On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
[snip]
I thought the example in popular culture section was real. Surprised me that it wasn't.
On 7/7/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
[snip]
I thought the example in popular culture section was real. Surprised me that it wasn't.
I knew I wasn't the only one who checked...
2008/7/7 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
[snip]
I thought the example in popular culture section was real. Surprised me that it wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_culture&oldid=12472461...
(and a few other similar cases)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
[snip]
I thought the example in popular culture section was real. Surprised me that it wasn't.
Browsing [[Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Simpsons]] will get you lots of interesting real examples: [[Dodecahedron]], [[Pythagorean theorem]], [[Cane Toad]], etc.
-- Tim Starling
of the first 4 examples, the first 3 are perfectly valid content--that the object it is of wood is relevant to the meaning. The 4th is an example otherwise-- unless the nature of the fence does for some reason figure in the story.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
[snip]
I thought the example in popular culture section was real. Surprised me that it wasn't.
Browsing [[Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Simpsons]] will get you lots of interesting real examples: [[Dodecahedron]], [[Pythagorean theorem]], [[Cane Toad]], etc.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
of the first 4 examples, the first 3 are perfectly valid content--that the object it is of wood is relevant to the meaning. The 4th is an example otherwise-- unless the nature of the fence does for some reason figure in the story.
You aren't seriously suggesting that "The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a holly tree" should actually be permitted to be in the [[Wood]] article, are you? I'd sure remove that if I saw it.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
of the first 4 examples, the first 3 are perfectly valid content--that the object it is of wood is relevant to the meaning. The 4th is an example otherwise-- unless the nature of the fence does for some reason figure in the story.
You aren't seriously suggesting that "The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a holly tree" should actually be permitted to be in the [[Wood]] article, are you? I'd sure remove that if I saw it.
Of course it should be removed from [[Wood]]. The fact clearly belongs in [[Holly]].
- Joe
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Simetrical wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David Goodman wrote:
of the first 4 examples, the first 3 are perfectly valid content--that the object it is of wood is relevant to the meaning. The 4th is an example otherwise-- unless the nature of the fence does for some reason figure in the story.
You aren't seriously suggesting that "The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a holly tree" should actually be permitted to be in the [[Wood]] article, are you? I'd sure remove that if I saw it
Of course it should be removed from [[Wood]]. The fact clearly belongs in [[Holly]].
Or maybe [[Hollywood]]? :-P
Sorry, I couldn't help that one.
Ec
yes, I am so suggesting. it would probably best located as part of a section (or separate article) on Wood in folklore and tradition, giving significant fictional uses of wood in this context. Of course, it would also fit in an article on Holly, under a similar subheading. Wikipedia is in general in need of considerable expansion in this area. somtime a jok is the best way to suggest it to over-serious people.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
of the first 4 examples, the first 3 are perfectly valid content--that the object it is of wood is relevant to the meaning. The 4th is an example otherwise-- unless the nature of the fence does for some reason figure in the story.
You aren't seriously suggesting that "The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a holly tree" should actually be permitted to be in the [[Wood]] article, are you? I'd sure remove that if I saw it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:09 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
yes, I am so suggesting. it would probably best located as part of a section (or separate article) on Wood in folklore and tradition, giving significant fictional uses of wood in this context. Of course, it would also fit in an article on Holly, under a similar subheading. Wikipedia is in general in need of considerable expansion in this area.
I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree with this sentiment in every detail.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:09 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
yes, I am so suggesting. it would probably best located as part of a section (or separate article) on Wood in folklore and tradition, giving significant fictional uses of wood in this context. Of course, it would also fit in an article on Holly, under a similar subheading. Wikipedia is in general in need of considerable expansion in this area.
I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree with this sentiment in every detail.
IMHO the details of Potter's wand should be in Wikipedia, but in the Harry Potter article, or [[Wands in the Harry Potter universe]] or such.
An article [[Wood in folklore and tradition]], as suggested, could refer to the ones mentioned above, in a section about "magical" or fictional objects made of wood.
However, I do agree that it has no place in [[Wood]] as such. The topic is much too broad to warrant such minute details.
Magnus
2008/7/10 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
However, I do agree that it has no place in [[Wood]] as such. The topic is much too broad to warrant such minute details.
I would argue the opposite. The encyclopedia topic defined in the lead is talking about real wood, not fictional wood used for fictional purposes in in-universe scenarios.
Magnus
I strongly agree that articles on X in popular culture [etc] are better than extensive sections in the general article, but it's usual to collect material in broad topics until there's enough for more specific articles. In such a general article, it would best be worded as representative examples of various specific woods being used per the spirit of summary style. And those who oppose such content oppose it no matter where it goes.
An article [[Wood in folklore and tradition]], as suggested, could refer to the ones mentioned above, in a section about "magical" or fictional objects made of wood.
However, I do agree that it has no place in [[Wood]] as such. The topic is much too broad to warrant such minute details.
Magnus
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/7/10 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
I strongly agree that articles on X in popular culture [etc] are better than extensive sections in the general article, but it's usual to collect material in broad topics until there's enough for more specific articles. In such a general article, it would best be worded as representative examples of various specific woods being used per the spirit of summary style. And those who oppose such content oppose it no matter where it goes.
Some can be better than others, when there's decent research available on the subject in popular culture itself. [[Nuclear weapons in popular culture]] is a good example. An "in popular culture" article is ideally sociology, not pop culture example-collecting.
- d.
2008/7/10 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
I strongly agree that articles on X in popular culture [etc] are better than extensive sections in the general article, but it's usual to collect material in broad topics until there's enough for more specific articles. In such a general article, it would best be worded as representative examples of various specific woods being used per the spirit of summary style. And those who oppose such content oppose it no matter where it goes.
Maybe, although arguably, it might be claimed that a separate pedia about stuff that people have made up might be ultimately appropriate. People would have a lot more difficulty claiming that it wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia that actually contained only information on fiction and artistic works of one kind or another.
enfictopedia? enartopedia? enculturopedia?
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe, although arguably, it might be claimed that a separate pedia about stuff that people have made up might be ultimately appropriate.
Most of the more popular ones have their own wikis (many at Wikia).
2008/7/11 Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe, although arguably, it might be claimed that a separate pedia about stuff that people have made up might be ultimately appropriate.
Most of the more popular ones have their own wikis (many at Wikia).
Sure, but few of them try to cover a general topic from a non in-universe POV, like [[flying car (fiction)]]; I think the point would be that you would be able to manage the articles better, because you could enforce standards. Right now it's all intermingled fact and fiction in articles, I think that that's a bad thing for both parts of the articles.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
"Stuff that people have made up" includes all of literature, philosophy, religion, music, the fine arts, architecture, artifacts, politics, and human organisations in general. Everything except the physical and biological world. In other words, most of the encyclopedia.
I gather the intended meaning was popular culture. How do you intend to distinguish popular culture as distinct from high culture, or recognized academic culture? Or do you mean it to exclude fiction altogether? On what justification can you exclude fiction, but not paintings or music?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/11 Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe, although arguably, it might be claimed that a separate pedia about stuff that people have made up might be ultimately appropriate.
Most of the more popular ones have their own wikis (many at Wikia).
Sure, but few of them try to cover a general topic from a non in-universe POV, like [[flying car (fiction)]]; I think the point would be that you would be able to manage the articles better, because you could enforce standards. Right now it's all intermingled fact and fiction in articles, I think that that's a bad thing for both parts of the articles.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/7/12 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
"Stuff that people have made up" includes all of literature, philosophy, religion, music, the fine arts, architecture, artifacts, politics, and human organisations in general. Everything except the physical and biological world. In other words, most of the encyclopedia.
No. Architecture isn't simply made up, it's *made*. As are artifacts, and politics and human organisations. Philosophy, on balance isn't simply made up, as it's supposed to reflect the real world.
I mean, everything is made up/invented/discovered, but if what it represents is supposed to be real then it stays, otherwise it gets moved to the other encyclopedia, whatever a good name would be.
I gather the intended meaning was popular culture.
No. The arts, fiction and music. *Real* culture probably doesn't count as it's real, but popular culture is more or less just fiction and music.
How do you intend to distinguish popular culture as distinct from high culture, or recognized academic culture?
Is it in, or intending to represent the real world, rather than, say, fiction? Religion is supposed to be true. Academic culture is the way academia actually works.
Or do you mean it to exclude fiction altogether? On what justification can you exclude fiction, but not paintings or music?
No, no. They would move if they're on a fictitious subject, or unless they are supposed to be essentially true (note that they don't have to be correct, they just have to be claimed to be true, or thought at some time to be true). Some paintings could be kept, but I expect they would almost all move. In cases where they are borderline, they could be in both places, it's not a problem.
And it's not an exclusion at all, it's a division. It's not historically uncommon to divide encyclopedias up into sections.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
I gather then you would remove the articles on Shakespeare? What he wrote was fictions. Or if you consider plays as in some sense "real", then would you eliminate the articles on Tolstoy and Jane Austen? Or would you write about their lives only without discussing their works at all. "Milton had an interesting life, and he wrote some books too, but we're going to only talk about the political ones, not the poetry" ??? "Tolkien had an eminent career as a philologist, for his novels, see elsewhere" ??
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/12 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
"Stuff that people have made up" includes all of literature, philosophy, religion, music, the fine arts, architecture, artifacts, politics, and human organisations in general. Everything except the physical and biological world. In other words, most of the encyclopedia.
No. Architecture isn't simply made up, it's *made*. As are artifacts, and politics and human organisations. Philosophy, on balance isn't simply made up, as it's supposed to reflect the real world.
I mean, everything is made up/invented/discovered, but if what it represents is supposed to be real then it stays, otherwise it gets moved to the other encyclopedia, whatever a good name would be.
I gather the intended meaning was popular culture.
No. The arts, fiction and music. *Real* culture probably doesn't count as it's real, but popular culture is more or less just fiction and music.
How do you intend to distinguish popular culture as distinct from high culture, or recognized academic culture?
Is it in, or intending to represent the real world, rather than, say, fiction? Religion is supposed to be true. Academic culture is the way academia actually works.
Or do you mean it to exclude fiction altogether? On what justification can you exclude fiction, but not paintings or music?
No, no. They would move if they're on a fictitious subject, or unless they are supposed to be essentially true (note that they don't have to be correct, they just have to be claimed to be true, or thought at some time to be true). Some paintings could be kept, but I expect they would almost all move. In cases where they are borderline, they could be in both places, it's not a problem.
And it's not an exclusion at all, it's a division. It's not historically uncommon to divide encyclopedias up into sections.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:27 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I gather then you would remove the articles on Shakespeare? What he wrote was fictions. Or if you consider plays as in some sense "real", then would you eliminate the articles on Tolstoy and Jane Austen? Or would you write about their lives only without discussing their works at all. "Milton had an interesting life, and he wrote some books too, but we're going to only talk about the political ones, not the poetry" ??? "Tolkien had an eminent career as a philologist, for his novels, see elsewhere" ??
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/12 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
"Stuff that people have made up" includes all of literature, philosophy, religion, music, the fine arts, architecture, artifacts, politics, and human organisations in general. Everything except the physical and biological world. In other words, most of the encyclopedia.
No. Architecture isn't simply made up, it's *made*. As are artifacts, and politics and human organisations. Philosophy, on balance isn't simply made up, as it's supposed to reflect the real world.
I mean, everything is made up/invented/discovered, but if what it represents is supposed to be real then it stays, otherwise it gets moved to the other encyclopedia, whatever a good name would be.
I gather the intended meaning was popular culture.
No. The arts, fiction and music. *Real* culture probably doesn't count as it's real, but popular culture is more or less just fiction and music.
How do you intend to distinguish popular culture as distinct from high culture, or recognized academic culture?
Is it in, or intending to represent the real world, rather than, say, fiction? Religion is supposed to be true. Academic culture is the way academia actually works.
Or do you mean it to exclude fiction altogether? On what justification can you exclude fiction, but not paintings or music?
No, no. They would move if they're on a fictitious subject, or unless they are supposed to be essentially true (note that they don't have to be correct, they just have to be claimed to be true, or thought at some time to be true). Some paintings could be kept, but I expect they would almost all move. In cases where they are borderline, they could be in both places, it's not a problem.
And it's not an exclusion at all, it's a division. It's not historically uncommon to divide encyclopedias up into sections.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think one can reasonably make a distinction between discussing Tolkein's or Shakespeare's fictional works in a literary sense (for which there is no lack of source material) and dumping "They mentioned it on (Family Guy|Firefly|Buffy)!!!" at the end of every article on a real subject. For a very -real- philosophical concept, see [[Straw man fallacy]].
On 7/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I gather the intended meaning was popular culture. How do you intend to distinguish popular culture as distinct from high culture, or recognized academic culture? Or do you mean it to exclude fiction altogether? On what justification can you exclude fiction, but not paintings or music?
It's safe enough to assume that all culture was "popular" at some time and place.
—C.W.
2008/9/25 Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 7/11/08, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I gather the intended meaning was popular culture. How do you intend to distinguish popular culture as distinct from high culture, or recognized academic culture? Or do you mean it to exclude fiction altogether? On what justification can you exclude fiction, but not paintings or music?
It's safe enough to assume that all culture was "popular" at some time and place.
Not really. There's art that's popular with the masses and there's art created for a patron. The two often intersect but are not the same thing. c.f. Neal Stephenson in Slashdot (answer to the second question):
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1518217
- d.
On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
Sure, but few of them try to cover a general topic from a non in-universe POV, like [[flying car (fiction)]]; I think the point would be that you would be able to manage the articles better, because you could enforce standards. Right now it's all intermingled fact and fiction in articles, I think that that's a bad thing for both parts of the articles.
Please point me to an article with intermingled fact and fiction.
-Phil
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
Sure, but few of them try to cover a general topic from a non in-universe POV, like [[flying car (fiction)]]; I think the point would be that you would be able to manage the articles better, because you could enforce standards. Right now it's all intermingled fact and fiction in articles, I think that that's a bad thing for both parts of the articles.
Please point me to an article with intermingled fact and fiction.
It's pretty common for articles to lapse into "in-universe" language. In many many the only thing letting you know the entire article is fictional material is a single sentence in the lead. Sometimes this sentence is more obvious than others. (And I think the existence of that sentence is only as common as it is due to some rather ruthless deletions by folks paroling new pages)
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyriandiol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nennifer
I'm probably not alone in finding a degree of distastefulness in an article who's only reference to non reality is a single mention in the lead. You don't want to qualify every sentence with "this is fiction", but there should be a balance. I worry about the encyclopedic merit of articles with such a small amount of meta-analysis that they don't naturally indicate the fictional nature of the subject fairly often.
Another form of intermixing is the occasional "in popular culture" trivia item which fails to mention its fictional nature, but these are so easily fixed I couldn't find an example quickly.
On Jul 11, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'm probably not alone in finding a degree of distastefulness in an article who's only reference to non reality is a single mention in the lead. You don't want to qualify every sentence with "this is fiction", but there should be a balance. I worry about the encyclopedic merit of articles with such a small amount of meta-analysis that they don't naturally indicate the fictional nature of the subject fairly often.
The infuriating thing about such articles is mostly a lack of referencing and context. The Nyriandol article, for instance, doesn't necessarily need to cover real world information more, but it sure would help to at least say what books the damn thing appears in, and to spell out what its role in the larger plot is.
But that's not a fact/fiction difference as such, and that, I think, is an important distinction to make.
-Phil
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:09 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
yes, I am so suggesting. it would probably best located as part of a section (or separate article) on Wood in folklore and tradition, giving significant fictional uses of wood in this context. Of course, it would also fit in an article on Holly, under a similar subheading. Wikipedia is in general in need of considerable expansion in this area. somtime a jok is the best way to suggest it to over-serious people.
* The [[Death Star]] was constructed out of metal. * The sword used by [[Aragorn]] was smithed of metal. * One episode of [[Friends]] portrayed the loss of metal apartment [[key]]s and how that impacted the characters' friendship. * Much of the [[Titanic]] was build from metal.
Seriously? You want this?
[[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]
At 22:39 -0700 6/7/08, Sean Barrett wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig6834C4B43D24208A29383082"
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
Yes, very nice. As ever. The semantics and linking of Wikipedia are often very silly.
Gordo