[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[Oldak Quill]

On 21/12/2007, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Nathan Awrich wrote:
> > Really? Scholarly treatment of Buffy? Oy. Actually now that you
> > mention it, I vaguely recall such a thing. Alright, next time I'll
> > use... "Kyle XY" instead? Don't tell me he's in some Harvard journal.
>
> You're holding the subject area to ludicrously inappropriate standards.
> "Reliable sources" are not one-size-fits-all; what's a "reliable source"
> for an article about a blood protein is completely different from what's
> a "reliable source" for a sports figure or a TV show or a medieval monk.
> This sort of robotic following of guidelines outside their areas of
> applicability as if they were rigid laws is the basic cause of the
> problem here.
>
> > More seriously - I think you are absolutely correct, there is no point
> > in having episode articles if you aren't going to have articles on all
> > the episodes. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to ever
> > adequately reference the majority of them anyway. I think a single
> > article per popular series, at the most, could be acceptable (to me).
> > Unless somehow a particular episode gets huge coverage (like the final
> > 'reveal' episode of "Ellen").
>
> This is a fully volunteer project. If you tell people they aren't
> allowed to work on the areas that interest them, they're just going to
> go away. If you don't want to write more than one article on a show,
> then don't - choose some subject that you're more interested in. But
> don't tell other people where they should be putting their own efforts.
>
> There's an article for every named crater on the Moon. How do you think
> it would go over if I went to WikiProject Moon and told them "I'm not a
> selenologist or anything but I've decided this subject's only worth one
> article of coverage, I'm going to merge these all into [[Craters on the
> Moon]] per the WP:CRATERSARENTINTERESTING guideline you've never heard
> of before. You're not allowed to revert me until you can overturn it"?
> More importantly, why on Earth would I do that in the first place? How
> does it _hurt_ Wikipedia to have such extensive coverage?

Thank you for one of the funniest and most insightful posts I have
read on this list in a long time.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)