[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[David Goodman]

I have never defended "all" episode articles. Don't know anyone who
has. Some of them are really minor and well worth merging; one of the
factors is  the importance of t he show. I usually word it as
defending the defensible ones, I see I forgot he adjective this time.

And I agree with you that they do not necessarily need separate
articles. It depends on the importance and the amount of material
available; both real-world, and plot worth summarizing.

And I agree with including as much important  real-world information
as we can get, and, like you, I do expect to see more--though it
typically takes a year or two for academic work to be published. But
the plot and character and setting content is equally important.

Why should we look for another wiki? fiction is important, and plot is
after all the basis of it. A fiction is fundamentally a story. I think
in wanting appropriately full inclusion of this material I share the
consensus of ordinary wpedians, as will be confirmed when we get a
broad enough forum. But if not, not.

DGG

On 12/30/07, Ned Scott <ned at nedscott.com> wrote:
> You're welcome to try, but I'm not sure how successful that will be
> for -all- of them. You can't blindly defend all episode articles and
> expect them to all have the same conditions. Personally, I do think we
> are in a time where real-world information is growing about
> entertainment, and we will get more real-world information about TV
> shows. But even then, it doesn't always mean that information is best
> represented in a per-episode format. For example, if that information
> can apply to more than one episode, or is more about a character than
> a specific episode, etc.
>
> Still, that's not to say that it isn't possible. The series of The
> Simpsons episode articles continue to surprise me. I think they have
> something like 60 GA articles, and a hand full of FAs. However, even
> if every episode of a show has shown reasonable potential, that
> doesn't always mean that the existing summary is even worth saving.
> Some of them are nothing more than a few sentences that are copied off
> the List_of article.
>
> Recently, since I've become more familiar with moving stuff over to
> external wikis (mainly Wikia), I've realized there should be extra
> care taken when you have something that people have worked on for a
> while. There really isn't any reason why we can't have a place for
> everything. (and in a perfect world, the Wikimedia Foundation would
> have some kind of fiction-wiki, given how high-traffic those articles
> are.) When I come across articles that have a reasonable number of
> edits, and good quality summaries, I myself will not take those to AfD
> (unless a total transwiki, with article history, is possible and done).
>
> If you want to establish that a group of articles should remain, then
> the best way to do that is to show reasonable potential for real-world
> information that would justify those articles. The "cabal" is only
> trying to improve our coverage on fiction, rather than being buried
> under a sea of summary that does a poor job compared to the show itself.
>
> -- Ned Scott
>
> On Dec 29, 2007, at 8:27 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>
> > Yes. Nathan is right that the better strategy is to defend the
> > existing articles, and so establish that such articles should remain
> > on wikipedia. A more widespread intelligent selective good-faith
> > participation in afds is the ordinary wikipedians defense against
> > cabals.
> > And the best of all is to improve existing articles so people will be
> > ashamed even to nominate them--or if they still do, we will establish
> > a solid pattern of snow keep closes.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG