-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Phil Boswell wrote:
It's not as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would otherwise be available for your own pet subject.
Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.
{{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles about something you don't like, try writing more articles about something you do.
It's not about someone (me) liking one thing or another. It's about objective importance and notability. Pokemon's influence even within contemporary popular culture is minimal outside a devoted community of fans.
We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into 19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than drive them away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever.
I have high doubts that such editors are likely to mature. It's more likely that they'll turn us into Pokepedia, with only slight coverage of the real world (appended, always, by every single reference to such real world occurrences in TV shows and Flash cartoons).
I really don't understand why people have so many problems with Pokémon articles. If you're not interested, you don't have to read it. I'm not interested in the thousands of articles about random small towns, but I'm not saying they should be deleted. There's a bar for notability that Pokémon presumably meets. Each individual Pokémon is certainly verifiable from any number of sources. I agree with the other Phil ... don't let the Pokémon piss you off, just ignore it and focus on writing articles on other stuff you think is more important.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~