SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/27/2007 2:01:41 AM Central Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:

Right! It should be easier to push your proposal through when there are fewer knowledgeable people watching. ;-)

I hope that was meant to be humorous, because nobody was even responding to the content of the rewrite. And besides, the discussions on Wikipedia are where true consensus is established; not e-mail forums where people don't even read/comment on the actual proposal. If your comment was not meant to be humorous, it was a cheap attempt at intimidating and/or insulting me. I find this entire experience to be sickening, and I am in awe of the treatment I have received from fellow Wikipedians in my attempt to establish a compromise with this rewrite. I really thought Wikipedia was more mature than this.

Remember that what is there is a set of guidlines not policy. You have already indicated that you want to toughen notability criteria on this. Your proposal completely eliminates the section about being bold. Your result is some 6K bigger than the existing page. It's clear that you have already invested a fair amount of time in this project, and others would need to spend just as much time on it to make sense of what you propose.

If your real intent were to rewrite the page for greater clarity, the result would be shorter, not longer, and it would not be the time to introduce new rules. Several of the people with concerns about your rewrite have been around a long time, and are aware that pages of this sort are often used as a basis for some kind of future enforcement. There is no serious risk that articles on minor characters on TV shows will overwhelm us. There are always people around who will be able to find solutions about that. If a few are not noticed it's no big deal. What's important to me is that there be a very wide latitude for what passes the notability test in fiction articles. We don't need a lot more detailed policy to do that.

Ec