On Dec 30, 2007 7:01 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have never defended "all" episode
articles. Don't know anyone who
has. Some of them are really minor and well worth merging; one of the
factors is the importance of t he show. I usually word it as
defending the defensible ones, I see I forgot he adjective this time.
And I agree with you that they do not necessarily need separate
articles. It depends on the importance and the amount of material
available; both real-world, and plot worth summarizing.
And I agree with including as much important real-world information
as we can get, and, like you, I do expect to see more--though it
typically takes a year or two for academic work to be published. But
the plot and character and setting content is equally important.
Why should we look for another wiki? fiction is important, and plot is
after all the basis of it. A fiction is fundamentally a story. I think
in wanting appropriately full inclusion of this material I share the
consensus of ordinary wpedians, as will be confirmed when we get a
broad enough forum. But if not, not.
DGG
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
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
I believe we all want "appropriately full inclusion", the disagreement
is where "appropriately" begins. My general thought is that articles
should be considered on their own merits, and permastubs should be
merged or deleted, period, whether they're part of some type of "set"
or not. Yes, that includes Popes and asteroids. Stick them on a list
or merge them somewhere. Others want a permastub on everything in the
world. Most everyone is somewhere in between. My hope is, in the end,
we can get -somewhere- with it. I hope that "somewhere" includes
"delete or merge unsourced, OR-laden permastubs". Others hope it's to
leave them around. We shall see.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.