Talk:Vito Spatafore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

[edit] Merge Proposition

I think Vito Spatafore is enough of a major character to warrant his own article, and that the secondary characters article is really for characters who have not had their own storylines.

Re: I agree.

I concur as well. There's simply too much going on with this sole character for him to be "merged" with the two-bit players. --AWF

Voting on the main character list page supports Vito having his own page (as do I). Please add your votes there to give a greater consensus on whether this article is warranted. --Opark 77 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I say that Vito have his own page, as he is (or was) a fairly major character... User:Prezboy1 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic tone, and references

The wording of the article has been criticised; could someone please proof read it and alter anything they think necessary? I feel unable to do it as I have contributed a fair amount to the article already.--Opark 77 07:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the HBO character profile as a reference - some of the information in the article can be verified there. As with most character pages much of the article is written with the show itself as a primary source. I've read the style guide page on citations and couldn't see if it was appropriate to reference an episode of the show, does anyone know more about this?--Opark 77 07:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Opark77, thank you for your note on my talk page. I apologize for the delay in responding; I've been away for a time. What I mean by 'encyclopedic tone' is that the article should be written in that formal prose commonly expected in publications such as encyclopedias. This really means clear, slang- and jargon-free writing. For examples, take a look at some sample articles in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the Encyclopedia Brittanica , or Wikipedia's own Featured articles. By this I do not mean 'stuffy'; I mean clear, precise and unambiguous. Always remember your audience—a young lady in Beijing with moderate education should be able to understand a Wikipedia article on a person. Examples of phrases not suited to an encyclopedia article are: "the captains should take him down", "Two low-level wiseguys", "Perhaps more important is that Vito has a big mouth and doesn't know when to keep it shut", "used to work construction". The phrase "point of contention" is misused (it is also cliché). The article also contains grammatical errors. Furthermore, the piece is written as if addressed to another Soprano afficionado—you would already have to have considerable familiarity with the subject matter to be able to understand parts of it. To prevent such writing in future, it is a good idea to imagine that your article is going to be read by, say, a 25 year old English speaking chap with a BSc from India. Or better still a Martian scientist. Do you think he will understand what you're trying to say? If not, write more clearly. Don't use American slang, or other forms of informal speech.
With respect to the references, please be aware of the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be a cogent, systematic summary of accumulated research and reporting on a subject. By definition, an encyclopedia article may not be written on a subject that has been little studied and/or reported. On Wikipedia this requirement has to be adhered to especially strictly, because most contributors to Wikipedia are to all intents and purposes anonymous or pseudonymous; our articles are not signed by recognized experts, they undergo no peer-review, no editorial oversight. Our entire basis for any kind of accountability, our entire basis for any claim to encyclopediability, lies in fastidious attention to sourcing statements in articles to reputable, reliable sources that everyone can check and verify for themselves. Where such sources do not exist, an article may not be written. Where reliable sources do exist, but only to matters tangentially related to the proposed subject, other alternatives to a separate entry are preferable.

Now, there is no doubt that an entry on The Sopranos may be written for Wikipedia—there are a great many secondary sources on the show. The article here however is on a minor character, Vito Spatafore. A lot of what has been written seems to me to be speculative in nature, and border on original research; furthermore, I wonder if there is a paucity of sources on the subject that would necessitate a different approach altogether. I hope you will address these concerns. Regards —Encephalon 11:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear advice Encephalon. I've read (or re-read in some cases) the policy pages you suggested. I've attempted to formalise the wording and tone of the article. I've also started adding references to the article, since this is a television programme the references are mostly from articles written in newspapers or magazines by crticis, I believe these meet the policy guidelines and I hope they are acceptable. Please could you review the wording and remove the formal tone tag if you think it is appropriate. How many references should we aim to accumulate before the reference tag can be taken off? --Opark 77 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Having waited a week I'm going to remove the reference tag - it states that the article does not cite it's references but the article now does acknowledge it's sources. --Opark 77 14:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)