In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:22:04 PM Central Daylight Time, Snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
No, it's time for fiction notability to be consigned to a graveyard and never spoken of again.
Fiction articles, on the other hand...
I don't follow.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
On Jun 25, 2007, at 2:22 PM, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:22:04 PM Central Daylight Time, Snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
No, it's time for fiction notability to be consigned to a graveyard and never spoken of again.
Fiction articles, on the other hand...
I don't follow.
Notability isn't a helpful concept here. It's certainly not the most important thing about fiction articles, which is why [[WP:FICT]] pointing to a notability guideline is so egregious. Notability guidelines are inevitably messy, ugly attempts at bright line distinctions.
Fiction articles badly need a lot of cleanup, but notability guidelines are not a helpful way of approaching this problem. Better would be to aggressively slash and re-stub articles that violate [[WP:WAF]]. I'd happily join in on an organized WAF purge, hitting fiction articles and eviscerating the in-universe stuff, replacing as needed with short out-of-universe stubs. And I've proposed (to varying levels of opposition) things like [[Template:FreeContentMeta]] as ways of encouraging better places to put out-of-universe material.
But a notability guideline isn't helpful here. Better to aggressively begin fixing crappy fiction articles on clearly notable topics, instill an ethic of what a good fiction article is, and then start targeting the silly things.
-Phil
On 6/25/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 2:22 PM, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:22:04 PM Central Daylight Time, Snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
No, it's time for fiction notability to be consigned to a graveyard and never spoken of again.
Fiction articles, on the other hand...
I don't follow.
Notability isn't a helpful concept here. It's certainly not the most important thing about fiction articles, which is why [[WP:FICT]] pointing to a notability guideline is so egregious. Notability guidelines are inevitably messy, ugly attempts at bright line distinctions.
Fiction articles badly need a lot of cleanup, but notability guidelines are not a helpful way of approaching this problem. Better would be to aggressively slash and re-stub articles that violate [[WP:WAF]]. I'd happily join in on an organized WAF purge, hitting fiction articles and eviscerating the in-universe stuff, replacing as needed with short out-of-universe stubs. And I've proposed (to varying levels of opposition) things like [[Template:FreeContentMeta]] as ways of encouraging better places to put out-of-universe material.
But a notability guideline isn't helpful here. Better to aggressively begin fixing crappy fiction articles on clearly notable topics, instill an ethic of what a good fiction article is, and then start targeting the silly things.
THANK you. This is the type of unhelpful guideline that only serves to encourage people to delete well-written, interesting, and useful content from Wikipedia because they personally don't like it.
On 6/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
THANK you. This is the type of unhelpful guideline that only serves to encourage people to delete well-written, interesting, and useful content from Wikipedia because they personally don't like it.
No kidding, I hate people like that.
—C.W.