On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote: > The argument for Savage was that an exception should be made for > bibliographies, discographies, and so forth, where we would do better > to provide complete coverage since it quite easy to do &something > which can well be crowd-sourced, fits in with our basic mission, & is > appropriate to do in conjunction with articles rather than as some > sort of separate database. I opposed the Savage material as a separate > article,& would still oppose it today, but I wouldn't now oppose > having the material: I think the best way to do this is with subpages.
As an aside, I have played with classifying some of our non-standard article types (without judging them!) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_genre Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Morton > <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin >>>> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess >>>> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young >>>> girls) there was an attempt to merge >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it >>>> clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources >>>> around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most >>>> followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people >>>> ask why the article isn't deleted. See >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F >>>> . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should >>>> be >>>> generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article >>>> currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles. >>>> >>>> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape >>>> greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and >>>> should not be there. >>> >>> >>> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted >>> to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" >>> articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed >>> information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a >>> Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience. >>> >>> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources >>> cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of >>> covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably >>> with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject >>> or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might >>> apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter >>> usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter >>> account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about >>> his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that >>> service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than >>> seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the >>> fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort >>> normal practice on a wiki. >> >> >> One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it >> stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be >> exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end? >> >> As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion. >> >> If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke >> sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could >> quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it. >> >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
