On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Not always, anyway. Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for example, have been known to stray into the area of creative interpretation.
That's a case where subjective interpretation may be necessary in order to determine whether an item is a member of the list.
Fine, as long as it's some named independent authority's subjective interpretation. With, for example, the list of tall men, it was entirely a construct of Wikipedia editors: some people decided what tall means, and then changed the value until the list was not "too big" (for whatever value of big might be too big) then introduced some extra criteria to exclude most basketball players because otherwise it was mainly a list of basketball players.
In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the entire list violates copyright. And to get the names requires either interpretation of the pictures or watching every show. There are no independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish the list in text form.
If there's a show where season 1 stars Joe Bloe and Jane Foo, and season 2 stars Jane Foo and Billy dePlume, would it be original research to have the cast list
- Joe Bloe
- Jane Foo
- Billy dePlume
in the article about that show, even if nobody else had ever published the list in a secondary source before?
A show with absolutely no independently published cast lists? Sounds like it lacks sources. Is it notable? ;-)
Guy (JzG)