In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
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.
Actually, the WP:FICT rewrite strongly discourages deletion and highly suggests using other methods, such as merging, transwiki, or cleanup. The fact of the matter is that notability on Wikipedia is established by coverage in secondary sources. With respect fo fiction, secondary sources cover out-of-universe information. Therefore, for fiction to be encyclopedic, it has to have out-of-universe information either in the article or available (proof should be provided). It's not about "interesting" material or material people "don't like".
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
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.
Actually, the WP:FICT rewrite strongly discourages deletion and highly suggests using other methods, such as merging, transwiki, or cleanup. The fact of the matter is that notability on Wikipedia is established by coverage in secondary sources. With respect fo fiction, secondary sources cover out-of-universe information. Therefore, for fiction to be encyclopedic, it has to have out-of-universe information either in the article or available (proof should be provided). It's not about "interesting" material or material people "don't like".
The whole exercise seems to be devoted to substituting one version of bafflegab with another, although I dod note that a section in the current guideline encouraging people to be bold is being completely excised. What people need to know about an article on fiction is that it is in fact fiction. That is all we need to know about whether something is in or out of our universe. We need to keep things simple. We need to recognize that many minor characters and incidents probably don't have enough information available to warrant a full article, but we need to approach that with great flexibility. Some small incidents like the knocking at the gate in "Macbeth" can have a lot of unexpected dimensions.
Ec
On 6/25/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
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.
Actually, the WP:FICT rewrite strongly discourages deletion and highly suggests using other methods, such as merging, transwiki, or cleanup. The fact of the matter is that notability on Wikipedia is established by coverage in secondary sources.
Sometimes, but not always. The important thing to recognize is if a work of fiction can be judged notable then it shouldn't be necessary for every element to be discussed outside before its inclusion in Wikipedia.
In other words, to write about Law and Order episodes you should have to demonstrate that the series is notable. Then you can write about individual episodes and characters as long as you cite the episodes themselves.
That's a sufficient and reasonable notability policy that excludes nonsense material from Wikipedia without unnecessarily removing useful information from Wikipedia or burdening interested editors with the fear that their work will be deleted by someone with an axe to grind about how lame television, comic books, or video games are.
The Cunctator schrieb:
On 6/25/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
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.
Actually, the WP:FICT rewrite strongly discourages deletion and highly suggests using other methods, such as merging, transwiki, or cleanup. The fact of the matter is that notability on Wikipedia is established by coverage in secondary sources.
Sometimes, but not always. The important thing to recognize is if a work of fiction can be judged notable then it shouldn't be necessary for every element to be discussed outside before its inclusion in Wikipedia.
In other words, to write about Law and Order episodes you should have to demonstrate that the series is notable. Then you can write about individual episodes and characters as long as you cite the episodes themselves.
That's a sufficient and reasonable notability policy that excludes nonsense material from Wikipedia without unnecessarily removing useful information from Wikipedia or burdening interested editors with the fear that their work will be deleted by someone with an axe to grind about how lame television, comic books, or video games are.
That may apply to series and their episodes (and even then, I'd say it somewhat depends on the particular series in question), but some fictional universes have spawned enourmous article families and the tendency seems to be to spin out too quickly. Would you say that the obvious notability Star Wars enjoys covers every related article? I believe the basic notability tenet that if it's notable, it has most probably been covered in secondary sources, should apply to all members of article families that are not structured as a simple hierarchy (e.g. series/season/episode).