Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 19

message: In the current WT:EPISODE debate (which, for obvious reasons, I'm holding off pushing FICT forward until that's settled), it was suggested that a new redirection template for episodes be created as this helps to ID what episodes have been merged and for tracking of such merges.   is the new template for this.
I am going to suggest that we create a similar one for fictional elements, and name it "FER to list entry" for the cases of merging non-notable characters and elements into an acceptable non-notable summary style sub-article list.  (FE being short for "fictional element").  Technically, this would be a special case of  or , and categorially-wise, we'd make sure this was a sub-cat.  We could also add sub-cats ("fictional characters" , "fictional settings" ,etc) but that may be excessive  Thus, if you do redirect characters, using this as part of the redirect reason will help track those aspects. --MASEM 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe two more, one specifically for characters  (which are probably done as often, if not more so, than episodes since its also done with films, books, etc).  Then one more for other fictional elements. Then, of course, make sure the applicable projects know about such goodies.  I already put it up on the TV project :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The middle earth and comics projects already have templates for this. Hiding T  13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New redirection template 

message: User:Masem/wp-fict-proposed restates the nutshell to make it more clear that sub-articles are appropriate (I know this was a concern of someone and I can't remember who...) --MASEM 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that was me--at least I was one of them. At this point, I think we should revisit section 3, which I am not sure represents the current consensus about single episodes, and what is necessary to show their individual notability, though I am not yet sure how to reword it. I do think that the final sentence ought to be not just "relative to the length of the original work", but "relative to the length and importance..." That something is long, doesnt mean its worth discussing in detail (and v.v.). DGG (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: length and sourced coverage of the work?  Mind you, when I wrote that sentence , I was thinking of the "100 words per 10 minute" concept used by TV and Films, but I see where it may be appropriate to add in other notability considerations other projects have. --MASEM 07:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, what's the latest guideline and its difference from the previous guideline? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For goodness sake, click on the link above for the newest guideline.  For the diff between the current guideline and this proposal, open both in two different windows and compare them.  In a nutshell, they are completely different.  While it still assumes that WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOTE have not moved, it does give more guidance regarding what is considered a RS and suggestions regarding where to find them.  However, you need to do the work of comparing yourself.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight revision in draft 

message: It's regularly stated that fancruft is a serious danger to Wikipedia, accompanied by lurid anecdotes about fictional minutae growing out of control. But compared to, say, gossip on living people, unsourced medical articles or nationalist tub-thumping, fancruft is never going to hurt anyone. In fact, compared to almost any real-world topic, fancruft is pretty harmless. Nor is it especially common or pernicious. The belief that it is a problem is probably a result of the editing and viewing patterns of the fiction deletionists.
There's an Internet subculture devoted to mocking of over-zealous fans as typified by sites like Something Awful. I suspect that our fiction deletionists are more stung by criticism from them than is really warranted.--Nydas(Talk) 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That essay doesn't discuss or justify the danger or scale of fancruft, described as the 'crapflood' above.--Nydas(Talk) 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're right, it doesn't.  Funny that, isn't it. But that essay has existed a long long time, and represents the thinking of a lot of Wikipedians and covers most arguments. It could probably be worth a see also link in this guidance. Hiding T  23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *It's a darn fine rant. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Ii think he's looking to understand why those opinions are held.  I know I am.  Hobit (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Exactly. Since objective facts about the 'threat' of fancruft is lacking, it's only natural to seek other explanations.--Nydas(Talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'danger' of fancruft 

message: I have a little proposal here. Since too many articles on various fiction franchises appear to be created in an effort to mirror the fictional universe itself rather than the real-world franchise, I think it is important to educate editors that this is encyclopedically inaccptable. This notability guideline is the very place for it. User:Dorftrottel 04:39, January 30, 2008
*Actually, that's what WP:WAF is for and does. Hiding T  10:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal by Dorftrottel 

message: Although I've been following the discussion at the WP:EPISODE, I actually came here from the Village Pump notice.  I really like the new proposed guideline, and I am happy that it stresses significant coverage in reliable sources.  The only thing I think I would change is to make Be Bold and fix the article number one on the list of options instead of two.  Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problems with the new guideline, except that I believe that deletion should be after the consideration of merging, and I believe transwiki should always be a major consideration of deletion discussions.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: another point: "Normally, these fictional elements are described as part of the plot within the main article for the fictional work and do not need to demonstrate notability on their own." This is not "normally," this is for relative small articles. The ones that actually concern us most and cause the most discussion are the large ones, and this does not take account of the discussion below.  And I wouldnt evev say characters should necessarily be discussed "within" the plot. this is getting into MOS questions.  I think it should read simply: : "Normally, these fictional elements are described as part of the article or group of articles  for the fictional work and do not need to demonstrate notability on their own." DGG (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I wish to thank everyone for their contributions to the new guideline. Well done, you have my support. G.A.S  05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for new guideline 

message: Does this guideline also want to link to the Wikiproject Anime and Manga guidelines on character articles as well? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit too little about notability of characters, but I would think that WP:MOS-AM would be good to include on WP:WAF (MOS for fiction works) as a See Also. --MASEM 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that depends on one's view of the see also section. In the past I've just seen them as "of interest to the reader" or "would likely be looking for as well", and would put whatever was related. But I can see limiting it to keep the section from getting huge. *shrug* I could go either way. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: What happened to the notice board? Hiding T  11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to create it?  :-)  (I took out the mention of it in the version as I didn't want people trying to use something that didn't exist yet, but we should now go ahead and get that going.) --MASEM 12:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First stab at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, I based the format on the Fringe theories one. Hiding T  15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Modified a bit of the text and added where we should fit in to the process, but awesome. --MASEM 16:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this noticeboard. It's another layer of bureaucracy and will contribute to the hysteria which surrounds the notability of fiction.--Nydas(Talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith.  It is meant to help smooth out issues with fiction and notability, not to create any new rules, nor a required step in content disputes.--MASEM 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to the bureaucratic mire always seems like a good idea. Taking the fringe  theories noticeboard as the basis legitimises that view that fancruft is a profound problem, rather than a trifling one.--Nydas(Talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith.  Taking the fringe theories noticeboard as the basis means I copied the format of that noticeboard.  Specifically, they transcluded the header in, so I did, I copied what templates were on that page and I copied the categories and other format issues.  I hope that addresses your concerns which I personally take exception too. Hiding T  13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Er, I think it's fair to say that that is covered under the board's theme.  I see nothing wrong with offering advice as to how to improve non-notable fiction-related articles, or any content questions regarding fiction-based articles as part of a dispute-related process.  Even if this FICT is rejected, I think the noticeboard should stay for the same purpose.  --MASEM 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that this should be an option for those cases, I just don't want to make it a requirement that any time someone wants to redirect an episode, for example, that they aren't required to post at the noticeboard first. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree - I actually added text that local consensus should be sought first; the board should not be the first place if you want to do something to an article.  --MASEM 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the noticeboard would be a good idea--they really do work in the other places they are being used, PW:RS  in particular. . Centralizing discussions is a way to avoid bureaucracy and encourage ordinary interest WP editors to participate fully. DGG (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit reluctant on the idea only because it does seem like another talk page to watch, but I'm all for giving it a try. Lets see where it goes. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice board 

message: Should MacGuffins (in general, not the specific article dealing with what it is) get their own articles, as a subpage summary of whatever the series is? What about important series concepts, like Mutant (Marvel Comics), detailing what makes a character be mutant in X-Men etc.?  -Malkinann (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about MacGuffins? 

message: Characters like Hermione and Leontes from The Winter's Tale have not had much "real-world" notability, even though they are in a lesser-known play by Shakespeare. All their notability is "in-universe", being major characters. Yet the CD version of the 1998 Britannica, a "real" encyclopedia, has articles about them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, not knowing how they present it on the CD (how much detail, what references, or the like), I would assume that given these are Shakespeare characters that there's probably some academic works that support it (the real-world notability or in this case, analysis and synthesis and critical review per secondary sources) that is needed) in addition to the general analyses of Shakespeare plays that exist.  --MASEM 07:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Masem said, there's a lot of research and analysis for pretty much all of Shakespeare's major characters (and many of the minor characters). Shakespeare's works, and the elements within them, are often considered ground-breaking, and have impacted and inspired other writers for years. It might be as notable as some of his other works, but even The Winter's Tale has been the subject of great discussion in history. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not understanding your point, so perhaps you could restate it.  Either there are sources which cover Hermione and Leontes or there are not.  You seem to be saying both. Hiding T  13:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On real-world notability and real encyclopedias 

message: Sorry. Just saw this gem and thought I'd throw it into the conversation as an ideal example of this problem:
Talk:X#Anime?
X needs more anime.
Ideas of anime\fan material\spam we could add:
*X (manga)
*Star Ocean EX
*Megaman X
*Animex
*Animeplanetx
*X-Men (also Professor X)
*X-Factor
*XxxHolic
*Chemical X (from the Powerpuff Girls, awesome cartoon)
*ÉX-Driver
*Deus Ex
*Pokemon X
*Gundam X
*Dragonball Z (Z isn't the same letter as X, but they're close enough, besides it's 2tally teh kewl)
*Final Fantasy X
*RahXephon
*Romeo x Juliet
*Sonic X
*Xbox
*B't X
*Speed Racer X
*Samurai X
*JetX Airlines
*Gloizer X
*Big X
We could also maybe make a list, like List of things containing the letter X
/sarcasm
Seriously, folks. Stop stonewalling. This policy needs to get  through and if it doesn't, it won't just make Wikipedia a bad resource of information, but it would also lead to copyvio. And when Wikipedia gets sued, every user here who voted "no, keep fan mat, i like it, its good, its useful, its interesting" should receive a portion of Wikimedia's legal bills, proportional to their democratic authority on Wikipedia policy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised version is now up (though marked disputed), and there's been a few live edits but certainly not enough time to determine if there's major opposition for it or not yet. --MASEM 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I honestly can't figure out what you're complaining about.  The link to Talk:X#Anime? only has one person posing a question about a series they heard about called X.  They might be off a bit and should have asked it at X (disambiguation) instead, but it's not a faulty question to ask.  It also has absolutely nothing to do with this guideline. Torc2 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Adding all that stuff to X (disambiguation) is already forbidden by WP:DAB.  This guideline, again, has nothing to do with it.  I also don't see anybody besides you suggesting we add any of it. Torc2 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all sure what you are talking about, or how it relates to this article.  Perhaps you should explicitly state what "this problem" is, or "the point I'm trying to make" instead of alluding to it.  Plotcruft and copyright violations are two entirely separate things.  No one here is arguing that we should keep copywrited material in fictional articles.  -Verdatum (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There was nothing wrong with the Back to the Future timeline article.  The AfD results were correct.  Everything in it is descriptive (thus no OR), and there is no copyright violation.  There is no reason for Wikipedia to fear any from this article.  The article on X doesn't need to mention anything aside from details about the letter 'X' itself; however, X (disambiguation) sure should.  I still don't know where you got your list.  Did you just make it up?  It sounds more like you want the rules to change because other editors don't think like you.Torc2 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, why the need to bite the newcomers? -Verdatum (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about?  What on that list doesn't belong, aside from the math links, half the science links, and the radio stations?  Arguably Mega Man X, but the rest are totally valid.  There isn't any "cruft" on that list whatsoever. Torc2 (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Pop culture can be encyclopedic. Only one of those radio station names seemed to be stretching it. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the radio station section altogether, since I think it's very unlikely anyone will look for them in that way, but I don't see it as a problem either. Mega Man X (character) might need to be removed. Other than that... this is a disambig page listing articles that are X (something) or The X or something very similar. That is the point of a disambig page, to list those pages. If you don't think they should be listed then maybe some of the articles should be taken to AfD. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Now I've got a good feel what Zenwhat's complaint is about... and, while I'm all for notability, I'm not sure if I agree with what Zen's talking about.  Ok, X (disambiguation) may have a few pop culture topics in it, but most of these are works, not characters, and works are likely to be notable.  So ignoring those, there are three characters on there:  X (Marvel Comics), X (Metroid enemy) and Mega Man X (character).  Now, I'm not sure if any of these separate articles (the first is very iffy, the second is already redirected, and the third is borderline edging on being undue weight).  Let's assume they aren't and the page contents are merged into lists somewhere.  I see no problem in keeping these links (or the correct redirection) on the Disamb page because each of them is still a possible result if someone were to search on the term "X".  (as noted on the Mega Man X , the character is sometimes simply referred to as "X", so someone may try to search on that).  In other words, even if merged from non-notable pages into an appropriate main topic or subarticle that we're suggesting we allow, the disambiguition pages should still provide the links to those merged topics.  Yes, "X (Metroid enemy)" is likely not what 99.9% of the readers searching on X will be looking for, but there is that 1% that might be looking for it.  Basically, as long as they are complete appropriate on the disamb page, I see no reason why the disambig page cannot contain the links for non-notable fictional topics.  --MASEM 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Pop culture, whether you like it or not, is the dominant culture of our age.  The amount of it on Wikipedia is appropriately reflective of its importance and relevance to the general populace.  If anything, given Wikipedia's intellectual slant and pro-academic, anti-populist policies, it's underrepresented.  What seems trivial to you is not trivial to a good chunk of the population, and therefore is not trivial at all. Torc2 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article on [[X]] needs more anime\fan material\spam 

message: Nydas took out the following, I've added it back in with one change: The depth of coverage should also be appropriate for the size or length of the work in addition to notable information.  A singular work of fiction (such as a single movie, a book, or video game) will likely not require sub-articles to describe parts, instead covering these details in the main article.   On the other hand, a book, TV, or video game series may benefit by having a few common fictional element lists that can help to provide suitable background and supplementary information for each work within the series.  (the "will likely not" was changed from "should rarely").  Nydas cited this as not needed as too many exceptions to the rule.  
I have reverted this with the edit to make it less bitey.  One-shot works should typically not need a completely separate character list, but we should not prevent it, just offer guidance against it.  --MASEM 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do standalone works typically not need character lists? An important standalone work will definitely merit character articles, whilst a unimportant serial work may not. Serial or standalone shouldn't come into it at all.--Nydas(Talk) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement should be taken as advice, not so much a rule (which is why it was made less bitey).  Characters lists for single-shot works can and do exist, but these are not the majority.  Newer editors may take the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and try to create similar lists for less significant one-shot works, seeing such a list for a different show, but we should guide them that this is generally a uncommon, but allowable, case, so care should be taken before creating such.  --MASEM 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're assuming that the 'majority' in Wikipedia is representative of the real world. I think it might be, but the impact is so slight that it should not be mentioned at all.--Nydas(Talk) 09:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-removed it. This awkward rule of thumb needs a stronger justification than 'majority' or the theoretical behaviour of new editors. The 'series = notable' attitude is not one we should be supporting in any way, lest we discourage people creating articles on Captain Ahab, etc.--Nydas(Talk) 08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-reverted the changes.  I think we need more discussion.  Your changes made this guideline less readable.  Perhaps you could put a proposed revision here so we can work on it.  Besides, we may need to wait until ArbCom makes some decisions.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either we do have to wait or we don't. I feel strongly that this rule of thumb will have a damaging effect on the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia, and it needs to be removed. My changes made the guideline more readable by removing repetition and wordiness.--Nydas(Talk) 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are definitely supposed to not change episode or character articles until the end of the arbitration.  I am not sure how other editors (or administrators) would interpret this injunction in regards to guidelines.  I think I see where you are coming from (with the rule of thumb) but I think it may be better to start small, wait, and let that change sink in before making so many changes.  Perhaps, if you just changed the "rule-of-thumb" paragraph.  You could even do as I suggested and post the change to this page, to get other editors comments.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (@Nydas) It's a rule of thumb that applies to non-notable characters and elements described as part of a larger topic.  That means that first, notable elements do not follow this guideline (Captain Ahab should not fall into this, because he would be a character that should have significant academic analysis for notability), that there are always exceptions, and that it is meant to help limit the creation of "List of X" articles for every single fictional work until it is appropriate for a WP:SPINOUT. --MASEM 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is unclear, the justification even more so, and the distinction between series and standalone is arbitary. It's rule creep and should be avoided. Is there actually a problem with highly non-notable 'list of' articles being created?--Nydas(Talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because if we are saying that these are fine by WP:SS/WP:SPINOUT, they should be created only when it is necessary to break out such lists from a larger article, such that they remain an appropriate sub-article of the main topic.  When they are not done like that, with the list created not as a breakout of material from the main article but as a separate entity, that generally is what grows to give us lists that are excessively long in in-universe details that stretch the intent of what a summary-style sub-article should be like.  This should also be true for series lists; character and other aspects should not be broken out until there is a need to do so, though there is likely to be the case with a longer TV show or long running book/movie/video game series.  Furthermore, it is not a rule, it is simply meant for the reading editor to understand the nature of what depth of coverage should mean. --MASEM 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's actually the extent of the narrative, not anything to do with being in a series or not. Why not just state that instead?--Nydas(Talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it's the intent of this section, or just what I'd like to see, but it seems that sub articles can be appropriate for aspects that span multiple parent articles of fiction.  So if a character, or organization, or whatever appears in multiple works (for example, I had an issue regarding this with some of the Resident Evil sub-articles) it's easier and more informative to discuss them in greator detail over the entire franchise then in one paragraph per article.  In this case, television series would not fall into this clause, but series involving multiple movies, novels, video games, etc. would.  Whether that was the intention or not, this needs to be worded very carefully (or perhaps as others argue, not at all), otherwise this could be a point of contention used to argue for the retention/creation of articles not intended to be endorsed by this effort. -Verdatum (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your approach is what was intended, however I must dispute your comment regarding TV series - the unit of fiction in terms of TV is not the series but the season (with respect to comparison with games - any alternative comparison is obviously absurd in this context). LinaMishima (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth of coverage - one shot vs series 

message: List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
Something else I just came across.
Wonderful original research, isn't it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak synthesis at the most, not complete OR - you may have noticed that each and every film has an accompanying reference. As the counting has already been performed by an external source, simply placing these onto a table with automatic sorting enabled is a trivial task. LinaMishima (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's synthesis, but acceptable synthesis since the topic of the number of times the word "fuck" is used in a movie is notable.  There are several sources that discuss it, and the editors are not creating the synthesis; they're just reporting on it.  But LinaMishima is correct, there is no OR in this article. Torc2 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes up every so often.  It's an acceptable page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, assembling obviously relevant well-sourced data in a straightforward manner isnt synthesis--in fact, it's the general way all WP articles should be written. Sometime the information is best shown as a table; sometimes as prose. DGG (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the above - this list is notable.  Mind you, the lead needs to be cleaned up because this feels more like a list for list's sake (eg edging on WP:NOT#DIR, but I'm sure there's a broader topic this list can be connected to. --MASEM 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is at least one major secondary source, Fuck (film), dealing with this topic. 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" 

message: There's a conflict of interest issue when Wikipedia explicitly promotes moving content to Wikia, as the current draft of this policy does. The problem is that Wikipedia is a nonprofit, Wikia is a for-profit company, and they some share officers and board members.
Wikipedia's tax-exempt status can become an issue. We need legal guidance in this area. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal guidance to date has said this is a non-issue, but feel free to take this up with the foundation's lawyer. Ursasapien (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, and we've tried to write the external wiki stuff to say "any GFDL-compat wiki, such as Wikia" (if an explicit example is given), so that while people know where they can go, it doesn't endorse or require the material to be moved only there. --MASEM 05:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  We're asking people with a COI to decide their COI, a COI (unless uninvolved law talking guys have weighed in). They may be right, but it's still a COI. Even without mentioning Wikia by name, it's a COI, because Wikia is the other big wiki. On the other hand, we may as well mention Wikia since it's a COI either way, and will only be resolved when WP and Wikia aren't run by the same people. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plugging Wikia in a policy may create a conflict of interest.