On 21/12/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Nathan Awrich wrote:
Really? Scholarly treatment of Buffy? Oy. Actually now that you mention it, I vaguely recall such a thing. Alright, next time I'll use... "Kyle XY" instead? Don't tell me he's in some Harvard journal.
You're holding the subject area to ludicrously inappropriate standards. "Reliable sources" are not one-size-fits-all; what's a "reliable source" for an article about a blood protein is completely different from what's a "reliable source" for a sports figure or a TV show or a medieval monk. This sort of robotic following of guidelines outside their areas of applicability as if they were rigid laws is the basic cause of the problem here.
More seriously - I think you are absolutely correct, there is no point in having episode articles if you aren't going to have articles on all the episodes. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to ever adequately reference the majority of them anyway. I think a single article per popular series, at the most, could be acceptable (to me). Unless somehow a particular episode gets huge coverage (like the final 'reveal' episode of "Ellen").
This is a fully volunteer project. If you tell people they aren't allowed to work on the areas that interest them, they're just going to go away. If you don't want to write more than one article on a show, then don't - choose some subject that you're more interested in. But don't tell other people where they should be putting their own efforts.
There's an article for every named crater on the Moon. How do you think it would go over if I went to WikiProject Moon and told them "I'm not a selenologist or anything but I've decided this subject's only worth one article of coverage, I'm going to merge these all into [[Craters on the Moon]] per the WP:CRATERSARENTINTERESTING guideline you've never heard of before. You're not allowed to revert me until you can overturn it"? More importantly, why on Earth would I do that in the first place? How does it _hurt_ Wikipedia to have such extensive coverage?
Thank you for one of the funniest and most insightful posts I have read on this list in a long time.