Talk:Frank Rossitano
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of trivial information. A huge, hideously colored subsection on trucker hats (that are inconsequential to the character) is completely unnecessary and will be removed. We are an encyclopedia. I've linked the word for people who seem to forget what that is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad that you're humble enough to be willing to engage in an intelligent discussion or perhaps even (gasp!) consider dissenting arguments to be slightly more than deletion fodder. Perhaps you might even be willing to consider the possibility that your opinions aren't the be-all, end-all. Your justification leaves much room for POV, but I'm sure that's okay since you can always decide personally what is an "indiscriminate collection of trivial information" or is "hideously colored". After all, you're perfect! 67.171.170.241 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since you're so perfect, maybe you could explain to idiotic old me which part of this defines your "proposed" deletion as an "indiscriminate collection of trivial information". 67.171.170.241 21:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-They're not inconsequential to the character, they're actually more like "the defining quality of the character" As for the definition of Wikipedia, I'd say it's more an indiscriminate collector of trivial information than it is anything else. Might as well delete 50+% of all articles. By the way, I came to this discussion page by way of a google search for "30 rock hats" and a corresponding blog link (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/04/16/franks-30-rock-hats/) 24.68.231.60 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the hats are integral to the character. Further, making the table colored in the same manner as the hats, while it may not be esthetically pleasing, is actually a very clever way of giving useful information without cluttering the table with more text. Tufte would approve. It's also a good way of taking advantage of the "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" axiom.
Is there only one person who objects to the hats table? If so, I think the majority opinion is against him. 24.61.56.56 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NOT
- This may come as a surprise, but Wikipedia is not the Big Ol' Guide to 30 Rock Trivia, or any trivia for that matter. So for crying out loud, in the absence of reputable, independent 3rd party sources which verify the notability of the headgear in question, leave out the chuff about the hats. Deiz talk 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
To the above, of course "indiscriminate collection of information" is not further defined. At some point, we just sort of assume common sense prevails. When a bunch of reasonable people disagree about what common sense means, we resort to consensus. Doesn't that seem like a lot to go through over a bunch of silly hats? This is the equivalent to listing all of the things Bart Simpson writes on the chalkboard, describing every one of Cosmo Kramer's entrances, or analyzing each of Mr. Rogers's sweaters. Incidentally, if any of those are here, they're going as soon as someone points me to them. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Maybe, but wouldn’t it be a more convenient use of time to have a debate about the actual issue than one about whether there should be a debate? Furthermore, protecting this article indefinitely will do nothing except prevent it from ever being developed. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy which states that an article cannot be protected or semi-protected in the case of a content dispute. 67.171.170.241 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can use it; we are "Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war" and as always, the page that is protected now will always be the m:Wrong version for someone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Protection down to semi-protection. Mediation is useless in this case, since most people in the case only edited the article once or twice. So, this will be the place to discuss if the information should be here or not. Me and Jeff say no; what about you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can use it; we are "Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war" and as always, the page that is protected now will always be the m:Wrong version for someone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but wouldn’t it be a more convenient use of time to have a debate about the actual issue than one about whether there should be a debate? Furthermore, protecting this article indefinitely will do nothing except prevent it from ever being developed. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy which states that an article cannot be protected or semi-protected in the case of a content dispute. 67.171.170.241 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I came here to find the list of Frank's hats that I'd seen several months ago, and now it's not here. Way to go making WP less useful, content police. While I'm semi-sympathetic to the "indiscriminate collection of information," at the end of the day, a work that has an extensive entry on a year-old TV show with less than 30 episodes—much less one with an entry on a character with less than an hour of total screentime—is by definition a collection of indiscriminate information (or, to quote George Bernard Shaw, "We’ve established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price."). A lot of people are using the pretense that this is "an encyclopedia (snort!)" to keep out existing, useful information. Jedgeco (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] trivial information.
The only reason I EVER use wikipedia is to help me remember trivial information. Most of my friends that use wikipedia use it primarily to retrieve trivial information. It is an encyclopedia run by people. it should have what people want in it in it. I personally think that the list of hats should be posted permanently on a reliable web page. Wikipedia has virtually volunteered itself to do this for many similar bits of trivia, and it does this better than any other source of information in print or online. I am sure by now you are all thinking that it is obvious that I know very little about wikipedia...Well, this is the first and only thing I will probably ever post, because I am so disappointed that my own work of compiling a list of Frank's hats was a waste. The only reason I decided to watch the whole first season over and make a list of the hats was for it to be my first contribution to wikipedia. Anyway...here it is (in order of appearance)...have a good time making it harder for people to find the information they want to find:
Ninja Expert, Done Deal, Joystick Master, Double Cheese, Arcade Champ, Hand Held, Bigfoot Expert, Over Easy, E.S.P. Tutor, Kung Fu Beech, Karate Sluts, Beef N Bean, Smells, High Score, Extra Cheese, 1,000,000 Points, UFO Cop, Coool as Ice, Time Travel Agent, Liz Rocks, Mash Potatos, Beef Ravioli, Atomic Super Kick, Mystery Solver, Bahama Trapezoid, Alabama Legsweep, Force Field, Alien Knight Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTurbiville (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] quick edit for someone w. an account:
Might want to change "he also seems to be clever, quick-witted and more intelligent than he would seem to be at first glance" to "he also seems to be clever, quick-witted and more intelligent than would appear at first glance." Sentence sounds a bit unnecessary, regardless, but might as well eliminate the double "seems"...
