In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrturvey@googlemail.com writes:
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist? >> ---------------
A little while ago I was reading through our article on the list of Outer Limits episodes and I noticed a tag at the top that I'd not seen before. It said something like that the source itself is not generally considered sufficient for an article. Thinking about that more, it's a bit odd.
For a person, you can't interview them and then write up their biography, but let's say you watched an Outer Limits episode. It states who the actors were, what the title was, you can write a generally simply and bland overview of the plot. It's a primary source, but surely you are merely *describing* the source, you are not interpreting it.
_http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu jx7mco9jp/4_ (http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyuj...) #
Will Johnson
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
See WT:RS and related discussions--the primary source is not just accepted for the statement of the basic facts of the plot, but usually preferred for it -- the interpretation of the plot is what needs the secondary sources. Many plot sections, unfortunately, confuse the two--I can not think of any type of article in Wikipedia where the writing is so consistently below grade as articles or section on plot or on fictional characters. Attempts to correct it usually reduce it to single line of teaser--which is of course equally wrong.
The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin , where the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:07 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrturvey@googlemail.com writes:
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist? >>
A little while ago I was reading through our article on the list of Outer Limits episodes and I noticed a tag at the top that I'd not seen before. It said something like that the source itself is not generally considered sufficient for an article. Thinking about that more, it's a bit odd.
For a person, you can't interview them and then write up their biography, but let's say you watched an Outer Limits episode. It states who the actors were, what the title was, you can write a generally simply and bland overview of the plot. It's a primary source, but surely you are merely *describing* the source, you are not interpreting it.
_http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu jx7mco9jp/4_ (http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyuj...) #
Will Johnson
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005) _______________________________________________ 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 Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin , where the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.
This is incorrect.
"the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted"
No, not all character articles were nominated. Notable characters such as Sally Fletcher, Pippa Ross, Charlie Buckton, Lance Smart and others were not nominated.
"should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. "
This was not the nomination rationale at all. The comment about some being very long and others being very short was just a description of the articles, not a deletion rationale (of course, it would be an absurd reason to delete). The nominator's deletion rationale was based on notability, reliable sources and written in an "in universe" style.
I'm not going to get into any debate here on en-l but please be more careful not to misrepresent AFD nominations currently in progress.
Dear Sarah,
We obviously have very different views about these types of article. I think we both have the sense to know we will not convince each other, and I too do not want to argue the general issue here. But the obvious thing is to compromise on combination articles with 1 or 2 para graph sections for characters and stop fighting each other. The argument against merging was quite specifically that the nature & quality was so different there was no way of simply combining them. The result of trying to delete rather than merge is that people like me , who would be perfectly willing to get rid of the individual articles will instead defend them: I do not care about the separation into articles, but I do about keeping content. I encourage the hot-heads on my side to not try to defend too much, and accept if they can get good merges--perhaps you can do something of the sort also in a reciprocal way.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Sarah Ewartsarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin , where the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.
This is incorrect.
"the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted"
No, not all character articles were nominated. Notable characters such as Sally Fletcher, Pippa Ross, Charlie Buckton, Lance Smart and others were not nominated.
"should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. "
This was not the nomination rationale at all. The comment about some being very long and others being very short was just a description of the articles, not a deletion rationale (of course, it would be an absurd reason to delete). The nominator's deletion rationale was based on notability, reliable sources and written in an "in universe" style.
I'm not going to get into any debate here on en-l but please be more careful not to misrepresent AFD nominations currently in progress. _______________________________________________ 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 5, 2009 at 5:06 AM, David Goodmandgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
The result of trying to delete rather than merge is that people like me , who would be perfectly willing to get rid of the individual articles will instead defend them: I do not care about the separation into articles, but I do about keeping content. I encourage the hot-heads on my side to not try to defend too much, and accept if they can get good merges--perhaps you can do something of the sort also in a reciprocal way.
This is my position also. I am a decided mergist, and I think good merging (coupled with improved writing and sourcing by people willing to do the legwork that those voting delete often aren't) can solve many problems. Of course, the focus then shifts to the lists, or the summary articles, but it is often easier to defend notability of a "topic" if the merge target is carefully thought out.
There should, somewhere, be "best practice" examples of what good merging can produce. Can anyone find them?
Carcharoth