In a message dated 6/25/2007 3:01:54 PM Central Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:

The whole exercise seems to be devoted to substituting one version of bafflegab with another, although I dod note that a section in the current guideline encouraging people to be bold is being completely excised. What people need to know about an article on fiction is that it is in fact fiction. That is all we need to know about whether something is in or out of our universe. We need to keep things simple. We need to recognize that many minor characters and incidents probably don't have enough information available to warrant a full article, but we need to approach that with great flexibility. Some small incidents like the knocking at the gate in "Macbeth" can have a lot of unexpected dimensions. Yes, but such "simplicity" would allow for hundreds of articles explaining every detail of every mecha or minor character, as long as it begins with "____ is a fictional character..." Why should fiction notability be held to lower standards than the rest of Wikipedia?

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.