[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[John Lee]

On Dec 20, 2007 10:54 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/07, Nathan Awrich <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> > them, let alone cite them for anything. Additionally, they present
> > clear RS problems - how often do reliable sources publish a treatment
> > of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode?
>
> Well, that's about the worst example you could give, because Buffy
> *does* get scholarly treatment. But anyway.
>
> There's something very misguided going on here, perhaps as the result
> of rather ugly notability guidelines being treated as axioms on which
> to construct further guidelines. Does anyone really think it's a good
> idea that *some* episodes of a given series have articles but not
> *all* of them? Do we really think that it's smart to have articles
> about the "notable" episodes 3, 4, 8, and 11 of season 2 of whatever
> series, but not the rest? Would any "real" encyclopaedia do this?
>
> Personally, I think we have often gone too far with details on
> individual episodes of shows (particularly unscripted shows, such as
> big brother, or game shows). But the answer isn't to chop all the
> information altogether. The answer is restraint: a short article (or
> paragraph in a list article) with the key information about the
> episode, without the cruft. Summarise the plot. Don't give us a
> blow-by-blow description. Tell us what makes it different from other
> episodes. Don't give us pointless trivia.
>
> But no, restraint, judgment and good taste don't often figure in
> discussions of our treatment of popular culture.

The irony is that this means you agree substantially with the disputed
guideline. If the problem lies in the guideline, it lies in the
section dealing with what kind of articles are acceptable, but the
larger problem lies with the kind of people who got that section into
the guideline, and use it as a blanket policy reason for tarring all
episode articles with the same brush.

Johnleemk