You have confirmed my fears that the result of this
proposal would be
to grossly reduce the utility of Wikipedia's entries by merging and
cutting them.
On 6/26/07, SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com <SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 6/26/2007 3:23:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
> cunctator(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> There are certainly not sufficient secondary sources to support every
> element of the episode / character entries which are based primarily
> on the primary sources. For example, take a look at
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goren.
>
> Is this an irresponsible article of fancruft? I certainly don't think
> so. As an infrequent viewer of the series, I found it profoundly
> helpful. Note that the majority of the sources are from episodes. Some
> are what may be considered secondary material (interviews on season
> DVDs) but I could see people claiming that doesn't count as secondary
> material either.
>
>
>
> When all those characters are combined together, enough sources can probably
> be squeezed. The cast of characters article wouldn't be very long, either;
> when the OR, redundant story retellings, and trivia are weeded out, each entry
> would probably only be 2-4 paragraphs. I'm sure the cast of characters as a
> whole have been mentioned in reviews (I've googled a few media site reviews,
> which discuss how the importance of the characters has evolved from previous
> series, how points of view have changes, and how certain characters like
> Goren overshadow others. another mentions how and why certain characters were
> brought back for the game). I saw a site with "character insight"
interviews as
> well. All of this can be added into a "reception and criticism" section in
a
> cast of characters article, and with the interviews describing several of the
> characters, the amount of real world info would be enough to show notability.
>
Hm.. the actual aim of the proposal is to improve usability by improving
the organisation and clarifying the guidelines for arrangement of
existing material, and to counter unnecessary fragmentation that
currently (as perceived by me, at least) impedes usability both for
readers and for editors. In your opinion, is the deletionist/destructive
effect you expect unavoidable, or could the proposal be adjusted to
serve its intended purpose while at the same time avoiding overtly
strict rulings wrt notability?