User talk:KalEl el Vigilante

Original Research
Hello. If you're at all confused about what constitutes original research and why it isn't encyclopedic, you should look here. All the best. Maccy69 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you: I understand my point was absolutely based on speculation, not encyclopedic knowledge. But the fact that there is an intertextual hint (red herring or not) may be encyclopedic, as much as the existance of strong worldwide fan-based speculation about the matter (http://sfdforum.scotthough.com/thread-1786-post-16995.html, http://community.910cmx.com/index.php?showtopic=7096 to quote a couple) even by some famed authors (like comic-book and novel writer Rafael Martin http://crisei.blogalia.com/historias/65110).--KalEl el Vigilante (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think those would fall by the wayside as self published sources: certainly the fan speculation does; and you'd have to establish the notability of Rafael Martin as a cultural commentator to include something from his blog. Given that he doesn't have an article at present, I'd say you wouldn't be able to do that. All in all, I think that what you're trying to do just isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, which has very specific policies about what can be included. Most of the continuity sections in the episode guides, for example, only survive through the indulgence of the editors who work on Doctor Who, I think. I suggest you take a look at The TARDIS Index File - it's probably much better suited to the type of information you want to add and many of its articles are linked to from the relevant Wikipedia article. Maccy69 (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I looked at your Rafael Martin link and although my Spanish isn't great, I got the gist of it: he doesn't mention the Valeyard at all. The only person who does is you, in the comments. I really think you're clutching at straws here. Maccy69 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One last thing, if you want to include fan speculation as a cultural phenomenon, worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, you'll need to cite a reliable source that talks about the speculation, collating message board posts in an attempt to demonstrate a notable phenomenon is original research once again. Maccy69 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, I'm learning a lot through this discussion, I thank you for your effort and time. Your Spanish is good, and you are right, Marin doesn't mention the Valeyard. I did a couple of minutes ago, but I'm not the first in that thread to do so, the first comment about the character was by another person; not anybody culturally relevant enough, my bad. In any case, although not relevant at the moment, the authority of Rafael Marin is more than demonstrated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Mar%C3%ADn, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Mar%C3%ADn and http://www.tercerafundacion.net/biblioteca/ver/termino/155 . Just questioning the limits a bit: why are tv ratings considered encyclopedic, true information (given their approximative value and the small amount of rating-meters) as is critic reception of a chapter, but not fan reception of a chapter? About "reliable sources" regarding fan speculation, I admit I did a hasty work around it, but it's a phenomenon that, in its recorded shape, happens mainly through message board and similar communities. Otherwise, we are usually talking of singular fan-opinions, aren't we? Final question: what's the problem with the Continuity sections? Do you think intertextual matters in fiction are not encyclopedic (in the 3.0 meaning of that word, which isn't neither Diderot's nor Larousse's)? Must Wikipedia be a bare-boned Internet Movie Database, just the names and numbers? I know you were not giving YOUR strict opinion when dealing with this fact, but enforcing some stablished rules. I now ask four your personal view about the matter. Thank you!--KalEl el Vigilante (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)