This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Folken de Fanel (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 5 October 2013 (→Merger proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:05, 5 October 2013 by Folken de Fanel (talk | contribs) (→Merger proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Anime and manga: Gundam Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Merger proposal
I propose that Cultural impact of Gundam be merged back into Gundam.
Currently, the page is just a collection of random trivia and news reports about Gundam in real world, it lacks any coverage from secondary sources about an actual cultural impact, thus it fails to prove it even exists. What we need is an article that truly, directly and explicitely covers the cultural impact (with reception, sale numbers, legacy, influences, etc) and not an accumulation of trivia unrelated to each other and that WP would try to pass as proof of a so-called "cultural impact" (so there could also be an issue of WP:OR here).
Though I'm not saying Gundam has no cultural impact, we don't have any element that shows the article could evolve beyond the trivia mess it is now. A search on Google Books yields almost no result that could be used to build significant external coverage for a stand-alone page, though we can certainly find a few things that would fit the more general Gundam page: Gundam + cultural, Gundam + "cultural impact".
Per WP:TRIVIA, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Per WP:GNG, "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content."
These facts may be just fine in a broad article about Gundam, but not as a stand-alone article. If these take too much space in the main article, WP:AVOIDSPLIT tells us to trim any excessive trivia instead of splitting. My opinion is that content here should be put back into Gundam (and trimmed) until it evolves into a coherent and focused enough coverage, with enough secondary sources to back it up and build real prose instead of an accumulation of trivia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your entire premise of this merger is incorrect. First, this is a work in progress, I split it off to clean it up and prepare for expansion and get the franchise to par for GA. Cultural impact is not trivia. Trivia is defined as "Insignificant or inessential matters; trifles." I do not think a life-size Gundam is "trivial" when it draws 4 million visitors. That Gundam has inspired and been used in homage to military projects, space development, car manufacturers and the simple fact that it has persisted as a major cultural identity for 30 years. This is not "trivial", its not indiscriminate and Gundam clearly meets GNG.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gundam meets GNG but does its cultural impact meet GNG?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- ChrisGualtieri, you first mistake is that on Misplaced Pages, you don't "split it off to clean it up and prepare for expansion". per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, you clean up and trim first, and if there is enough coverage for a stand-alone article you split. Your second mistake is that you don't correctly understand Misplaced Pages terminology, when I say "trivia" I mean " lists of isolated/miscellaneous information" as per WP:TRIVIA, not necessarily "Insignificant or inessential matters". Your third mistake is that you didn't take the time to read my comment correctly. I'm not saying any of these facts or trivia should not be included somewhere on WP, I'm saying that they can't have their own article because it is a disorganized list of isolated trivia and not a properly structured article with a clear focus. As I said, this is a collection of various facts about Gundam and real-life, however there is no clear definition of a so-called "cultural impact". It is indiscriminate because there is no link between posters, stamps, the JSSDF, etc. And as Ryulong said, this is not the Gundam article, this is the "Cultural impact" article, and per WP:GNG, "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." i consider that calling this list of trivia a "cultural impact" is fundamentally original research without secondary sources specifically referring to it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- And if you claim you're going to "expand" the article, then please provide an outline for how exactly you will proceed and with what sources, so that we can better see whether this is going anywhere.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Talk to yourselves because I'm not participating in the wiki-drama anymore, I'm going to be improving articles. This discussion is as non-sensical as the "Timeline of" as not being a list, and running afoul of PLOT. Now excuse me, I got work to do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gundam meets GNG but does its cultural impact meet GNG?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the lack of participation, despite a merge tag on Gundam and a notice at WT:ANIME since August, I'm gonna assume agreement from the silent majority (also counting support from Ryulong) and BOLDly proceed with the merge. I note that the only objector has completely abandoned the page (both the article and the discussion), and a related AfD has thoroughly invalidated his editing practices regarding splits from Gundam.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your bold merge was undone, I've put a lot of new work in and this clearly meets N/GNG for a stand alone. Stop edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- No this doesn't. As I've explained before, this is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated trivia that doesn't meet GNG because there is no independent coverage on the topic itself, ie the so-called cultural impact of Gundam. All of the sources are primary accounts of individual trivia and not secondary sources about the topic.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:SIZE and WP:GNG. This easily passes GNG, we have Museums and Government projects relating to Gundam. I disagree with the references being trival. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Could you point out the "significant coverage from secondary sources" requires to pass GNG ? I'm not saying the facts themselves are trivial, I'm saying the article is only made of WP:TRIVIA that doesn't result in a proper article, but in a collection of isolated facts.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)