On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:54 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com 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
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
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:06 AM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
, English
Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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
, 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
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
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.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
