Ray Saintonge wrote: "Let's teach the newbies how to do things" is not newbiephobia.

The in-universe statement: "The Blogaveen race has blue hair and green eyes." can be rewritten out-of-universe as: "In Episode 17, a member of the Blogaveen race is portrayed as having blue hair and green eyes." That statement is perfectly OOU, but doesn't require anything but the primary source. Obviously, information about the creation of the character would be good, but the absence of it doesn't make the statement IU.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first sentence, so I'll ignore it for now. My example is 100% in an OOU perspective, by the definition given in WP:WAF. Yes, it doesn't include any non-fictional information, but that doesn't make it IU. Could you tell me what part of WAF says you have to include non-fiction details in order to make something OOU? I've just re-read the page, and I only see one mention of "out-of-universe information" (which I think is a confusing name, since OOU information and OOU perspective are quite different things - non-fiction information is clearer), and that's just to explain why it is important to include plot summaries, it's not related to anything about how to include plot summaries. The section is headed "Presentation of fictional material" - it is quite clearly talking about fictional material, not non-fiction.

Let's face the facts: Gray Jedi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Jedi>, Dark Jedi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Jedi>, Dark side devotee <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_devotee>, Sith <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sith>, Jerec <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerec>, Aayla Secura <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aayla_Secura>, Tremayne (Star Wars) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremayne_%28Star_Wars%29>, Xanatos (Star Wars) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanatos_%28Star_Wars%29>, Asajj Ventress <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asajj_Ventress>, Sev'rance Tann <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev%27rance_Tann>, Yuuzhan Vong <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuuzhan_Vong>, *Lightsaber combat <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat>*, *Force-sensitive <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-sensitive>* and *Holocron <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocron>*, to name just a few. I love everything Star Wars, but notability and MOS guidelines that embrace this gallopping chaos must be rewritten sooner or later, ideally complementing each other. Also, I appreciate that "notability" is an often-abused term, but on the other hand, any ambiguity in policies and guidelines is likewise prone to tendentious interpretation. I wouldn't usually argue for stricter guidelines, but here they are necessary. And I don't quite understand why people are opposed to inter-article merging and intra-article merging (i.e. condensing material), seeing as the current guidelines let everything go unchecked. Guidelines would ideally not be necessary at all, but the current mess in articles about fiction doesn't allow for that luxury.