Knowledge:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction

2074:

and interesting. Many editors join Knowledge because they have a subject that they have seen articles on that seem short or stubbish and want to expand upon them, but if they are about some obscure plant species from Australia than they are welcome, but if they are about the exploits of Strom the Smith and pals in Fantasylandia, than they better not let the door hit them on their way out. The whole point of the notability guidelines was that to insure that things that people care about were on wikipedia and at one point (I wouldn't be surprised if it was not so anymore) fictional characters and series that shared names with actual people and places usually had longer articles with more hits than the real things, but these articles are slowly dying and disappearing. Knowledge editors are looked upon with derision and shame commonly because of what are seen as rabid deletionist practices and the completely lopsided coverage of material by editors, Scientology having a massive portal and many articles while the Falun Gong movement (at one point) was a handful of medium size articles, the existence of a Paris Hilton portal, and the multitude of geeky wars (just like this one!). Basically, Knowledge is a website that serves as a source of information, for research papers and showing off to your friends, and the lack of consistency caused by edit wars only hurts the site, but if an agreement cannot be reached among the editors, the good of Knowledge as a source of potentially interesting information, already organized and collected, with links for further research should be considered. Knowledge is for the readers not the editors!

2149:

obviously going to be difficult to cite. Dealing with works of fiction in the real world commonly means very few if any possible citations, the creation of styles, effect upon society, and critical reception can be hard to source, unless someone's already written a book about how popular the work of fiction is (which is in and of itself going to be mostly original research) there is going to be very little to cite, but does that necessarily mean the work of fiction isn't very notable or worthy of more than a stub? Works of fiction are very hard to deal with simply because they exist in an awkward niche somewhere between the Starbucks Coffee you had this morning, that revealing article on lead paint you read in Times, the youtube video you saw last month that made you cry (what was it's name again?), and your imaginary friend when you were three. I believe there is a consensus on the problems with research and notability as they apply to certain parts of fiction, but there is no clear consensus on what needs to change.

2363:

acting like that isn't so; we need to combat institutionalized perceptions about fiction articles (particularly emphasis on story details and primary sources); and we need to look at high-quality fiction-related articles, and even article in other topic areas, for a way forward. Who here works solely on fiction-related articles, and has never worked in another subject area on Knowledge? Because you can learn a lot about greta article-writing by doing that. Let me tell you, the longer I hone my editing skills in other subject areas of Knowledge, the more disappointed I am when I come to work on a fiction-related article about a bit character from a comic book series that relies solely on in-line citations from the comic books the character appeared in. Because if made an article that relied primarily on primary soruces for any other subject area, I'd be rightly called out on it and prompted by others to find secondary sources to establish notability and provide an accurate scholary overview of the topic.

1329:

fiction articles are appropriate or not, well above and beyond what one would expect given that WP is not a bureaucracy. The closest we came was Phil Sandifier's version that basically surmised that fiction elements either need to meet the GNG, or otherwise meet three prongs (importance of the work, importance to the work, and existence of real-world information), but even with that, the devil was in the details (what sources were acceptable, are editors' subjective views appropriate justification, etc.) And since policies and guidelines are to follow consensus and not the other way around, attempts to try to define what should be appropriate (as being done now) are also being met with resistance.

4603:

working in this area when the rules are in such a state of flux, that my work may end up getting deleted". I know there are a core group of individuals who have, and are, working very hard to resolved these issues, and I don't have the answer. I do think however, that the lack of resolution to this has hamstrung large portions of the fictional topics. I believe we lose a lot of quality contributions to the project because people feel frustrated at the write-delete-DRV-rewrite process, and an ongoing lack of cohesion in what is and is not acceptable to an encyclopedic project. As alluded to in many statements above, I think first and foremost we need to decide 1.) Will fiction be treated as a

1345:

myself and others suggested a solution whereby if a small example of current non-notable episodes could be shown to be notable, the rest would be assumed to be so, with a good-faith assumption that over time other SP articles would be improved. This was a satisfactory solution that proved to be in favor in retaining the articles. Through WAF and watching other similar discussions, we can help guide editors better on how to approach articles on fiction - writing from the top-down instead of bottoms-up, and considering collections of non-notable information instead of separate articles. Maybe out of this will fall more obvious FICT guidelines, but at the present time, we just can't do that.

2519:. The list was constructed by digging through each day of XfD discussions for VG related articles and recording their outcomes (including an implicit record of the eventual outcome through an article link) on the page. I had hoped that we could take the data and come to some general conclusions with it, at least about broad categories of articles. As you can see, work on the page has stopped, for various reasons--chief among them that I was worried it would all be for nothing (You can help! Post on my talk page for some ideas on what can/should be done to complete the dataset). I'm trying to test the waters at this RfC about continuing the 'project'. 1929:), and that consensus (that a standalone work of fiction must have verified notability) should not be lost. I believe that where we are struggling is with works that are part of larger series, and elements that are part of works, where there is no consensus as to the level of detail which is acceptable, and the extent to which the notability of the work as a whole should serve to cover content which has become granular. Focusing on these issues, rather than attempting to cover the more nebulous concept of fiction as a whole, may help to find consensus.-- 2349:

notability and whether or not articles need to be merged. There's an old maxim that "Every character is someone's favorite". Well, that may be, but not every character is notable. That's just a fact. Sometimes they are a prop to service a larger production and thus only need to be discussed as part of that larger work. Same with TV show episodes; a TV show may be notable, but that doesn't mean that each episode is. If a TV show episode is going to have its own article, it needs its own notability established. An example I can offer is the Nirvana album

2465:

a fiction guideline cannot be satisfactorily crafted that would result in the creation of better articles; instead, the tendency would be to institutionalize unproductive attitudes and approaches to fiction articles (ie. making separate articles for every episode in a TV series, even if not every episode is covered by secondary sources). Better to rely on the GNG and specific topic guidelines (films, television, comics, etc.) which make an effort to consider the non-fictional aspects of the topics.

1333:

and the like. This pendulum did swing a bit too far (and thus created the two Ep&Char ArbCom cases), and is slowly swinging back - not as far as it was, but we are slowly finding where it will come to rest. However, we still have WP's past to deal with while at the same time we don't want to encourage article growth like those past articles. A fiction notability guideline is going to be difficult to write without grandfathering in articles, again created unnecessary bureaucracy.

1112:

inclusionists to get frustrated with the policy building, and keeping non-notable articles does the same for deletionists. An in-between point—merging content which is non-notable—should help to find a balance between the two sides of the dispute. Some non-notable topics certainly need deletion. Some probably need to be kept as separate articles (e.g., the promising merge targets are all too long already). But many can be merged with wider topics or "list of..." articles to

3157:

any character will be at most, in all but a few rare cases, a paragraph long. At the same time we need to define what is considered a trivial element to the work and anything trivial, even if it has exhaustive scholarly work should not have its own separate page and possibly even section. For me, removal of it will not affect most readers interested in the work as a whole. Mentioning such elements, even if they have scholarly review does not go along with the spirit of

1612:

exist for them because scholars must publish or die and so they pick something no one else has, which is almost always trivial. Such information is better left to a "further reading" section. On the other extreme though most contemporary elements, inclduing important and otherwise notable characters cannot get the kind of in-depth direct analysis that older works get. While the analogy is not exactly the same, it is in some way due to an opposite effect of

4717:

publications instead of simply stories, then it's easier contextualize them in the face of the notability guidelines. Above all, what needs to happens is we need to stop overrelying on primary sources. This is the biggest problem facing fiction-related articles on Knowledge, as too many people are more interested in charting chararcter minutae instead of trying to explain to the general reader why they should care in the first place.

597:

our reputation, we cannot advance our own opinions or attempt to document new occurrences or publications. We only summarise reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Beyond everything else, we ensure that we are representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

1337:

article being kept by having certain qualities, such as the three prongs from Phil's FICT proposal. But we cannot insist on that being a requirement for fiction articles, because there are numerous examples of articles being kept that do not satisfy those. Thus the best advice is to leave FICT as an essay, pointing readers to the GNG, what elements will improve an article's chances at AFD, and then pointing them to

2438:? The grounding would be based on a fiction and not real-world context. Basing something's importance on what happens in a story does help me learn anything I couldn't get from reading/watching the story in the first place. Also, an approach relying on the primary source itself to establish importance is very insular; it favors people already invested in the topic, and is not accomodating to the general reader. 2667:, and note that where an article does not meet that standard, they should consider merging the information to a suitable article otherwise the article may become a candidate for deletion. The essay would then explain that articles are not always deleted because of Knowledge:Notability. The essay would give reasons why a consensus may emerge for an article to be kept. Namely that the article: 2355:, which I have worked on for over two years. The album is certainly notable, but that doesn't mean every individual song on the record is. The song that have articles meet the GNG, while those that don't fail the GNG or simply have too little written about them to warrant separate articles that will never expand beyond stubs. Thus we aren't afraid to merge articles or turn them into redirects 2389:. I can't therefore agree with Wesley, and find his view contradictory. If his view is that we should respect the GNG, then that means we accept that subject specific guidance allows alternative routes. Stating the opposite flat out contradicts the GNG that Wesley states has to be followed. I don't believe Wesley's view is supported by either consensus or current guidance. 4115:. I see no real chance, without mediation, that a real proposal will come forward that has a chance at consensus. We drop all this "real world" stuff (which isn't part of WP:N and shouldn't be part of NOT#PLOT per the RfC), thus allowing reviews and third-party books on fiction topics (such as biographies of the author) to count as the reliable sources that they are. 898:. How can fictional locations, TV episodes, and the main characters of novels all really be held to an identical notability requirement? I think that the best way forward may be to try splitting FICT into a number of subsections (all on the same page, though; we don't need multiple essays/guidelines on this topic), to cover different aspects of fiction. Holding 3577:) and answer the questions there, similar to how a past survey was conducted. I think the user subpage option would eliminate unnecessary conflict, so I favor that option. Although, an off-site survey could also gauge reader opinion, but there could be some drawbacks to an off-site survey. A template could be created (and later protected), perhaps 2419:

law. I think Knowledge has a wonderful opportunity to add depth to the encyclopedia tradition, I'd hate to see us boxed in by limitations that need not actually apply. There's a staggering opportunity here to redefine what an encyclopedic resource actually consists off. We just have to make sure we don't drop the ball.

2312:

creating subarticles (for example, making pages for every episode in a TV series). Frankly, most of the fiction articles on Knowledge are utter messes that simply reiterate in-story details, the biggest offenders being character articles. Not all areas that deal with fiction are plagued by these problems:

3030:

has produced no guideline of lasting value in two years of attempts. Although this is likely due to a clear lack of consensus, it is possible it may be due to other reasons. A mediated discussion, which would ideally last six weeks, would at leats give a good faith attempt to creating a consensus or

2522:

Is this something that would sway the debate if the data pointed toward particularly strong habits in practice? Would deletionists (forgive the broad characterizations) agree to broaden standards in writing if we showed that standards were broad in practice? Would inclusionists (again, generalizing

2464:

What the subject says. There is no need for a separate fiction notability guideline, as I cannot see how one could be crafted that would complement the GNG and not be prone to reliance on primary sources, given the general tenor of conversation regarding these types of articles. Basically, in my view

2418:

There's a limit to how far primary sources can carry us, but I think we have different opinions on where the line should be drawn. I've never been overly bothered about what we have articles on, more that the articles themselves are well written, reflect their sources, give due weight and respect the

2311:

Now, there are a lot of fiction-related articles I have worked on and that I am interested in working on, but I notice time and again repeated issues. Among these are overreliance on primary sources (in particular, the stories themselves), assumptions of inherited notability, and too much emphasis on

2207:

Judging the notability of fictional elements based on research is not difficult or problematic in my experience. I'm well acquainted with web and library resources, and I know it's quite easy to find reliable secondary sources if they are needed. If no secondary sources exist, it's highly likely what

2148:

Fiction and notability are hard to deal with, it's true, but that simply means a more open way of looking at notability needs to be taken. I think we can for the most part agree several million fan fictions are probably a larger sign of notability and popularity than 3 news articles, but the first is

1111:

One thing that I see happen all too often is when something is deleted as lacking notability. This is certainly the only course of action that can be taken in some instances, but especially with fictional topics merging the content to a better location makes more sense. Deletion is what really causes

4988:

Second, there's no need. People don't want them deleted or merged, even though most are aware of the GNG and other rules. I've been doing WP for years, and I wouldn't ever vote delete on a comic character. Inclusionists and deletionists are about half and half, so just throw in a few newbie fans,

4955:

That view is not giving editors much credit. I think you may need to read the comments made by others above. Given the fact that there is no consensus, you may have to accept that many of the articles are here to stay. What will help in the short term is tidying them up: out of universe perspective;

4698:

I can attest that the D&D project has lost a great many members almost certainly due to having the notability debate shoved in our faces in a most unpleasant manner. In fact, it's still almost like pulling teeth to get any of them to come back even momentarily, although we have a slow but steady

4602:

Perhaps this is only my own isolated view (or views), but I think that one item that isn't being stated outright is this: The "Fiction" topic, and the guideline discussions, have been a bone of contention for some time now. I think that as some point, some people may feel that "Why should I bother

4310:

Step 2: Start a survey in a manner as suggested by Pixelface, but with questions designed to address the extent of coverage of fiction on WP. Instead of asking about "should we have articles on recurring characters" or the like, the questions we should be asking need to be more holistic, such as "To

4850:

And policies and guidelines are based on practices and consensus. They are driven from the bottom up, not top down model you seem to be implying. That is policy. That said, deletion discussions are not the only thing we should be using to base it on, but it should not be ignored (as some would have

4546:

It's mainly because of the "Role within the fictional work" part. If you simply changed "The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable" to "The element must be an important element, and its importance must be verifiable by secondary sources", I would be inclined to

3719:

Since a great deal of AfD debate centres around spinout articles, I propose that we revisit the view that notability is not inherited, with a view to establishing whether or not there is a consensus that where a series of fictional works does have very well established notability, a cluster of lead

3156:

My proposal is two parts. First it is to allow for a multitude of minor (not trivial) direct references for elements to qualify as an alternative for a minimum for elements. This is because most contemporary works of fiction that have reviews on them will only review the work itself. Any mention of

3025:

A second proposal is to use a form of mediation to work towards a guideline. Roughly, all interested parties would participate in a discussion which would be moderated by a mediator or mediators. The mediators would be there to facilitate a consensus rather than impose one, keeping the discussion

2348:

how you approach a fiction article, not by relying on what the stories say. We need to turn away from the focus on fiction and instead think of these subjects as productions, publications, broadcasts, plays, copyrighted characters, and so forth. That's the first step to determining how to establish

2299:

I generally agree with Hiding's essay. The only sticking point for me is what "other standards sometimes come in to play" are unclear. As I understand it, specific notability guidelines merely specify details about the general notability guideline as it pertains to specific subjects (for example, I

2073:

The community is split in regards to fiction, but the deletionists are slowly gaining the upper hand as the vocal supporters simply say "screw it" and leave Knowledge for other places, bringing with them the silent masses. As Knowledge heads more and more towards notability and away from the useful

893:

The whole controversy over FICT has gotten to the point of being stupid; neither side seems willing to work towards a consensus (at least the last time I checked, which was a few weeks ago). I think that the biggest reason for this conflict and its lack of resolution is because FICT is trying to do

2507:

Just a question right now, perhaps to return with a view later. Are outcomes important? We have the old saw that policies describe consensus, but that gets tautological real quick. We don't exactly just record all outcomes from current events and then derive a principle based on them. However,

1332:

It needs to be realized we have a huge number of fiction articles created when WP was more wild (pre-2006-ish), when notability wasn't an issue. As WP as started to mature, there is a push to improve this area - making fiction meet the same qualities as more rigorous articles on science, history,

596:

are the bedrock as regards the content of our encyclopedia. Information has to be sourced because we do not rely on our own reputation. Readers have to be able to check the material and verify our assertions for themselves. It is also important so that we avoid plaigarism. Since we do not rely on

529:

by refusing compromise, relishing in defeat of proposals with strange bedfellows and generally making things difficult. Just like we shouldn't cut certain Senate republicans slack when they claim that parts of the health care bill can be misinterpreted while they are doing the misinterpreting, we

4998:

came along and redirected a bunch of them with overwhelming force (arbcom has since put a stop to this method, and a lot of the stuff he tried to get rid of has since been shown notable). I think TTN actually forced a lot of the improvement of those types of episode articles. Some TV shows are

4679:

I would support this as long as a merge !vote and closure actually meant anything beyond "keep". How many pages still exist with the "AfD consensus was merge" template in place months after closing? And how many times do AfDs without a single keep get kept because "anything opther than delete is

3819:

It's generally established that the multitude of no-name one-shot works out there (which are notable) don't get multiple articles. Attempting to codify another tier of notability above the current GNG, where multiple articles are allowed, is only going to end in tears. It's why we got rid of the

3249:

At this point I do not believe that any community-wide consensus exists on the matter of fiction and notability. I do believe, however, that strong consensus exists for certain policies on what fiction articles aren't - a minimum threshold. Some people advocate more restrictions on top of these,

2362:

This is a bit rambling, but basically my opinion is: I agree with Hiding's current essay draft aside from the lack of clarity on specific fiction-related notability guidelines; any fiction-notability guideline can only clarify, not supercede, the general notability guideline, and we need to stop

1611:

Basically those last 2 sentances essentially said by allowing anything that can meet the very bare essentials of GNG for classical and antiquity fictional elecements, especially characters, even the most trivial member will get mentioned, whether its encyclopedic or not. WP:N essentially doesn't

1344:

And that's where the efforts to improve fiction covered need to be focused. WAF needs to help groom the coverage of fiction across the board in manners that are driven by consensus. Case in point: a recent push to merge non-notable South Park episodes was met with a lot of resistance. Instead,

4732:

That would be fine if said sources existed. The best we can do for now (and I certainly try) is to write succinct, sourced, out of universe narratives. If everything had to be third party and relevant in some real world way, then there would be no comic articles, the reason why every attempt at

1336:

At the end of the day, I think the best solution is what most of FICT have realized: the GNG is the best advice for fiction elements, with AFD being the ultimate decider if articles are kept. The logic if articles are kept at AFD is more or less hit or miss, but you improve the chances for that

1328:

Given the amount of effort to try to get a FICT guideline with two different approaches, it is pretty clear to me that this is pretty much going to be impossible to spell out how FICT varies from the GNG in a manner that meets consensus that is nothing less than a detailed list of rules of when

4315:

first, and then come back and decide if its necessary to build up fiction element notability guidelines or if we're ok with what we have. As this survey potentially has the effect of altering policies including WP:V, and WP:NOT, this needs to be a community wide input, and we may be limited if

4716:

I think the best way forward is to stop thinking of these items as "fiction". People get too wrapped up in the fictional details, often to the detriment of secondary sources. Simply put, if you think of a film or a television show episode in terms of a production, or novels and comic books as

2811:

Conditionally - with the added bullet point of " must be demonstrated to have significant real-world impact, above and beyond merely being a part of a widely-watched fictional universe". This would hopefully keep the rules-lawyers from continually insisting that twenty mentions of "<show:

4794:"That would mean wiping almost all the comic articles". If they're not notable, then they don't belong on Knowledge. That's the point of the general notability guideline. However, in many instance people aren't looking hard enough for sources. Hell, I can find scholary secondary sources on 2268:

We shouldn't be concerned with what "people want to read about". Our goal is to provide a survey of all documented, verifiable knowledge. I really like Transformers, but if no one has written about Tarantulas or whomever in a reliable secondary source I'm not going to shed a tear over it.

3611:

could be followed to get the word out. I even think that talkpage notices to all users have who have edited in the past month (or only those with a certain number of edits) would not be unreasonable. Maybe random users could be contacted. A quick and dirty way of doing that is to click

4057:

is fond of saying, Knowledge is not paper, and one could argue that thinking of articles on Gollum, Goldberry etc as if they are separate from Lord of the Rings is a result of thinking on paper. If one thinks in cyberspace, one could argue that the head and spinouts in fact form one

4607:

of current policy and guidelines?, or 2.) Should we separate fact and fiction and have a few items that may not always coincide? Many libraries, book stores, and academic venues will clearly divide fiction and non-fiction. Should we be looking in that direction? As always IMHO —

3107:

I'd recommend leaving it for several months. I am pessimistic until overall referencing improves across the 'pedia and we can better see the lay of the land. This will require too much time and effort to be significantly superior to the naturalistic path for the time being (sorry).

4927:

The GNG does not have clear consensus, especially for fiction. 2 recent surveys and a recently failed FICT proposal (on top of the 2 arbcom decisions) show otherwise. In such cases where consensus isn't clear, there is justifiable reason (along with IAR) to ignore in in various

2433:

One problem I'm worried about is relying on fictional components (ie. story context) to establish notability. To me, this would not be a positive and would only promote plot-only and plot-heavy articles with no real-world context. To paraphrase a certain miserable Englishman,

3459:

It is no more a set of inclusion criteria than NPOV. I mean, it sets up things that articles are not allowed to do, yes. But it does not try to rigorously define a class of articles that are permitted - rather it defines a class that are forbidden. That is a key difference.

1556:

for most comtemporary literature and at the same act as though it the guideline doesn't exist at all for classical and antiquity literature since even a the third man standing to the left has had some scholarly review. Therefore some different criteria must be established.

2328:

be based on in-story context such as how "important" a character is in a work, or that an "important" plot development occured in an episode. If it's so important, find me a third-party, reliable secondary source that says so. Anything else would be personal opinion and

1547:

have shown that while the consensus is that notability should be kept, there is clear indication that the current notability guidelines, specifically the main one, are not the ones we should be using. For fictional problems this causes problems as recently brought up at

3257:

that seeks to codify clear rules on fiction articles. This proposal is *not* a notability guideline, and it carefully avoids precluding or endorsing a future notability guideline that could exist alongside it. It sets some restrictions, independent of other proposals.

4859:

almost always the ones who end up ceding as the other side has been unwilling to cede to any compromises and trying to violate the 5th pillar by denying what happens at AfDs as "consensus" and attempting to hammer out any proposal that would meet people half way.

906:, the main character in over 10 NYT best sellers, seems ridiculous. Characters should be held to a different standard from episodes, concepts, places, types of creatures, etc., because a single set of criteria will never apply perfectly to all of them at once. – 2526:

Sign in under support if you think it is worth finishing and analyzing. Sign in under oppose if you think it isn't worth the bother. Please make a comment if you want to, we can have a healthy discussion here without kicking things back to the talk page.

378:

Oh, I agree. Didn't we already have the episodes and characters argument, and the guy "merging" the episodes and characters lost? Why are we even arguing this, except that it's impossible to revert the changes he made since it's easier to delete than to

1307:

Conservation of the non trivial & verifiable information is essential during a merge process. Sometimes it get more complicated when MoS had you to remove more information like in the case of merging a non-notable work to its notable author article.

569: 2662:

Given that I believe no consensus exists, I propose, that rather than attempt to create a guideline which details how notability affects fictional topics, we instead write a brief essay explaining the current situation. The essay would point editors to

1372:

I would love to instill in users the idea that WAF is more than just a "mere" (read:optional) style guideline, but rather the basis for how articles are written; beating them over the head with the Notability stick yields results but not understanding.

261:

Sure, the general principle. With regards to Philcha's gratuitous editorializing, I submit that blame lies equally, if not more so, at the feet of extreme inclusionists who take it as a personal insult and sneering critical rejection of their favorite

1184:

Remember that notability is about whether a topic merits its own article. No material should ever be deleted by reference to notability (and this includes merges that are defacto deletion). This just isn't what we've defined notability to be about.

3558:), and asked a sitting arbitrator about the idea but received no response at the time. I have my own opinions about where it should take place, the participants, and which questions should be asked. I think a survey would be the best way forward. 1116:

information while also not leaving a non-notable topic with its own article. Note that when I say "merging" in this case, I mean a real merger... quite often articles are merged with only the lead paragraph or the equivalent remaining afterwords.

1348:

Effectively, I urge the same solution as suggested by Hiding; to replace FICT with an essay until it is clear that a guideline can really be developed, and instead focus the energy on helping to shape the style of fiction articles through WAF.

5289:

This RFC has established that the community is divided on the treatment of fiction and that this divide centres on both the amount of coverage Knowledge should provide on a fictional topic and whether articles split from a parent article (per

4771:

That would mean wiping almost all the comic articles, which is impractical. Again, every attempt at merges and deletes of notable characters fails for this reason. The notability argument just doesn't seem to apply with the characters. Beyond

2552:

I'm supportive as I've been struggling with what phrases such as "significant coverage", "address the subject directly in detail", and "no original research" mean to editors and the general public and if there's consensus on the definitions.

4187:

When more people play WoW or watch the latest Star Trek movie than know or care about many clearly real and notable topics, it's clear that "Real world" impact shouldn't necessarily be junked, but it might need to be turned on its head:

4985:. It had a paragraph or more for about 100-200 characters. You can't search it, though, so the only way to use it would be to read it and add refs to each character article as you go. Otherwise it has no effect on notability or AfD. 4855:. That it has been is and has been has been the argument of those seeking to enforce the GNG (or more stricter version) despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying others haven't used arguments to remove notability, but they are 4311:

what extent should primary sources be used for fiction?" "To what depth should fiction be covered?" and the like - with a fundamental assumption that we're bounded only by WP's goals and not by existing policies. Let's establish the

1199:

Yes, I agree, and merges should be performed in baby steps. Quite often material fails a number of policies and guidances, but it is better to deal with them individually than in one fell swoop to better outline the best practises.

4210:

An interesting example, as Fermat was known for producing mathematical games for colleagues to puzzle over. Fermat's last theorem might be little more than a curiosity, but other works of his (namely fermat's little theorem) are

3261:

I would advocate passing it, as I think it sets restrictions we do basically all agree on, and letting fiction notability sit for a few months. Those who want to clean up our fiction articles should find sufficient ammunition in

266:

when the merits of an exhaustive plot summary (no doubt liberally festooned with minute in-universe details such as Herbie the Love Bug's gas mileage and Moe the Bartender's second-favorite sports team) are called into question.

3635:

mention notability. I suppose the most basic question could be "What are your thoughts about fiction on Knowledge?" or "Do you think there is a problem regarding fiction on Knowledge?" Final questions could be hashed out at

3566: 1795:

There is no consensus on how notability (as a reason for deletion) applies to fiction. My best idea for a way forward is to divide the problem into smaller well defined problems (eg recurring characters in a TV series).

1088:

It should be easier to agree on a number of smaller issues than one big, comprehensive one. And it's quite possible that the detailed notability criteria will be different for characters, episodes, concepts, places. etc.

3562: 3405:

of the notability (fiction) page to me, not about to support forking to get around this issues. I had no idea he'd been off cooking up his own page, while the rest of us argued the problem over at Notability (Fiction).

3640:(or editors could write survey questions in their userspace which could then be compared and contrasted). I suppose questions could even be decided upon here, although I would like to avoid the survey developing like 2359:. This attitude may be hard for some to accept, but ultimately our goal on Knowledge is to provide a compnedium of documented information and knowledge, not to give you plot synopses of TV series episodes you missed. 184:

Agree. Most of the dissension is caused by one or two extreme deletionists who dislike the fact that fiction articles (including those about films, etc.) start as plot summaries, often by inexperienced editors. If WP

4647:

Actually, there's a separate cycle: AfD asserting non notability, much contention, inclusion of sources which existed all along, and then a coin toss for actual AfD outcome. That actually gives me a couple of ideas:

3647:

All survey participants could also be encouraged to write their own essays regarding fiction in their userspace. As to evaluating the survey, maybe 9 random admins could do it. I also think that a sitewide survey on

3342:

At least we can reach a consensus on the content. If we manage to write a policy for on the content, that policy should be named WP:FictionContent to make it clear that it can't be used to resolve Notability issues.

3993:. Therefore we ought to write based on third-party sources, which puts us exactly where we are right now at the GNG. I'm not sure how you can lower the bar any further without running into that basic policy issue. 126:

are part of an overarching topic or become an article on a new and separate topic. While we have our personal opinions on best practise, it is currently unclear as to where consensus lies on many of these issues.

4999:

going to have every episode as a GA pretty soon. Even though I'm an inclusionist, and I fight the AfDs a lot, there's a symbiotic relationship with the deletionists that can lead to some very nice articles. -

1448:'s idea of trying to build consensus in specific cases appears to be the most promising way forward at present. It might help to log somewhere discussions that have dealt with difficult or new types of case. -- 614: 5317:

might be trying to do to much; and that different guidelines might be required for different elements (i.e. modern vs. classical, episodes vs. characters vs. locations; etc.). Proposals to fall back to using

2940:

Probably is the best we can get consensus for at the moment. It should be explained that any of the 5 reasons is sufficient, or at the very least, that only a balance of them might need to be satisified.

414:

Yes, we have no consensus regarding fictional elements and as such all AfDs reflect more on who happens to show up in any given discussion than any actual adherence to some agreed upon standard. Sincerely,

3605:, as of April 30, 2009, the top 5,000 article creators had created 1,679,835 articles — 57.8% of Knowledge's articles. I think a timeframe of three months (or even six months) for the survey would be okay. 4912:

No it isn't. The real issue is people commenting at AFDs who don't fully understand the GNG. I've seen it in countless AFDs. That's why you have some many fiction articles being kept that are not notable.

3193:

I agree with what you are saying, but don't think it will help unless we also agree to break FICT apart, as it only really deals with elements in written works where the main secondary source is reviews.--

2403:

Fair enough, but I doubt this apparoach will result in better articles, which is my consideration. The overreliance on primary sources needs to stop, and I'd like to hear what you think about that point.

524:

Agree w/ the statement "the community is divided" with one critical complaint. In many cases, the users invoking 'the community' in declaring that opinions are divided on the issues are often the ones

2336:

One idea I suggested below was that we need to stop thinking about these pages as "fiction" articles. The reason there are so many FA and GA film articles is because they are treated as articles about

3420:

In what sense, exactly, is it a fork, given that it is in fact not a notability proposal at all? By that lax a standard, the entire notability (fiction) discussion should be cut off as a fork of WAF.

902:—a topic which is almost certainly notable in my opinion because of how much it influenced future depictions of dragons in Western culture and their popularity within D&D—to the same standards as 534:

settle comfortably into the passive voice when describing community division on this issue. A full and complete exception on this issue is granted to hiding for the above post (so as to be clear).

2508:

our past debates on fiction have been influenced by (sometimes) anecdotal statements that "articles with no context get deleted" or "articles which are central to a work get at least merged".

1074:

Agree. This one is interesting, and realizing that there are differing standards and making allowances for these is important. Otherwise, we would stand to lose a tremendous amount of articles.

3595: 1552:. Though the point goes beyond just fictional elements, it does address the underlying problem with the current GNG: That the bar set is so high that it is to essentially act for elements as 4534: 2238:. Unfortunately GNG introduces systemic bias, because scholars write about increasingly obscure topics in the "great books" that are set texts in courses - I even found a whole book about 1665:

been significantly covered. But sometime in the future, maybe ten years, thirty years, fifty years, or longer, people may look back and start writing reliable discussions about Bruenor. –

4155:

I am at least sympathetic, though to my mind we do not need to drop the real-world stuff - reviews and the like *are* real-world content, and real-world content is a fundamental part of

2484:

Not everything needs its own article, but it might be an essential component of a larger fiction topic. Instead of letting it sit and fester, and before jumping into the AFD tiger pit,

4067: 4038: 3980: 3581:, containing the final questions, and users could then substitute the template on their subpage and then answer it. The template could also place the survey subpages into a category. 349:

I dont think there's a need to blame anybody. I can see why both sides take their stance, and I can also see that both sides have difficulty seeing the merit of the other's position.

2474: 2308:

is stricter than the GNG), and are not meant to supercede the general notability guidelines. If it fails the GNG, the article should be deleted. That's the whole point of the GNG.

5252:

The creators of some proposals have created pages that are included as part of their proposal. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the construction of these pages.

2488:

and merge fiction articles without notability established into larger topics when applicable. You can always split off an article again when you find sufficient secondary sources.

2459: 3337: 5337:

did not attain support per this RFC. Another proposal towards the formation of a mediation to work towards a single guideline has been rejected as being premature at this stage.

4655:

mandatory for fiction articles, with penalties for editors who are found to have misrepresented their findings or conducted a search for sourcing in a grossly incompetent manner.

4556: 2320:

are just two examples of fiction-related WikiProjects that turn out scores of excellent articles. What makes them so successful is the emphasis they place on secondary sources,

4747:

If there are no such sources, then the subject is not notable. It's that simple. Mind you, there are quite a few notable fictional articles (hell, I found three books alone on

4007:

Why would an article per Pokemon be a "nightmare"? How would 493 articles for each Pokemon (which Knowledge used to have) be worse than the 25 lists Knowledge currently has? --

4473: 4016: 3891: 3870: 3637: 3578: 3347: 2052: 2038: 1859: 5012: 3820:

old-old N(FICT) that said "major characters get articles"; it was impossible to agree on criteria for "major" because it implied the importance of both character and series.

2025: 1010: 4093: 3954: 3905: 3729: 2012: 1999: 1056: 4590: 4002: 3202: 2876: 1985: 1713: 743: 358: 4401: 4150: 3848:

The details would be impossible to work out in practice. In theory this is against the notion of having a discriminate encyclopedia with standards of inclusion. We aren't

3371: 2912: 1194: 770: 437: 111: 4387: 4285: 3283: 4965: 4922: 4907: 4845: 4828: 4807: 4789: 4762: 4742: 3919: 3843: 3814: 3584:

I would like to see as much participation as possible. These sort of discussions really need new blood. Over 158,000 users have made at least one edit in the past month.

3469: 3452: 3429: 1971: 1024: 472: 5044: 5026: 3829: 3362: 3323: 3296: 2862: 1958: 1440: 1281: 832: 729: 716: 463: 330: 4672: 4168: 3500: 2825: 2278: 2193: 1909: 388: 373: 276: 107: 4946: 4894:

A grey guideline under discussion above. Once again, the RfD's paint a different picture. Try proposing the deletion of well-known character and guage the reaction.

3689: 3000: 2447: 2428: 2413: 1938: 1868: 1312: 1263: 1231: 1218: 1083: 996: 973: 846: 4691: 4642: 4633:

I've pretty much stopped editing fiction topics because I have no clear idea what will stick. I want to get a clear idea of what will stick before I resume editing.

4258: 3791: 3703: 3530: 3387: 3069: 2885:. It is a good quality article on a subject which is certainly notable, but because the cited sources are all Lucas-licensed books, it would not meet this proposal. 2806: 2792: 2118: 1895: 1403: 1250: 1209: 693: 256: 242: 4885: 4356: 4224: 3768: 3751: 3415: 3140: 3009: 2921: 1882: 1781: 1754: 1480: 1302: 1098: 1069: 811: 779: 752: 519: 446: 409: 4410: 2986: 2751: 2132: 1682: 1644: 1606: 1504: 1038: 798: 649: 561: 505: 419: 344: 179: 4708: 4453: 4267: 4205: 3233: 2935: 2894: 1767: 1731: 1457: 1179: 872: 543: 485: 198: 4467: 4244: 3215: 3093: 2179: 1745: 1471: 672: 221: 122:. The divide centres on the amount of detail with which Knowledge should cover fictional topics, and whether articles split from a "parent article" in line with 4433: 4369: 4182: 2966: 2771: 2234:'s "If no secondary sources exist, it's highly likely what you thought was important isn't as important as you thought it was" (05:21, 10 August 2009) is right 964: 627: 3680: 2104: 2952: 2839: 2497: 2217: 1699: 1539:

fail in regard to fictional elements (not the works themselves, but the elements within it) as it was never designed with the intent of handling such things.

1418: 1406:

Good to have something in the interim. Essay seems to be an acceptable compromise unless or until a more formal guideline or policy is approved by consensus.

951: 307: 157: 4562: 3661: 5082: 3744: 923: 4733:

merges or deletes is voted down. This is an area with a considerable amount of grey, and there at present is no way of quantifying and cataloguing it all.

2561: 1845: 1805: 2623: 2372: 2261: 2166: 144: 3123: 5031:

I had to go to the library, and then wait for it to be brought in from another branch. Not something one wants to deal with in the middle of an AfD. -

2091: 1166: 3188: 3048: 2729: 2601: 2547: 2523:

for argument's sake) agree to narrower standards if we showed that standards were narrow in practice? Or would people be uninterested in the results?

1489:

it to be more inclusive but that's just me. Given other possibilities are unlikely to evolve as there will be too much opposition from either extreme.

5348: 2381:

We've had an RFC which has already shown that the community accepts that subject specific guidance can extend the scope of the GNG, indeed that's how

1138: 4328: 4132: 2398: 2538:

I'm supportive. I think I could bring myself to view the situation differently if I had a clear sign of what kind of outcomes we had in practice.

1255: 803: 4307:

with common sense at AFD" or something simple, simply because what's occurring now is not tipping the balance and thus best to leave it untouched.

4726: 4624: 1584: 4819:

may think that, but the road tested RfD's almost always say otherwise. The best that we seem to able to do for now is to improve the articles.

3241: 1382: 3834:

No. Good gravy, no. Heritable notability would obliterate any chance at not having an article per pokemon, to go back to an oldie but goodie.

1361: 442:

I don't know if this is true for all issues related to fiction and notability, but there certainly is significant division in these areas. --

3711: 3440:. It is not a content policy, because it does not contain a new policy per se; it is a set of article inclusion criteria in all but name. -- 2252:

systemic bias as the price of keeping out fancrust and POV-pushing. However we have to avoid excluding what outsiders wan to read about. --

3266:

to make plenty of progress with it, and once that is done I suspect that it will be clearer what sort of additional policies we may need.

2530: 5294:) should be seen as part of the overarching topic, or as a seperate article. This RFC has furthermore established that content should be 5017:

So, in some ways, deletionists are a necessary evil? ;) If I could get a copy of the book you mention, man I've love to make use of it!

2584:

I think the previous "real world impact" criteria are fine, if properly construed. My thoughts on notability of fictional topics are at

4798:, because he's actually worth discussing in the context of the Nuclear Age in fiction. There's no reason any exceptions should be made. 3619:

I think the most important thing is the questions the survey asks. A draft of a fiction survey has been in my userspace since October.

1549: 2479: 1589:

Although the last two sentenences kind of lost me (can't quite figure out what you're trying to say in them), I agree with the rest. –

863:. Does this bedrock agreement on WP:V mean we can all agree on the consequences of that sentence being applied plainly? I doubt it. 4867:

The biggest problem I see it is with the GNG requiring "signifigant" coverage which is where for fictional elements it has a problem.

3720:

and spinout articles on the series may share that notability, rather than having to establish a separate notability for themselves.

3598: 3224:(now an FA!), becuase video game journalists spend their time reviewing individual games and take concepts and genres for granted. -- 2502: 888: 4658:

Make merge the default outcome for any fictional topic for which even one editor is able to articulate an appropriate merge target.

2606: 510:

Agree. I'm all for quality control, but there has to be a balance. Articles can't be deleted wholesale because they are fictional.

101: 4699:

stream of new contributors to the project. Aggresively alienating people is a good way to end collaboration and shut things down.

2324:

on primary sources and in-story details. The emphasis on primary sources on many fiction articles is disturbing; notbility should

2143: 5330: 4486: 1001:

I would agree with that. There is clearly some room for overlap (books get made into films etc), but it is a good starting point

3694:

The disussions about fiction have been dominated by a few stubborn adherents of opposing positions. Time for a reality check. --

3026:

focussed on areas of agreement rather than of disagreement, likely through the use of time-bound discussion. Current debate on

5040: 5008: 4383: 4281: 2908: 1052: 766: 433: 3305:

I think with some more tweaking it could pass as a content policy, but it still leaves the problem of notability to deal with.

2294: 2068: 4316:

there's strong resistance in site-wide policies to such change, possibly requiring different followup surveys and/or RFCs. --

3879:, it can't be inherited. You can't use evidence that shows one topic is notable, and use it to say all topics are notable. -- 3538: 1544: 5306:. There is consensus per this RFC that an essay be written to explain this situation and to provide appropriate advice (See 3547: 3220:

Agree, and we should also look at similar cases in other subject areas - I had a major battle to support the notability of

1917: 1850:

I think cutting it down almost to cases and then building it back up to a sensible number of components is the way to go.--

757:

Those are good policies that should be followed, although some of notability has crept into V, which I don't agree with. -

5357:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

59:

All editors are invited to present comments as to the current treatment of fiction on Knowledge, especially with regards:

4864:

is not universaly accepted in its current form so anyone claiming that it has consensus is on shaky ground to begin with.

3888: 3864: 3641: 3555: 3449: 2856: 1540: 1485:

This is the naturalistic pathway which has been the pathway of least effort, and to me seems to be tolerable (just). I'd

1434: 1106: 829: 710: 490:

weakly, I do feel we have a broad sort of zone of consensus at most AfDs generally, though there is the usual bickering.

460: 324: 4780:

there's very little third-party literature out there, which is not grounds for removal. An exception must be made here.

5334: 5310:

above). It was also proposed to follow this up with a survey to attain the extent of coverage of fiction on Knowledge.

5274: 4571: 4564: 3945:. I know one AfD may not be much to go on, but I believe it is characteristic of discussions going on at the moment.-- 3602: 3574: 3148: 3131:

just made an important point - we should be improving articles rather than fighting turf-wars over content criteria. --

3017: 2646: 2569: 2387:

A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines

2317: 1817: 980: 369: 4291: 4141:

continues to be frowned upon, I fail to see why author interviews and Dr Who annuals should not be reliable sources--

4099: 3608: 1787: 1121:

relevant content should be actually merged, although trimming it for reasons other than non-notability makes sense. –

4974:

Comic characters are more notable than some might think. Two things have prevented the articles from showing this.

4753:

at my local library), but not every thing is notable and we shouldn't give anything that isn't notable a free pass.

5256: 4053:

is notable, then the articles that properly split out from it should take their notability from it. As I believe

2656: 5303: 3967:

to determine whether a character requires an article or just a mention in a list. Of course, that could lead to

2687: 2286: 1719: 1623: 1531:, that level is low that almost anything will have at least one "third-party source" for it. However the current 593: 578: 77:

Editors wishing to present specific proposals for a guideline, essay or another way forwards should do so in the

4415:

Weak support - I have to see those questions first and I do have some qualms with WP:FICT now, even as an essay.

3628: 3620: 2631: 984: 5299: 5056: 4482: 4475: 4449: 3787: 3437: 3119: 3027: 2982: 2743: 2683: 2579: 1674: 1598: 1500: 1246: 1158: 1130: 943: 915: 899: 794: 641: 589: 574: 501: 171: 30: 17: 3963:- what I would suggest is that rather than trying to identify 'major' characters, we use something similar to 5284: 3942: 3158: 1821: 56:

has been created in order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is most appropriate.

4458:

Since I supported the separate parts of this, I guess I should be consistent and support the combination. --

4994:

The situation was similar for TV episode articles a 2-3 years ago. There was no need to add sources, then

4939: 4878: 4426: 3551: 3523: 3316: 3181: 3086: 2344:. The emphasis is on who made it, when it was made, how much money it made, and what people thought of it. 1637: 1577: 880: 665: 214: 1653:, for instance, have little scholarly or reliable information because the character is to "new", and from 5078: 4977:

First, a lot of the sources are in books that aren't searchable by google books. I checked out the book

4749: 4530: 4397: 4146: 4063: 4034: 3976: 3950: 3725: 3333: 3198: 2872: 2574: 2313: 2060: 1954: 1934: 1855: 1709: 1006: 739: 354: 285: 3031:

declaring a lack of one. This proposal may be rendered irrelevant depending on the outcome of this RFC.

1836:(although there is a small overlap), and to me it makes sense to split the issue into smaller pieces. -- 5036: 5004: 4379: 4277: 2904: 2030:

Aye, the notability and verifiability of standalone works are relatively straightforward to determine.

1048: 762: 429: 93: 983:

I helped make (or one similar to it) is a way to make that differentiation. Some people felt that the

4982: 3884: 3445: 1519: 825: 456: 106:

The community is currently divided on how to treat fiction, as can be seen in the arbitration cases

3938: 1320: 2636: 1616:, that elements are not considered worthy of study for some time, unless they are on the scale of 5295: 5291: 4164: 3859: 3810: 3465: 3425: 3279: 2851: 2679: 1925:

I believe that there is a consensus regarding works of fiction that stand as a single entity (eg

1429: 725: 705: 585: 570: 319: 123: 5329:

A proposal to revisit the issue of "inherited notability" was rejected. Two proposals to adopt

5229: 5195: 5074: 4547:

support it. Even then, I don't see what sets this apart from the general notability guideline.

4526: 4393: 4193: 4142: 4059: 4030: 3972: 3946: 3721: 3713: 3616:

and then notify the last editor who edited the article. Or maybe a bot could do the notifying.

3329: 3194: 2881:

With the exception of point four. For example, under that rule we could not have an article on

2868: 2821: 1950: 1930: 1919: 1851: 1833: 1705: 1190: 1020: 1002: 735: 384: 350: 272: 1626:

due to the bar being set so high for them that it is unatianable unless you are the exception.

5032: 5000: 4918: 4841: 4803: 4758: 4722: 4552: 4375: 4273: 4254: 3901: 3570: 2900: 2815:)" legitmizes the inclusion of lengthy in-universe articles on <placename, worldplace: --> 2558: 2493: 2470: 2443: 2409: 2368: 2274: 2213: 1864:

There is no consensus support notability as a reason for deletion of anything. Sincerely, --

1044: 758: 425: 4570:

Eliminate elitist and subjective terminology like "notability" altogether and instead adopt

4501:

Although I had a small hand in writing this, I'm inclined upon due reflection to think that

860: 5070: 4833: 4617: 4349: 3649: 3493: 3062: 2802: 2785: 2747: 2664: 2516: 2123:

Yes, there's a strong and unattractive air of intellectual snobbery in many discussions. --

1820:

I helped make is my attempt, and was inspired by the different "types" of people listed in

1678: 1650: 1602: 1396: 1162: 1134: 947: 919: 686: 645: 252: 235: 175: 8: 4961: 4903: 4824: 4785: 4738: 4077: 4012: 3676: 3657: 3484:

pass"? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just not clear on what is being proposed here. —

2996: 2189: 2114: 2048: 1905: 1841: 1801: 1777: 1277: 1259: 1079: 992: 842: 807: 515: 469: 4249:

Agree. The GNG seems like the best way to settle notability for fiction-related topics.

5177: 4668: 4596: 4443: 4201: 4160: 4046: 3934: 3896:

Absolutely do not agree. flies in the face of Wiki consensus in all other topic areas.

3880: 3854: 3806: 3781: 3461: 3441: 3421: 3275: 3243: 3113: 2976: 2846: 2739: 2619: 2597: 2585: 2021: 1670: 1622:, which is itself, an exception. Thus for all practical purposes the guideline acts as 1594: 1494: 1424: 1240: 1154: 1126: 1113: 939: 911: 821: 788: 721: 700: 637: 555: 495: 452: 340: 314: 167: 119: 3597:— 36.9% of Knowledge's articles. Personally, I would like to see a lot of input from 1722:". IMO the guideline also creates other systemic biasses too numerous to list here. -- 203:

I'll agree with the general principle, though not necessarily all of the finer points.

5265: 5062: 4463: 4240: 4220: 4089: 4050: 3915: 3839: 3764: 3699: 3509: 3411: 3302: 3263: 3254: 3229: 3136: 2931: 2890: 2817: 2641: 2543: 2257: 2162: 2128: 2087: 2008: 1995: 1976:

Definitely the problem is related more towards works that are part of larger series.

1891: 1763: 1727: 1453: 1298: 1227: 1186: 1094: 1065: 1016: 868: 539: 481: 380: 364: 268: 194: 2707:

would otherwise exist on Knowledge as a section of an article which has reached the

2304:

has a more specific criteria of what makes a song notable; in essence and practice,

969:

This seems like it could be a good way to move forward on this rather vexed issue.

4934: 4914: 4873: 4852: 4837: 4799: 4754: 4718: 4686: 4652: 4638: 4548: 4421: 4365: 4250: 4178: 3998: 3897: 3825: 3591: 3518: 3358: 3311: 3292: 3211: 3176: 3081: 3044: 2725: 2554: 2489: 2466: 2439: 2424: 2405: 2394: 2364: 2288: 2270: 2231: 2209: 1981: 1878: 1829: 1741: 1658: 1632: 1572: 1467: 1378: 1205: 1034: 903: 660: 610: 209: 140: 4058:

three-dimensional article, for which only one assertion of notability is required.

3652:

itself would be beneficial, and I'm unaware of any previous attempts to do one. --

2867:

Although I think 'sources other than the work itself' will continue to give grief.

1613: 5346: 5155: 5100: 5066: 4612: 4525:

that may apply in certain circumstances (eg to lists, episodes, characters etc)--

4344: 4324: 4128: 3964: 3488: 3057: 2962: 2798: 2780: 2767: 2382: 2305: 2301: 1654: 1527:

It is my belief that while there is a need for some level of measure beyond just

1391: 1357: 681: 282: 248: 230: 5323: 5314: 5241: 5217: 5181: 5151: 5129: 5119: 4957: 4899: 4820: 4781: 4734: 4514: 4506: 4407: 4112: 4054: 4008: 3876: 3672: 3653: 3613: 3540: 3402: 3368: 3344: 3006: 2992: 2918: 2708: 2701: 2512: 2485: 2185: 2110: 2044: 2031: 1901: 1837: 1797: 1789: 1773: 1751: 1477: 1309: 1273: 1215: 1075: 988: 970: 838: 817: 776: 749: 511: 443: 406: 394: 363:

True. Different users have different ideas of what's suitable for Knowledge. --

186: 115: 4851:

it) simply because guidelines/policy say otherwise because that would violate

1873:

Again, articles need contextualising to understand their claim to notability.

698:

These are our policies and the subsequent guidelines should follow from them.

451:

The community is divided, but I don't think exemptions are the way forward. --

5170: 5159: 5140: 5125: 5115: 5022: 4704: 4664: 4587: 4439: 4264: 4232: 4197: 4156: 4080:

of "intransigent". If that's fixed - I never I thought I'd even half agree w

3777: 3748: 3686: 3383: 3128: 3109: 2972: 2948: 2835: 2735: 2672: 2615: 2593: 2175: 2100: 2017: 1967: 1926: 1865: 1736:

Agree that the bar is not well established as evinced by the many arguments.

1695: 1666: 1590: 1553: 1536: 1490: 1414: 1338: 1286: 1236: 1175: 1150: 1122: 960: 935: 907: 882: 784: 633: 623: 549: 491: 416: 402: 336: 303: 163: 153: 88: 67: 3075:

I would support this (though full for full disclosure I prefer my proposal).

855:

these policies and disagree fiercely as to their application. For example,

4510: 4459: 4236: 4216: 4189: 4085: 4081: 4026: 3990: 3968: 3911: 3835: 3760: 3695: 3407: 3225: 3132: 2927: 2886: 2830:

I doubt it will bring any relief, but essays don't hurt either. Let's see.

2694: 2539: 2435: 2385:, for example, works. The GNG also makes this quite clear when it states: 2330: 2253: 2158: 2124: 2083: 2062: 2004: 1991: 1887: 1759: 1723: 1618: 1449: 1294: 1223: 1090: 1061: 864: 535: 477: 263: 190: 3512:

is a proposal for content policy dealing with fiction articles in general.

1029:

Agree that we need to better contextualise our decision making processes.

5319: 5235: 5223: 5163: 5136: 5111: 5107: 5096: 5089: 4929: 4868: 4861: 4795: 4681: 4634: 4522: 4502: 4416: 4361: 4304: 4174: 4108: 3994: 3986: 3985:

I'm fairly convinced the "due weight" road leads directly to our current

3960: 3849: 3821: 3743:

as notability is indeed inherited in many cases, such as those listed at

3513: 3354: 3306: 3288: 3207: 3171: 3150: 3076: 3040: 3019: 2721: 2648: 2592:

sources (e.g. commercial derivatives) adequately demonstrate notability.

2420: 2390: 1977: 1874: 1737: 1627: 1567: 1532: 1528: 1521: 1510: 1463: 1374: 1290: 1269: 1201: 1030: 856: 655: 606: 398: 204: 136: 95: 5341: 5326:, or to leave it as an essay did not attain wide consensus in the RFC. 5211: 5188: 5147: 5061:

Summarizing the results of the polling as of the time of writing (Note

4317: 4293: 4124: 4101: 3745:

User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes

3624: 2958: 2760: 2756: 1816:

Yes, and this is similar to Drilnoth's call for differentiation above.

1445: 1350: 1322: 654:

We shouldn't be compromising core ideals just to get get this to work.

54:

request for comment regarding notability and how it applies to fiction

2351: 1043:

It would be good, but we can't get people to agree on the details. -

44:

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

4303:

Step 1: We leave FICT as a simple essay per Hiding's proposal: "Use

2208:

you thought was important isn't as important as you thought it was.

5018: 4995: 4777: 4700: 3805:

I like it as an idea, but it clearly does not adhere to consensus.

3776:

I have always thought at least one-down heritability was feasible.

3378: 2943: 2831: 2759:- following from my view above but not requiring a new proposal. -- 2171: 2096: 1963: 1900:

Agree. The problems need to be divided and addressed individually.

1691: 1410: 1171: 956: 619: 299: 149: 2357:

based on what is available published by reliable secondary sources

3937:

above, I wonder if consensus is changing. Compare the responses

3482:

If it's not a guideline proposal - I'm not sure what there is to

3376:

this can also be incorporated into the essay proposed by Hiding.

2239: 63:

Whether a true consensus exists or whether the community is split

5180:: Pass his proposal that's not about notability, and then leave 4072:

I'd vote "oppose" if that section were re-titled "Users who are

4773: 3554:. My idea isn't new; I proposed the same idea 8 months ago (at 2926:

Looks good to me - hard to argue against an informative essay.

2882: 289: 4663:

Either or both of these should calm fiction AfD's down a bit.

4406:

I would not oppose this, and I can see were it might help. --

2436:

what do those types of articles have to do with peoples' lives

5278: 4521:

there is consensus over any exceptions or lower standards to

4049:, that is not what I have said. What I have said is that if 2244: 1828:

topical area. There are over 2 1/2 times more articles under

1718:

Agree with "for all practical purposes the guideline acts as

816:

This is the way forward and is the approach being adopted at

4263:

Yes, but we should delete "notability" altogether. Best, --

3588: 3585: 748:

Regardless where the boat go, this is the starting point. --

112:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

3573:, or users could create a subpage in their userspace (like 292: 5247: 5073:) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Updated data as of timestamp -- 3989:: Determining due weight based on the work alone would be 2333:, and per Wiki guidelines, can be challenged and removed. 1649:

Thank you for the clarification; I agree. Characters like

548:

Agree that there is great disagreement over these issues.

108:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

4979:

The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present

3072:

Sounds reasonable - poke me on my talk page if it happens

73:

Whether an essay describing the differing views is better

5198:: Notability of topic extends to cover spinout articles. 1550:

WT:N#Should insignificant subjects be considered notable

3685:

Okay, as I do not see how it would hurt. Sincerely, --

3221: 5269: 5204:

I'm not summarizing the others due to low vote count

4076:

opposed to this proposal" - "firmly" looks like the

3567:

Knowledge:Centralized discussion/Fiction Survey 2009

3546:

I propose a survey, which is one of the recommended

29:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

5110:: Use general principles of existing core policies 987:

from October was too much, so it was simplified. --

934:

I'm going to go ahead and endorse my own view. :) –

734:This statement as far as it goes has to be a given 39:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3563:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Fiction Survey 2009 584:I believe that the general principles espoused by 468:Add me to this list, I agree it is too deadlocked. 2813:, set in fictional <placename, worldplace: --> 397:tends to spread to others area of Knowledge like 5304:present information from a neutral point of view 4956:accurate sources and only relevant information. 4374:I think this is what will ultimately happen. - 2693:is part of a cluster of articles discussing an 393:Agree. A pity that the dead-locked conflict in 2814:(a locale full of <fictional byproduct: --> 2588:, but in a nutshell they are that independent 2460:We do not need a fiction notability guidelines 1272:said it perfectly. There will always be grey. 3800:Users who are firmly opposed to this proposal 3623:is the current version, and does not mention 2957:Probably a better proposal than mine really. 3587:Knowledge currently has 2,904,822 articles. 2704:or such sources can be found and are added; 5307: 5260: 4853:one of the 5 founding pillars of Knowledge 3599:Knowledge's most prolific article creators 1720:WP:NOT#Elements of modern works of fiction 1661:has reached the "exception" point that he 1624:WP:NOT#Elements of modern works of fiction 861:sentence in it which I need not quote here 2675:or could be rewritten to such a standard; 1657:'s whole series of NYT-bestsellers, only 3971:nightmare of an article per Pokemon..... 1704:Having been involved in this discussion 1015:Sure. But the devil is in the details. 405:. There is no consensus live with it. -- 81:. Other comments should be made in the 5103:about frequent fiction deletion reasons 2971:Pragmatic solution for the time being. 2515:'s list of project VG outcomes at AfD, 1509:Agree. I applaud the statement made by 851:Sure. But not much use. We can agree 14: 5132:overreaches, sub-guidelines are needed 4137:As long as writing about Dragonball 7 3759:It may be time to revisit this issue. 3159:WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight 4235:' comment about academic snobbery. -- 2844:I'm suprised nobody's done this yet. 1545:Knowledge:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation 5169:5 For: View "Lacking notability" of 3436:Agree with ThuranX, its a fork from 2511:For a while in May I was working on 3642:Knowledge:Notability/RFC:compromise 3556:Knowledge talk:Notability (fiction) 1541:Knowledge:Notability/RFC:compromise 264:twenty minute advertisment for toys 66:Whether a guideline other than the 23: 5275:User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines 4215:more important than harry potter. 3575:Special:Mypage/Fiction Survey 2009 2702:sources other than the work itself 2318:Knowledge:WikiProject The Simpsons 24: 5367: 5194:5 Against, 1 For: Proposal #6 by 5176:7 For, 2 Against: Proposal #4 by 4505:is sufficient. The reference to 4299:Combination of two of the above: 3609:Knowledge:Advertising discussions 2300:work a lot on music articles, so 5353:The discussion above is closed. 5257:Knowledge:Notability and fiction 4272:I think we have, but I agree. - 4192:has more real-world impact than 3594:had 1,071,665 articles under it 2657:Knowledge:Notability and fiction 4578:Users who endorse this proposal 4493:Users who endorse this proposal 4335:Users who endorse this proposal 4119:Users who endorse this proposal 3735:Users who endorse this proposal 3667:Users who endorse this proposal 3561:The survey could be located at 3270:Users who endorse this proposal 3165:Users who endorse this proposal 3035:Users who endorse this proposal 2716:Users who endorse this proposal 2688:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 900:Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) 594:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 579:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 5349:09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 5139:: Criteria different from the 4989:and it's an overwhelming keep. 4541:Users who oppose this proposal 4483:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 4476:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 3569:, or maybe even off-site like 3438:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 3396:Users who oppose this proposal 3102:Users who oppose this proposal 3028:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 2684:Knowledge:No original research 2503:View and question from Protonk 859:has an interesting and direct 590:Knowledge:No original research 575:Knowledge:No original research 78: 18:Knowledge:Requests for comment 13: 1: 5300:not contain original research 5162:; (similar to Proposal #1 by 3253:I have an active proposal at 2248:. We may have to put up with 1822:Knowledge:Notability (people) 4574:as the basis for inclusion. 3638:Template:Fiction Survey 2009 3579:Template:Fiction Survey 2009 3301:As having been helping with 2991:I'd like to see that essay. 1566:I shall endorse my own view. 1537:general notability guideline 1535:as well as specifically the 1293:hit the nail on the head. -- 68:general notability guideline 7: 5173:Better to merge than delete 5045:16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5027:16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5013:16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 4966:08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 4947:07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 4923:07:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 4908:10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4886:21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4846:04:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4829:04:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4808:04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4790:03:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4763:03:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4750:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 4743:03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4727:03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4591:21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4557:10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4468:08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4286:03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4268:23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4259:11:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4245:08:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4225:03:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4196:, academic snobbery aside. 4094:08:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3920:03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3906:10:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3704:07:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3631:is a previous version that 3234:07:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3141:07:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3010:16:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 3001:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2624:02:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2602:02:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2562:09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2548:03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 2498:10:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2475:10:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2448:10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2429:10:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2414:10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2399:10:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2373:08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2314:Knowledge:WikiProject Films 2279:08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2262:07:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2218:05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2194:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2133:07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2119:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2053:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1944:Users who endorse this view 1910:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1811:Users who endorse this view 1782:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1561:Users who endorse this view 1367:Users who endorse this view 1313:16:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 1303:07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1282:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1144:Users who endorse this view 1099:07:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1084:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 929:Users who endorse this view 873:03:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 847:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 601:Users who endorse this view 562:00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 544:02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 520:05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 189:newbies, it will wither. -- 131:Users who endorse this view 10: 5372: 5092:: The community is divided 4981:for when I was working on 3875:Since notability requires 82: 5083:16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 4983:Silver Age of Comic Books 4898:is a loose concept here. 4709:12:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 4673:07:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 4454:06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 4434:16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 4411:06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 4206:07:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 4068:16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3892:09:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3792:06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3769:15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3552:dispute resolution policy 3531:21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 3470:12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3453:09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3388:02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3372:06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 3124:06:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 2987:06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 2967:17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2953:02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2936:20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 2922:06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 2242:, who is a cipher in the 2180:12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2167:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2105:12:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2092:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2039:16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 2026:07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2013:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2000:16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 1896:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 1768:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 1755:06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 1505:06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 1481:06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 1251:06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 1232:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 1219:06:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 1070:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 833:11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 799:06:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 780:06:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 506:06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 486:22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 473:02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 464:08:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 447:06:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 5355:Please do not modify it. 4692:15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 4643:17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4625:09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4535:21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4402:21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4388:21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4370:11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4357:09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4329:23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4183:11:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4169:00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4151:19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4133:18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4107:Let's just fall back to 4039:09:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 4017:21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 4003:23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3981:14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3955:19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3871:15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3844:11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3830:04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3815:18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3752:13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3730:16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3690:13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3681:20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3662:20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3501:09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3430:13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3416:11:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3363:11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3348:06:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3338:19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3324:05:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3297:22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3284:18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3216:11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3203:16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3189:21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 3094:00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3070:00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 3049:10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 2913:21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 2899:Might as well try it. - 2895:00:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 2877:16:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 2863:01:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 2840:20:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2826:02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2807:02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2793:23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 2772:14:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 2752:13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 2730:10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 2673:an encyclopedic standard 1986:12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1972:22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1959:16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1939:16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1883:12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1869:13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 1860:16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1846:01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1806:06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1746:12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1732:08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 1714:16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1700:22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1683:18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1645:00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1607:17:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1585:16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1472:12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1458:08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 1441:01:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 1419:20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1404:23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1383:17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1362:14:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1264:20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 1210:12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1195:03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 1180:15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1167:13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1139:13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1057:20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1039:12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 1025:03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 1011:16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 997:01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 974:06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 965:15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 952:13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 924:13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 889:Need for differentiation 837:Firmly agree with this. 812:20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 771:19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 753:06:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 744:16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 730:13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 717:01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 694:22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 673:16:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 650:13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 628:12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 615:10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 438:19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 420:13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 410:06:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 389:03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 374:21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 359:16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 345:11:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 331:01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 308:20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 277:02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 257:02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 243:22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 222:17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 199:14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 180:13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 158:12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 145:10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 102:The community is divided 36:Please do not modify it. 5292:Knowledge:Summary style 5095:13 For: Proposal #1 by 4517:should become an essay 4509:should be removed from 2680:Knowledge:Verifiability 2632:Opposition to this view 2570:Opposition to this view 2480:Merging is good, mmkay? 2144:Research and Notability 586:Knowledge:Verifiability 571:Knowledge:Verifiability 124:Knowledge:Summary style 114:and the recent poll on 5240:2 For: Proposal #5 by 5234:3 For: Proposal #3 by 5230:User:Elen of the Roads 5222:3 For: Proposal #2 by 5210:4 For: Proposal #7 by 5196:User:Elen of the Roads 5187:5 For: Proposal #8 by 5057:Results of poll so far 4586:as proposer. Best, -- 4029:. It's his nightmare. 3590:As of April 16, 2009, 3170:Since I proposed it... 1834:Category:Living people 632:No argument from me. – 5322:and to either delete 5313:There are views that 5285:Summary of the debate 4231:Agree - especially w 4194:Fermat's Last Theorem 3571:Knowledge:Survey 2008 2069:Focus off the Editors 979:I agree, and I think 5335:Inclusion guidelines 4834:Knowledge:Notability 4572:Inclusion guidelines 4565:Inclusion guidelines 4563:Proposal #10: Adopt 3650:Knowledge:Notability 2797:Quite reasonable. -- 2665:Knowledge:Notability 2607:Support of this view 2531:Support of this view 2517:User:Randomran/VGAFD 1824:. Fiction is such a 1651:Bruenor Battlehammer 1533:notability guideline 1409:Give Masem a cigar! 4474:Proposal #9: Adopt 4078:Russell conjugation 3877:verifiable evidence 2580:Views from Jclemens 2295:General impressions 2159:Zanotam - Google me 2084:Zanotam - Google me 2005:Zanotam - Google me 1888:Zanotam - Google me 1760:Zanotam - Google me 1224:Zanotam - Google me 1062:Zanotam - Google me 478:Zanotam - Google me 31:request for comment 5184:to sit for a while 5178:User:Phil Sandifer 3244:User:Phil Sandifer 2586:User:Jclemens/FICT 1107:Lacking notability 527:doing the dividing 312:Hard to disagree. 298:Isn't it obvious? 5266:Knowledge:Fiction 5191:Combine #1 and #5 5075:Elen of the Roads 4641: 4623: 4527:Elen of the Roads 4481:A new version of 4394:Elen of the Roads 4368: 4355: 4181: 4173:Agree with Phil. 4143:Elen of the Roads 4060:Elen of the Roads 4051:Lord of the Rings 4031:Elen of the Roads 3991:original research 3973:Elen of the Roads 3947:Elen of the Roads 3722:Elen of the Roads 3714:Elen of the Roads 3499: 3361: 3330:Elen of the Roads 3264:Knowledge:Fiction 3255:Knowledge:Fiction 3214: 3195:Elen of the Roads 3068: 3047: 2869:Elen of the Roads 2791: 2728: 2655:Essay drafted at 2427: 2397: 2331:original research 2236:as far as it goes 1984: 1951:Elen of the Roads 1931:Elen of the Roads 1920:Elen of the Roads 1881: 1852:Elen of the Roads 1744: 1706:Elen of the Roads 1470: 1402: 1208: 1037: 1003:Elen of the Roads 775:More or less. -- 736:Elen of the Roads 692: 613: 558: 351:Elen of the Roads 337:Michel Vuijlsteke 241: 143: 5363: 5344: 5106:11 For: View of 5088:20 For: View of 5033:Peregrine Fisher 5001:Peregrine Fisher 4943: 4937: 4932: 4882: 4876: 4871: 4836:says otherwise. 4637: 4622: 4620: 4609: 4430: 4424: 4419: 4392:I'll buy that -- 4376:Peregrine Fisher 4364: 4354: 4352: 4341: 4321: 4274:Peregrine Fisher 4177: 4139:as if it is real 3941:to the response 3910:Absolutely not. 3867: 3862: 3857: 3747:. Sincerely, -- 3592:Category:Fiction 3527: 3521: 3516: 3498: 3496: 3485: 3357: 3320: 3314: 3309: 3210: 3185: 3179: 3174: 3090: 3084: 3079: 3067: 3065: 3054: 3043: 2901:Peregrine Fisher 2859: 2854: 2849: 2790: 2788: 2777: 2764: 2724: 2637:General comments 2575:General comments 2423: 2393: 2036: 2035: 1980: 1877: 1830:Category:Fiction 1740: 1641: 1635: 1630: 1581: 1575: 1570: 1466: 1437: 1432: 1427: 1401: 1399: 1388: 1354: 1204: 1045:Peregrine Fisher 1033: 759:Peregrine Fisher 713: 708: 703: 691: 689: 678: 669: 663: 658: 609: 556: 552: 426:Peregrine Fisher 327: 322: 317: 240: 238: 227: 218: 212: 207: 139: 79:proposal section 38: 5371: 5370: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5342: 5287: 5250: 5228:3 For: View of 5216:4 For: View of 5146:7 For: View of 5135:7 For: View of 5124:8 For: View of 5059: 4944: 4941: 4935: 4930: 4883: 4880: 4874: 4869: 4618: 4610: 4599: 4568: 4479: 4431: 4428: 4422: 4417: 4350: 4342: 4319: 4297: 4292:Proposal #8 by 4105: 4100:Proposal #7 by 4045:In response to 3933:In response to 3865: 3860: 3855: 3717: 3712:Proposal #6 by 3601:. According to 3544: 3539:Proposal #5 by 3528: 3525: 3519: 3514: 3494: 3486: 3321: 3318: 3312: 3307: 3250:others do not. 3247: 3242:Proposal #4 by 3186: 3183: 3177: 3172: 3154: 3149:Proposal #3 by 3091: 3088: 3082: 3077: 3063: 3055: 3023: 3018:Proposal #2 by 2857: 2852: 2847: 2786: 2778: 2762: 2652: 2647:Proposal #1 by 2644: 2639: 2634: 2609: 2582: 2577: 2572: 2533: 2505: 2482: 2462: 2377:Users Against: 2297: 2292: 2201:Users Against: 2146: 2140:Users Against: 2071: 2066: 2033: 2032: 1923: 1793: 1659:Drizzt Do'Urden 1655:R. A. Salvatore 1642: 1639: 1633: 1628: 1582: 1579: 1573: 1568: 1525: 1462:In a nutshell. 1435: 1430: 1425: 1397: 1389: 1352: 1326: 1109: 904:Drizzt Do'Urden 891: 886: 711: 706: 701: 687: 679: 670: 667: 661: 656: 582: 560: 550: 372: 325: 320: 315: 236: 228: 219: 216: 210: 205: 118:which ended in 104: 99: 91: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5369: 5352: 5286: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5272: 5263: 5249: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5242:User:Pixelface 5238: 5232: 5226: 5220: 5218:User:SmokeyJoe 5214: 5207: 5206: 5200: 5199: 5192: 5185: 5174: 5167: 5144: 5133: 5122: 5104: 5093: 5058: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4986: 4969: 4968: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4940: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4879: 4865: 4848: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4695: 4694: 4676: 4675: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4656: 4645: 4628: 4627: 4598: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4584:Strong support 4580: 4579: 4567: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4543: 4542: 4538: 4537: 4495: 4494: 4478: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4456: 4436: 4427: 4413: 4404: 4390: 4372: 4359: 4337: 4336: 4332: 4331: 4308: 4296: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4270: 4261: 4247: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4185: 4171: 4153: 4135: 4121: 4120: 4104: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4070: 4042: 4041: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4005: 3957: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3908: 3894: 3873: 3846: 3832: 3817: 3801: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3771: 3754: 3736: 3716: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3692: 3683: 3668: 3614:Special:Random 3543: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3524: 3480: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3456: 3455: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3374: 3365: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3326: 3317: 3299: 3286: 3271: 3246: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3218: 3205: 3191: 3182: 3166: 3153: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3126: 3103: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3087: 3073: 3051: 3036: 3022: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3003: 2989: 2969: 2955: 2938: 2924: 2915: 2897: 2879: 2865: 2842: 2828: 2809: 2795: 2774: 2754: 2734:Sounds good. – 2732: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2705: 2698: 2691: 2678:complies with 2676: 2671:is written to 2660: 2659: 2651: 2645: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2608: 2605: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2573: 2571: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2550: 2532: 2529: 2504: 2501: 2481: 2478: 2461: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2296: 2293: 2291: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2265: 2264: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2182: 2169: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2121: 2107: 2094: 2070: 2067: 2065: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2041: 2028: 2015: 2002: 1988: 1974: 1961: 1949:Me, obviously 1945: 1922: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1898: 1885: 1871: 1862: 1848: 1812: 1792: 1790:User:SmokeyJoe 1786: 1785: 1784: 1770: 1757: 1748: 1734: 1716: 1702: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1638: 1587: 1578: 1563: 1562: 1524: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1507: 1483: 1474: 1460: 1443: 1421: 1407: 1385: 1368: 1325: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1305: 1284: 1266: 1253: 1234: 1221: 1212: 1197: 1182: 1169: 1145: 1108: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1086: 1072: 1059: 1041: 1027: 1013: 999: 977: 967: 954: 930: 890: 887: 885: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 849: 835: 814: 801: 782: 773: 755: 746: 732: 719: 696: 675: 666: 652: 630: 617: 602: 581: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 554: 546: 522: 508: 488: 475: 470:Knowledgekid87 466: 449: 440: 422: 412: 391: 376: 368: 361: 347: 333: 310: 296: 279: 259: 245: 224: 215: 201: 182: 160: 147: 132: 116:plot summaries 103: 100: 98: 92: 90: 87: 75: 74: 71: 70:can be created 64: 50: 49: 48: 47: 46: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5368: 5356: 5351: 5350: 5347: 5345: 5338: 5336: 5332: 5327: 5325: 5321: 5316: 5311: 5309: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5280: 5276: 5273: 5271: 5267: 5264: 5262: 5258: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5243: 5239: 5237: 5233: 5231: 5227: 5225: 5221: 5219: 5215: 5213: 5209: 5208: 5205: 5202: 5201: 5197: 5193: 5190: 5186: 5183: 5179: 5175: 5172: 5171:User:Drilnoth 5168: 5165: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5149: 5145: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5131: 5127: 5126:User:Drilnoth 5123: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5109: 5105: 5102: 5098: 5094: 5091: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5046: 5042: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5010: 5006: 5002: 4997: 4993: 4987: 4984: 4980: 4976: 4975: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4967: 4963: 4959: 4954: 4948: 4945: 4938: 4933: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4920: 4916: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4893: 4892: 4887: 4884: 4877: 4872: 4866: 4863: 4858: 4854: 4849: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4835: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4818: 4815: 4814: 4809: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4770: 4769: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4751: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4697: 4696: 4693: 4690: 4689: 4685: 4684: 4678: 4677: 4674: 4670: 4666: 4662: 4657: 4654: 4650: 4649: 4646: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4626: 4621: 4615: 4614: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4592: 4589: 4585: 4582: 4581: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4573: 4566: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4545: 4544: 4540: 4539: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4488: 4484: 4477: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4455: 4451: 4448: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4435: 4432: 4425: 4420: 4414: 4412: 4409: 4405: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4360: 4358: 4353: 4347: 4346: 4339: 4338: 4334: 4333: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4314: 4309: 4306: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4295: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4269: 4266: 4262: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4213:substantially 4209: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4186: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4161:Phil Sandifer 4158: 4154: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4123: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4114: 4110: 4103: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4047:Gavin Collins 4044: 4043: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4023: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3935:Phil Sandifer 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3893: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3881:Gavin Collins 3878: 3874: 3872: 3869: 3868: 3863: 3858: 3851: 3847: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3818: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3807:Phil Sandifer 3804: 3803: 3802: 3799: 3798: 3793: 3789: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3755: 3753: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3715: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3691: 3688: 3684: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3645: 3643: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3617: 3615: 3610: 3606: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3589: 3586: 3582: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3559: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3542: 3532: 3529: 3522: 3517: 3511: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3497: 3491: 3490: 3477: 3476: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3462:Phil Sandifer 3458: 3457: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3442:Gavin Collins 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422:Phil Sandifer 3419: 3418: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3404: 3401:Looks like a 3400: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3394: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3380: 3375: 3373: 3370: 3366: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3353: 3349: 3346: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3325: 3322: 3315: 3310: 3304: 3300: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3287: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276:Phil Sandifer 3274: 3273: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3265: 3259: 3256: 3251: 3245: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3206: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3190: 3187: 3180: 3175: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3160: 3152: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3127: 3125: 3121: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3101: 3100: 3095: 3092: 3085: 3080: 3074: 3071: 3066: 3060: 3059: 3052: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3029: 3021: 3011: 3008: 3004: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2988: 2984: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2945: 2939: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2916: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2855: 2850: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2810: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2794: 2789: 2783: 2782: 2775: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2758: 2755: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2696: 2695:overall topic 2692: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2674: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2666: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2614:as proposer. 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2551: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2360: 2358: 2354: 2353: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2334: 2332: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2309: 2307: 2303: 2290: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2141: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2075: 2064: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2040: 2037: 2029: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927:War and Peace 1921: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1636: 1631: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1586: 1583: 1576: 1571: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1523: 1512: 1508: 1506: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1433: 1428: 1422: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1400: 1394: 1393: 1386: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1346: 1342: 1340: 1334: 1330: 1324: 1314: 1311: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1115: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 975: 972: 968: 966: 962: 958: 955: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 928: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 884: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 848: 844: 840: 836: 834: 831: 827: 823: 822:Gavin Collins 819: 815: 813: 809: 805: 802: 800: 796: 793: 790: 786: 783: 781: 778: 774: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 754: 751: 747: 745: 741: 737: 733: 731: 727: 723: 722:Percy Snoodle 720: 718: 715: 714: 709: 704: 697: 695: 690: 684: 683: 676: 674: 671: 664: 659: 653: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 629: 625: 621: 618: 616: 612: 608: 605: 604: 603: 600: 599: 598: 595: 591: 587: 580: 576: 572: 563: 559: 553: 547: 545: 541: 537: 533: 528: 523: 521: 517: 513: 509: 507: 503: 500: 497: 493: 489: 487: 483: 479: 476: 474: 471: 467: 465: 462: 458: 454: 453:Gavin Collins 450: 448: 445: 441: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 421: 418: 413: 411: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 390: 386: 382: 377: 375: 371: 370:contributions 366: 362: 360: 356: 352: 348: 346: 342: 338: 334: 332: 329: 328: 323: 318: 311: 309: 305: 301: 297: 294: 291: 287: 284: 280: 278: 274: 270: 265: 260: 258: 254: 250: 246: 244: 239: 233: 232: 225: 223: 220: 213: 208: 202: 200: 196: 192: 188: 183: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 159: 155: 151: 148: 146: 142: 138: 135: 134: 133: 130: 129: 128: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 97: 86: 84: 83:views section 80: 72: 69: 65: 62: 61: 60: 57: 55: 45: 42: 41: 40: 37: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5354: 5339: 5328: 5312: 5288: 5279:Proposal #10 5251: 5203: 5158:and use the 5065:applies): -- 5060: 4978: 4895: 4856: 4816: 4748: 4715: 4687: 4682: 4611: 4604: 4583: 4569: 4518: 4498: 4480: 4446: 4343: 4312: 4298: 4212: 4190:Harry Potter 4138: 4106: 4073: 3965:undue weight 3927: 3926: 3853: 3784: 3773: 3756: 3740: 3718: 3646: 3632: 3618: 3607: 3583: 3560: 3545: 3487: 3483: 3481: 3377: 3260: 3252: 3248: 3155: 3116: 3056: 3024: 2979: 2942: 2845: 2818:Badger Drink 2779: 2776:per above — 2709:optimal size 2661: 2589: 2583: 2525: 2521: 2510: 2506: 2483: 2463: 2386: 2376: 2361: 2356: 2350: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2335: 2325: 2321: 2310: 2298: 2249: 2243: 2235: 2224: 2200: 2151: 2147: 2139: 2076: 2072: 1924: 1825: 1794: 1662: 1619:Harry Potter 1617: 1529:verifability 1526: 1497: 1486: 1423: 1390: 1347: 1343: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1243: 1187:Ken Arromdee 1118: 1110: 1017:Ken Arromdee 895: 892: 852: 791: 699: 680: 583: 531: 526: 498: 424:Big time. - 381:Ken Arromdee 365:Patar knight 313: 269:Badger Drink 229: 120:no consensus 105: 76: 58: 53: 51: 43: 35: 28: 5270:Proposal #4 5261:Proposal #1 5236:User:Jinnai 5224:User:Hiding 5164:User:Hiding 5137:User:Jinnai 5108:User:Hiding 5097:User:Hiding 5090:User:Hiding 4915:WesleyDodds 4838:WesleyDodds 4800:WesleyDodds 4796:Mister Atom 4755:WesleyDodds 4719:WesleyDodds 4549:WesleyDodds 4251:WesleyDodds 4111:and delete 3898:WesleyDodds 3850:Everything2 2555:Marc Kupper 2490:WesleyDodds 2467:WesleyDodds 2440:WesleyDodds 2406:WesleyDodds 2365:WesleyDodds 2338:productions 2289:WesleyDodds 2271:WesleyDodds 2232:WesleyDodds 2210:WesleyDodds 2152:Users For: 2077:Users For: 1832:than under 1818:This survey 1614:WP:NOT#NEWS 1114:WP:PRESERVE 985:first draft 981:this survey 162:Too true. – 5308:Proposal 1 5296:verifiable 5212:User:Hobit 5189:User:Masem 5148:User:Masem 5143:are needed 5099:: Have an 5067:Cybercobra 5063:WP:POLLING 4896:Notability 4597:Discussion 4438:feasible. 3928:Discussion 3625:notability 3510:WP:Fiction 3303:WP:Fiction 2799:Cybercobra 2034:Skomorokh 286:(contribs) 249:Cybercobra 4958:Asgardian 4900:Asgardian 4821:Asgardian 4782:Asgardian 4735:Asgardian 4653:WP:BEFORE 4485:has been 4408:Ned Scott 4055:Pixelface 4009:Pixelface 3969:ThuranX's 3889:contribs) 3673:Pixelface 3654:Pixelface 3603:this page 3541:Pixelface 3450:contribs) 3369:Ned Scott 3345:KrebMarkt 3007:KrebMarkt 2993:Asgardian 2919:Ned Scott 2700:contains 2642:Proposals 2513:Randomran 2352:Nevermind 2340:, not as 2287:Views by 2225:Comment: 2186:Asgardian 2111:Asgardian 2061:Views by 2045:Asgardian 1902:Asgardian 1838:Pixelface 1798:SmokeyJoe 1774:Asgardian 1752:Ned Scott 1478:Ned Scott 1310:KrebMarkt 1274:Asgardian 1256:Texcarson 1216:Ned Scott 1076:Asgardian 989:Pixelface 971:Lankiveil 881:Views by 839:Asgardian 830:contribs) 804:Texcarson 777:Ned Scott 750:KrebMarkt 512:Asgardian 461:contribs) 444:Ned Scott 407:KrebMarkt 335:Agree -- 94:Views by 5248:See Also 5156:WP:ESSAY 5101:WP:ESSAY 5041:contribs 5009:contribs 4996:User:TTN 4778:Superman 4665:Jclemens 4588:A Nobody 4499:Comment: 4487:proposed 4450:contribs 4440:Casliber 4384:contribs 4282:contribs 4265:A Nobody 4233:Jclemens 4198:Jclemens 3788:contribs 3778:Casliber 3749:A Nobody 3687:A Nobody 3478:Question 3129:Casliber 3120:contribs 3110:Casliber 2983:contribs 2973:Casliber 2909:contribs 2736:Drilnoth 2616:Jclemens 2594:Jclemens 2383:WP:MUSIC 2306:WP:SONGS 2302:WP:SONGS 2250:a little 2018:Jclemens 1918:View by 1866:A Nobody 1788:View by 1667:Drilnoth 1591:Drilnoth 1520:View by 1501:contribs 1491:Casliber 1321:View by 1287:Drilnoth 1247:contribs 1237:Casliber 1151:Drilnoth 1123:Drilnoth 1053:contribs 936:Drilnoth 908:Drilnoth 896:too much 883:Drilnoth 795:contribs 785:Casliber 767:contribs 634:Drilnoth 551:Doczilla 502:contribs 492:Casliber 434:contribs 417:A Nobody 164:Drilnoth 5333:and/or 5331:WF:FICT 5324:WP:FICT 5315:WP:FICT 5182:WP:FICT 5152:WP:FICT 5150:: Make 5130:WP:FICT 5120:WP:NPOV 4857:usually 4515:WP:FICT 4507:WP:FICT 4460:Philcha 4237:Philcha 4217:Protonk 4113:WP:FICT 4086:Philcha 4082:ThuranX 4074:firmly 4027:ThuranX 3912:Protonk 3836:ThuranX 3774:endorse 3761:JoshuaZ 3757:endorse 3741:Endorse 3696:Philcha 3550:in the 3408:ThuranX 3403:WP:FORK 3226:Philcha 3133:Philcha 2928:Locke9k 2887:Cynical 2590:primary 2540:Protonk 2486:be bold 2342:stories 2254:Philcha 2240:Briseis 2184:Agree. 2125:Philcha 2109:Agree. 2063:Zanotam 2043:Agree. 1992:JoshuaZ 1772:Agree. 1724:Philcha 1450:Philcha 1295:Philcha 1268:Agree. 1091:Philcha 865:Protonk 818:WP:FICT 536:Protonk 530:should 395:WP:FICT 191:Philcha 5160:WP:GNG 5141:WP:GNG 5118:, and 5116:WP:NOR 4942:Jinnai 4928:cases. 4881:Jinnai 4774:Batman 4680:keep"? 4635:Hiding 4519:unless 4513:, and 4429:Jinnai 4362:Hiding 4175:Hiding 4157:WP:WAF 4084::-) -- 3995:Nifboy 3961:Nifboy 3822:Nifboy 3526:Jinnai 3355:Hiding 3319:Jinnai 3289:Nifboy 3208:Hiding 3184:Jinnai 3151:Jinnai 3089:Jinnai 3041:Hiding 3020:Hiding 2883:Thrawn 2722:Hiding 2649:Hiding 2421:Hiding 2391:Hiding 2346:That's 1978:Hiding 1875:Hiding 1738:Hiding 1640:Jinnai 1580:Jinnai 1554:WP:NOT 1522:Jinnai 1511:Nifboy 1487:prefer 1464:Hiding 1375:Nifboy 1339:WP:WAF 1291:Hiding 1270:Hiding 1202:Hiding 1031:Hiding 668:Jinnai 607:Hiding 557:STOMP! 403:WP:NOT 290:6 June 288:15:04 217:Jinnai 137:Hiding 96:Hiding 5343:G.A.S 5277:from 5268:from 5259:from 4651:Make 4511:WP:BK 4294:Masem 4125:Hobit 4102:Hobit 3866:Space 3644:did. 3565:, or 3548:steps 2959:Hobit 2858:Space 2757:Masem 2326:never 2245:Iliad 1990:Yes. 1826:broad 1446:Masem 1436:Space 1323:Masem 712:Space 326:Space 295:(GMT) 283:Gwern 187:bites 89:Views 52:This 16:< 5320:WP:N 5302:and 5112:WP:V 5079:talk 5071:talk 5037:talk 5023:talk 5005:talk 4962:talk 4919:talk 4904:talk 4862:WP:N 4842:talk 4825:talk 4804:talk 4786:talk 4776:and 4759:talk 4739:talk 4723:talk 4705:talk 4669:talk 4613:Ched 4605:part 4553:talk 4531:talk 4523:WP:N 4503:WP:N 4464:talk 4444:talk 4398:talk 4380:talk 4345:Ched 4320:ASEM 4305:WP:N 4278:talk 4255:talk 4241:talk 4221:talk 4202:talk 4165:talk 4147:talk 4129:talk 4109:WP:N 4090:talk 4064:talk 4035:talk 4025:Ask 4013:talk 3999:talk 3987:WP:N 3977:talk 3951:talk 3943:here 3939:here 3916:talk 3902:talk 3885:talk 3861:From 3856:Them 3840:talk 3826:talk 3811:talk 3782:talk 3765:talk 3726:talk 3700:talk 3677:talk 3658:talk 3633:does 3629:Here 3621:This 3489:Ched 3466:talk 3446:talk 3426:talk 3412:talk 3384:talk 3334:talk 3293:talk 3280:talk 3230:talk 3199:talk 3137:talk 3114:talk 3058:Ched 2997:talk 2977:talk 2963:talk 2949:talk 2932:talk 2905:talk 2891:talk 2873:talk 2853:From 2848:Them 2836:talk 2822:talk 2803:talk 2781:Ched 2763:ASEM 2686:and 2620:talk 2598:talk 2559:talk 2544:talk 2494:talk 2471:talk 2444:talk 2410:talk 2369:talk 2316:and 2275:talk 2258:talk 2214:talk 2190:talk 2176:talk 2163:talk 2129:talk 2115:talk 2101:talk 2088:talk 2049:talk 2022:talk 2009:talk 1996:talk 1968:talk 1955:talk 1935:talk 1906:talk 1892:talk 1856:talk 1842:talk 1802:talk 1778:talk 1764:talk 1728:talk 1710:talk 1696:talk 1543:and 1495:talk 1454:talk 1431:From 1426:Them 1415:talk 1392:Ched 1379:talk 1353:ASEM 1299:talk 1289:and 1278:talk 1260:talk 1241:talk 1228:talk 1191:talk 1176:talk 1095:talk 1080:talk 1066:talk 1049:talk 1021:talk 1007:talk 993:talk 961:talk 869:talk 857:WP:V 843:talk 826:talk 820:. -- 808:talk 789:talk 763:talk 740:talk 726:talk 707:From 702:Them 682:Ched 624:talk 592:and 577:and 540:talk 516:talk 496:talk 482:talk 457:talk 430:talk 399:WP:N 385:talk 379:add? 355:talk 341:talk 321:From 316:Them 304:talk 293:2009 273:talk 253:talk 231:Ched 195:talk 154:talk 110:and 5154:an 5039:) ( 5019:BOZ 5007:) ( 4817:You 4701:BOZ 4688:Mod 4683:Yob 4382:) ( 4313:how 4280:) ( 3959:To 3379:DGG 3367:-- 2944:DGG 2917:-- 2907:) ( 2832:NVO 2812:--> 2322:not 2172:BOZ 2097:BOZ 1964:BOZ 1750:-- 1692:BOZ 1663:has 1476:-- 1411:NVO 1214:-- 1172:BOZ 1119:All 1051:) ( 957:BOZ 765:) ( 620:BOZ 532:not 432:) ( 401:or 367:- / 300:NVO 150:BOZ 5340:— 5298:, 5128:: 5114:, 5081:) 5043:) 5025:) 5011:) 4964:) 4921:) 4906:) 4844:) 4827:) 4806:) 4788:) 4761:) 4741:) 4725:) 4707:) 4671:) 4619:? 4616:: 4555:) 4533:) 4489:. 4466:) 4452:) 4400:) 4386:) 4351:? 4348:: 4340:— 4327:) 4284:) 4257:) 4243:) 4223:) 4204:) 4167:) 4159:. 4149:) 4131:) 4092:) 4066:) 4037:) 4015:) 4001:) 3979:) 3953:) 3918:) 3904:) 3852:. 3842:) 3828:) 3813:) 3790:) 3767:) 3728:) 3702:) 3679:) 3660:) 3627:. 3495:? 3492:: 3468:) 3428:) 3414:) 3386:) 3343:-- 3336:) 3328:-- 3295:) 3282:) 3232:) 3222:4X 3201:) 3161:. 3139:) 3122:) 3064:? 3061:: 3053:— 3005:-- 2999:) 2985:) 2965:) 2951:) 2934:) 2911:) 2893:) 2875:) 2838:) 2824:) 2816:. 2805:) 2787:? 2784:: 2770:) 2750:) 2746:• 2742:• 2682:, 2622:) 2600:) 2553:-- 2546:) 2496:) 2473:) 2446:) 2412:) 2371:) 2277:) 2260:) 2216:) 2192:) 2178:) 2165:) 2131:) 2117:) 2103:) 2090:) 2051:) 2024:) 2011:) 1998:) 1970:) 1957:) 1937:) 1908:) 1894:) 1858:) 1844:) 1804:) 1796:-- 1780:) 1766:) 1730:) 1712:) 1698:) 1681:) 1677:• 1673:• 1605:) 1601:• 1597:• 1503:) 1456:) 1417:) 1398:? 1395:: 1387:— 1381:) 1360:) 1349:-- 1341:. 1308:-- 1301:) 1280:) 1262:) 1249:) 1230:) 1193:) 1178:) 1165:) 1161:• 1157:• 1137:) 1133:• 1129:• 1097:) 1089:-- 1082:) 1068:) 1055:) 1023:) 1009:) 995:) 963:) 950:) 946:• 942:• 922:) 918:• 914:• 871:) 853:on 845:) 810:) 797:) 769:) 742:) 728:) 688:? 685:: 677:— 648:) 644:• 640:• 626:) 588:, 573:, 542:) 518:) 504:) 484:) 436:) 415:-- 387:) 357:) 343:) 306:) 281:-- 275:) 255:) 247:-- 237:? 234:: 226:— 197:) 178:) 174:• 170:• 156:) 85:. 33:. 5166:) 5077:( 5069:( 5035:( 5021:( 5003:( 4960:( 4936:内 4931:陣 4917:( 4902:( 4875:内 4870:陣 4840:( 4823:( 4802:( 4784:( 4757:( 4737:( 4721:( 4703:( 4667:( 4639:T 4551:( 4529:( 4462:( 4447:· 4442:( 4423:内 4418:陣 4396:( 4378:( 4366:T 4325:t 4323:( 4318:M 4276:( 4253:( 4239:( 4219:( 4200:( 4179:T 4163:( 4145:( 4127:( 4088:( 4062:( 4033:( 4011:( 3997:( 3975:( 3949:( 3914:( 3900:( 3887:| 3883:( 3838:( 3824:( 3809:( 3785:· 3780:( 3763:( 3724:( 3698:( 3675:( 3656:( 3520:内 3515:陣 3464:( 3448:| 3444:( 3424:( 3410:( 3382:( 3359:T 3332:( 3313:内 3308:陣 3291:( 3278:( 3228:( 3212:T 3197:( 3178:内 3173:陣 3135:( 3117:· 3112:( 3083:内 3078:陣 3045:T 2995:( 2980:· 2975:( 2961:( 2947:( 2930:( 2903:( 2889:( 2871:( 2834:( 2820:( 2801:( 2768:t 2766:( 2761:M 2748:L 2744:C 2740:T 2738:( 2726:T 2711:; 2697:; 2690:; 2618:( 2596:( 2557:| 2542:( 2492:( 2469:( 2442:( 2425:T 2408:( 2395:T 2367:( 2273:( 2256:( 2212:( 2188:( 2174:( 2161:( 2127:( 2113:( 2099:( 2086:( 2047:( 2020:( 2007:( 1994:( 1982:T 1966:( 1953:( 1933:( 1904:( 1890:( 1879:T 1854:( 1840:( 1800:( 1776:( 1762:( 1742:T 1726:( 1708:( 1694:( 1679:L 1675:C 1671:T 1669:( 1634:内 1629:陣 1603:L 1599:C 1595:T 1593:( 1574:内 1569:陣 1513:. 1498:· 1493:( 1468:T 1452:( 1413:( 1377:( 1358:t 1356:( 1351:M 1297:( 1276:( 1258:( 1244:· 1239:( 1226:( 1206:T 1189:( 1174:( 1163:L 1159:C 1155:T 1153:( 1149:– 1135:L 1131:C 1127:T 1125:( 1093:( 1078:( 1064:( 1047:( 1035:T 1019:( 1005:( 991:( 976:. 959:( 948:L 944:C 940:T 938:( 920:L 916:C 912:T 910:( 867:( 841:( 828:| 824:( 806:( 792:· 787:( 761:( 738:( 724:( 662:内 657:陣 646:L 642:C 638:T 636:( 622:( 611:T 538:( 514:( 499:· 494:( 480:( 459:| 455:( 428:( 383:( 353:( 339:( 302:( 271:( 251:( 211:内 206:陣 193:( 176:L 172:C 168:T 166:( 152:( 141:T

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

Knowledge

:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction - Knowledge

Index