In a message dated 6/26/2007 3:23:53 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
There are certainly not sufficient secondary sources to support every element of the episode / character entries which are based primarily on the primary sources. For example, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goren.
Is this an irresponsible article of fancruft? I certainly don't think so. As an infrequent viewer of the series, I found it profoundly helpful. Note that the majority of the sources are from episodes. Some are what may be considered secondary material (interviews on season DVDs) but I could see people claiming that doesn't count as secondary material either.
When all those characters are combined together, enough sources can probably be squeezed. The cast of characters article wouldn't be very long, either; when the OR, redundant story retellings, and trivia are weeded out, each entry would probably only be 2-4 paragraphs. I'm sure the cast of characters as a whole have been mentioned in reviews (I've googled a few media site reviews, which discuss how the importance of the characters has evolved from previous series, how points of view have changes, and how certain characters like Goren overshadow others. another mentions how and why certain characters were brought back for the game). I saw a site with "character insight" interviews as well. All of this can be added into a "reception and criticism" section in a cast of characters article, and with the interviews describing several of the characters, the amount of real world info would be enough to show notability.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
You have confirmed my fears that the result of this proposal would be to grossly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's entries by merging and cutting them.
On 6/26/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2007 3:23:53 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
There are certainly not sufficient secondary sources to support every element of the episode / character entries which are based primarily on the primary sources. For example, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goren.
Is this an irresponsible article of fancruft? I certainly don't think so. As an infrequent viewer of the series, I found it profoundly helpful. Note that the majority of the sources are from episodes. Some are what may be considered secondary material (interviews on season DVDs) but I could see people claiming that doesn't count as secondary material either.
When all those characters are combined together, enough sources can probably be squeezed. The cast of characters article wouldn't be very long, either; when the OR, redundant story retellings, and trivia are weeded out, each entry would probably only be 2-4 paragraphs. I'm sure the cast of characters as a whole have been mentioned in reviews (I've googled a few media site reviews, which discuss how the importance of the characters has evolved from previous series, how points of view have changes, and how certain characters like Goren overshadow others. another mentions how and why certain characters were brought back for the game). I saw a site with "character insight" interviews as well. All of this can be added into a "reception and criticism" section in a cast of characters article, and with the interviews describing several of the characters, the amount of real world info would be enough to show notability.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator schrieb:
You have confirmed my fears that the result of this proposal would be to grossly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's entries by merging and cutting them.
On 6/26/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2007 3:23:53 PM Central Daylight Time, cunctator@gmail.com writes:
There are certainly not sufficient secondary sources to support every element of the episode / character entries which are based primarily on the primary sources. For example, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goren.
Is this an irresponsible article of fancruft? I certainly don't think so. As an infrequent viewer of the series, I found it profoundly helpful. Note that the majority of the sources are from episodes. Some are what may be considered secondary material (interviews on season DVDs) but I could see people claiming that doesn't count as secondary material either.
When all those characters are combined together, enough sources can probably be squeezed. The cast of characters article wouldn't be very long, either; when the OR, redundant story retellings, and trivia are weeded out, each entry would probably only be 2-4 paragraphs. I'm sure the cast of characters as a whole have been mentioned in reviews (I've googled a few media site reviews, which discuss how the importance of the characters has evolved from previous series, how points of view have changes, and how certain characters like Goren overshadow others. another mentions how and why certain characters were brought back for the game). I saw a site with "character insight" interviews as well. All of this can be added into a "reception and criticism" section in a cast of characters article, and with the interviews describing several of the characters, the amount of real world info would be enough to show notability.
Hm.. the actual aim of the proposal is to improve usability by improving the organisation and clarifying the guidelines for arrangement of existing material, and to counter unnecessary fragmentation that currently (as perceived by me, at least) impedes usability both for readers and for editors. In your opinion, is the deletionist/destructive effect you expect unavoidable, or could the proposal be adjusted to serve its intended purpose while at the same time avoiding overtly strict rulings wrt notability?
On 26/06/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
The Cunctator schrieb:
You have confirmed my fears that the result of this proposal would be to grossly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's entries by merging and cutting them.
Hm.. the actual aim of the proposal is to improve usability by improving the organisation and clarifying the guidelines for arrangement of existing material, and to counter unnecessary fragmentation that currently (as perceived by me, at least) impedes usability both for readers and for editors. In your opinion, is the deletionist/destructive effect you expect unavoidable, or could the proposal be adjusted to serve its intended purpose while at the same time avoiding overtly strict rulings wrt notability?
Any time you read the word "notability", read it as "excuse to delete." Because that's how the term originated in its usage as Wikipedia jargon. That's all it means.
- d.