Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop

Support and opposes
I think only the arbitration committee is entitled to [officially] support/oppose any item here, everybody else can agree/disagree relaying their opinions. So it would be less confusing for everybody if you merely stated those opinions and etc and not treat every item here like a poll. -- Cat chi? 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really an issue for the workshop page, and there's no practical difference between agree/support disagree/oppose. There's no real issue of confusion since the real official decisions are made on another page completely. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
I am not sure where this belongs, but I see a troubling possibility that needs to be addressed. Those that support TTN's actions and his interpretation of guidelines need to ask themselves a question. If consensus is reflected by policy and guidelines, opposition to TTN is primarily "fans" who form "local consensus", and these "fans" number (as a whole) dwarfs the "deletionist" number,- what is to stop said "fans" from showing up enmasse and changing the relevant policies and guidelines? The only thing that has prevented this, up to this point, is the general apathy of the whole. However, TTN's actions and this RfAr may be the impetus for them to unite and form a consensus that says elements of fictional works are generally notable and primary sources are enough to satisfy verifiability. Will this be good for the encyclopedia? Wouldn't a little more patience and compromise be better? Ursasapien (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * what is to stop said "fans" from showing up enmasse and changing the relevant policies and guidelines - That's a very good question, and even though I have encouraged "fans" to join the P&G discussion, they rarely do. Why is just anyone's guess. I believe that WP:FICT as the main guideline for article inclusion is so well backed-up by WP:NOT, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:N and WP:OR that inclusionist fans see any attempts futile. As soon as a fiction-related article has 3-5 reliable secondary sources, it is pretty safe from immediate AfD or merge discussions. That hundreds and thousands of articles (mainly for episodes and characters) are still without any kind of secondary/real-world sources just highlights how much stuff is at wikipedia that needs to be taken care of, in whatever way (improving/merging/redirecting/deletion). – sgeureka t•c 11:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I contend that many of the "fans" are inexperienced editors (not just on Wikipedia but inexperienced in life) and hence are easily intimidated with the thought of digging into a policy or guideline. However, we are perhaps very close to a "revolt" where experienced inclusionist, with the support of disillusioned fans, will take back WP:FICT and restore it to a previous form that had more latitude.  I still think we can be in line with WP:NOT, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:N and WP:OR without requiring "3-5 reliable secondary sources" (sources that do not include TV.com or any others I don't like).  Yes, there shoudl be something other than plot but the bar is getting set higher and higher.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are current efforts to have WP:FICTION go back to a more relaxed summer 2007 version, slightly updated to avoid gaming-the-system by fans, so the "revolt" you mention is already happening (yet nowhere as big as you claim). And the only way to have articles on fictional elements without reliable sources is to have lists (which are often made by merging), or to have one-or-two-paragraph stubs that, as WP:FICTION says, should be considered for a merge in the absense of established notability. That the bar is getting higher is IMO good, because that makes sure that we clean up what we have, instead of encouraging a further split between practise and guideline/policy. – sgeureka t•c 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be very helpful to get the input of everyone here on WP:FICT's recent discussions. Most of the recent discussions I don't necessarily disagree with, but the editors there are getting impatient, and the discussion has little input from the community at large. A lot of it also goes back to unresolved tasks, such as re-evaluating WP:FICT and WP:WAF's overlap on how to deal with fiction, and where to put that kind of guidance. -- Ned Scott 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Who was the prettiest goddess
I think that Aphrodite is the prettiest but what most people do not know that Artemis is just as beautiful as Aphrodite. Artemis is also my favorite i think it is important to know her because she is just amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.237.145 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)