Talk:Great Sea

Untitled

From VfD:

Which Great Sea would this be - ah yes: -- Please see the entry on the Flathead Ocean. Apparently this is an entry from the Encyclopedia Frobozzica [1]. An article on this work - yes, a dump of every minor factlet on Zork from here - this is not a good idea, n'est ce pas? --Ianb 07:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

comment: this would be a violation of WWIN #14 Mere collections of public domain or other source material.

• Delete: An article on Frobozzica would be neat. An article on the GUE that sketched the mythos would be fine. An article on every article within the Frobozzica would be to duplicate it, and, sadly, we citizens of the Great Underground Empire are growing fewer with age. Like the Greatest Generation, we Zorkers are being claimed by time and Grues. Geogre 13:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but this is part of a bigger problem: check out Category:Encyclopedia Frobozzica (I don't know how to link to a category ) - DavidWBrooks 15:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• What is wrong with you folks? You must specifically state what your problem is with my creating this data (aside from possible copyright problems that I am currently working to correct), and state how this problem is in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia, before you can just run around deleting articles, as DavidWBrooks has already done. You can't just claim as a reason for deleting something the fact that you don't like it being in Wikipedia. I look at Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Everything, and I am doing my part to make it that. Most information in Wikipedia can't be found in other encyclopedias, and that's what's great about it. As long as I indicate at the beginning of the article that it is fiction and from the Zork series, you have no reason (that I have been made aware of) to delete it.
  • Alright, here is what I will do. Once I have the unnecessary copyright approval, I will submit the entire encyclopedia (it's only 50 pages) to WikiSource. Then I will create pages on Wikipedia for each of the entries, but put my own original statements within the entries, along with referrals to Zork and to the encyclopedia as it is hosted in WikiSource. There, I see no reason for you to complain, but, of course, people can be unreasonable.
  • Actually, this is still primarily an encyclopedia of general knowledge. It is far more liberal than most, but it is not a record of all things in the real or online worlds. It certainly doesn't need to swallow up other encyclopedias or dictionaries. If, for example, the Jargon File has a great selection of every online and geek slang term, we don't need to do that. We need to talk about the phenomenon, and we should cover the terms that are so famous that they pass from specialist to general knowledge. Similarly, an article on what the Zork encyclopedias do is good. Replicating Frobozzica, on the other hand, is not. Geogre 00:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NOTE: User:134.253.26.9 removed the vfd notice from the page, which is a big no-no. As a comment to the poster above, Wikipedia is not actually an encyclopedia of "Everything". I believe you are looking for Everything2. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:02, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Starting the defence of an article with "What is wrong with you folks?" is not really a very bright thing to do, either - it kinda biases people against you. As does not signing your posts and removing vfd notices. Elf-friend 19:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Can we add Anatinus and Amathrodonis? The user, who is vandalizng several articles, has now gone back to these and deleted anything except that the article is from the Encyclopedia Frobozzica. Delete all of them.RickK 22:10, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also Mumboz Agrippa, Queen Alexis, Aggthora. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:43, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, go for it. I don't care. I figured I would get rid of the "copyrighted" material, at least, since you won't let me get rid of the whole article (you'd rather it stay, so you have something to whine about, correct?). Once I get the unnecessary copyright approval, I'll add the whole encyclopedia (50 whole pages) into Wikisource and provide links in Wikipedia to the proper Wikisource entries, along with my own custom entries. No doubt you'll delete those as well, as you seem to act on emotion rather than any rationalizations. Also no doubt you'll delete this entry of mine as well, and then claim that I "vandalized" this page as well, as you have already done. Please, son, do us all a favor and get over yourself. --134.253.26.6
  • Dear 134, As this is a classic peer review process, you do have a lot of people to impress around here, and an insulting manner combined with contentiousness in editing bordering on hostility isn't the way to do it. So please play nice and remember to share your toys. Fire Star
• Keep, but revert to original version (a redirect to Belegaer from J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional universe). Note: the anonymous user (who seems to have also edited under the name Brian0918) intended to include the Encyclopedia Frobozzica (which unfortunately has an unclear copyright status), originally claiming that Wikipedia already had a lot of entries on fictional universes (Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, to name just a few) and thus the material on this fictional Zork universe was appropriate for Wikipedia. So, the real question that this VfD nomination has to answer is whether doing so would indeed be appropriate, or if not, why not. In any case, the current format (prefixing everything with "...an entry from the fictional Encyclopedia Frobozzica...") is close to link spamming. Just stating "In the fictional universe of the Zork series, ..." would be good enough. Also note that apart from Great Sea, the anon user has already created Anatinus, Aggthora, Queen Alexis, Mumboz Agrippa, Amathrodonis, and Accardi-by-the-Sea. My vote on all of these: delete if new, revert to pre-Zork version where applicable. This Zork thing is orders of magnitude less notable than e.g. the three other fictional universes I cited above. An article on the "encyclopedia" itself, with extlinks and linked from the Zork article would be fine, though. Lupo 11:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As stated above, I plan on putting it on Wikisource and linking (or even redirecting) from the various entry names on Wikipedia. Most likely, I'll put a short stub for each of the entries on Wikipedia, along with a link to the specific entry on Wikisource. If you have any problems with that, let me know. --Brian0918 12:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, I disagree with the idea that one should be able to put up information on all the little bits from a more popular fictional universe, while another fictional universe should be banned. This makes no sense. --Brian0918 12:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all or Merge all with redirects. Notability should be the key for both fictional and non-fictional articles. Are the subjects of the articles likely to appear mentioned casually in works unrelated to the place or places where they are primariliy mentioned? We don't want an article on every person mentioned in a Shakespeare play either. So expand the Zork article. Create a new Zork universe article. Make redirects of these names to Zork universe. Include links in Zork and Zork universe to Zork information on the web, both Wiki-source and other. I think that would be more useful than numerous short stubs requiring a user to jump from entry to entry, entries which are unlikely to ever be looked up directly from the Search box. Almost any mention of Queen Alexis or Aggthora or Flathead Ocean that prompts a user to look up the name is probably going to be explicitly in context that mentions Zork. So put the information all together, using an annotated list of persons and characters within a Zork universe article. We've had other cases where short articles about fictional universes have been merged for the same reasons. Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a biographical dictionary or place name dictionary. There is difference of emphasis between the two, which is sometimes unfortunately missed. Jallan 18:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you be alright with the plan I stated above: I plan on putting Encyclopedia Frobozzica (from which all these entries come) on Wikisource and linking (or even redirecting) from the various entry names on Wikipedia. Most likely, I'll put a short stub for each of the entries on Wikipedia, along with a link to the specific entry on Wikisource. If you have any problems with that, let me know. --Brian0918 19:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless the copyright owner(s) of the Encyclopedia Frobozzica release it under the GFDL or into the public domain, EF content can't be uploaded here. Sean Curtin
      • Of course, and I've been in contact with the copyright owner, who is alright with it, although he said he would write up something more official in about a week. Brian0918 14:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes I have a problem with that, Brian0918, and with attempts in other fields also to split out names and places which are better treated in an annotated list or otherwise within a single article. I've no problem with Zork material being included, or Harry Potter material or Spiderman material or separate articles on Disney characters etc. being included. But names that are not notable outside of a very small number of direct sources and in direct commentary on those sources should normally not have their own articles. It fragments information and often duplicates information. There should not usually be separate articles for the hundreds of thousands of fictional places and persons that are not mentioned resaonably often in general works and articles. There are exceptions to this rule, but none of the Zork names seem to me to be reasonable exceptions. I've no problem with the information you have placed on Wikipedia being included. But don't make separate articles for each bit of information. Put it in one article and make separate redirect articles if you want to. That still allows you to make links to anything outside Wikipedia, whether on Wikisource or elsewhere and makes perusal of your material far more pleasant for a reader who does not have to jump from article to article. Jallan 13:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • So, you would be alright with redirects (or disambiguation pages if necessary) for each of the entries in EF? That is, if someone searches for "Belwit" or "Belwit Flathead", they would automatically be redirected to the actual entry about Belwit Flathead in the Wikisource EF article. Brian0918 14:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but this is not a particularly good idea. Interwiki redirects are to be avoided, and I'm surprised that the software seems to allow them at all. The software cannot detect loops in such redirects, and they are very confusing for users. Also, Wikipedia is not an index to Wikisource! Lupo 17:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Well, then, what would you suggest I do? I would like to put the information from EF up on Wiki______, and have it so a search for each entry allows one to (by some means) be directed to the specific entry in EF. How about a short stub (or disambiguation page, if necessary) for each of the entries, with a link to the specific entry in Wikisource? Will this work? If not, you're going to have to suggest some alternative, because I'm all out of ideas.
            • Jallan has already given you good constructive criticism. You also might want to read Contributing_to_Wikipedia, Check your fiction and its talk page, and maybe also at WikiProject Fictional Series and its subpages, although I don't know if the latter ever was truly active. If you do a search in the "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia talk" namespaces, you'll find many more, also many earlier VfD discussions. From a cursory overview, it seems these all reached the same conclusion as this one: no separate articles on minor subjects (better merge them in an overview article), major characters or places having a cultural significance outside the particular fictional universe may deserve an individual article. Seems to me that some of the existing article series on other fictional universes could need quite some cleanup in this respect, too. (Who needs Mr. Homn??) Lupo 11:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Jallan said "Put it in one article and make separate redirect articles if you want to." You said you weren't alright with that, so I asked you what I should do instead, and then you say do what Jallan said??? On m:Help:Redirect#Inter-wiki_redirects_and_redirects_to_Special_pages they suggest that instead of having pages in wikipedia redirect to pages in wikisource, the wikipedia article should have a link to the wikisource article. Would you be alright with that? If nobody will let me put EF on Wikipedia, then you're not really leaving me with any options... Brian0918 14:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all; possibly recreate as redirects to a general Zork Universe article (which would probably be located at Great Underground Empire or Kingdom of Quendor, I guess) if such an article is created. Sean Curtin

end moved discussion