Talk:Whedonesque.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Firefly-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefly, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the TV series Firefly, its spin-offs, and all things related to the Firefly 'verse. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at the project talk-page. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
Um, "This article lacks information on the importance of its subject'"? WHAT?
No offense, but did the person who tagged it as such bother to follow all the Wikilinks AND read it? Are they foreign and therefore possibly less familiar with Whedon's work? Do they completely not understand why Joss Whedon is a fairly important current figure in science fiction and fantasy film, TV and comics? Or is the person (I really don't mean to go into ad-hominem, here, and I apologize if it comes off as such, it just implies to me that the person...) who tagged it as such really think Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (one of the biggest and most influential cult hits of the past decade, as well as one of the most critically-acclaimed series of the last decade), as well as creator and/or writer of several best-selling comic books (Fray, Serenity: Those Left Behind, and as well as one of the most recent X-Men series, for starters) for both Dark Horse Comics and Marvel Comics, someone whose biggest perceived failure (Firefly, canceled after 11 episodes on Fox network) managed to both on initial release and after a reairing of the series several years later, hit the Amazon.com top ten sales for DVDs for weeks or months in a row (I'm pretty sure it was actually a couple of months or more, for the top ten), managed to be considered worth it to release to iTunes Music Store as a "Classic" series, AND managed, due in part to the DVD sales, to snag a minor feature film release (Serenity)...
...isn't important enough to have his central, extraordinarily frequently-cited even here on Wikipedia means of direct online communication with his fan community (which he is well known for having strong ties to and frequent interaction with), including going so far as to make the majority of his most important announcements and statements of canonical status of certain releases there, considered to be important enough to have a brief article?
Additionally, other staff, including many of the writers, of his projects ranging from Buffy/Angel to Firefly also use the site to post important updates and the like.
The site is also (partly due to how well it's respected by Buffy/Angel and Firefly fans) cited by an almost head-spinningly large number of articles (there's 48 that pop up in the search here for "whedonesque"; you can check this by typing it into the search box and pressing "search" instead of "go") relating to his works on this very encyclopedia, five random selections of which I directly cited (see: the article's first paragraph) to show how often and wide-rangingly it's cited and referenced. But hey, if you must know, here's the first page's worth of results under that search term (and yeah, I've checked; all or most include at least one or more references to postings on the site):
Spike (film) Relevance: 15.8% - 9.3 kB (1406 words) - 19:16, 3 June 2006
Go Ask Malice: A Slayer's Diary Relevance: 11.1% - 5.1 kB (768 words) - 01:01, 22 May 2006
After Image (Buffy novel) Relevance: 11.0% - 2.5 kB (351 words) - 22:49, 25 May 2006
Brian Lynch Relevance: 11.0% - 2.4 kB (332 words) - 23:17, 22 May 2006
Bad Bargain (Buffy novel) Relevance: 11.0% - 3.2 kB (462 words) - 13:11, 6 June 2006
Carnival of Souls (Buffy novel) Relevance: 9.4% - 2.9 kB (413 words) - 16:39, 25 May 2006
Portal Through Time (Buffy novel) Relevance: 9.4% - 3.6 kB (509 words) - 23:34, 21 May 2006
Blackout (Buffy novel) Relevance: 9.0% - 4.6 kB (692 words) - 00:52, 22 May 2006
Dingoes Ate My Baby Relevance: 7.8% - 4.7 kB (688 words) - 01:23, 12 June 2006
Spike: Old Times (Angel comic) Relevance: 7.8% - 4.1 kB (634 words) - 13:55, 15 May 2006
History of the Slayer Relevance: 7.8% - 4.8 kB (718 words) - 12:23, 28 May 2006
Ripper (television) Relevance: 6.3% - 3.6 kB (519 words) - 08:42, 8 June 2006
Lydia (Buffyverse) Relevance: 6.3% - 6.0 kB (849 words) - 01:33, 27 April 2006
Spike: Asylum (Angel comic) Relevance: 6.3% - 6.2 kB (944 words) - 13:42, 6 June 2006
Old Friends (Angel comic) Relevance: 5.4% - 4.6 kB (693 words) - 16:22, 21 May 2006
Wicked Willow (Buffy novel) Relevance: 5.1% - 8.7 kB (1270 words) - 12:35, 22 May 2006
Buffyverse canonical issues Relevance: 4.7% - 0.0 kB (3 words) - 10:13, 8 June 2006
Unaired Buffy pilot Relevance: 4.7% - 12.2 kB (1965 words) - 23:28, 10 June 2006
Buffy the Animated Series Relevance: 4.7% - 10.5 kB (1602 words) - 01:21, 23 May 2006
Faith Lehane Relevance: 3.9% - 16.5 kB (2584 words) - 00:00, 12 June 2006
I don't mean to be snippy, and I apologize if I'm coming off as such. However, I fail to see how it's somehow coming off as an "unimportant" website, all things considered...
Considering how many times and on how many Buffy and Firefly-related articles it's cited, does it not make sense for it to have its own article?
Of course there isn't much info in the article right now. That's because I do not know the complete history of the site, and was not able to access the complete members' list for it. That's why it's a stub.
So, all that said, I would like to try and Assume Good Faith.
So would whomever stuck that label on the page please respond on this Talk page so I can know why the hell it's not obvious that, while hardly the most important site ever, it's still a notable enough website to have a brief article here? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Runa27 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article originally seemed like an advert or spam. This tag was placed without any suggestion that it should be deleted, but rather in the hope that the wording might be improved to focus on why this meets WP:WEB. Obviously as the author you beleive this has been satisfactorily met, and so I have no qualms with the tag being removed. Harro5 07:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much for the quick response! Advert, huh? Well, since I'm not aware of any serious controversies surrounding the site (though there might be some relating to its semi-exclusivity), I can sort of see how it would come across as such, in a way. :P Between that and not being aware of some of the site's history, well, it seemed right to mark it a stub, and I probably will not be the one to remove the stub tag(s), either, even though I will try to contribue a little more to the general information here. I'm searching now to see how I can fill out the article with better information, and I will probably stick it up for peer review in a bit to see what other people make of it. For now at least, I'm going to remove the "importance" tag, since you said you'd "have no qualms" with that and all (though I will tweak the article a little in the hopes of making its importance to Whedon's fandom slightly clearer), but if it gets put up again by somebody else, I probably won't remove it, because if two people tag it like that, well, something's obviously wrong with the prose I wrote then, even if it makes sense to me. :P
I will also try to seek out non-Wikipedia sites that cite or quote Whedonesque, since you're right in that it would be a serious improvement. :) The little linked notations in the article itself were there mainly because after having been to the site (where I discovered some announcements that had yet to be made elsewhere regarding new "definitely canon" Buffy and Firefly comic series) after seeing it linked so many times from so many Buffy/Angel and Firefly articles, and realizing it didn't have its own article I thought "That needs to be there, even if it's a stub." But again, I'll try to find some non-Wikipedia sites that note it. :) Thanks for the advice!Runa27 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
