13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1067:21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1047:21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 1019:21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 993:20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 979:19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 944:13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 923:13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 901:13:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 887:13:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 866:13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 847:13:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 816:13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 801:13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 780:13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 765:12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 750:13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 730:13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 690:13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 676:13:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 661:13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 651:OK, that's done; how now? 647:13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 632:13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 618:12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 600:12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 585:11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 571:11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 557:11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 547:This is beyond the pale.-- 538:09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 510:12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 492:10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 474:09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 455:08:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 440:08:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 341:09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 329:01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 268:17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 255:16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 229:01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 217:List of Babylon 5 episodes 202:01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 186:01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 3472:09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 3458:16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3435:08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3420:19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3394:21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3369:22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3356:21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3325:21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3312:20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3286:19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3252:17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3235:08:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3202:15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3183:15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3150:15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3131:15:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3103:15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3085:15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3067:20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3045:15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3028:14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2998:14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2970:14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2949:14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2917:15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 2892:15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 2882:15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2863:15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2844:14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2822:14:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2792:14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2771:14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2724:14:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2689:14:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2671:14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2653:14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2638:14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2612:13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2597:13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2575:08:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 2542:14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2524:14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2484:13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2468:13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2445:13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2423:Definitely not acceptable 2393:19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2258:19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1723:19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1303:It doesn't conflict with 380:only for the entire topic 2358:would have no impact on 1057:Janie Fricke discography 1053:List of 30 Rock episodes 956:: is it a subarticle of 3331:Knowledge:Verifiability 2366:already conflicts with 211:WP:FICT advocates is a 3006:The leading statement 1426:, and by implication, 162:not what his answer is 3338:already expands upon 2410:Definitely acceptable 2290:encyclopedic standard 1453:recent AFD nomination 875:, disallowed use #3: 310:checked for stability 295:Although it is still 42:of past discussions. 3219:common misconception 2677:reasons for deletion 2506:examining the topic 1327:on the talk page of 430:be the way to go. -- 305:occasional exception 291:notability guideline 2939:User:Masem/fictspin 2933:arb break: my draft 2622:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 2401:Acceptable spinouts 1524:deleted but a few. 1460:Shakespeare, etc. 1158:The statement that 575:OK, done. Better? 106:Forget notability, 2119:their creation. -- 1996: 1938: 1879: 1798: 1751: 1564: 1010:History of science 1002:History of biology 962:History of science 954:History of biology 158:Lorien (Babylon 5) 117:Lorien (Babylon 5) 3418: 3354: 3310: 3065: 2995: 2990: 2958:suggestions above 2572: 2391: 2308: 2256: 2217: 2189: 2159: 1992: 1934: 1875: 1794: 1747: 1743:Alyosha Karamazov 1667: 1560: 1368: 1339: 376:as only one topic 357:George Washington 327: 317: 316: 297:under development 227: 200: 154: 153: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3481: 3414: 3366: 3350: 3322: 3306: 3249: 3180: 3140:identify those? 3128: 3082: 3061: 3042: 2993: 2988: 2984: 2946: 2750:isn't something 2616:I disagree with 2570: 2387: 2325: 2304: 2294:things they like 2252: 2213: 2185: 2155: 2124: 2046: 1952: 1901: 1843: 1773: 1697: 1663: 1643:Peregrine Fisher 1491:Peregrine Fisher 1424:the actual album 1380:Please, a précis 1364: 1335: 884: 798: 762: 507: 390:, but purely of 384:appear only once 323: 312: 285: 280: 273: 265: 223: 196: 141: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3489: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3364: 3320: 3247: 3178: 3126: 3080: 3040: 2986: 2944: 2935: 2620:: Just because 2403: 2323: 2282: 2166:requirements? 2122: 2044: 1950: 1899: 1841: 1791:Procrustean bed 1771: 1695: 1593:Procrustean bed 1556: 1449: 1391:Amused to Death 1382: 1227:conflicts with 1221: 1182: 1162:conflicts with 1156: 1105:conflicts with 1099: 1083: 882: 830: 796: 760: 606:reliable source 522: 505: 462:subpage feature 349: 325:formerly tjstrf 308: 263: 239: 198:formerly tjstrf 112: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3487: 3485: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3437: 3405: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3212: 3211: 3205: 3204: 3186: 3185: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3161: 3160: 3153: 3152: 3134: 3133: 3106: 3105: 3088: 3087: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3047: 3031: 3030: 3010:is in my view 3001: 3000: 2973: 2972: 2952: 2951: 2934: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2895: 2894: 2884: 2866: 2865: 2847: 2846: 2825: 2824: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2706: 2655: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2545: 2544: 2499: 2498: 2487: 2486: 2433: 2432: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2402: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2331: 2330: 2317: 2316:delete things. 2281: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2130: 2129: 2100: 2099: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2038: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1930: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1893: 1889: 1872:Richard Hannay 1863: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1821: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1779: 1778: 1765: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1653: 1607: 1597:Colonel Warden 1586: 1585: 1555: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1536: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1462:Colonel Warden 1448: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1417: 1416: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1301: 1223:The statement 1220: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1184:The statement 1181: 1178: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1131: 1130: 1098: 1095: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1031: 1023: 1022: 1021: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 906: 905: 904: 903: 869: 868: 829: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 785: 754: 753: 752: 734: 733: 732: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 521: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 494: 404: 403: 364: 348: 345: 344: 343: 315: 314: 286: 271: 270: 238: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 205: 204: 168:, he answers " 152: 151: 148: 145: 138: 123:. Lorien asks 111: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3486: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3464:Percy Snoodle 3461: 3460: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3427:Percy Snoodle 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3367: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3270: 3253: 3250: 3242: 3241: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3227:Percy Snoodle 3224: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3194:Percy Snoodle 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3184: 3181: 3173: 3172: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3142:Percy Snoodle 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3132: 3129: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3095:Percy Snoodle 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3083: 3076: 3075: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3046: 3043: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3020:Gavin Collins 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2999: 2996: 2991: 2989: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2962:Percy Snoodle 2959: 2954: 2953: 2950: 2947: 2940: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2896: 2893: 2890: 2885: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2874:Percy Snoodle 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855:Gavin Collins 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2836:Percy Snoodle 2833: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814:Gavin Collins 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763:Percy Snoodle 2760: 2756: 2755: 2753: 2748: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2712: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2681:Percy Snoodle 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645:Percy Snoodle 2641: 2640: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2630:Gavin Collins 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604:Percy Snoodle 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2576: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2557:, you really 2556: 2552: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2534:Percy Snoodle 2531: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2476:Percy Snoodle 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437:Percy Snoodle 2430: 2427: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2400: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2329: 2326: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2279: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225:Percy Snoodle 2222: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2197:Percy Snoodle 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2168:Percy Snoodle 2164: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138:Percy Snoodle 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105:Percy Snoodle 2098: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056:Percy Snoodle 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1956: 1953: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1905: 1902: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1873: 1869: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1847: 1844: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1803: 1800: 1797: 1792: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1777: 1774: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1744: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1701: 1698: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679:Percy Snoodle 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1559:characters.-- 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540:Percy Snoodle 1537: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1505:Percy Snoodle 1502: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1477:Percy Snoodle 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1446: 1440: 1437: 1436:Jack Merridew 1432: 1431: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1397: 1396:Jack Merridew 1393: 1392: 1385: 1379: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347:Gavin Collins 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291:Percy Snoodle 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1275:Gavin Collins 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205:Percy Snoodle 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1179: 1177: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1153: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1138:Percy Snoodle 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101:The sentence 1096: 1094: 1092: 1088: 1080: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1039:B. Wolterding 1036: 1032: 1029: 1024: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 981: 980: 977: 976: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 936:B. Wolterding 926: 925: 924: 920: 916: 915:Percy Snoodle 912: 908: 907: 902: 898: 894: 890: 889: 888: 885: 878: 874: 871: 870: 867: 863: 859: 858:B. Wolterding 855: 851: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 835: 827: 817: 813: 809: 808:Percy Snoodle 804: 803: 802: 799: 791: 786: 783: 782: 781: 777: 773: 772:Percy Snoodle 768: 767: 766: 763: 755: 751: 747: 743: 742:Percy Snoodle 739: 738: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722:Percy Snoodle 719: 715: 714: 711: 691: 687: 683: 682:Percy Snoodle 679: 678: 677: 673: 669: 664: 663: 662: 658: 654: 653:Percy Snoodle 650: 649: 648: 644: 640: 639:Percy Snoodle 635: 634: 633: 629: 625: 621: 620: 619: 615: 611: 610:Percy Snoodle 607: 603: 602: 601: 597: 593: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 577:Percy Snoodle 574: 573: 572: 568: 564: 563:Percy Snoodle 560: 559: 558: 554: 550: 549:Gavin Collins 546: 542: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 530:Percy Snoodle 527: 519: 511: 508: 500: 495: 493: 489: 485: 484:Percy Snoodle 481: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 466:B. Wolterding 463: 458: 457: 456: 452: 448: 447:Percy Snoodle 444: 443: 442: 441: 437: 433: 432:B. Wolterding 429: 423: 421: 417: 413: 409: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 366:We deal with 365: 362: 361: 360: 358: 352: 346: 342: 339: 338: 333: 332: 331: 330: 326: 322: 311: 306: 302: 298: 294: 292: 287: 284: 279: 275: 274: 269: 266: 259: 258: 257: 256: 252: 248: 244: 236: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 209: 208: 207: 206: 203: 199: 195: 190: 189: 188: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 146: 142: 139: 136: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 109: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3441: 3407: 3404: 3118:and through 3111: 3007: 2994:(Contact me) 2985: 2903: 2900:Booker Prize 2831: 2758: 2751: 2710: 2698: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2529: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2455: 2450: 2448: 2434: 2404: 2354:Deprecating 2340:Geometry guy 2338: 2287: 2283: 2239: 2101: 1834: 1825: 1816: 1786: 1761: 1739: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1656: 1629:AnmaFinotera 1611: 1575:Father Goose 1557: 1526:AnmaFinotera 1456: 1451:Note that a 1450: 1427: 1423: 1406:--Craw-daddy 1389: 1386: 1383: 1316: 1244: 1240: 1224: 1222: 1197: 1185: 1183: 1159: 1157: 1120:AnmaFinotera 1111:advertorials 1102: 1100: 1084: 1063:Geometry guy 1061: 1015:Geometry guy 1013: 1008:rather than 975:Geometry guy 973: 933: 876: 833: 831: 789: 717: 668:AnmaFinotera 624:AnmaFinotera 605: 592:AnmaFinotera 544: 523: 498: 427: 424: 405: 399: 383: 379: 375: 367: 353: 350: 337:Geometry guy 335: 318: 313:before use. 301:common sense 288: 242: 240: 216: 212: 173: 161: 155: 137: 113: 107: 78: 43: 37: 2909:John Carter 2435:What else? 1715:AnteaterZot 1428:the actual 1251:WP:NOT#PLOT 1229:WP:NOT#PLOT 873:WP:SUBPAGES 400:as one unit 178:AnteaterZot 110:is at stake 108:scholarship 36:This is an 3116:WP:SPINOUT 2298:everything 1933:problem.-- 1661:Ursasapien 1028:WP:SUMMARY 964:? Second, 412:XYZ Comics 221:Ursasapien 164:. But, in 98:Archive 30 90:Archive 27 85:Archive 26 79:Archive 25 73:Archive 24 68:Archive 23 60:Archive 20 3344:standards 3217:That's a 2797:practise. 2780:WT:POLICY 2747:WP:POLICY 2699:typically 2567:Sjakkalle 2555:vandalism 2512:in detail 2495:Bulbasaur 2094:Ned Scott 1760:Which is 1271:synthesis 828:Subpages? 3450:Verdatum 3386:Eusebeus 3294:sits in 3278:Eusebeus 2987:BIGNOLE 2832:evidence 2571:(Check!) 2508:directly 2381:bikeshed 2360:WP:IINFO 2250:erachima 1989:WP:MUSIC 1888:sources. 1831:WP:UNDUE 1817:academic 1457:Keep All 368:only one 321:erachima 194:erachima 133:Z'ha'dum 131:city on 125:Sheridan 3442:special 3381:WP:PLOT 3377:WP:PLOT 3340:WP:PLOT 3292:WP:PLOT 3274:WP:PLOT 3120:WP:NOTE 2980:WP:PLOT 2904:deserve 2853:cake.-- 2810:WP:FICT 2563:WP:VAND 2372:WP:NPOV 2370:, and 1762:exactly 1329:WP:NOTE 1325:WP:NOTE 1321:WP:NOTE 1313:WP:NOTE 1309:WP:NOTE 1305:WP:PLOT 1247:WP:NOTE 1233:WP:NOTE 1190:WP:NOTE 1164:WP:NOTE 1087:WP:NOTE 1006:Biology 966:Al Gore 958:Biology 334:-) Lol 39:archive 3446:WP:WAF 3412:Hiding 3348:Hiding 3336:WP:WAF 3304:Hiding 3300:WP:NOT 3298:, and 3296:WP:NOT 3290:Since 3223:WP:DEL 3059:Hiding 2889:Snuppy 2752:anyone 2703:WP:NOR 2695:WP:NOR 2659:WP:NOR 2385:Hiding 2368:WP:NOT 2302:Hiding 2280:Enough 2211:Hiding 2183:Hiding 2153:Hiding 2090:WP:WAF 1665:(talk) 1362:Hiding 1333:Hiding 1311:since 1259:WP:WAF 1173:WP:WAF 718:parent 499:should 420:WP:NOT 416:WP:NOT 396:WP:NOT 392:WP:MOS 307:, and 303:, the 225:(talk) 215:and a 170:Delenn 129:Shadow 2784:SamBC 2716:SamBC 2663:SamBC 2618:SamBC 2589:SamBC 2561:read 1994:Nydas 1936:Nydas 1877:Nydas 1835:close 1826:after 1796:Nydas 1787:first 1749:Nydas 1562:Nydas 1255:WP:RS 1237:WP:RS 1107:WP:RS 985:SamBC 893:SamBC 854:above 839:SamBC 428:might 372:WP:SS 247:SamBC 16:< 3468:talk 3454:talk 3431:talk 3390:talk 3365:ASEM 3321:ASEM 3282:talk 3248:ASEM 3231:talk 3198:talk 3179:ASEM 3146:talk 3127:ASEM 3099:talk 3081:ASEM 3055:WP:N 3051:WP:N 3041:ASEM 3024:talk 3016:WP:N 2966:talk 2945:ASEM 2913:talk 2878:talk 2859:talk 2840:talk 2818:talk 2788:talk 2767:talk 2742:WP:N 2720:talk 2711:that 2685:talk 2667:talk 2649:talk 2634:talk 2608:talk 2593:talk 2559:must 2538:talk 2530:some 2520:talk 2510:and 2480:talk 2464:talk 2441:talk 2376:WP:N 2364:WP:N 2356:WP:N 2324:ASEM 2254:talk 2229:talk 2201:talk 2172:talk 2142:talk 2123:ASEM 2109:talk 2060:talk 2045:ASEM 1951:ASEM 1900:ASEM 1842:ASEM 1772:ASEM 1719:talk 1696:ASEM 1683:talk 1647:talk 1633:talk 1618:talk 1601:talk 1579:talk 1544:talk 1530:talk 1509:talk 1495:talk 1481:talk 1466:talk 1430:book 1351:talk 1295:talk 1279:talk 1273:. -- 1267:spam 1257:and 1209:talk 1194:WP:V 1192:and 1168:WP:V 1166:and 1142:talk 1124:talk 1091:WP:V 1089:and 1043:talk 989:talk 940:talk 919:talk 897:talk 883:ASEM 862:talk 843:talk 812:talk 797:ASEM 790:Then 776:talk 761:ASEM 746:talk 726:talk 686:talk 672:talk 657:talk 643:talk 628:talk 614:talk 596:talk 581:talk 567:talk 553:talk 534:talk 506:ASEM 488:talk 470:talk 451:talk 436:talk 388:WP:N 264:ASEM 251:talk 182:talk 119:and 3221:. 3018:.-- 3012:POV 2661:). 2626:Kww 2516:Kww 2460:Kww 1793:.-- 1613:DGG 960:or 834:not 482:. 243:and 156:In 135:, 3470:) 3456:) 3433:) 3392:) 3284:) 3233:) 3200:) 3148:) 3123:-- 3112:If 3101:) 3026:) 2968:) 2960:? 2915:) 2880:) 2861:) 2842:) 2820:) 2790:) 2782:. 2769:) 2722:) 2687:) 2669:) 2651:) 2636:) 2610:) 2595:) 2540:) 2522:) 2482:) 2466:) 2443:) 2383:? 2248:-- 2231:) 2203:) 2174:) 2144:) 2111:) 2062:) 1838:-- 1721:) 1685:) 1649:) 1635:) 1620:) 1603:) 1581:) 1546:) 1532:) 1511:) 1497:) 1483:) 1468:) 1412:| 1408:| 1353:) 1297:) 1281:) 1253:, 1249:, 1239:. 1231:, 1211:) 1144:) 1126:) 1045:) 1037:-- 1030:.) 991:) 942:) 921:) 913:. 899:) 879:-- 864:) 845:) 814:) 778:) 748:) 728:) 688:) 674:) 659:) 645:) 630:) 616:) 598:) 583:) 569:) 555:) 536:) 502:-- 490:) 472:) 453:) 438:) 319:-- 253:) 184:) 150:” 144:“ 94:→ 64:← 3466:( 3452:( 3429:( 3416:T 3388:( 3363:M 3352:T 3319:M 3308:T 3280:( 3246:M 3229:( 3196:( 3177:M 3144:( 3125:M 3097:( 3079:M 3063:T 3039:M 3022:( 2964:( 2943:M 2911:( 2876:( 2857:( 2838:( 2816:( 2786:( 2765:( 2718:( 2705:. 2683:( 2665:( 2647:( 2632:( 2606:( 2591:( 2536:( 2518:( 2478:( 2462:( 2439:( 2389:T 2322:M 2306:T 2240:X 2227:( 2215:T 2199:( 2187:T 2170:( 2157:T 2140:( 2121:M 2107:( 2058:( 2043:M 1949:M 1898:M 1840:M 1770:M 1717:( 1694:M 1681:( 1655:" 1645:( 1631:( 1616:( 1599:( 1577:( 1542:( 1528:( 1507:( 1493:( 1479:( 1464:( 1410:T 1366:T 1349:( 1337:T 1293:( 1277:( 1207:( 1140:( 1122:( 1041:( 987:( 938:( 917:( 895:( 881:M 860:( 841:( 810:( 795:M 774:( 759:M 744:( 724:( 684:( 670:( 655:( 641:( 626:( 612:( 594:( 579:( 565:( 551:( 532:( 504:M 486:( 468:( 449:( 434:( 262:M 249:( 180:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 25 - Knowledge

Index