[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[Ray Saintonge]

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Nathan Awrich wrote:
>   
>> I think there is a specific standard for the notability of fiction for
>> good reason. I'm not sure that having been seen by millions of glazer
>> over eyeballs is necessarily enough for something to be notable
>>     
> Excuse me, but "glazed-over eyeballs?" These are our readers and our
> editors we're talking about. Please refrain from dismissing their
> interests as unimportant because you don't share them. It would be just
> as inappropriate to refer to the authors and users of our sports-related
> articles as "overmuscled jocks", or our politician-related articles as
> "politics weenies", or whatever other derogatory characterization one
> might come up with.
>
> If you don't find a subject area interesting to you, just _leave it alone_.
>   
As much as Nathan is radically off-base on this issue, I would probably 
be a little kinder about "glazed-over eyeballs."  He's talking about a 
medical phenomenon that can happen to any reader on any subject.  It can 
even happen on a favorable topic when the quality of the writing is 
execrable.

I get it on policy pages, and one big problem with them is that the 
reasonable people leave them alone.  I read this at 
[[Wikipedia:Notability]]: /"Presumed"/ means objective evidence meets 
the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of 
editors."  Fearing that they haven't confused us enough the writers add 
this footnote: "Non-notability is a re_buttab_le presumption 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption> based only on a 
lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once 
evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because 
that would require a negative proof 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof>."  I guess that 
establishes that it does not take a long article to make eyes glaze 
over.  This is a definition of "presumed" that is contrary to the normal 
use of the word.  A policy (or guideline) that takes such liberties with 
the language only merits ridicule. 

As I see it guidelines are quasi-policy documents without enough support 
to make it as policy.  They should never be viewed as enforceable, and 
should give wide latitude to those who would approach the subject 
differently
> I have a hard time believing that _none_ of them are reliable sources.
>
> Unless you meant perhaps peer-reviewed journal articles?
>   
I grant that much of pop culture material is ephemeral, but that is 
precisely why we should view it more favorably.  By chronicling these we 
give future generations a much greater insight into today's society.  In 
topics such as this "peer-reviewed journal articles" are a nonsensical 
criterion.  They are little more than excuse to support destructive 
behaviour.  The concept has its place in some fields of learning, but 
not here.
>> I wouldn't go undeleting them
>> unless you first get approval on policy changes. I'm sure the
>> fan-types will support you, but the community in general seems to be
>> leaning away from your position.
>>     
> That doesn't seem to be the case over on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. So
> if the community in general hasn't approving of the guideline that was
> used as justification for deleting them, they can be deleted, but they
> can't be undeleted until everyone agrees? Double standard, no thanks.
> The "default" position should be to refrain from deleting when in doubt.
Indeed.  These policies and guidelines have a habit of popping up all 
over with the support only of those interested in developing the 
statement in question.  The simple fact that it is there in no way 
implies that it has community support.  It just means that most of the 
community probably doesn't know that it's there.  To say that this 
policy cruft needs to meet exceptional criteria to be deleted is to 
pervert all notions of fair play.  If the people who support this kind 
of cruft weren't so fearful that the community might strike it down they 
would have no problem with a voting process that remains open even after 
a guideline has been seemingly adopted.  If the level of support falls 
below a pre-determined level some months later it would simply cease to 
be applicable. It often takes months before affected editors even notice 
that a guideline has been adopted.

Ec