Talk:The Great Stink (Gilmore Girls)

message: I stopped counting at over 3 dozen individual misspellings (not repeats) well before reaching the end. Chris the speller 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would nominate this as one of the worst articles I've ever seen. Salad Days 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup - misspellings

message: Please do not re-add the plot summary to this page until and unless it meets the requirements of fair use.  Plots are copyrighted.  Plot summaries are allowable in encyclopedia articles only in proportion to the other content.  Articles which are predominantly plot summary violate copyright.  
Plot summaries must also be based on independently verifiable sources, not original research.  Watching the show does not count as an independent source for our purposes.  Encyclopedias are tertiary sources of information.  The show is a primary source.  As an encyclopedia, we synopsize secondary sources - we summarize what others have said about the topic.  Please base any rewrite on independently cited sources.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that articles shouldn't be a plot summary and nothing else, and that it should have some info cited to sources, the show itself does count as a source and can be used for plot details (it just shouldn't be the only source).  Is there a wikipedia policy that says otherwise?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources talk about the difference between primary and secondary sources and give some guidance on when and to what degree primary sources may be used.   The general rule is that we may use the primary source to answer specific limited questions.  The decision about what parts of the plot to summarize is more of an interpretational decision that should be based upon a secondary source.  Hope that helps.  Rossami (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those says that primary sources can't be used, just that they shouldn't be used exclusively.  And plot summary would fall under "specific limited questions" since anyone could watch the show and verify those facts.  Nothing I see in WP policy says anything about needing secondary sources to do plot summaries.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye, I keep explaining this to people on multiple fronts. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that we may use the primary source to verify or correct a plot summary but that it must be based on still be based on some other secondary source.  As you've both said, the article may not be based solely on the primary source.  Rossami (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That just means that it can't be the only source.  Where in WP policy does it say that a primary source like this can only be used for verification or correction?  Your "understanding" seems to be a personal philosophy, not something WP policy supports.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really want to understand all the nuance and detail about the WP:NOR and WP:RS policies and about how we are expected to interpret them, you need to spend some time reviewing the discussions in the Talk page archives of those two pages.  Those discussions went into great detail about the appropriate uses of primary and secondary sources when creating a tertiary resource (like our encyclopedia).  If after reviewing the archives you still don't understand or agree, you should probably ask for clarification on the policy's Talk page itself, not here.  The policy's Talk page is watchlisted by people who have a very deep understanding of that particular set of rules.  This page is watchlisted by, well, probably just us.  Rossami (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion archives are moot, the information at present is correctly sourced to the primary source. Unless you can provide a page which says otherwise the primary source is a perfectly fine source. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) If there are "nuances" that aren't evident from reading the policy, I guess the policy needs improvement.  If there's something specific in those discussions about not using primary sources for plot summaries, feel free to point it out.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are always nuances which are not necessarily apparent from the summary that is posted to the main policy page of all our policies.  If we tried to describe every possible interpretation, assumption or conceivable scenario, we'd have such long pages that no one would ever read them.  (And most of our policy pages are already longer than they ought to be.)  The decision about what level of detail to include on the main page and what level of detail to leave for readers to drill-down on is a difficult one and is often argued about on the policy's Talk pages.  Really, though, if you want a definitive ruling, ask at WT:NOR.   To Matthew's question about policy about primary sources, read the third sentence of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources which reads "Primary sources ... may be used ... but only with care" and the fifth sentence of the second paragraph which reads "Wikipedia articles should rely on ... secondary sources wherever possible."  I will dispute any assertion that the text which used to be on this article's page demonstrated any reasonable standard of "care".  The policy is not an absolute prohibition against use of primary sources but it is a very strong admonition against their unnecessary or careless use.  Rossami (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in "a definitive ruling" as policies speak for themselves, and in this case they are clear.  Plot summaries are mentioned in multiple guidelines, and none say not to use primary sources for them.  I don't dispute that this is a poor article, I just disagree with your unsupported opinion that plot summaries can only be written from primary sources.  In a well written article (one with secondary sources for info other than the plot summary), primary sources can be used with care for a plot summary, especially if secondary sources aren't available for all the information.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: If this page is truly a copyright violation, it should probably be tagged that way so that it may be examined for that instead of just blanking the page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing it isn't a copyright violation, yes it does need trimming but it isn't a violation, Rossanmi just appears to be stating his/her interpretation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:WAF: "Another reason to avoid both in-universe perspective and lengthy, detailed plot synopses is that, in sufficient quantity, they may be construed as a copyright violation. Information about fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.""  If editors really believe it's a copyright violation, it would make more sense to list it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems or something similar than blank/revert warring.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye, there was some discussion at WAF. I believe somebody unilaterally added that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the lengthy discussion, it hardly seems unilateral.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation