Nathan Awrich wrote:
Really? Scholarly treatment of Buffy? Oy.
Actually now that you
mention it, I vaguely recall such a thing. Alright, next time I'll
use... "Kyle XY" instead? Don't tell me he's in some Harvard journal.
You're holding the subject area to ludicrously inappropriate standards.
"Reliable sources" are not one-size-fits-all; what's a "reliable
source"
for an article about a blood protein is completely different from what's
a "reliable source" for a sports figure or a TV show or a medieval monk.
This sort of robotic following of guidelines outside their areas of
applicability as if they were rigid laws is the basic cause of the
problem here.
More seriously - I think you are absolutely
correct, there is no point
in having episode articles if you aren't going to have articles on all
the episodes. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to ever
adequately reference the majority of them anyway. I think a single
article per popular series, at the most, could be acceptable (to me).
Unless somehow a particular episode gets huge coverage (like the final
'reveal' episode of "Ellen").
This is a fully volunteer project. If you tell people they aren't
allowed to work on the areas that interest them, they're just going to
go away. If you don't want to write more than one article on a show,
then don't - choose some subject that you're more interested in. But
don't tell other people where they should be putting their own efforts.
There's an article for every named crater on the Moon. How do you think
it would go over if I went to WikiProject Moon and told them "I'm not a
selenologist or anything but I've decided this subject's only worth one
article of coverage, I'm going to merge these all into [[Craters on the
Moon]] per the WP:CRATERSARENTINTERESTING guideline you've never heard
of before. You're not allowed to revert me until you can overturn it"?
More importantly, why on Earth would I do that in the first place? How
does it _hurt_ Wikipedia to have such extensive coverage?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
Cruft. Disorganization. Lack of context. If we're to be writing an
-encyclopedia-, it needs to have certain standards. We don't for example
cover every living person in the world, because the vast majority of
them are not notable. Let Myspace do that. Similarly, let All Music
Guide cover the two-bit bands and
cover every episode of every
show. We're supposed to be distilling, not replicating.