[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[David Goodman]

The great value of these articles to me is hat I will typically not
have seen a show, but it will be discussed in something I read or in
conversation. To avoid appearing like a totally out-of-touch archaic
idiot, I then want to find out something. (Thought the specific topics
will vary, this is one key reason why people read encyclopedias,  to
find out the basics about things they are not familiar with.
I want to find out about the basics; the plot, the characters, the
setting, what films or whatever which I might have seen that do refer
to it, what it might refer to that I do know about, the sort of
basically trivial details or gags that people talk about. These are
all things that the guidelines cut back on sharply.
Of course, I do want to find out about them in a manner I can
understand--if the article on a episode goes frame by frame by line
through every detail, assuming that I can put everything in place, I
generally can't follow it. That's the difference between a general
encyclopedia like WP and a specialized fan site--but I need much more
than the sentence or two about each episode that the plot summaries
are now being reduced to. And I usually can follow complicated series
plots better from articles about the characters than about each
episode in sequence--but those article are usually now rejected.
And all of this will hold with respect to each form of art to those
who are not experts in it.


On 12/21/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> 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_.
>
> > - it
> > may be, but I would argue that there have been tons of episodes of
> > tons of TV shows and in 5 years no one will remember 99 percent of
> > them, let alone cite them for anything. Additionally, they present
> > clear RS problems - how often do reliable sources publish a treatment
> > of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode?
>
> I expect every one of them has a DVD with a commentary track available,
> for starters. A quick Google search also turns up
> <http://www.tv.com/buffy-the-vampire-slayer/show/10/summary.html>,
> <http://www.buffyguide.com/>, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/>,
> <http://www.buffyworld.com/>, and <http://chosentwo.com/buffy/> on the
> first page of results. Some of these may not be as useful as others but
> I have a hard time believing that _none_ of them are reliable sources.
>
> Unless you meant perhaps peer-reviewed journal articles?
>
> > 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.