Talk:Roswell
From Fan History Wiki
| This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page. Please remove this template when the conversation has run its course. |
Contents |
[edit] Wikiformatting
Can some one go through this article and wikify everything, fix the formatting issues, etc? Lots of good information in it but really hard to find with the current formatting. :( --Laura 11:35, 26 December 2007 (CST)
[edit] Kerfluffles
The kerfluffles section could use citations to back up and point to the reported incidents and where they occured.--Sidewinder 15:50, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree. The section should be deleted or it should be re written with proper citations/sources that can verify what is stated there. Otherwise the informations are useless. Most of the things written there are most likely rumors created by the person who added them in the first place. All the informations without any source should be deleted especially when the content is both libelous and clearly biased against one specific group of fans (in this example it's the "Dreamers". the section is clearly against this group) Example of very libelous content without any source:
Fanforum v. Jason Katims When news of Tess/Max having sex (and a child) broke, some dreamers on fanforum posted Jason Katmis' (the creator of Roswell) work phone number and urged them to call. It's unclear if anyone did.
--*Ladybird* 12:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do NOT delete entire sections of a page, as per Help:Rules, until or unless the moderators have approved this action. Also, while certain kerfluffles may be deleted, the kerfluffle sub-section is a standard part of Fan History fandom templates and must remain, even if individual kerfluffles are deleted from lack of evidence/sources. Please do not do this again or else your account will be temporarily banned.--Sidewinder 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the kerfluffle sub-section is a standard part of Fan History fandom templates but then in this article it should be blank because the problem here is that the whole section is unsourced not just some individual kerfluffles. I understand that the section must remain but this doesn't mean that people can write what they want there without sources just because the section is needed. This is a basic rule for every wiki page that want to be believable and really useful. Also this kind of informations should be proved by links with pages where what is described happened. --*Ladybird* 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Link inclusion
This comment has some references to the historical Roswell community. If some one has the time, could you mine the entry and comments, and add that information to this article? --Laura 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Roswell Heaven
Roswellian Chronicles and Roswell Underground are both closed and gone.
Roswell Heaven needs to be added to the links. It was created in April of 2006, a spin-off from the now closed Dreaming among the Stars board. Roswell Heaven is still an active Roswell board with fanfic and discussion, and over 500 members.
Roswell Heaven - http://roswellheaven.yuku.com
- Roswell Heaven has been added to the links, but the other sites - the dead ones - now have {{citation to dead link}} cites on them. Reasoning: someone may want to write a history of these sites, and if they do, the links should be there. --Tikatu 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fixing this article, opening for new content
I see this article was admin locked back in August due to vandalism (although it didn't get the article box added to the top to make this clear. And there are also issues due to the claims made in the kerfluffles section with no citations, which have not had any citations added since I put those tags there a year ago.
What do we want to do about this? Open the article back up for editing to try to improve the content? Does anyone out there have links to where the claims made in the kerfluffles section can be backed up? Looking for input both from the other admins as well as any Roswell fans out there who have stumbled onto this issue.--Sidewinder 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
-- I'm a roswell fan, if i were able to improve the section with the needed links i would have done it. But honestly the section seems like a list of random easy-to-make rumors written by an user who casually came here (and he didn't create an account) with the sole purpose to write those things and not with the purpose to really improve the article with something useful (otherwise if the things he wrote in the section were true then why not provide the links where he did find these informations/facts? i don't understand his inability to provide sources. )
In my opinion the dispute about the section doesn't have reasons to exist because the problem itself isn't only the lack of neutrality so I suggest to simply remove the content since it doesn't have any source and for this simple reason it already doesn't fit with encyclopedic articles. Then if people will find sources they can always write the section again with more neutrality and a less biased POV.
--*Ladybird* 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for not adding a box indicating the Admin lock; in my defense, I must say I was new to my honors then and didn't know to put one on the article.
- Since the article has been admin locked since August, there has been no opportunity to add any citations. Instead of deleting the kefluffles section wholesale, would it be easier to move it to a subpage, slap an NPOV on that, link it to the main article, and give editors the opportunity of adding citations? That way, if the citations do not appear after a specific period of time, we can deal with the entire page as biased. Also, we do have a citation for dead links. That could easily be added to the links that have been removed today instead of deleting them wholesale.
- Just my two cents. YMMV. --Tikatu 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] biased anti dreamers propaganda
I can't contribute to the page because i don't have an account but as a roswell fan since years i wanted to say that the Kerfluffles section is a biased anti-Dreamers propaganda! No wonder why you don't have the needed sources: because they don't exist! Actually if you visit any roswell board you can find evidence of the contrary of what is written there. try with Google, look at any board or livejournal communities and the fanfictions.. it's a simple research and you will see that the "wars" are other fans/shippers vs Dreamers and not the contrary like it's written here. You make it seems that dreamers are the only trouble makers of the fandom and it isn't even true. Most of them are general roswell fans too, something that with the other shippers is less common. also Dreamers are the fans of the main characters/couple of the show and it's pretty logic that it's the other shippers that start wars most of the time with the bashing against the couple and the fans especially after the writers said that Max and Liz were the heart and soul of the show (citation on crashdown.com or google it. It was said by Ronald Moore twice). It's not something new that in every fandom it's mainly the shippers of secondary couples/characters that start bashing and wars against the main ones especially when what they love isn't what the writers cared the most about so it's obvious that they always feel like they have to prove that what they love is better and should have been the core of the show instead what really was. Before making this kind of sections (and it should always be NEUTRAL and not so biased like this) you should read the boards and find sources, at least, otherwise everyone could write what they want! (just like what the 'fanfiction' writer-user did when he/she made the section)
[edit] Kerfluffles and POV tag removal
Other admins requested I step in as otherwise, I would normally just let them handle it. I've moved the kerfluffles section to its own page and removed the POV tag from this article. This seemed to be the best temporary solution to problems with that section. I really don't want to research the Roswell fandom wanks myself. I don't really want to ask an admin to research it and I really don't want to publicize on LiveJournal that the kerfluffles section/article needs work.
Any further blanking of that article or section will result in banning. Please add to the article, include citations, offer your account of events. One way to do a personal narrative is to create a subsection with your name and perspective. For example, ===Laura's perspective===. Below that, I/you could give a first hand account of the events in question. If they don't match the other version, that is fine as it is another perspective. It doesn't need to match as we all have our own perspectives. It doesn't need to be unbiased because our own accounts generally have bias. The section summarizing the event however SHOULD be as unbiased as possible. --Laura 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
