 The Most Boring Thing You Can Do With A DVD, Is Reading That Ultra-Narrow Print On The Back |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
| Jonny Cache |
  Fri 7th September 2007, 6:10pm
Post
#1
|
 τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε  Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs  |
1==2, Or Is It ?
This thread might belong in the Articles Forum, since the inciting case is the AFD for Don Murphy's TIYL (This Is Your Life), but I'm really more interested in the general issue of Wikipedia Notability guidelines, especially the question as to whether there's any standard there at all. A rule is not a rule unless it applies equally and fairly to every comparable case. So let us consider the following rule: The Old (1==2) Criterion Of Notability (The Old 1=2 CON): QUOTE(Until(1 == 2) @ 07 Sep 2007 UTC 15:23) Played A Major Role In Several Major Motion Pictures Here is the context: QUOTE We only need a source that says "Don is famous" if we say "Don is famous". We are not, we are claiming he has done things that we consider to establish notability, internally. If we claimed he was famous then yes we need to source that. But if we claim he played a major role in several major motion pictures, then we don't need to source that he is famous, because we are not saying that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Until(1 == 2), WP:AFD/Don Murphy (2nd nomination) Jonny  This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 7th September 2007, 6:18pm |
   |
 
|
| Nathan |
Fri 7th September 2007, 6:30pm
Post
#2
|
 Retired Group: Inactive Posts: 1,609 Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:35pm From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 17 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
That's a crazy argument - "we don't need to source it because we say so". Am I reading that right?
Utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Fri 7th September 2007, 6:52pm
Post
#3
|
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Nathan @ Fri 7th September 2007, 2:30pm)  That's a crazy argument — "we don't need to source it because we say so". Am I reading that right? Utter nonsense. Yeah, it struck me as a new low in narcissistic self-jerk reason, but I have to say it gave me a clue — Critique of Narcissistic Self-Jerk Reason ??? Hmmm … it sorta has a ring to it … anybody out there need a thesis title ??? Jonny |
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Fri 7th September 2007, 7:12pm
Post
#4
|
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Anywaaay, the reason I put needle to thread this time out — and I never would have been bored enough to do this if a power outage hadn't kicked me off the computer for a couple of hours on a rainy day — was to follow up on the (1=2) CON by going over to our DVD shelves and pulling out a random stack of DVD's from the most chaotic corner of the bookcase.
Then I wrote down all the names of producers that were listed on the back — BORING !!! But here's how far I got before the power came back on — One thing I noticed right off is that many people are listed as producers, co-producers, or executive producers on films that they acted, directed, or wrote. When a name like that lights up the marquee of my mental theater, I think it's fair to say that it will be for the acting role first, for the directing role second, and with the motley crue of various species of producers a distant third. At any rate, by way of taking this potential confound into account, I added a code to the names to indicate the other jobs they had on the same films. A = Acted D = Directed W = Wrote √ = has Wikipedia article or stub … = has no Wikipedia article or stub ? = article, but may be different person Dynamic List — so give me a while to sort them out … Producers
Associate Producers Co-Producers Line Producers Executive Producers
Jonny This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 9th September 2007, 12:20am |
|
|
|
| SqueakBox |
Fri 7th September 2007, 8:21pm
Post
#5
|
 Senior Member Group: Contributors Posts: 293 Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 10:37pm Member No.: 1,202 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 7th September 2007, 6:10pm) 1==2, Or Is It ? This thread might belong in the Articles Forum, since the inciting case is the AFD for Don Murphy's TIYL (This Is Your Life), but I'm really more interested in the general issue of Wikipedia Notability guidelines, especially the question as to whether there's any standard there at all. A rule is not a rule unless it applies equally and fairly to every comparable case. So let us consider the following rule: The Old (1==2) Criterion Of Notability (The Old 1=2 CON): QUOTE(Until(1 == 2) @ 07 Sep 2007 UTC 15:23) Played A Major Role In Several Major Motion Pictures Here is the context: QUOTE We only need a source that says "Don is famous" if we say "Don is famous". We are not, we are claiming he has done things that we consider to establish notability, internally. If we claimed he was famous then yes we need to source that. But if we claim he played a major role in several major motion pictures, then we don't need to source that he is famous, because we are not saying that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Until(1 == 2), WP:AFD/Don Murphy (2nd nomination) Jonny It strikes me that paper encyclopedias never had this problem, I guess because they werent open to being edited by the general public and thus susceptible to vandalism/libel (take your pic). I also wonder if a paper encyclopedia would consider Murphy notable, I suspect not as only a minority of people have heard of him, so if wikipedia opens itself to the general public and then lowers what a reasonable person might consider encyclopedic standards of notability then wikipedia is creating a problematic situation (though these privacy issues go far beyond wikipedia, its also about the internet as a whole)  |
|
|
|
| Rochelle |
Fri 7th September 2007, 9:12pm
Post
#6
|
 Junior Member Group: Contributors Posts: 98 Joined: Fri 17th Aug 2007, 11:05pm From: USA Member No.: 2,522 |
QUOTE(Nathan @ Fri 7th September 2007, 2:30pm) That's a crazy argument - "we don't need to source it because we say so". Am I reading that right? Utter nonsense. Excuse me, but - what? |
|
|
|
| guy |
Fri 7th September 2007, 9:17pm
Post
#7
|
|
Postmaster General Group: Inactive Posts: 4,294 Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm From: London Member No.: 23 |
QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Fri 7th September 2007, 9:21pm) I also wonder if a paper encyclopedia would consider Murphy notable, I suspect not as only a minority of people have heard of him How many people have heard of some Nobel Prizewinners or 1950s French prime ministers? Are they not notable? Notable is not synonymous with famous. |
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Sat 8th September 2007, 6:04am
Post
#8
|
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Initial results from my very casual pilot study indicate that producers on major motion pictures have about a 50% chance of getting any kind of recognition whatever from Wikipedia. It's actually a little lower than that, as there are several flicks that have 5 or 6 associate, co-, line, or executive producers that I got too yawny to write down, so I will have to go back and pick up their names some time later this weekend.
Jonny This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 8th September 2007, 6:06am |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th 5 13, 2:20pm |