Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 4

message: * Alright. I'm going to go back to square one and devise a rewrite rooted in WP:NOT and WP:V, not WP:N, so that it will be more acceptable to everyone. Its focus will be on fictional material itself, not the works, just like the current WP:FICT. — Deckiller 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of the rewrite

message: I think this proposal is an excellent idea, but I'm concerned about a procedural detail. As Deck wrote above, "While short little articles are bad, so are extremely long ones." I think we should tweak the wording somehow to make it clear that subsidiary articles that were split off for article-size reasons need not demonstrate notability independently of their main articles. So, for example, if Kencyrath (TV Series) is accepted as notable and is justifiably long, then List of Kencyrath Episodes is automatically notable. OTOH, Restormir (Kencyrath) is not notable. Also, articles that are too long because they have too much plot summary etc, should be condensed, not split. Hmm, these guidelines might be hard to write. Comments, please? CWC 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good idea. I've seen many people argue that "a plot is encyclopedic enough to warrant its own page".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this rewrite is trying to stress that one of the logical ways to control sprawling subarticles is to make them establish individual notability, as that would ensure a balance of information and keep sprawling lists and whatnot in check. Of course, the notability standards for subarticles is slightly weaker (I.E. it translates to just having substantial real world information available about the subject). — Deckiller 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd react very negatively to the argument that "a plot is encyclopedic enough to warrant its own page". I agree that all articles and lists should have to be notable. I also agree that we should keep the number of articles down to a minimum, only splitting off articles for size reasons. (BTW, I really like the idea of using notability policy to encourage merging.) I'm only worried about a minor procedural-ish detail regarding biggish articles that were split off for size reasons. Even then, I agree that "having substantial real world information available" is a good approach. I'm just quibbling about the wording, I guess. This proposed change is a great idea, and I strongly support it. Cheers, CWC 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the other argument that seems to be passing around is the "Notability is only a guideline, not a policy, and thus we don't have to follow it".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiary articles

message: I can't say that I'm a fan. The listy format and overuse of bold text, italics and brackets do not make it easy to read or understand. It looks like it was made to be pointed at to win debates. The examples are painfully slanted, with science fiction and video games being too prominent.--Nydas(Talk) 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the concepts addressed in the rewrite? They are drastically different than the current WP:FICT. As far as the formatting, I don't prefer this format myself, but others have recommended it. Finding the best non-scifi and video game examples might be a good idea to ensure balance. — Deckiller 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The rewrite again

message: Whoa....I complately disagree with that section.   This is trivia.  Even if its properly cited, it'll be in violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural impact is fine as long as it's treated as an encyclopedia topic, and not a list of trivia (that section clearly says trivia lists are inappropriate, regardless of notability). — Deckiller 07:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you give an example of a couple of those in existence now? Corpx 06:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The only good examples are on extremely notable topics, like Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc or Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. These topics are so notable that notability for the impact on popular culture can be established itself (I.E. the cultural impact of these subjects has been covered in multiple independent sources). As long as they are written from an approach that is not indiscriminite, it shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps the section should be removed entirely, as appearences in fiction "should" be only one part of cultural impact articles. — Deckiller 06:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I dont know how the Joan of Arc article reached featured list status, but the lack of references in there is troubling.  Corpx 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles about fictional appearances of real-world topics

message: I'm proposing a rewrite of the guidance offered by the WikiProject Comics, and would appreciate input from the wider community.  Thanks. Hiding Talk  15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could you possibly comment at... 

message: I've made a proposal to expand the review process of the television wikiproject into a fictional article notice board, to better clean up articles in line with this guidance and that at WP:WAF.  I think we need an area where we can bring issues within articles to the attention of the wider community, and this seems a useful way of doing it.  It would mirror notice boards implemented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.  Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process#Expansion. Hiding Talk  15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Television article review process]] as a fictional article noticeboard 

message: There is more than just main characters and minor characters in fictional series, you know. There are average characters, who appear every once in a while and do alot, but don't get much development, and major characters, who appear several times and has a large importance to the series along with alot of development. Can we please try to add more than main and minor to further improve this for future debates? User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 13:03 (Eastern Standard Time), 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:If the rewrite (or a version thereof) passes eventually, it'll get rid of the entire main/minor character debate. — Deckiller 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be judged on the coverage the character receives from real world sources.   If there's sufficient coverage, I think it warrants an article. Corpx 18:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between main and minor 

message: Maybe it was my imagination, but I thought this guideline advised that trivial/incidental characters should be deleted no mater if they have their own article or part of a list. However, I don't see that prohibition on the guideline any more. Was this something that fell to the wayside, was it deliberately removed, or was it never part of the guideline and I'm just misremembering things? --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Basically its if the character in question has "significant coverage" from independent sources, it deserves an article.   Corpx 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that still doesn't answer my question about the prohibition on trivial character being added to List of X characters articles. --Farix (Talk) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What qualifies as trivial/incidental?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would view it as a character that is only briefly mentioned in the story. However, you can see this discussion on deletion policy for clarity. The main issue, however, is that some editors thinks that characters that were only mentioned in one sentence deserve their own place on minor characters lists. --Farix (Talk) 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some examples, because it sounds really odd that people would actually try and put someone so "incidental" in a list or their own page. Obviously they are, because you're here...but if you know of some recent examples (or old) that I could look at to see what is actually going on that would be great.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An example is List of minor Hufflepuff characters#Others. The section has been repeatedly removed and restored with Potter fans insisting that Wikipedia be a "complete guide to every Harry Potter character". --Farix (Talk) 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How'd I know it was going to be the Harry Potter crowd. I agree, the deletion policy page should be cited and mentioned on this page as well. That is pretty ridiculous to be adding those characters. "Dumbledore mentioned her in passing" is basically what that boils down to. Those editors should be directed to the Harry Potter Wikia, as that is the place to include such trivial characters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, yet a Potter fan said that the deletion policy is irrelevant because that line item wasn't incorporated into WP:FICT, in short Wiki-lawyering. --Farix (Talk) 12:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. If a policy says you cannot do something, then a guideline cannot change that. If the policy doesn't say something, but the guideline does that is a different story. But in this case, the policy supercedes the fact that WP:WAF and Notability FIC don't mention it. Either way, it should be on both pages.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence why I want to cut off that line of reasoning with the proposed addition to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial/Incidental characters 

message: What's left to do to get the rewrite put in place? Are there any sections of the rewrite that everyone agrees with and could be put in right now? -- Ned Scott 05:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a matter of polishing it to address concerns on this talkpage. Since it's all connected, it might be hard to implement it bit by bit. — Deckiller 10:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are some of the major concerns that still need to be implemented? I'd like to get it up soon, as this current version is really getting on my nerves. TTN 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite is poorly written. I doubt that someone inexperienced with Wikipedia would be able to make sense of it.--Nydas(Talk) 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that you're taking talking about the syntax and diction rather than grammatical and spelling errors. Inexperienced should understand at least WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT at some point. As this is sort of built off of them, it really should be easy to understand (better than this version certainly, which even administrators misread and get confused over). Even then, we have experienced users to explain these to others as they edit and make mistakes. TTN 11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hence why I said "it's a matter of polishing". Copy-editing comes after the concepts are established. — Deckiller 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overuse of lists, bold text, italics and brackets make it hard to understand what the concepts even are. Am I right in thinking that it is trying to say that notability is never 'inherited'? Why is a rewrite needed for that? --Nydas(Talk) 18:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll add the new guideline at midnight UTC (8:00 EST I believe), which is 5 hours from now. The only issue raised in the last month has been the list format, so there shouldn't be too many problems — especially since these are the concepts being used throughout Wikipedia as of late. — Deckiller 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented. — Deckiller 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: It would be illuminating to see how the rewritten guideline would apply to various examples:
*Kamelion. A Doctor Who companion. No sources, notability doubtful. Probably mentioned in various A-Z Doctor Who books.
*Valen. Babylon 5 character. No sources, real world notability doubtful. Important character in-universe, although he only appears in one episode.
*Charlene Robinson. Kylie Minogue's character in Neighbours. Zero out-of-universe info, but quite likely that notability is established in offline sources.
*Puck (Shakespeare). Crappy article, but the character is iconic. Probably needs offline sources.
--Nydas(Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: — Deckiller 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example cases

message: The new text looks good, except that fan fiction is not necessarily deletable vanity (see :Category:Fan films). To avoid confusion, I'd suggest inserting the qualifier often, and an exception for notable fan fiction that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — TKD::Talk 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good; feel free to implement the change. — Deckiller 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — TKD::Talk 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great; thanks. — Deckiller 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor quibble with [[WP:FICT#Fanfiction and unreleased fiction]] 

message: There are always exceptions. The Pokemon Lists are a good example; although they are a compromise, they still don't meet this revised guideline (each list doesn't contain significant real-world info). Yet Pokemon is so popular and so vast that something about each Pokemon should be mentioned. Perhaps a brief section mentioning that there may be an occasional exception (but not listing details to avoid loopholes and "gaming the system"?). Such exceptions could be discussed in-depth and defended if challenged. — Deckiller 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Occasional exceptions' could end up as special treatment for genres favoured by Wikipedians.--Nydas(Talk) 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The occasional exception? 

message: Sorry to disturb but I am a bit confused about this policy, do the subarticles relating to notable fictional works have to meet the general notability criteria of having "“significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” There are thousand of articles which would seem not to meet this criteria (artcles for minor characetrs, locations, objects, concepts, etc.). To take a few examples from one subcatagory, are Knockturn Alley, Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes and Ordinary Wizarding Level really notable or do they just meet the criteria because they relate to the obviously notable Harry Potter. I do not understand why this rule seems to be in place for works of fiction as it does not apply through the rest of Wikipedia. If a person is notable they have article, this does not mmean there should be artciles about their wives, children, pets, their local shops unless those items are also notable. Why does playing a minor role in a notable fictional work give notability when playing a minor role in a notable real life or event does not? [[Guest9999 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This update just went into effect, so many areas have yet to implement it (although several have been using these concepts for months or even years). This page was updated for exactly the reason you specify: we have too many subarticles on fictional things, without even mentioning their significance in the real world (if any). Subarticles (the primary focus of this update) have to meet the notability for fiction mentioned in the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Defining notability for fiction section. — Deckiller 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't this significantly alter our entire coverage of fictional subjects? It seems to call for the removal of virtually all articles on TV show characters, fictional settings, etc. - those that are in Lord of the Rings may get a pass, but most anything below that size goes zap - and the best-case scenario of merging all that still loses a large majority of the content.Another question: is notability - significance - ever inherited? --Kizor 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: We've been discussing the issue of writing fictional characters for common foes of the Mario Bros series of video games specifically Goomba and Koopa over in the WP:CVG.  The discussion about it can be found here.   The argument is to whether to take articles that describe the foes' appearances and actions in the various games and merge them down significantly to a paragraph of so in a common list of foes in the Mario universe. There is some heated editing debates but when you look past it, we have the following problem. 
Both foes are as ubiquitous in the Mario series as much as Mario himself.  They are notable by most gamers outside of their universe, but you never find such out-of-universe references that talk about them from reliable, verifiable sources.  We can quote game manuals over and over, including official Nintendo guides, but these all are within the universe.  By a first blush through the WP:FICT policy, these characters fail the usual tests and thus should be merged, but given the lengthy discussion, we are definitely on a gray line between acceptable and not.   (I can see it being both ways).
At this point, we're having an edit war between one that wants to merge now because it immediately fails the WP:FICT tests, and another that is reverting back immediately (that's a different issue as you can see others trying to step in to cool heads).  However, we are now looking to get other opinions outside of the CVG project, and I figured here is one of the better places to start.  Are these articles definitely not notable out of their universe and thus shouldn't exist, or are we missing a subtlety of the policy?  Thanks. --Masem 00:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding sources might be hard, but I suspect they exist. Reasonable potential should always be considered, and with that in mind, I wouldn't say they fail WP:FICT. They might both need some trimming, but that's it's own thing. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, seems this is about Koopa Troopa, and not about Koopa. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with a debate 

message: Hi,
I would first like to say that, in my opinion, the rewritten guideline is much better than the previous version! For me, it clearly points out what an encyclopedia should cover about fiction, and when. 
Now for a concrete case: Browsing through the backlog of the Notability wikiproject, I found The Entente: Battlefields World War I, an article about a video game. It contains purely in-universe information, and refers to a small number of sources, also with mainly in-universe information. So it clearly fails the new version of the guideline. 
I would usually propose articles like these for deletion, tagging them with Template:prod. However, let's judge by the guideline section Non-notable topics:
* No real-world material has been added since December 2006, when the notability tag was put on. So there does not seem to be any obvious potential for notability. 
* Merging is also not an option: There is no direct parent article, and the material is mostly a plot summary anyway, and not worth merging.
* The next point is transwikification. Now there might certainly be some wiki on Wikia where the article could be moved to (I haven't investigated in detail).
So, instead of proposing for deletion, I am supposed to transwiki. I don't have any objections to that in principle; but how would I practically do that? Is there a template that requests a move to the Wikipedia Annex, just like "prod" for proposed deletion? 
(Obviously, I am not an editor on all the potential target wikis, and my current task is to clean the backlog, not to rewrite the article. So there should be some kind of simple solution, right?) --B. Wolterding 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a published computer game, with (bad) reviews in Gamespot and other places. It satisfies our notability criteria quite easily.--Nydas(Talk) 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure it has been published, but where are the source that "contain substantial real-world content"? There are some in-universe sources reporting about the game's plot, etc., but that it previsely not what is intended with WP:FICTION, as far as I understand it. --B. Wolterding 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with Deckiller here. If it's been subject to substantial reviews (even bad reviews), they can be used as out-of-universe content. What this is primarily designed to prevent is a separate article on every minor character in that game. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocating material 

message: According to the current version of WP:FICT, should Jesse Chambers be considered notable?  I only ask because this guideline confuses me, and I'd have a better understanding if I could hear from the people who helped draft it their thoughts on a specific query.  Ichormosquito 10:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In its current state, no; it belongs on a list. By potential, I have no idea. If you can find a reasonable amount of real world information (see WP:WAF#Secondary information), then, yes, it can stand on its own. TTN 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, a list has more potential for real-world content. If nothing can be found for the contents of the list (which is doubtable, since these are popular comics), then further merges should take place. The key is to organize things in proportion to notability in both the fictional and real worlds; it can be a hard task, but alas, Jimbo has stressed raising the quality aspect rather than quantity. — Deckiller 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Pokemon lists are anything to go by, then lists have less potential for real world content. We've gone from a series of articles which were 70% fancruft to a series of lists which are 95% fancruft.--Nydas(Talk) 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *We have? Do you have a link or two as an example? >Radiant< 08:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said here, the articles created the bare bones of an out of universe perspective by differentiating between the games, the anime, the manga and the card game. Now compare the Treecko list entry with the Treecko article. They're both bad, but the list entry is far worse for real world content. The worst aspects of the lists is they consist largely of fictional biology, filler information with little plot or gameplay role, let alone real world importance. The lists could be improved, but how does a paragraph or two allow more potential for real world info?--Nydas(Talk) 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ow, both look bad to read to start.  I'd argue that if a pokemon truely has out-of-universe information, adding a few extra paragraphs in the list form (eg Kadabra vs Uri Geller) if there's not much, or for truly notable ones, their own article (Pikachu), with enough blurb in the list to be consistent.  But regardless, the list paragraphs must be written in appropriate prose, and probably will likely contain: the english/japanese name, their physical appearance, a BRIEF summary of their type and attacks, and a BRIEF summary of what they evolve to.  If they appear in the manga or anime, then saying what #'s they appeared in is fine, but plot details are unnecessary. --Masem 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *What real-world info are you referring to, specifically? I don't anything in the article that is lacking in the list, except for trivia. >Radiant< 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The appearances in Pokemon Mystery Dungeon and the card game are a couple. Most of the biology information should be removed. Though even if the lists were cleaned up in this way, they'd still be non-notable.--Nydas(Talk) 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not square zero? The lists ain't notable.--Nydas(Talk) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random test

message: I'd like to get some more opinions on some character articles that I have proposed a merger for. You can find the discussion at Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Merge characters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smallville

message: Would individual episode articles be allowed for shows like Doctor Who?  Most of (if not all) the Doctor who articles have several references from outside sources, most of which are official sources, but would the articles count as "Real-world content"?  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've just found Wikipedia:Television episodes, which deals with this.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode articles?

message: Another problem I have with the guideline is that it describes what should be and what should not be in the articles, rather than being a specific implementation of WP:Notability.
SnowFire suggests that the rewrite should include:
:Articles on fictional concepts are notable if real-world recognition from reliable primary secondary sources exists. However, such concepts are often best presented in a single cohesive article rather than many short stubs, even if they meet notability standards. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) covers the proper presentation of articles on fictional topics.
I agree to the degree that articles should be of high quality and (to a degree) notable.
Wikipedia:Article size prescribes that article length should be considered when editing (see a rule of thumb). As such it means that rather than having short stubs, a more coherent list may be more applicable.
Wikipedia:Summary style also covers this to a degree: A non-notable article may be notable as a part of another topic though, and a stub there would not be such a problem. If such an article grows to an acceptable degree and is sourced (primary or secondary sources), it should/can be split off per Summary style. (Considering WP:NOT#PLOT of course)
These changes should rather be added to WP:WAF and be removed from this guideline; it seems to be more of a styling issue. G.A.S  07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue: Content of guideline

message: It is irrefutable that the proposed new version is substantially different in wording to the previous version.  Let me summarise and attempt to justify the changes, in a loosely descending order of importance:
#Descriptive wording - This is the primary change, as argued for above
#Requirement for real-world content removed - When writing this new wording, I was constantly asking myself if it would be failed by existing fictional Good Articles with which I am familiar.  I came to the conclusion:
::*The requirement was not an extension of WP:N
::*The requirement was almost impossible for any article to meet while remaining focused on the fictional topic
::*The requirement unfairly discriminated against topics which have notability, but the sources for which are best included in a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section rather than as referable or includable material
::*The requirement distracted editors from the main criterion, which is notability as expressed by prevalence of real-world sources.
::*The requirement was not necessary to discriminate between articles which were notable and those which weren't, as the rest of the guideline was sufficient.
#Greater explanation of the nature of reliable sources - I feel that this rewording improves the legibility and comprehension of the underlying policy.  I attempt to put increased focus on the requirement that the coverage must be "non-trivial", which was not very thoroughly covered in the old wording.  
#Clear restriction of the guideline scope - the rewording has excluded from the scope articles about works of fiction, which (as inherently factual articles rather than fictional ones) I feel are better covered by WP:BK, WP:MOVIE, etc, than by this guideline.
#"Dealing with fiction" converted to prose - I feel this permits a more neutral coverage of the issues.  More emphasis is given to reviewing articles within the scope of the coverage of the fictional universe as a whole.  I'm tempted to add a phrase about WikiProjects here, but I think that might be superfluous.  This concept has grown from (and largely replaced) comments about organisation of articles, subarticles and stubs.  
#Example section removed - I am neutral about the inclusion of the examples.  I don't feel that they are a necessary addition to the guideline, but I am willing to be persuaded.
</div>
Comments and criticism, particularly per change 2 above, is requested.  Happy-melon 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer notability established by substantial real-world content. Heck, this requirement is actually more of a compromise than requiring multiple independent sources, because a lot of interviews and other material might not be independent. This version of the guideline would actually result in an even greater cutdown of fiction, because a lot of material published about fictional universes is somehow tied to the publisher and/or author, or is only mentioned in passing in various independent articles. That is why we wrote WP:FICT to say "real-world content" instead of "coverage in independent sources"; afterall, there would be no reason to have this page if it was just the same as WP:N. — Deckiller 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An analysis of changes