[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[White Cat]

We do have some sort of b'cracy going on. First you mass merge articles to a
few lists after heavy trimming. Wait a month or two to calm the fan
reaction. Merge these lists to a single list after heavy trimming. Wait a
month or two to calm the fan reaction. Blank the list and convert it to a
redirect to the main article.

I really do not understand this tendency to "mass merge" articles out of
notability concerns. What are you doing? Do they become notable when merged
to a long and unintelligible list? This is helping wikipedia become a better
encyclopedia? Not everyone has a private broadband line going into their
computer you know. You might, but the vast majority of the world doesn't.
GPRS connections for example are no faster than 56k

Merges of lots of short articles with no hope of growing is understandable.
Merges of long articles is not. One key problem when merging multiple LONG
articles is that the merged page gets ridiculously long. Articles are
shortened for this purpose and you get very little content. Then people
complain that these list of character articles are unencyclopedic because
there is little actual information on them. In other words due to a lack of
information that were removed during the merge, list of character articles
get blanked. We break articles apart when they get too long. We do not do
the opposite.

Just because something contains little out-of-universe info, why does that
mean a non-discussion auto deletion? Don't get me wrong, I do understand why
we *want* out-of-universe info. I want out-of-universe info too. It keeps
the article interesting if nothing else. What I do not understand is why we
*require* out of universe info for articles to exist. Articles are *required
* to be written with the use of [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:RS|reliable]]
sources. Someone should explain me why is out-of-universe info required
without wikilawyering me policies, guidelines or essays.

As Jimbo stated that seeking of a "universal notability" is a mistake.
Harvard will not publish an article or a book on Pokemon species, Simpsons
characters, Doctor Who vilans, Star Trek episodes anytime soon. This does
not mean they should be bulk removed. We have articles on Simpons which is
the shining example of how fiction related articles can be improved.
Simpsons have had about 400 TV episodes. If they all become FAs that will be
about 1/3rd or 1/4th of our current number of Featured articles. This is the
strength of Wikipedia and weakness of snubs like Britannica. If you want
Wikipedia to be a Britannica, you could just buy Britannica...

*Case study: *Unown

For the following article I see plenty of sources. Granted it isn't featured
quality but it certainly isn't a stub. Note that some referances are not
shown because someone forgot to add {{reflist}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unown&oldid=148901394

It was shortened to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unown#Unown

Which version is more encyclopedic? More readable? Overall more useful?
Better sourced? Did the shortened version increase article quality?