User talk:Ursasapien: Difference between revisions
Episodes |
→Episodes: just watching the discussion, thought I'd help try and explain a bit |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==Episodes== |
==Episodes== |
||
Information on this site must have some sort of non-trivial real world relevance. This is impossible for 99 percent of episodes. There is no way to improve most of the articles because they lack development notes and any critical reception. I encourage people to improve them where they can be improved, but most never will have a chance, so something else needs to be done. Overtime, they have just piled up to the point that it only encourages more and more of them. There is no reason to ignore them because I haven't seen them. They fail the notability and verifiability requirements of this site, so that is enough. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
Information on this site must have some sort of non-trivial real world relevance. This is impossible for 99 percent of episodes. There is no way to improve most of the articles because they lack development notes and any critical reception. I encourage people to improve them where they can be improved, but most never will have a chance, so something else needs to be done. Overtime, they have just piled up to the point that it only encourages more and more of them. There is no reason to ignore them because I haven't seen them. They fail the notability and verifiability requirements of this site, so that is enough. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:"Real world relevance" as in what went in to making that cartoon episode. How was that cartoon episode received by the publich (e.g. Nielsen ratings, professional reviews). Where there cultural impacts, or references. Not every episode article can achieve this, but it is possible. [[Aquaman (TV program)]] was recently promoted to FA status. So, "real world relevance" isn't in the eye of the beholder so much as whether or not the "real world" information is relevant is in the eye of the beholder. It's clear if it's "real world" information, what becomes subjective is its relevance to the encyclopedia, but even some of that can obviously be fannish trivia. <span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC">[[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]]</span> <span style="font-family:Showcard Gothic">[[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]]</span> 03:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:50, 11 June 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Ursasapien, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dolly!
Yes, by all means, the plot could definitely be fleshed out a bit. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 12:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Social Work Article
Hi there! I am glad someone besides myself is using the MSW userbox I created. I agree, I think the social work origin section has a great deal of room for expansion. I will be busy until this weekend, and I will try to sit down then and pull some resources together.
EleosPrime 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Professional Social Worker Userbox
As luck would have it, I am a professional social worker. :) Great userbox! I added it to my page. EleosPrime 01:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
How to sign up?
Yes, I have a MSW, how do I sign up on the category you mentioned. I will add the userbox to my page...Thanks!SamDavidson 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Episodes
Information on this site must have some sort of non-trivial real world relevance. This is impossible for 99 percent of episodes. There is no way to improve most of the articles because they lack development notes and any critical reception. I encourage people to improve them where they can be improved, but most never will have a chance, so something else needs to be done. Overtime, they have just piled up to the point that it only encourages more and more of them. There is no reason to ignore them because I haven't seen them. They fail the notability and verifiability requirements of this site, so that is enough. TTN 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Real world relevance" as in what went in to making that cartoon episode. How was that cartoon episode received by the publich (e.g. Nielsen ratings, professional reviews). Where there cultural impacts, or references. Not every episode article can achieve this, but it is possible. Aquaman (TV program) was recently promoted to FA status. So, "real world relevance" isn't in the eye of the beholder so much as whether or not the "real world" information is relevant is in the eye of the beholder. It's clear if it's "real world" information, what becomes subjective is its relevance to the encyclopedia, but even some of that can obviously be fannish trivia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)