Content deleted Content added
move my comment to right order |
|||
Line 8:
:::*"What our readership wants" is not what we're developing this work - we're trying to build a free content academic encyclopedia. The Reader Feedback tool shows that many expect us to be better than google and document everything to the smallest detail despite being a tertiary source and really have no clue what our mission actually is. As TTN points out, we can point to external resources that are much better suited for providing the full list in the sketch (which here, may border on copyvio given how much of that sketch is listing out the cheeses), but we just need to summarize the popular sketch and provide links where one can learn more, as such a tertiary source should be doing. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
::::* Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia not an academic work and it is [[WP:NOT|explicit policy]] that "''Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics.''" Our readers and editors determine our content, not self-appointed arbiters. The current pages represent years of work by numerous editors. If the readership is not content with this then please provide evidence of this. A couple of nay-sayers are insignificant in the context of the readership for a page like the Spanish Inquisition which gets about 100,000 hits in a year. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 17:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::* There's a different between text and content. We write text for general audience, but our content is limited as defined by [[WP:NOT]]. How long the information has been around has no bearing. How many hits the page receives has no bearing. (Granted, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is one that likely would be retained as a standalone article. Further we are talking merges, not deletion, meaning the contribution history remains intact). We are an academic work, an encyclopedia, and thus we are tasked to write better than just what the layreaders would expect to see, to serve that purpose better. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)▼
:::::*You act like there aren't general guidelines and ways to detail fictional topics, all of which have been discussed by users. Look at any good or featured article related to fiction, and you'll see what people want articles to become at their full potential. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that do not meet that standard, but that does not mean it should be ignored because of the "work" that has gone into them. These pages are bad, and even if some do have the potential to be kept, the end result will be something completely different. It will be a concise summary instead of unruly paragraphs, general cultural impact instead of a trivial list of every minor reference ever uttered, and pertinent information instead of a cheese list. Wikia is home to those kinds of details where fans may do as they please and be as detailed as the like. This is, while informal, still an encyclopedia focused on detailing actual information rather than fancruft. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 19:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
▲:::::* There's a different between text and content. We write text for general audience, but our content is limited as defined by [[WP:NOT]]. How long the information has been around has no bearing. How many hits the page receives has no bearing. (Granted, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is one that likely would be retained as a standalone article. Further we are talking merges, not deletion, meaning the contribution history remains intact). We are an academic work, an encyclopedia, and thus we are tasked to write better than just what the layreaders would expect to see, to serve that purpose better. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Query''' - can anyone explain what the purpose of this list is? What I mean is, it would seem to replicate [[:Category:Monty Python sketches]] and duplicate the navigational work of {{tl|Monty Python}}. But it only includes 4 entries as "notable and recurring sketches" though dozens of notable (enough to have their own articles) sketches are listed in the template and there are 43 in the category. Is it the "recurring" bit? And why merge those four in particular and not any of the other 39? [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
:*I created it as a basic merge target rather than clog up the main page, and I started with four because I didn't feel like taking the time to tag all of them in the case that this would fail miserably from a bunch of people voting with nostalgia glasses instead of editorial standards. I'll probably have it speedy deleted if nothing comes of this. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 06:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
| |||