On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe we should compromise our acceptance of content because we worry that some will think less of us. It is not our aim to perfectly match the role of the traditional encyclopedia. We are going to include some content that some think is below them (or should not be in an encyclopedia), that's fine and it isn't our problem. If a user doesn't wish to read about [[Bulbasaur]] then they should take my lead and avoid it.
Do you think there should be no limits to how much fictional universe should be covered? I'm attempting to explain the status quo, not change it. So if you disagree with me, either I'm failing to explain the status quo (most likely), or you actually want to extend it.
The status quo, as I understand it, is that for seriously popular series/books etc, each major character can have its own article, otherwise they should be grouped. Each instalment/book/episode can have its own article. However, except for rare examples, *places* in fictional universes do not get articles, nor do events, types of vehicles (Star Wars is exceptional here) However, even still, minor characters in major series do not get their own articles. Why not? Well, that's the question we're trying to resolve here.
Steve