In a message dated 6/26/2007 3:51:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
The in-universe statement: "The Blogaveen race has blue hair and green
eyes." can be rewritten out-of-universe as: "In Episode 17, a member
of the Blogaveen race is portrayed as having blue hair and green
eyes." That statement is perfectly OOU, but doesn't require anything
but the primary source. Obviously, information about the creation of
the character would be good, but the absence of it doesn't make the
statement IU.
It gives it an out-of-universe perspective, which is different than having
out-of-universe information. Out-of-universe material is stuff like sales
figures, merchandise, reception, etc. Out-of-universe perspective is how it's
written, in addition to having sections of out-of-universe information.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
I am so tempted to write the article [[calibrated diet plate]].
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@wikia.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 04:12 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Attack Site Wars, Episode VII... The Return of the Essjay
>
>
>On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>> On 6/25/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1) An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in most
>> major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of notability
>> under any rational interpretation of the word.
>
>In many cases, yes. But actually in most cases, no.
>
>Here's a very big routine news story today:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
>
>Widely covered:
>http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox-
>a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%
>3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
>
>But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an
>encyclopedia article. It's just a routine "filler" news story.
>
>I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York
>Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news stories
>are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end up
>not writing about most of them.
>
>This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability debate,
>but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really help
>settle the issue.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
In a message dated 6/26/2007 1:52:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
cunctator(a)gmail.com writes:
Sometimes, but not always. The important thing to recognize is if a
work of fiction can be judged notable then it shouldn't be necessary
for every element to be discussed outside before its inclusion in
Wikipedia.
In other words, to write about Law and Order episodes you should have
to demonstrate that the series is notable. Then you can write about
individual episodes and characters as long as you cite the episodes
themselves.
That's a sufficient and reasonable notability policy that excludes
nonsense material from Wikipedia without unnecessarily removing useful
information from Wikipedia or burdening interested editors with the
fear that their work will be deleted by someone with an axe to grind
about how lame television, comic books, or video games are.
With those Law and Order episodes, however, there is probably sufficient
secondary sources (ratings, criticism/reviews, etc). The main problem at hand,
like Aldebaer said, are little articles on every aspect of fiction, and even
giant lists of minor characters or places - stuff that cannot even get a single
ounce of secondary coverage and is not necessary for a general understanding
otherwise.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/25/2007 1:35:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
cunctator(a)gmail.com writes:
THANK you. This is the type of unhelpful guideline that only serves to
encourage people to delete well-written, interesting, and useful content
from Wikipedia because they personally don't like it.
Actually, the WP:FICT rewrite strongly discourages deletion and highly
suggests using other methods, such as merging, transwiki, or cleanup. The fact of
the matter is that notability on Wikipedia is established by coverage in
secondary sources. With respect fo fiction, secondary sources cover
out-of-universe information. Therefore, for fiction to be encyclopedic, it has to have
out-of-universe information either in the article or available (proof should be
provided). It's not about "interesting" material or material people "don't
like".
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
(Ignore the previous e-mail: AOL is being glitchy)
Absolutely. Especially since, if the rewrite for WP:FICT passes, articles
will be required to have out-of-universe information to establish notability.
WAF should then emphasize perspective with such information already assumed to
be included.
In a message dated 6/26/2007 11:48:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
aldebaer(a)googlemail.com writes:
Hmm.. WAF first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual
oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things
from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements
referring to specific parts of a work is more like
half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information
regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple
reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion,
obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and
interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should
give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much
of it.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/26/2007 11:48:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
aldebaer(a)googlemail.com writes:
Hmm.. WAF first gives a list of examples of what constitutes actual
oou-perspective, but in the second section says "or describing things
from the author or creator's perspective". Including only statements
referring to specific parts of a work is more like
half-in-half-out-universe, your example still lacks any information
regarding an essential out-of-world- perspective, and a simple
reformulation seems a bit WEASELy. But that's really just my opinion,
obviously I'm in mild disagreement with the current wording and
interpretation of WAF. It's what I'm arguing for after all: WAF should
give less leeway in that direction, since it's currently giving too much
of it.
Indeed, especially since, if the WP:FICT rewrite passes, articles q
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/26/2007 9:06:28 AM Central Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
>
>
"Let's teach the newbies how to do things" is not newbiephobia.
To clarify, the "newbiephobia" statement, not the statement above, is what I
was referring to.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/26/2007 9:06:28 AM Central Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
>
>
"Let's teach the newbies how to do things" is not newbiephobia.
Thank you. That, along with some other statements, has turned me off from
this mailing list. I'll ask for feedback on-Wiki for now on :)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
One user boldly decided to move the [[WP:BOLD]] essay to a more
restrictive title to imply that boldness should only be exercised in
article space.
I don't know if anybody else sees the complete irony of performing an
action which changes the guideline in such a way that the action being
performed falls outside the guideline (read that until you understand
the paradox) so I moved it back.
Of course my edits were rolled back by another user. So, um... thoughts?
—C.W.