joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Ok, I've asked at that page if there is any
real consensus for the
guideline. If
you have an opinion, feel free to comment. I'm about to go on vacation
now, and
will leave therefore thankfully miss any ensuing drama.
I've chipped in too now, for folks who want a direct link it's at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Is_there_any_actual_consensus_for_this_guideline_at_all.3F>.
I'm of two minds here whether I should start actually reverting and
restoring some of the more obviously wrong-headed deletions that have
already been done; on the one hand of course revert-warring is bad, but
on the other hand I'm worried about the fait accompli gambit that
appears to be in play here.
Really, this is a stupid overreach of notability-mongering. Any given
random episode of a show like Scrubs has been seen by millions of people
and is going to be available in DVD box-sets for years and years to
come, that _alone_ puts it above 90% of the articles we have about books
or wee little towns or dead congressmen or what have you. We've got
articles on hundreds of asteroids that are known only by a few orbital
parameters in a catalogue someplace and there's nary a complaint. I'm
extremely annoyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are welcome to B, but I will likely R and start to D. Secondary
sources or not. That applies to asteroids too, but they can always be
listified later.