On 25 Jul 2006 at 11:13, "Adam Lorenz" <kungfuadam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The word "carriageway" is non-existent in American English.
It kind of sounds like a route for horse-drawn buggies.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
In a message dated 7/24/2006 1:52:48 AM Central Standard Time, scott(a)mu.org
writes:
I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing "literary
criticism", or at least not *originating* it. That would be OR! FOr
the parts of the articles that consist of literary criticism we are
suppose to be summarizing not creating.
However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique,
it has some of that in it. However in this case it is an encyclopedia
article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which
are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
Though I think your point still stands that summarizing the critiques
that are out there would be much more difficult for someone totally
unfamiliar with the original work.
Dalf
I see no issue in citing scripts for summarizing a series of facts for a
plot synopsis in an RPG (such as, "After Galbadia invaded Dollet, the parliament
dispatched a request for aid [1]."). Heck, in a situation where one has to
show a character changing over time, citing the RPG game script at multiple
points may be considered 'common sense synthesis' and not OR. I really think
it's a case by case basis, and must ask: how far out of context does the
Wikipedia synopsis take the original source? Moreover, I feel that finding a
reliable summary or two may help round out the sources and give the Wikipedia
synopsis more "freedom". A synopsis should list the events.
| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator | Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller) |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora) |
In a message dated 7/25/2006 10:00:18 AM Central Standard Time,
stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes:
No. You absolutely musn't confuse "cruft" with "popular culture". It's
absolutely right and fitting that we have good articles on video
games. But do we have extended articles about ever minor character in
every game, every level in every episode of every game etc? *That* is
cruft. Not a high level article situating the game in the real world,
along with a decent summary of the gameplay, plot, levels etc.
Let me clarify, becuase I believe my comment was misinterpreted: if an
article is full of in-universe, excess information, it still has a lot of
potential to become a featured article. It just takes a lengthy process, which should
never be interrupted by controversial AfDs.
| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator | Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller) |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora) |
In a message dated 7/24/2006 11:43:15 PM Central Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
You can't trust the fan sites. And there's so much being produced that
it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep
up. We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all
genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such
things. Other, more "serious" subjects are still doing respectably
well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as trivial.
We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more relaxed about
original research. The good secondary material is just not there, and
you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books to put
something decent together.
Absolutely. Some of our video game featured articles are some of the best
game sources on the internet. They don't go into excess detail, but they cover
the key aspects of development, story, gameplay, and reception. If one is
patient enough, encyclopedic articles will flourish out of the most crufty main
articles.
| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator | Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller) |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora) |
Hi,
I'm surprised no one else has noticed this one. We have an
archetypical POV fork (see [[Wikipedia:POV fork]]) at [[The Coca-Cola
Company]]. I was suspicious that it's so positive ("Corporate
citizenship" and all the rest of it). It turns out all the criticism
has been moved to [[Criticism of Coca-Cola]]. And to top it off, the
criticism article isn't even linked from the main one!
Anyone feel like investigating a bit? How did this come to be? I'd
love a good conspiracy theory...
Steve
Hi,
considering the ongoing discussion about references in articles, I
thought it might help if people less familiar with <ref> tags and our
template system would have an easy way to generate the necessary wiki
code for references.
So, I wrote a tool:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php
It offers a list of reference type choices (currently only two) and a
standard form to fill in values for that type. Clicking a button will
then generate the necessary wiki source, ready to paste into the article.
The Really Cool Thing (tm) is that the reference types and their values
(and if they're mandatory or not) can be configured by editing a page on
meta (link is on the tool page). The syntax should be self-explanatory ;-)
It can support other languages by adding "&language=XX" to the URL;
however, there are no meta pages for other languages yet.
If you like it, maybe we could link the tool from the edit page?
Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Nathan stated for the record:
> I can do, if it's still needed.
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>
> I have a handful of public-domain instructional videos (moving diagrams)
> that I'd like to upload, but they are in SWF format. Can someone
> contact me directly, off-list, to help me convert them to an acceptable
> format?
>
> Thanks!
>
Yes, still needed. We have a request (hi, Cormac!) to keep the
discussion on-list, so let's stay here at least at first.
I'm running Gentoo Linux, but have access to XP if needed.
Please begin, Nathan.
- --
Sean Barrett | Back off, man, I'm a scientist.
sean(a)epoptic.com | --Dr. Peter Venkman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEv7/6MAt1wyd9d+URAgH0AJwOeMty84pU6jlT4lIinHtzgh4xfwCeIWna
CQKLJ//w/nd9IN54FoF+n8k=
=3ZWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In a message dated 7/23/2006 1:55:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
She was on "The $64,000 Question", not the "$64,000 Pyramid" I remember
watching the shows when she was on. Her topic was psychology, and she
didn't play against anybody. Was that intended to be a trick question?
It was, indeed, before my time. The article about her says Boxing, which
shoudl be corrected then. Should be interesting to find out which is correct.
My point with the others is that I hav no problem with a list. I do have
problems with bios, especially considering that the sole resource for these bios
is a network PR firm. "She has a dog named Dexter," or "He was dancing since
he was three" cannot be verfied anywhere except through the publicity agent
who is trying to make them overnight heroes. They are not notable because
none of the information is independently verifiable.
Danny