On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Not always,
anyway. Lists of people by sexuality or ethnicity, for
example, have been known to stray into the area of creative
interpretation.
That's a case where subjective interpretation may be necessary in order
to determine whether an item is a member of the list.
Fine, as long as it's some named independent authority's subjective
interpretation. With, for example, the list of tall men, it was
entirely a construct of Wikipedia editors: some people decided what
tall means, and then changed the value until the list was not "too
big" (for whatever value of big might be too big) then introduced some
extra criteria to exclude most basketball players because otherwise it
was mainly a list of basketball players.
In this case, the criterion for list membership is
"has been on the Top
Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation
than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes. Like saying
it was No. 1 in the charts. But, as with the charts, including the
entire list violates copyright. And to get the names requires either
interpretation of the pictures or watching every show. There are no
independent secondary sources, and the primary source does not publish
the list in text form.
If there's a show where season 1 stars Joe Bloe and
Jane Foo, and season
2 stars Jane Foo and Billy dePlume, would it be original research to
have the cast list
* Joe Bloe
* Jane Foo
* Billy dePlume
in the article about that show, even if nobody else had
ever published
the list in a secondary source before?
A show with absolutely no independently published cast lists? Sounds
like it lacks sources. Is it notable? ;-)
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG