in fact, there are usually review sources discussing each individual episode. True, only some of them are the conventional published sources that we use. What we need for both the conventional and the nonconventional is editors prepared to track these down, and add them to articles.
We should be writing an encyclopedia such that someone who is friends with a fan of a series, can learn enough from WP to be able to understand their interests and understand their conversation about the events and motivations of the individual episodes of the series--not the way a true fan would, but at least a casually interested other. that a parent, for example, could understand what a child was talking about without having to watch all the childrens' series. That's part of the very purpose of a general encyclopedia--the applicability to real life, not just background for the academic study of things.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
There's nothing wrong with redirecting tons of permastubs to a single, manageable list. That would be true of stars in a galaxy, or tiny towns in a county, or episodes in a TV series, or albums from a band when the albums themselves have received little or no coverage, or the majority of players on a sports team, or.... Most of those things have little to no secondary source material, so a list makes far more sense than a thousand articles that will never get better, and may have inexperienced editors look at them, decide they're "too short", and put in a bunch of unreferenced speculation/original research/trivia/"Family Guy mentioned it once!". If it turns out an element or two of the list gets enough source material to write a good article on it, it can easily be split out, while leaving the rest of the list items as redirects. That's simply good organization.
In most of those cases it's possible to put in a lot of material that you would dismiss as "unreferenced speculation/original research/trivia" but which is IMO (and I the O of a lot of other editors) perfectly reasonable and valuable information to have in an article. For example, a plot summary and cast listing of a TV episode is neither unreferenced nor original research nor trivia.
By smushing everything together into one giant list page a lot of that information is going to be thrown away. I think you're going to have to come up with a reason for throwing that information away beyond simply asserting that it's "non-notable". The validity of judging things based on their "notability" is what's under discussion here, you can't just assume it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l