On 07/07/07, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/7/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
wrote:
One of my old favorites is up for deletion right
now, for the fourth
time, and looks likely to go the way of the dodo this time around.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_%28person%29>. Just in time
for the release of the new Transformers movie, too.
It was heavily referenced, non-controversial, and a fun little piece of
trivia. I really don't understand why some editors feel the need to get
rid of such stuff. There are days that Wikipedia makes me depressed.
Why can't it be heavily referenced, non-controversial, fun little
piece of trivia in the article for the character? Why do we need an
article just for him or for every fun little piece of trivia someone
comes across?
Trivia is by definition... trivial. Do we want a trivial encyclopedia?
I would say not.
You can imagine information like a web, with connections between
pieces of information. In this case the web only connects to Optimus
Prime, the toy so it's sort of like a dead end in terms of the
connections; because the person probably isn't otherwise notable. I
could understand if it was in the Optimus Prime article, but even then
it's still essentially trivia.
I think we mostly want an encyclopaedia with articles with lots of
connections between things; something that is fairly cut-off like this
is probably not notable.
--
-Ian Woollard
"I think we all would have been a lot happier if they hadn't landed a
man on the moon. Then we'd go: 'They can't make a prescription bottle
top that's easy to open? I'm not surprised they couldn't land a man on
the moon. Things make perfect sense to me now.' "