Talk:Garden Gnome Liberation Front
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Cleanup
Added template:fiction to the article as the article lacks encyclopedic information about the organizations in question, and instead treats the issue of garden gnome-liberation as if it were a serious and pressing issue. Also, the article is messy, disorganized and generally needs to be cleaned up. When I first read the article, I very nearly thought I had somehow made my way to Uncyclopedia! -ryan-d 11:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed the article. As you can see I wrote that the gnomes are fictional but I assure you that the group that liberate the fictional beings are not. It is not a fiction article so please don't keep reverting the article every time I fix it up. Thanks--Woodenbuddha 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- So you're telling me that these groups liberate fictional gnomes? I am very confused, and so would any other normal-thinking individual be if they stumble across the article in its current state. You seem to know something about the subject matter, could you please clarify clearly as to the nature of these so-called garden gnome liberators? I'll leave your edits for now, but I'm going to re-add the {{fiction}} and {{confusing}} templates to the top of the article. -ryand 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There are groups that believe that gnomes are living. They need some help granted but they still believe in the rights of the gnomes. The gnomes are garden gnomes so in that sense they are real but in the sense that they are living that is false. I will change the page so it says so more clearly....--Woodenbuddha 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Got rid of the label. Compared to the large and exponential number of articles requiring cleanups this one is a marvel. What happens here, is a case of both national and cultural problem. Obviously the stuff was partially derived from a french movie, and I suppose having seen the movie will help understanding the article.
So now the issue becomes: is it a private piece of information (such as in "private joke") or not? The answer is that as wikipedia popularity increases, the number of "private" articles (only understood by a small number of people) increase too. What matters is that these people find the information in wikipedia. Dilane 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, what matters is that the article is accessible to a general audience. Wikipedia articles don't exist only for people familiar with the subject matter to read. If I wanted to do a school assignment or a research paper on garden gnomes, this article would be utterly useless to me. Added {{context}}. -ryand 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Upon searching Google.com for "Garden Gnome Liberation Front" (in quotes) I receive 12,000 results, which include CNN, and other news sources. I realize that notability can be argued, but I'm pretty sure that those results clear the notability hurdle for wikipedia standards. The news sites should clear up any notion that this article refers to a hoax. Clearly some hyperbole is involved amongst the group, but that can be clarified (not mirrored) in the article about the phenomenon. 74.134.246.222 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- The most notable of these references need to be included in the article, otherwise the entire thing is unverifiable. Gwernol 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verfiability
Each of mentioned organizations or websites must me mentioned in reputable publications, otherwise these will be removed. Wikipedia is a place only for well-known pranksters and kooks. `'mikkanarxi 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- TravellingGnome.net's actions have been mentioned in numerous media in Belgium and Holland including national radio and tv channels
You did not understand my warning. Every menitioned organization in the article must be supplied with a footnoted reference to a reputable independent source per wikipedia:Verifiability. wikipedia.travellinggnome.net is not a reputable independent source, sorry. `'mikkanarxi 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
