RFC

[Surreptitiousness]

I've created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Notability_and_fiction 
regarding notability and how it applies to fiction has been created in
order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is
most appropriate.

All editors are invited to present comments as to the current treatment
of fiction on Wikipedia, especially with regards:
*Whether a true consensus exists or whether the community is split
*Whether a guideline other than the [[WP:GNG|general notability
guideline]] can be created
*Whether an essay describing the differing views is better

Editors wishing to present specific proposals for a guideline, essay or
another way forwards are free to do so.  I'm sending this message in
keeping with the instructions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[AGK-2]

What is the recent context for this RfC? I see that the two Episodes and
Characters arbitration cases are cited as reasons for clarifying site policy
on notability and fiction, but the newest of those cases is over a year old.
If no context exists, then we may well be trying to find a solution to a
problem that doesn't exist.

AGK
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

Please see WT:NOT, WT:FICT, and the AFD logs. You'll have a lot of
reading to do to catch up on this, but there is one helpful
factor: it is endlessly repetitive.



David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, AGK<wikiagk@...> wrote:

> What is the recent context for this RfC? I see that the two Episodes and
> Characters arbitration cases are cited as reasons for clarifying site policy
> on notability and fiction, but the newest of those cases is over a year old.
> If no context exists, then we may well be trying to find a solution to a
> problem that doesn't exist.
>
> AGK
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[AGK-2]

>
> Please see WT:NOT, WT:FICT, and the AFD logs. You'll have a lot of reading
> to do to catch up on this, but there is one helpful factor: it is endlessly
> repetitive.


Heh, thank you.

AGK
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.  
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
But please don't protect "positions".  We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]]
for the umpteenth time, we already have it.  We just need to say that
there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad
articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no
substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards
fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a
"problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies.
Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it
is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own
guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced
by [[WP:BLP]].  Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and
the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue,
it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to
recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia
will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability.  That
adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.

User:Hiding

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Surreptitiousness wrote:

> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.  
> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
> the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
> But please don't protect "positions".  We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]]
> for the umpteenth time, we already have it.  We just need to say that
> there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad
> articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no
> substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards
> fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a
> "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies.
> Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it
> is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own
> guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced
> by [[WP:BLP]].  Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and
> the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue,
> it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to
> recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia
> will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability.  That
> adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
>
>  

I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be
saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content
policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it
meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't
do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this
once (from a different angle):
http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:

> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>  
>> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
>> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.  
>> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
>> the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
>> But please don't protect "positions".  We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]]
>> for the umpteenth time, we already have it.  We just need to say that
>> there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad
>> articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no
>> substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards
>> fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a
>> "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies.
>> Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it
>> is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own
>> guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced
>> by [[WP:BLP]].  Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and
>> the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue,
>> it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to
>> recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia
>> will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability.  That
>> adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
>>
>>  
>>    
> I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be
> saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content
> policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it
> meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't
> do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this
> once (from a different angle):
> http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
>  

It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what
happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too
many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
[[WP:IAR]].  Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a
sense of the polarised viewpoints.  I'd defend fundamental content
policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always
deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content
policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also
understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental
content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content
policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original
research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and
can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground
is at what point does something become worth writing about:  Is it when
a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country?  
Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and
others from writing about something.  My clearest experience of this is
with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation
said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one
example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains.  
When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"?  Coatracks
don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the
force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter
by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to
the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the
character is central to the understanding of the work.  Such a position
will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is
not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be
easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss
that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly
reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.

This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree
with you when you say that "summary style
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY>, highly desirable as it
is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what
is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve
within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we
have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that
topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles.  The problem is in
recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that
our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus.  When
consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens?  
For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it
to remain policy.  Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not
accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for
determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come
to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better
understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great.  But if
that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of
Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to
become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which
is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and
assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them
amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better
has emerged to prop up collaboration.  I am quite prepared to take an
eventualist position through a  restraint from editing, since it is
impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was
far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit
without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to
edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than
refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.

Best regards,

User:Hiding

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get involved in notability-related discussions.

Am I understanding your point right:

At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this guideline. In the event of conflict between the central guideline and the subsidiary, the central one should prevail.

You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist?

Andrew

----- "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:

> From: "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian@...>
> To: "charles r matthews" <charles.r.matthews@...>, "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction
>
> Charles Matthews wrote:
> > Surreptitiousness wrote:
> >
> >> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
> >> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
> >> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
> >> the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
> >> But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]]
> >> for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that
> >> there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad
> >> articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no
> >> substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards
> >> fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a
> >> "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies.
> >> Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it
> >> is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own
> >> guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced
> >> by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and
> >> the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue,
> >> it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to
> >> recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia
> >> will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That
> >> adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be
> > saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content
> > policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it
> > meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't
> > do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this
> > once (from a different angle):
> > http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability 
> >
> It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what
> happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too
> many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
> [[WP:IAR]]. Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a
> sense of the polarised viewpoints. I'd defend fundamental content
> policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always
> deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content
> policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also
> understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental
> content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content
> policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original
> research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and
> can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground
> is at what point does something become worth writing about: Is it when
> a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country?
> Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and
> others from writing about something. My clearest experience of this is
> with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation
> said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one
> example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains.
> When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"? Coatracks
> don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the
> force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter
> by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to
> the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the
> character is central to the understanding of the work. Such a position
> will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is
> not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be
> easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss
> that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly
> reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.
>
> This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree
> with you when you say that "summary style
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY>, highly desirable as it
> is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what
> is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve
> within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we
> have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that
> topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles. The problem is in
> recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that
> our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus. When
> consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens?
> For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it
> to remain policy. Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not
> accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for
> determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come
> to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better
> understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great. But if
> that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of
> Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to
> become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which
> is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and
> assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them
> amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better
> has emerged to prop up collaboration. I am quite prepared to take an
> eventualist position through a restraint from editing, since it is
> impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was
> far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit
> without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to
> edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than
> refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.
>
> Best regards,
>
> User:Hiding
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

I'm suggesting nothing more than that the community work out how to heal
the fracture that exists.  Wikipedia:Notability itself is not fully
accepted on Wikipedia as thing stands. I've got a long history and
involvement with notability on Wikipedia, and my guiding imperative has
always been to try and reflect what the community will accept.  Sadly,
that's lacking from a lot of current guidance, thinking and editors. Too
many editors are starting from a position of "what should Wikipedia be",
rather than "What is the consensus on this issue"? Since you are
starting from a position of "what should Wikipedia be", I can't really
engage with that anymore.  There are fifty odd archives where I've
engaged with that issue.  I'd rather people engage with the issue of
what the consensus is. I'd also point out that current consensus and
current guidance itself conflicts with your assertion and understanding
that "notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal
principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this
guideline." A recent RFC showed a rough consensus for the idea that
subject specific criteria can depart from the central guidance, and
[[WP:MUSIC]], in existence longer than [[WP:N]], quite drastically does
depart. Since your understanding is flawed, wouldn't it be better to
address the actuality of what happens rather than any given editor's
desirability of what should happen? I'm not suggesting anything radical,
and in fact, if we look at current guidance and consensus, I think I've
demonstrated that it is your thinking which deviates and is perhaps
radical, and is certainly proposing something new.  I'm only asking that
editors actually acknowledge the current state of affairs, rather than
simply restate their preconceptions or desires.  As I said before,
please don't protect "positions". Engage with the guidance and work
towards a  consensus.

User:Hiding

Andrew Turvey wrote:

> I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get involved in notability-related discussions.
>
> Am I understanding your point right:
>
> At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by subsidiary guidelines that interpret this guideline. In the event of conflict between the central guideline and the subsidiary, the central one should prevail.
>
> You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist?
>
> Andrew
>
> ----- "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:
>  
>> From: "Surreptitiousness" <surreptitious.wikipedian@...>
>> To: "charles r matthews" <charles.r.matthews@...>, "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@...>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction
>>
>> Charles Matthews wrote:
>>    
>>> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
>>>> essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
>>>> Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
>>>> the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
>>>> But please don't protect "positions". We don;t need to restate [[WP:V]]
>>>> for the umpteenth time, we already have it. We just need to say that
>>>> there are bad articles and there are good articles, and mainly bad
>>>> articles are bad due to style rather than substance. When there's no
>>>> substance, it is usually easy to see and such articles with regards
>>>> fiction are not a "problem" for notability to "cure", they are a
>>>> "problem" which is already "cured" by a number of other policies.
>>>> Notability on Wikipedia has become too restricting and from my view it
>>>> is time to roll it back and let each subject area define its own
>>>> guidance, because we don't have a one size fits all approach, as evinced
>>>> by [[WP:BLP]]. Every subject area is afflicted by different issues, and
>>>> the solutions to those issues also differ. If Wikipedia is to continue,
>>>> it needs to recognise that fact, and would that we had the leadership to
>>>> recognise, reflect and build accordingly. Otherwise, I fear Wikipedia
>>>> will stagnate. The greatest asset Wikipedia has is adaptability. That
>>>> adaptability is in danger of becoming stifled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> I don't really see what is going on there: but the essay seems to be
>>> saying that an article is acceptable if it meets fundamental content
>>> policy OR various other things, while I would think it acceptable if it
>>> meets fundamental content policy AND various things. Further, it doesn't
>>> do to mix up the status of an article and a topic. I wrote about this
>>> once (from a different angle):
>>> http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability 
>>>
>>>      
>> It's a wiki, go edit it. The essay should be saying, look, here's what
>> happens, deal with it. Currently there is too much bickering and too
>> many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
>> [[WP:IAR]]. Go read [[WP:FICT]] and the numerous archives to get a
>> sense of the polarised viewpoints. I'd defend fundamental content
>> policy for all it is worth, but anyone who thinks articles are always
>> deleted at afd because they do not comply with fundamental content
>> policy really needs to participate in afd a lot more, and also
>> understand exactly how nuanced and disputed the meaning of fundamental
>> content policy actually is. If it was clear what fundamental content
>> policy actually meant, I doubt we'd be where we are. The original
>> research policy has a number of different meanings and applications, and
>> can mean different things in different fields. The central battleground
>> is at what point does something become worth writing about: Is it when
>> a book is available for sale in nigh on every bookshop in the country?
>> Is that enough for an article? At what point do we stop ourselves and
>> others from writing about something. My clearest experience of this is
>> with regards the Wayne Rooney article, which in its earliest incarnation
>> said something along the lines of "Remember the name". Yes, it's one
>> example and can be countered by many others, but the point remains.
>> When dealing with fiction, when is "too much information"? Coatracks
>> don't tend to apply, unless we are seriously considering applying the
>> force of a coatrack to an article on a minor character in Harry Potter
>> by stating that such an article overstates the worth of the character to
>> the point that a reader may come away with the impression that the
>> character is central to the understanding of the work. Such a position
>> will conflict with the view that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is
>> not limited by paper, and since details regarding the character can be
>> easily verified in primary source, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss
>> that character in the article on the work itself, and also perfectly
>> reasonable to split that section off when the article grows too large.
>>
>> This is precisely about the status of "article" and "topic", and I agree
>> with you when you say that "summary style
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUMMARY>, highly desirable as it
>> is, operate only through individually notable topics." The issue is what
>> is a notable topic, and to what depth do we allow a topic to delve
>> within its cluster of articles. Since, as seen at Featured Topics, we
>> have defined a topic as being a cluster of articles related to that
>> topic. Yes, we have very lofty principles. The problem is in
>> recognising that not all of our editors subscribe to them, and also that
>> our policies, save [[WP:NPOV]], are actually slaves to consensus. When
>> consensus in a given area is not behind current policy, what happens?
>> For example, a site wide poll on [[WP:PLOT]] found no consensus for it
>> to remain policy. Yet some of those that wish it to remain will not
>> accept its removal. If we have rejected WP:CONSENSUS as the means for
>> determining policy, we should be more open about it. If we have now come
>> to accept cabals, and that there is an elite who have a better
>> understanding of what Wikipedia is and what policy means, great. But if
>> that is not the case, we need to work out what the vast majority of
>> Wikipedians actually desire, because otherwise Wikipedia is going to
>> become either a battleground or a protected environment, either of which
>> is detrimental. The ideas of collegiate discussion, civility and
>> assuming good faith have long been eroded by a lack of respect for them
>> amongst admins, and a long leash approach at arb-com, but nothing better
>> has emerged to prop up collaboration. I am quite prepared to take an
>> eventualist position through a restraint from editing, since it is
>> impossible now to tell what guidance and policies actually apply. It was
>> far easier when I first started, because you could write and edit
>> without fear; that is no longer the case. It has become impossible to
>> edit because the standard accepted tactic now is to revert rather than
>> refine, and refuse to discuss other than restate a position.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> User:Hiding
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 
>>
>>    
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>  

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Currently there is too much bickering and too
> many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
> [[WP:IAR]].

There's a reason for this: In a dispute, the side who can point to a rule gets
to win.  If there are two sides of a dispute, one pointing to a rule, the
other saying to use IAR, the IAR loses.  It's how we've set up the system.
We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at
all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against
troublemakers.  Now that we have placed such importance on rules, it turns
out that rules can also be used as a bludgeon by rule-wonks.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

"We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at
all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against
troublemakers"

Not for notability. We've never boxed ourselves in that much.
WP:N remains a guideline, and in fact says it will not always be applicable.

it's not a question of an article being justified buy Notability OR
something else. Hiding's proposal, which I have modified a little, is
saying that Notability is defined by either the general notability
guideline OR by other factors.  There's a tendency to assume that the
GNG is identical to the concept of notability; we could still have
notability guidelines if we removed the GNG entirely, or used it only
as a last resort if there was not other basis for deciding. That last
phrase is what I'd prefer, but I do not think there is agreement on it
, at least not yet. I do think there's agreement to consider
notability using both the GNG and other factors, co-ordinately.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> Currently there is too much bickering and too
>> many people interested more in "fighting the good fight" than accepting
>> [[WP:IAR]].
>
> There's a reason for this: In a dispute, the side who can point to a rule gets
> to win.  If there are two sides of a dispute, one pointing to a rule, the
> other saying to use IAR, the IAR loses.  It's how we've set up the system.
> We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at
> all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against
> troublemakers.  Now that we have placed such importance on rules, it turns
> out that rules can also be used as a bludgeon by rule-wonks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
andrewrturvey@... writes:

You're  suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific
guidelines should be  allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just
become a default  guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline
doesn't exist?  >>
---------------
 
A little while ago I was reading through our article on the list of Outer  
Limits episodes and I noticed a tag at the top that I'd not seen before.  
It said something like that the source itself is not generally considered  
sufficient for an article.  Thinking about that more, it's a bit odd.
 
For a person, you can't interview them and then write up their biography,  
but let's say you watched an Outer Limits episode.  It states who the  
actors were, what the title was, you can write a generally simply and bland  
overview of the plot.  It's a primary source, but surely you are merely  
*describing* the source, you are not interpreting it.
 
_http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu
jx7mco9jp/4_
(http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyujx7mco9jp/4) #
 
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

See WT:RS and related discussions--the primary source is not just
accepted for the statement of the basic facts of the plot, but usually
preferred for it -- the interpretation of the plot is what needs the
secondary sources. Many plot sections, unfortunately, confuse the
two--I can not think of any type of article in Wikipedia where the
writing is so consistently below grade as articles or section on plot
or on fictional characters. Attempts to correct it usually reduce it
to  single line of teaser--which is of course equally wrong.

The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin ,   where the nominator's
argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous
australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they
are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long
or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial
sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:07 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> andrewrturvey@... writes:
>
> You're  suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific
> guidelines should be  allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just
> become a default  guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline
> doesn't exist?  >>
> ---------------
>
> A little while ago I was reading through our article on the list of Outer
> Limits episodes and I noticed a tag at the top that I'd not seen before.
> It said something like that the source itself is not generally considered
> sufficient for an article.  Thinking about that more, it's a bit odd.
>
> For a person, you can't interview them and then write up their biography,
> but let's say you watched an Outer Limits episode.  It states who the
> actors were, what the title was, you can write a generally simply and bland
> overview of the plot.  It's a primary source, but surely you are merely
> *describing* the source, you are not interpreting it.
>
> _http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu
> jx7mco9jp/4_
> (http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyujx7mco9jp/4) #
>
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sarah Ewart-2]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

> The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD,
> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin ,   where the nominator's
> argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous
> australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they
> are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long
> or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial
> sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.


This is incorrect.

"the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the
famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted"

No, not all character articles were nominated. Notable characters such as
Sally Fletcher, Pippa Ross, Charlie Buckton, Lance Smart and others were not
nominated.

"should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. "

This was not the nomination rationale at all. The comment about some being
very long and others being very short was just a description of the
articles, not a deletion rationale (of course, it would be an absurd reason
to delete). The nominator's deletion rationale was based on notability,
reliable sources and written in an "in universe" style.

I'm not going to get into any debate here on en-l but please be more careful
not to misrepresent AFD nominations currently in progress.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

Dear Sarah,

We obviously have very different views about these types of article. I
think we both have the sense to know we will not convince each other,
and I too do not want to argue the general issue here.  But the
obvious thing is to compromise on combination articles  with 1 or 2
para graph sections for characters and stop fighting each other.   The
argument against merging was quite specifically that the nature &
quality was so different there was no way of simply combining them.
The result of trying to delete rather than merge is that people like
me , who would be perfectly willing to get rid of the individual
articles will instead defend them: I do not care about the separation
into articles, but I do about keeping content. I encourage the
hot-heads on my side to not try to defend too much, and accept if they
can get good merges--perhaps you can do something of the sort also in
a reciprocal way.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Sarah Ewart<sarahewart@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:
>
>> The nonsense this can lead to is visible in a current AfD,
>> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin ,   where the nominator's
>> argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous
>> australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they
>> are either too long or too short. Most of them are in fact, too long
>> or too short , and need to be fixed, but there seems a substantial
>> sentiment in favor of deleting rather than fixing.
>
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> "the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the
> famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted"
>
> No, not all character articles were nominated. Notable characters such as
> Sally Fletcher, Pippa Ross, Charlie Buckton, Lance Smart and others were not
> nominated.
>
> "should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short. "
>
> This was not the nomination rationale at all. The comment about some being
> very long and others being very short was just a description of the
> articles, not a deletion rationale (of course, it would be an absurd reason
> to delete). The nominator's deletion rationale was based on notability,
> reliable sources and written in an "in universe" style.
>
> I'm not going to get into any debate here on en-l but please be more careful
> not to misrepresent AFD nominations currently in progress.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:06 AM, David Goodman<dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

<snip>

> The result of trying to delete rather than merge is that people like
> me , who would be perfectly willing to get rid of the individual
> articles will instead defend them: I do not care about the separation
> into articles, but I do about keeping content. I encourage the
> hot-heads on my side to not try to defend too much, and accept if they
> can get good merges--perhaps you can do something of the sort also in
> a reciprocal way.

This is my position also. I am a decided mergist, and I think good
merging (coupled with improved writing and sourcing by people willing
to do the legwork that those voting delete often aren't) can solve
many problems. Of course, the focus then shifts to the lists, or the
summary articles, but it is often easier to defend notability of a
"topic" if the merge target is carefully thought out.

There should, somewhere, be "best practice" examples of what good
merging can produce. Can anyone find them?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l