User talk:G.A.S/Archive 3

The following has been moved here from the talk page on 12 March 2008.

WAF
I don't think this has consensus. I decided not to revert, but I notified several regular contributors to WT:WAF so that we can establish consensus on this. — [&#8239;aldebaer&#8288;] 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was just being bold. Discussions have the bad habit of not getting anywhere if discussion stops for a while. But we should really work towards getting a lead that embodies the main points of the page. G.A.S 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrt to your idea of writing a content- rather than style-related guideline for fiction-related articles: WP:WAF is a Wikipedia how-to. Succinct plot summaries are not inappropriate content, they just shouldn't make up the major part of the article. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How-to
 * I meant this comment, where you said "There might yet be use in creating a proper content guideline for fiction; rather than trying to put the content into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Content such as WP:NOT#PLOT would be right at home in such a guideline." I believe I understand where my misunderstanding came into play: I thought you meant to say that a content guideline should tell people not to include plot summaries, when in fact you were saying that style issues should be seperated from content issues as far as guidelines go (right?). Assuming I'm not mistaken, I acknowledge that opinion but I think seperating the two would really be overdoing it.
 * Practically all content rules apply to all articles, and writing an article as a mere plot summary is (for notable topics) not a content-related question by means of totally inappropriate content so much as an issue of style or basic editorial judgement. Incidentally, I think that's what WP:NOT really is about: Some very basic notions of what should and shouldn't be. The title "What Wikipedia is not" includes the meaning: "...and what we wouldn't want it to be." At any rate, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there's common ground. You see, the reason I reverted your recent edits to WAF was not because I think the current version is anywhere near perfect, it was more because the change was quite extensive and arguably suboptimal, and too boldly instated. I do however agree that expanding the intro to clarify upon common interests may be a good idea, i.e. telling users that WAF's goal is not to spoil the party, but to be a guide to better coverage of fiction-related topics.
 * Also, a section explaining the basic aspects of policy (NPOV, NOR, V) with particular regard to fiction articles could replace the bulleted Conclusions. (That's also to say that in my opinion, capitalised policy shortcuts should be avoided in the intro.)
 * And finally, a paragraph involving WP:NOT#PLOT (what to write) could do the guideline good.
 * Incidentally, I think the other regulars at WT:WAF are also available for a good discussion about a proposed rejuvenation of the guideline. The input from those guys has never disappointed as long as I've been there.
 * So, how about jointly proposing those changes at WT:WAF? We should however be ready to arrange with diverging ideas and wait for true consensus until instating any of it. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not start with your edits and our above exchange as the basis, work out something we both think would make a good addition to WAF, then post it at WT:WAF and let others weigh in. I believe we already have together the ingredients (though experience tells me that this is subject to change over the course of writing), so it's more a matter of structure and formulation. Let me finish the stub article I'm currently preparing, then I'll get to work on it (today/tomorrow). — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

'Completed' drafts
 Current version of the sections in question intro

Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fictional worlds and elements from them. Like with all Wikipedia articles, a fictional topic's notability has to be established by and including reliable secondary sources. Once this is done, the approach to writing about these subjects is the most important consideration to make. Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative.

Conclusions

When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind:
 * The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real world perspective;
 * Both primary and secondary information are necessary for a real world perspective: maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources;
 * Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research;
 * All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources;
 * All relevant aspects must be given due weight in all elements of the article page, including text, images, elements of layout and even the article title: give weight where weight is due;
 * Readability and comprehensibility: put all information in the context of the original fiction;
 * Wikipedia's fair-use policy: the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.

 Your initial proposal nutshell


 * Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.
 * All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article.
 * There should be a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources, and all information should be put context of the original fiction.
 * As little as possible copyrighted work should be used in articles about fiction.

intro

Wikipedia covers numerous subjects, including works of fiction: Articles range from ancient mythological epics such as Beowulf and The Ramayana, to literary classics like Les Misérables, to recently published phenomena such as Harry Potter and The Simpsons. Information about fiction falls into two broad categories: facts about the work of fiction itself, such as its authorship, publication, critical reception, and influence are termed out-of-universe information while information about the plot and concepts that are described within the work is often referred to as in-universe information.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information about subjects notable within the real world, and is not a collection of plot summaries or an encyclopedia of fictional universes. However, since understanding an article on a work of fiction requires the reader know what the work is about, articles on works of fiction can and should include information about the elements within the work — All information should be provided in the context of the original fictional work. Articles should discuss fictional subjects such as characters, objects, events, or locations, from the real world's perspective and maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources: Both primary and secondary information are necessary for a real world perspective.

The verifiability of in universe information is generally easy to ensure, as it comes from a reliable source, the series itself. This information should be supplemented by out-of-universe sources. Care should be taken to avoid original research or synthesis to advance a position. Information need to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article. Articles about fiction should give due weight in all elements of the article page, including text, images, elements of layout and even the article title. Editors should note that according to Wikipedia's fair-use policy the amount of copyrighted work should be used as little as possible.  Final draft intro

Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds and elements from them.

When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

Next, if the subject warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, editors should consider what to write and how to write about the subject. Because these questions are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should address both these questions simultaneously in order to create a well written article.

To avoid any confusion: This is page is not policy, it merely summarizes aspects of policy with particular regard to writing about fiction and should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is in the best interest of the article you're writing or editing.

related discussions
 * Re Intro: I believe that we should use words like firstly, secondly, thirdly to convey the order of decisions that the guideline will provide guidance on. G.A.S 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better! Can you think of a better name for the policy-related issues section? Not sure how to best title this. Maybe "Relevant aspects of policy" or something along those lines?
 * Sorry, I fucked up the edit summaries. But you can see I slightly revised the first sentence. I always thought that "fictional topic/subject" doesn't quite catch the entire scope of either FICT or WAF, since a work of fiction is not fictional. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmn. After seeing this, I got second thoughts whether merging FICT into WAF wouldn't be beneficial after all. This section on WP:EPISODE says pretty much everything that's necessary wrt to notability (and I like the title, too). But first things first, so let me get home from work later today then we'll give the intro and policy sections a final polish and finally put them up for discussion at WT:WAF. — aldebaer⁠ 06:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please change it, I am unsure which version you mean. G.A.S
 * I meant "For the following, we will assume that sufficient real-world notability has been established...", but I'm not married to the wording at all.
 * In my opinion "we will assume..." is not very guideline-like, which is why I changed it. But since we will probably mention notability first, and it should be considered before an article is created, this wording made sense. Comment? Can we somehow say the same with better wording? G.A.S
 * Yeah, my version wasn't very well-worded. I tried a preliminary "As with all..."
 * I am not quite sure of that — although it is a guideline, it is not always done in practice. How about "like all..." But "secondly" does not quite work without "firstly"; any ideas? (Next?) G.A.S 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tried another mild reword. Apply any further changes, then let's head off to WT:WAF with it. I'm curious to learn what the other folks think. — aldebaer⁠
 * Agreed, the wording is good. Signing off for now. G.A.S 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be on more or less all day today, would you drop me a note when you're on? — aldebaer⁠ 10:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Would you like to co-sign? The wording suggests it... — aldebaer⁠ 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro has been updated with the "final" version as accepted for WAF. If needed it can be updated again. G.A.S 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Distinction—We already mentioned notability, we do not need to mention it twice in the lead. G.A.S 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. — aldebaer⁠ —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * in the article that verify the subject's notability — Independent, secondary sources The sentence was getting a bit long. I also believe that it is redundant since we are telling the reader to add secondary sources. I believe that the mere fact of including (independent) secondary sources is proof of notability. This would otherwise be interpreted as having to find a secondary source that literally say "X is notable". We should be really careful not to make the intro too long. G.A.S 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. — aldebaer⁠


 * Real world context—I believe we should include this a bit later; maybe in the what to write part? What do you think? G.A.S 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. — aldebaer⁠ To extend a bit: I would mention it at least once early on, since I think it's a major point in the guideline. In the current version, the point's pretty much covered in "Articles [...] should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." OTOH, (y)our "this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." accomplishes the same in my opinion, and I like the FA link. (Btw: I realise now that the tone of my original rewrite was far too forbidding. I was afraid that people are encyclopedia-wise too careless with their favourite topics. But fronting them with capitalised policy short-cuts or the buzz-word notability et.al isn't going to accomplish much, so kudos to you for including that link. Incidentally, I'm fond of my rewordings "When an article is created ..." and "Next, if the subject warrants inclusion in Wikipedia ..." — but I believe you know what I mean: We should work with positive incentives as far as possible. After all, our primary common interest is better articles on fiction-related subjects - and people should know that and should be given friendly advice that the guideline is there to assist them in giving the subject the best possble treatment.) — aldebaer⁠


 * Link to WP:Episode—we can provide this with See Also in the section, or in the "See Also" section. G.A.S 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. — aldebaer⁠


 * Thanks, I got the idea from Neutral point of view's lead. G.A.S 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds and elements from them.

When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

Next, if the subject warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, editors should consider what to write about a subject, and how to best present that information. Because these questions are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should address both these questions simultaneously in order to create a well written article.

Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics.

Policy-related issues
(please indulge the idiotic working title) Editors should remember that each and every step of improving an article – and Wikipedia – can only happen in accordance with policy, both its wording and its spirit (rare and unavoidable exceptions notwithstanding).


 * WP:ATT / WP:RS / WP:CS:All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article.


 * WP:NPOV:To provide fair coverage without bias of fiction-related subjects on Wikipedia, editors should take the spirit of NPOV very seriously; and even consider NPOV beyond current formulated policy: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.


 * WP:NOT:summary of the spirit of WP:NOT, and explanation as to encyclopedic accuracy, reliability, etc.


 * WP:NOR:Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia.


 * Fair use criteria:The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.

Content
(Some sort of a lead paragraph regarding content should come here)

Primary and secondary sources
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you.

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of the content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways.

When writing about fiction, editors should include material from both primary and secondary sources. The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to give the article a real world perspective; not more and not less. Primary information should be *Refer to comment*.


 * Primary sources: Primary sources are documents very close to the situation being written about. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.
 * An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.


 * Secondary sources: Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A reviewer's story about a fictional work is a secondary source, assuming the reviewer was not personally involved with the fictional work. A reviewer's interpretation or analysis of the fictional work, is a secondary source. If the topic is notable, secondary sources should be available and its information should be provided in the article. Editors should note that publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources.

Notes and examples
I came looking on your talk-page, GAS, on the hunt for more proposed ammendments to WP:WAF like the excellent one that's currently under consideration. Lo and behold I see a complete rewrite forming before my eyes! The skeleton layout above is excellent. I essentially would like to know if there's any way I can help with what looks like a promising proposal. Is there a full draft taking shape anywhere? Happy‑melon 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, let's do it. — Dorf⁠ 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've instated the new intro. As for continuing the work, I'd personally prefer to keep working on it step by step. I.e. let's continue with the policy-related and notability-related sections per above. My hope is that during the process of writing and proposing section for section, the structure ("skeleton") of the guideline will gradually fall in line by itself. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can continue working here. I will archive old sections as required. G.A.S 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Policies
I believe that we should not bombard the editor with all of the policies at once: we should, in time, give them in manageble sections. That is why I created the layout and recommended that only the applicable policies be provided each time. For now it will be fine to give them at once, though. So, to answer the original question: WP:NOT#PLOT should probably be given right after Once this is done, what to write and how to write about the subject are the most important considerations to make. and/or before Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Regards, G.A.S 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrt policy explanations: Yeah, those are the basic alternatives we have. Me, I'd rather go with a comprehensive section on policy aspects. Those need to be mentioned in each of the other sections anyway, and I like the idea of taking away the forbidding tone many associate with policy by explaining how following each of the aforementioned policies, and aspects of policies, will indeed help them in creating a better article. That's the basic idea I had in mind. I know what you mean by placing those policy aspects within the respective section, but after all every one of those aspects has to be followed along with every edit anyway. Incidentally, that's precisely the point where I left off with my rewrite (=more or less the current version): I tried to communicate the notion that there are different aspects of writing about fiction (each deserving thorough examination and explanation) and that at the same time those aspects are to be seen as one. It's basically what I tried to formulate in my proposed intro. —This comment by AldeBaer  21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC) was moved here for organizational reasons.
 * What is the intention of the "policy-related" section, exactly? Is it going to be a list of extracts from policies (like the current intro of WP:FICT)??  Is it to 'justify' the guidelines set out later in the text?  Happy‑melon 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the idea of the policies section will be to explain why it is beneficial to the article if they are followed. G.A.S 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding policies: I still believe this should rather be integrated into the respective sections due to the fact that we can better expand on them/explain them, without giving them undue weight (Meaning; this guideline is to help improve articles' quality, not to be a policy repository). We should then also be able to present one section at a time to WT:FICT without having to worry about the policy section, should it need updating. Let us also make the first paragraph of the applicable section the policy summary. That way we can move the policy sections later, should we deem it necessary. Comment? G.A.S 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Images & infoboxes
Infoboxes and pictures: In order to keep an out of universe perspective, descriptions of pictures should read something like :
 * character as portrayed by actor in work of fiction.
 * (animation/cartoons/comics), character as drawn(?) by artist in media.
 * character as seen in media.
 * G.A.S 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good point, I like it already. — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevant Guidelines for this are Captions and Alternative text for images. Non-free content criteria – #8. Significance – determines that an image has to be significant (i.e. not just decorative), as such I believe that a caption is needed as WP:CAP – Not every Wikipedia image needs a caption: some are simply decorative – does not apply — as such captions are needed for pictures. I am currently unsure what we need to say, but I believe the above examples are a good starting point. G.A.S 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd advocate "actor as character in work of fiction", with work of fiction expressed as (eg) "Lord of the Rings" rather than "Lord of the Rings (film)". Would this be a part of "Contextual presentation"?  Some comments might also be necessary in "Fair use".  Happy‑melon 10:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An example (with extended information) of this would be Ian McKellen as Gandalf the White in Peter Jackson's live-action film version of The Return of the King. G.A.S 11:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the most applicable part for this would be a separate section (under "presentation") rather than fragmented sections. G.A.S 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Subsuming "Fair use"? There seems to be very little information that would not transfer easily to a "Presentation/Images and infoboxes" section.  How's that for a title?  Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, although for this part we do not even need to mention fair use; following it is a natural consequence of following the guideline. G.A.S 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I.e. that is my motivation for requiring captions; but we need not bother the editor with it. Similiarly are the other policies I indicated above - they are to help us write this part, but we need not bother the editor with it (Not even as see also). G.A.S 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ←I'd have thought that the section dealing with images would have to say something about fair use, along the lines of "Many images which might be used to illustrate a fictional topic are drawn from copyrighted media. Per Wikipedia's fair-use policy, images such as these should be used infrequently in articles, and only to support specific points of the text.  For articles on fictional topics, an acceptable level of use is normally restricted to a single image in the top-right corner of the article, often in an infobox.  If the article is substantial, and additional images would support the description of a development, incident or other event, additional fair-use images may be appropriate.  For example BLAH BLAH BLAH.  Free images may of course be included in articles on fictional topics when- and wherever they are appropriate."  What do you think? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will think about it for a bit; but it is getting dangerously close to being prescriptive. Maybe we can work that as an example into the fair use section instead (as that is more appropriate there, and less to do with keeping an OOU perspective). Maybe we should first work out the "policies" section in the meanwhile; as I am sure the drafting the above will be easier when the policies/"starting blocks" are in place. G.A.S 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to subarticles
One thing that I have noticed, and this may very well be due to lack of guidence, is that in fiction related articles, section headings or titles are often used to link to subarticles. Related to this is that lists exist for "minor" content and that these omit main content (For example: characters). The way I understand WP:SS, is that in such a case:
 * main should be used, instead of linking section headings or titles.
 * The main article should cover the most important points only and includes "Main article: List" to link to the list; Lists should include all of the content and include "Main Article: Character" to link to individual articles (If applicable).
 * The list may not be required in some cases, such as when the space available in the main article is sufficient.

Comment?

Regards, G.A.S 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like points 1 and 3; not sure about #2. Remember that the "main article" is likely to be, say, "Wooble (1835 film)", which might (although it wouldnt' be encouraged) have a "List of characters in Wooble", "List of locations in Wooble", "List of man-eating plants in Wooble", etc etc.  Of course the more ridiculous the list, the more likely it is to be deleted, but it seems unnecessary to have a section in the Wooble (1835 film) article entitled "Man-eating plants" just so we can have a place to put a main tag.  In this instance (ie linking to a list) I would place the link in the "See also" section.  In linking from a list to individual pages, main is best.  <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember undefined does not have to name the article the same as its actual name, for instance
 * I refer to this example:
 * [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] Metal Gear Solid
 * [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] List of Metal Gear Solid characters (also a section in Metal Gear Solid)
 * Solid Snake (also a section in List of Metal Gear Solid characters)
 * Solid Snake is an article that was* a section of List of Metal Gear Solid characters which in turn was* a section of Metal Gear Solid. *: Assuming WP:SS was followed. As such Metal Gear Solid has the main tag for List of Metal Gear Solid characters and List of Metal Gear Solid characters has the main tag for Solid Snake. There is no main tag for Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid, but this is because he does not have a section in the article.
 * In short: If sections are broken off to sub-articles due to length reasons, it should be linked with main, not with "title links" (Refer to this example).
 * Comment?
 * G.A.S 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that all seems right. What I meant was that if, for whatever reason, there was no "Characters" section in Metal Gear Solid, it should be equally acceptable to list "List of Metal Gear Solid characters" in the "See Also" section.  In fact, however, this is a violation of WP:SS, so should not be allowed.  I think that those three articles are an excellent example - shame Solid Snake failed its FAC, or we'd have a full chain of fictional articles to use as an example.  Perhaps there's a Star Wars character list that could link Padme Amidala to The Phantom Menace (both of which are FA, IIRC) for another example chain.  <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding primary and secondary information
I have copied the current wording from the guideline, and will make some early edits, please comment on them. G.A.S 12:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording of primary and secondary information to agree with WP:NOR, being primary and secondary sources. I do not understand why the term primary and secondary information was coined, as I have not actually seen these terms in use anywhere. G.A.S 12:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Reviewer" x2: I need a better word for either of them. In WP:NOR they used historian and journalist, but in this case it is not applicable. G.A.S 12:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding unfinished sentence: The idea I want to convey is that primary information is needed to provide context for the out of universe info, as well as to provide a summary thereof (but not to go into detail). G.A.S 13:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding notes and examples

 * I have split the examples from the rest of the wording to create a better flow within the section, and to "de-listify" the guideline. Comment? G.A.S 12:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep
Regardless of Ned Scott's motives, it's clear that support exists for deletion. Generally, what that speedy keep rationale is used for is, for example, when it's obvious that the article in question is not a candidate for deletion, and that the nomination was vandalism or disruption. If a vandal or troll nominates an article for AfD, but it turns out that there really is a significant degree of support for deletion of it, speedy keep is not appropriate. So, regardless of what Ned Scott's motives were or were not, a speedy keep would not be applicable at this point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Hi. I've been giving this issue more thought, and I realised that what we really need is a guideline governing the creation of notability guidelines. I have therefore created a guideline proposal at Notability sub-pages, and I would be grateful for any input people can provide. Please post comments, etc, on the proposal's talk page. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 14:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

quick note
Just a quick note that I'm going to be very busy at least until the weekend. I'll try to join in then. — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem... me too. G.A.S 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for not being available like I promised. I still have hope I can take a close look and comment tonight. However, I mostly won't be on WP for at least another week. So if you prefer to go ahead with it, I could fully understand that. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)