On Dec 30, 2007 7:01 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@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@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.