in fact, there are usually review sources discussing each individual
episode. True, only some of them are the conventional published
sources that we use. What we need for both the conventional and the
nonconventional is editors prepared to track these down, and add them
to articles.
We should be writing an encyclopedia such that someone who is friends
with a fan of a series, can learn enough from WP to be able to
understand their interests and understand their conversation about the
events and motivations of the individual episodes of the series--not
the way a true fan would, but at least a casually interested other.
that a parent, for example, could understand what a child was talking
about without having to watch all the childrens' series. That's part
of the very purpose of a general encyclopedia--the applicability to
real life, not just background for the academic study of things.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
There's nothing wrong with redirecting tons
of permastubs to a single,
manageable list. That would be true of stars in a galaxy, or tiny
towns in a county, or episodes in a TV series, or albums from a band
when the albums themselves have received little or no coverage, or the
majority of players on a sports team, or.... Most of those things have
little to no secondary source material, so a list makes far more sense
than a thousand articles that will never get better, and may have
inexperienced editors look at them, decide they're "too short", and
put in a bunch of unreferenced speculation/original
research/trivia/"Family Guy mentioned it once!". If it turns out an
element or two of the list gets enough source material to write a good
article on it, it can easily be split out, while leaving the rest of
the list items as redirects. That's simply good organization.
In most of those cases it's possible to put in a lot of material that
you would dismiss as "unreferenced speculation/original
research/trivia" but which is IMO (and I the O of a lot of other
editors) perfectly reasonable and valuable information to have in an
article. For example, a plot summary and cast listing of a TV episode is
neither unreferenced nor original research nor trivia.
By smushing everything together into one giant list page a lot of that
information is going to be thrown away. I think you're going to have to
come up with a reason for throwing that information away beyond simply
asserting that it's "non-notable". The validity of judging things based
on their "notability" is what's under discussion here, you can't just
assume it.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG