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).
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch