User talk:Geewunling/Futurama: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchJimsorenson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Agreed. And honestly, I'm seeing this as a sign of a problem that's been really blatant these last few days... artificial, ugly bloating of article count. We're seeing cute wink-and-nudge offhand references get articles that imbue no information whatsoever that can't be done with a Trivia note on the page they came from. It's one thing for a one-note TF-original character to get their own page, but we're talking about pages for offhanded pop-culture references from the margins of things! At least the TF one-note character is much, much more likely to be relevant again to some piece of fiction, enough to justify a page. I really think we need to look at some culling here. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 14:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT) | :Agreed. And honestly, I'm seeing this as a sign of a problem that's been really blatant these last few days... artificial, ugly bloating of article count. We're seeing cute wink-and-nudge offhand references get articles that imbue no information whatsoever that can't be done with a Trivia note on the page they came from. It's one thing for a one-note TF-original character to get their own page, but we're talking about pages for offhanded pop-culture references from the margins of things! At least the TF one-note character is much, much more likely to be relevant again to some piece of fiction, enough to justify a page. I really think we need to look at some culling here. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 14:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
::As an author who delights in off-handed and hidden references, I have to agree. [[O.C.P.]] and [[We Made It]] are probably not page-worthy. I think, as a good rule of thumb, if we have nothing to say about X other than 'X exists' then X usually shouldn't get an article.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT) | ::As an author who delights in off-handed and hidden references, I have to agree. [[O.C.P.]] and [[We Made It]] are probably not page-worthy. I think, as a good rule of thumb, if we have nothing to say about X other than 'X exists' then X usually shouldn't get an article.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
:::We're arguing against making individual pages for tiny details in OUR OWN WORKS. What does THAT say? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:15, 11 August 2011 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 19:15, 11 August 2011
I am not sure I see the point of a page to collect all the Futurama references in Transformers. Futurama itself hasn't actually appeared in TF fiction, unlike, say, The Honeymooners. --Monzo 14:53, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- Agreed. And honestly, I'm seeing this as a sign of a problem that's been really blatant these last few days... artificial, ugly bloating of article count. We're seeing cute wink-and-nudge offhand references get articles that imbue no information whatsoever that can't be done with a Trivia note on the page they came from. It's one thing for a one-note TF-original character to get their own page, but we're talking about pages for offhanded pop-culture references from the margins of things! At least the TF one-note character is much, much more likely to be relevant again to some piece of fiction, enough to justify a page. I really think we need to look at some culling here. --M Sipher 14:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- As an author who delights in off-handed and hidden references, I have to agree. O.C.P. and We Made It are probably not page-worthy. I think, as a good rule of thumb, if we have nothing to say about X other than 'X exists' then X usually shouldn't get an article.--Jimsorenson 15:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- We're arguing against making individual pages for tiny details in OUR OWN WORKS. What does THAT say? --M Sipher 15:15, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- As an author who delights in off-handed and hidden references, I have to agree. O.C.P. and We Made It are probably not page-worthy. I think, as a good rule of thumb, if we have nothing to say about X other than 'X exists' then X usually shouldn't get an article.--Jimsorenson 15:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
