The Scrappy-Doo Wikipedia Mystery
May 21, 2021 8:32 AM Subscribe
The Wikipedia entry for fictional Great Dane puppy Scrappy-Doo is 25,623 words long. With six sections, 15 subsections, and 19 sub-subsections, the page has a greater wordcount than Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, is double the length of the average undergrad dissertation, and is nearly 2,000 words longer than the Wikipedia entry for the entire history of Poland. I first discovered this at Halloween.
MeFi's own lore wrote the only thing that ever needs to be written on Scrappy Doo, all the way back in 1997.
posted by SansPoint at 8:47 AM on May 21, 2021 [16 favorites]
I don’t know what I was expecting, but I definitely wasn’t expecting such a sweet story.
Also, I don’t care what po-faced killjoys say, Wikipedia is at its best in well-researched articles about old cartoon characters.
posted by Kattullus at 8:47 AM on May 21, 2021 [12 favorites]
Also, I don’t care what po-faced killjoys say, Wikipedia is at its best in well-researched articles about old cartoon characters.
posted by Kattullus at 8:47 AM on May 21, 2021 [12 favorites]
This looks like the sort of thing that, now that the article has been brought to the attention of a larger audience, editors are going to trim it back to a much more reasonable size. To note the presence of beauty in this world is to destroy it.
posted by miguelcervantes at 8:49 AM on May 21, 2021 [29 favorites]
posted by miguelcervantes at 8:49 AM on May 21, 2021 [29 favorites]
SILLY THING HAS LONGER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE THAN SERIOUS THING is always a good time. It makes me want to write 25,000-word WP articles on Mok ecology or Power Ranger ethics or whatever. God bless everyone who writes epic-length WP articles about fun, silly, or trivial subjects that they know will assuredly one day be deleted. The very definition of human striving.
posted by cupcakeninja at 9:01 AM on May 21, 2021 [23 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 9:01 AM on May 21, 2021 [23 favorites]
Someone just took it upon themselves to add synopses for every episode with Scrappy. It's a totally outrageous paradigm.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'd really encourage people to read the article (the second link) before commenting on this one. It is a great story, not that long, and more interesting than most quick takes are going to be.
posted by mark k at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2021 [34 favorites]
posted by mark k at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2021 [34 favorites]
MeFi's own lore wrote the only thing that ever needs to be written on Scrappy Doo, all the way back in 1997.
Yeah, but he absolutely missed the mark on Velma, so, C+.
posted by explosion at 9:08 AM on May 21, 2021 [6 favorites]
Yeah, but he absolutely missed the mark on Velma, so, C+.
posted by explosion at 9:08 AM on May 21, 2021 [6 favorites]
In college, a professor told us about a grad student he had who wrote this long, detailed, and quite brilliant dissertation on an obscure battle in the Civil War. The professor was so impressed and now very interested in this historical event, he started looking up the references in the bibliography. He couldn’t find the first one. He tried the second. Nope. He couldn’t find any of the works. The battle itself was not found. He called the student in. He said the biggest mistake was writing such a good paper. A mediocre paper would have been read and graded. I don’t remember what happened to the student. So, how many brilliant frauds lurk on Wikipedia?
posted by njohnson23 at 9:13 AM on May 21, 2021 [28 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 9:13 AM on May 21, 2021 [28 favorites]
Ruh-roh!
posted by y2karl at 9:16 AM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 9:16 AM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
This seems like the right place to bring up my favorite old-timer Wikipedia dictum: if you don't have a Wikipedia page it means you are less notable than the least-notable Pokemon, an amazing and wonderful state of affairs that was tragically "fixed" by the Pokeprosal. Naturally, extensive information about all of this is itself available at Wikipedia.
posted by range at 9:17 AM on May 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by range at 9:17 AM on May 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
It is a lovely article and what a shame so many lazy Metafilter members won't read it and just post stupid one word snarky comments instead. Spoilers: it's the labor of love of a young woman who feels a special affinity for the character. “Luckily, Scrappy did a lot of objectively awesome things.” It's a sweet story.
By far the biggest part of the Wikipedia article is the "Character Biography" section which consists of Scrappycentric synopses of the episodes of various shows featuring Scooby-Doo and Scrappy-Doo. In a fully wikified world without deletionism, each episode would have its own unique Wikipedia page with the summary and the main article would just have one line summaries of each.
posted by Nelson at 9:19 AM on May 21, 2021 [14 favorites]
By far the biggest part of the Wikipedia article is the "Character Biography" section which consists of Scrappycentric synopses of the episodes of various shows featuring Scooby-Doo and Scrappy-Doo. In a fully wikified world without deletionism, each episode would have its own unique Wikipedia page with the summary and the main article would just have one line summaries of each.
posted by Nelson at 9:19 AM on May 21, 2021 [14 favorites]
"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic cartoon dog....his soft, felt-like legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes, while making comical motion noises that had been pilfered from a stock soundtrack."
posted by gimonca at 9:24 AM on May 21, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 9:24 AM on May 21, 2021 [21 favorites]
So, not withstanding the sweetness of the story, how is this not original research, as forbidden by wikipedia's No Original Research policy? If the article is about a media property, then watching the media property itself and summarizing the plot elements seems like Original Research.
I don't care, really, if wikipedia doesn't apply their No Original Research policy to this type of thing, but then I see it get applied to things like biographies of women and minority scientists because the editor cited the subject's own web page and it just frustrates me so much that Wikipedia often seems like it only cares about its rules when it can be used to keep laser focus on things that western teenage boys like.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:31 AM on May 21, 2021 [13 favorites]
I don't care, really, if wikipedia doesn't apply their No Original Research policy to this type of thing, but then I see it get applied to things like biographies of women and minority scientists because the editor cited the subject's own web page and it just frustrates me so much that Wikipedia often seems like it only cares about its rules when it can be used to keep laser focus on things that western teenage boys like.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:31 AM on May 21, 2021 [13 favorites]
I always assume that, when a Wikipedia entry is excessively long, it's because the subject has done something exceptionally bad and the author of the article is trying to bury it under extraneous detail. That's probably not the case here.
Probably.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:32 AM on May 21, 2021 [6 favorites]
Probably.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:32 AM on May 21, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm sure the people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia have their reasons for trimming or deleting things like this, but these really in-depth articles on fictional topics can be useful when you're trying to track down some almost-forgotten memory of the past.
I know that they wouldn't consider the time and enthusiasm spent on the article in question, but it does seem like it would be a shame if they were to trim it down to respond to the complaints you hear from time to time about fictional thing X having a more comprehensive page than real, important thing Y.
It feels like the wrong way to go about it.
posted by No One Ever Does at 9:33 AM on May 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
I know that they wouldn't consider the time and enthusiasm spent on the article in question, but it does seem like it would be a shame if they were to trim it down to respond to the complaints you hear from time to time about fictional thing X having a more comprehensive page than real, important thing Y.
It feels like the wrong way to go about it.
posted by No One Ever Does at 9:33 AM on May 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
Spoilers: it's the labor of love of a young woman who feels a special affinity for the character. “Luckily, Scrappy did a lot of objectively awesome things.” It's a sweet story.
Also if you check the dates, 22 May through 29 October 2020, she was probably simultaneously bored out of her mind, slightly scared for her future, and finding herself with lots of idle time, so why not complete a passion project?
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:35 AM on May 21, 2021 [10 favorites]
Also if you check the dates, 22 May through 29 October 2020, she was probably simultaneously bored out of her mind, slightly scared for her future, and finding herself with lots of idle time, so why not complete a passion project?
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:35 AM on May 21, 2021 [10 favorites]
The thing that's difficult about this is, people seem to think that a long, highly detailed article is a statement of greater importance or significance. But often the subject of the article is better served by a shorter, clearer treatment. I think the story about the young woman writing the Scrappy Doo article is really sweet, but unfortunately those who don't already share her obsession are probably going to find her exhaustively detailed cataloguing of each of Scrappy Doo's appearances to be impenetrable, to the point of making it harder for them to get whatever information they were expecting to get from the article. In a more perfect world, someone would host this labor of love on Scoobypedia (or whatever) as a more appropriate resource where the audience is more likely to be looking for that type of detailed information, distill a more focused treatment for the general-interest readership of Wikipedia, and provide clear links to refer those wanting the detailed catalogue to the more subject-specific site. This shouldn't be a question of whether this is or isn't important, because length and detail are pretty much orthogonal to that question. It's a question of what's the most effective way to communicate for the audience, and who is the community best equipped to properly curate the content. I like Wikipedia, and I like Memory Alpha. They serve different functions.
posted by biogeo at 9:36 AM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 9:36 AM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
“It’s a pity really, because the dog’s nephew, also a dog, actually talks very well”
posted by migurski at 10:05 AM on May 21, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by migurski at 10:05 AM on May 21, 2021 [11 favorites]
But you guys, there are larger themes at work which are doubtless undertreated in other media. For example, disillusion with the wisdom of adults:
Under The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Dooposted by amtho at 10:08 AM on May 21, 2021 [3 favorites]
To All the Ghouls I Loved Before: Scooby, Shaggy, Daphne, and Scrappy are going on vacation to Hawaii. When Scooby accidentally causes them to land in the Himalayas instead, Scrappy wonders who moved Hawaii, before it is revealed that Scooby misnavigated. Later, when Scrappy finds out that there's wolfbane in the drinks, he anxiously tells Daphne that that is what turns people into werewolves. She, skeptical of that myth, shrugs it off, Shaggy gets scared when he hears a wolf howl, and he, Scooby, and Flim Flam, who pulls Scrappy away, leave. Scrappy and Flim Flam are separated from Shaggy and Scooby and are later revealed to have ended up in the sewers, which is when they open a manhole for Shaggy and Scooby. Scrappy, who has been slowly been coming to terms with his uncle's fallibility over the course of his run, gets worried when Van Ghoul says that only an idiot would open the chest. He and Daphne run fearfully to stop them and calls out to his Uncle to not open the chest, and when he sees that it is too late, only says, "never mind". Scrappy invites Flim Flam, who has befriended him, along, and Flim Flam accepts.
less notable than the least-notable Pokemon
Oh, I was about to be sad when I saw Unown was one of the few generation II Pokémon with a separate page, but then I read the critical reception section for Unown and thought OK well it could be worse.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:21 AM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
Oh, I was about to be sad when I saw Unown was one of the few generation II Pokémon with a separate page, but then I read the critical reception section for Unown and thought OK well it could be worse.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:21 AM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
jacquilynne asks: how is this not original research
The Wikipedia:No original research page says "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia ... examples of primary sources include: ... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs."
It sounds like a factual description of the primary source is acceptable.
In contrast, a description or interpretation of the primary source is not allowed, unless it's in a secondary source. For example, an author cannot directly correct a misinterpretation of his work in Wikipedia, but he can write about the interpretation in a separate publication, after which the Wikipedia article can reference that publication.
Clarifications or corrections from Wikipedia experts are welcome.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:22 AM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
The Wikipedia:No original research page says "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia ... examples of primary sources include: ... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs."
It sounds like a factual description of the primary source is acceptable.
In contrast, a description or interpretation of the primary source is not allowed, unless it's in a secondary source. For example, an author cannot directly correct a misinterpretation of his work in Wikipedia, but he can write about the interpretation in a separate publication, after which the Wikipedia article can reference that publication.
Clarifications or corrections from Wikipedia experts are welcome.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:22 AM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
“When I started my research, I was still a kid. So I guess I sort of thought about it like a kid: I thought there was like, a secret conspiracy. And if I searched and searched and searched, that I would find the secret key. But that’s not how real life works.”
Here's hoping that a lot of non-Scrappy-Doo conspiracy theorists eventually come to the same conclusion.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 10:36 AM on May 21, 2021 [7 favorites]
Here's hoping that a lot of non-Scrappy-Doo conspiracy theorists eventually come to the same conclusion.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 10:36 AM on May 21, 2021 [7 favorites]
Lovely story and scratched an itch to know "who is the person going this hard on random fictional thing" you sometimes have on trips of "why am I looking up such detailed information about a fictional thing I've never seen, never will see." I've no weight in the matter, but I like having that sort of stuff on wikipedia, as long as it's well organized and coherent, I don't recall ever looking up something and being like "oh geez, I wish I had to go somewhere else to read this instead."
Also in just general defense of Scrappy, it's not hard to argue that Scrappy Doo is "better" than the History of Poland and Metamorphosis. The History of Poland includes at least one individual who at some point did a murder or a crime of some sort, whereas Scrappy Doo has never killed anyone or been convicted of a crime. Meanwhile Metamorphosis is often printed on paper, which has sharp corners that might fall at a certain angle and scratch one's eye, or even pierce the flesh and draw blood! Scrappy Doo typically exists as 2 dimensional illusion typically projected as light and has never drawn blood or scratched any viewer.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:39 AM on May 21, 2021 [8 favorites]
Also in just general defense of Scrappy, it's not hard to argue that Scrappy Doo is "better" than the History of Poland and Metamorphosis. The History of Poland includes at least one individual who at some point did a murder or a crime of some sort, whereas Scrappy Doo has never killed anyone or been convicted of a crime. Meanwhile Metamorphosis is often printed on paper, which has sharp corners that might fall at a certain angle and scratch one's eye, or even pierce the flesh and draw blood! Scrappy Doo typically exists as 2 dimensional illusion typically projected as light and has never drawn blood or scratched any viewer.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:39 AM on May 21, 2021 [8 favorites]
If the article is about a media property, then watching the media property itself and summarizing the plot elements seems like Original Research.
The implication here is that media properties should be described purely via guesswork and hearsay, which cannot be right.
posted by babelfish at 11:01 AM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
The implication here is that media properties should be described purely via guesswork and hearsay, which cannot be right.
posted by babelfish at 11:01 AM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
Except that as I understand it, that's generally Wikipedia's policy -- you're supposed to have secondary or tertiary sources for the information you include, not go directly to primary sources.
From Mr. Know-it-some's post above, it seems like there's a specific exception for factual descriptions of media properties that allows you to use them as a primary source (though it cautions against using that for large swathes of an article). Otherwise, I imagine you'd have to turn to media coverage of episodes or other reliable sources that provide detailed plot summaries to gain information for Wikipedia, the same as you're expected to do for basically everything else.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:16 AM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
From Mr. Know-it-some's post above, it seems like there's a specific exception for factual descriptions of media properties that allows you to use them as a primary source (though it cautions against using that for large swathes of an article). Otherwise, I imagine you'd have to turn to media coverage of episodes or other reliable sources that provide detailed plot summaries to gain information for Wikipedia, the same as you're expected to do for basically everything else.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:16 AM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
I just wish comic book hero's pages were organized half so well, instead of typically consisting of massive paragraphs poorly summarizing decades of history from hundreds of comics in massive rambling paragraphs.
posted by Jacen at 11:28 AM on May 21, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 11:28 AM on May 21, 2021 [8 favorites]
For persons who are not Of a Certain Age, it’s hard to explain the hatred leveled at Scrappy Doo. Scooby Doo in the 80s was a fine, spooky show on its own, without a lot of “WHIZZ-BANG!! LET’S HAVE FUN, KIDZZZ!! DOING CRAZZZY KID STUFF THAT KIDS FIND FUNNY!!!” It was goofy in parts. There was definitely some slapstick, but the point of the show was dealing with weird, scary things. It was a universe largely peopled by gentle characters and cranky, taciturn villains. Even the celebrity guests were low-key.
So you’re six or seven and you have your spooky mystery show that you watch, and it’s nice to have something that doesn’t feel so much like adults trying to jolly you along or Teach An Important Lesson (Get-Along Gang, I am looking at you).
And then along comes this obnoxious, loud-mouthed, fighty dog who’s supposed to be cute and appealing. Scrappy changed the whole tone of the show the way a viper in a punch bowl changes the tone of a party and a lot of kids were Not Having It. Just get back to saving a failing hotel from the embittered groundskeeper or whatever, we don’t need this nonsense. I hated Scrappy episodes. Hated them.
So if people seem to be irritated with a huge Wikipedia on Scrappy Doo, just know that for a lot of people he was the Loud Talker in our personal library of dark entertainment, which was a seriously limited resource in the 80s.
This Wikipedia page is a stunning testament to patience and detail, though!
posted by corey flood at 11:55 AM on May 21, 2021 [24 favorites]
So you’re six or seven and you have your spooky mystery show that you watch, and it’s nice to have something that doesn’t feel so much like adults trying to jolly you along or Teach An Important Lesson (Get-Along Gang, I am looking at you).
And then along comes this obnoxious, loud-mouthed, fighty dog who’s supposed to be cute and appealing. Scrappy changed the whole tone of the show the way a viper in a punch bowl changes the tone of a party and a lot of kids were Not Having It. Just get back to saving a failing hotel from the embittered groundskeeper or whatever, we don’t need this nonsense. I hated Scrappy episodes. Hated them.
So if people seem to be irritated with a huge Wikipedia on Scrappy Doo, just know that for a lot of people he was the Loud Talker in our personal library of dark entertainment, which was a seriously limited resource in the 80s.
This Wikipedia page is a stunning testament to patience and detail, though!
posted by corey flood at 11:55 AM on May 21, 2021 [24 favorites]
Speaking of hatred of Scrappy, that's the basis for TVTropes' The Scrappy, oddly not mentioned thus far, even in that very long article.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:01 PM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:01 PM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
The Amelia Tait article, the second link in the OP, does mention it.
I guess for including it in the Wiki article, you have to find a third party that references that use of "The Scrappy" or you have to argue that TV Tropes is "reputably published" and use it as a primary source.
posted by RobotHero at 12:26 PM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
I guess for including it in the Wiki article, you have to find a third party that references that use of "The Scrappy" or you have to argue that TV Tropes is "reputably published" and use it as a primary source.
posted by RobotHero at 12:26 PM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
I once wrote a fanfic story that reached 225,000 words in total. I then looked it up, and found that my fluffy little novella was longer than any of Great Expectations, Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment, the Fellowship of the Ring, six of the seven Harry Potter books or Dune.
Never look up word counts. It isn't healthy.
posted by delfin at 12:40 PM on May 21, 2021 [7 favorites]
Never look up word counts. It isn't healthy.
posted by delfin at 12:40 PM on May 21, 2021 [7 favorites]
Scrappy slurped away the red rimmed eyes he saw reflected in the toilet bowl. He was tired, but this old dog had never backed off from a fight before. Returning to the glowing rectangle, he pawed 'Edit' once more. Those damn kids wouldn't stop him this time, or ever.
posted by adept256 at 12:41 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 12:41 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
“It’s a pity really, because the dog’s nephew, also a dog, actually talks very well.”
I feel that in order to make the Wikipedia page truly comprehensive, this should be added to the Reception subheading.
posted by betweenthebars at 12:57 PM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
I feel that in order to make the Wikipedia page truly comprehensive, this should be added to the Reception subheading.
posted by betweenthebars at 12:57 PM on May 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
I have a young friend who is pretty much obsessed with Batman (but, really: Robin), and also with Sherlock Holmes, and who has convinced me that these two share continuity and canon because...both have appeared in and around Scooby Doo.
I note this here because of the Sherlock Holmes references in the Wikipedia article, which go to support my friends hypothesis, as well as to demonstrate the value of the article as is to interested readers.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 1:07 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
I note this here because of the Sherlock Holmes references in the Wikipedia article, which go to support my friends hypothesis, as well as to demonstrate the value of the article as is to interested readers.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 1:07 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
For persons who are not Of a Certain Age, it’s hard to explain the hatred leveled at Scrappy Doo.
There is a clear line from Godzooky to Scrappy-Doo to the Muppet Babies to The Tortellis to Poochie to Don Jr. and Eric.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 1:21 PM on May 21, 2021 [16 favorites]
There is a clear line from Godzooky to Scrappy-Doo to the Muppet Babies to The Tortellis to Poochie to Don Jr. and Eric.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 1:21 PM on May 21, 2021 [16 favorites]
When are we going to get "fikipedia" for all the descriptions of fictional characters, events, places and other stuff that happens inside fictional worlds?
I'm not saying it's not worth recording, I'm just saying it's worth separating from reality.
posted by krisjohn at 3:22 PM on May 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying it's not worth recording, I'm just saying it's worth separating from reality.
posted by krisjohn at 3:22 PM on May 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
Also, to be fair, the History of Poland wiki article links to a lot of other articles titled stuff like "Poland in the Early Middle Ages" "History of Poland during the Piast dynasty" "History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty" and so on.
While apparently when Shauna tried to make a separate article for the live-action Scrappy, it was flagged for deletion.
So maybe the number of related articles is a better metric than the length of a single article.
posted by RobotHero at 3:24 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
While apparently when Shauna tried to make a separate article for the live-action Scrappy, it was flagged for deletion.
So maybe the number of related articles is a better metric than the length of a single article.
posted by RobotHero at 3:24 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
When are we going to get "fikipedia" for all the descriptions of fictional characters, events, places and other stuff that happens inside fictional worlds?
We do have that! It's just there's separate sites for separate fictional universes. Which is a good thing, because then each fan community has its own flavor. Fandom (formerly Wikia) hosts a lot of them, we've already had folks mentioning Memory Alpha (Star Trek) here. There are some alternatives but I think "self-host MediaWiki" may be more popular than any of the major other services.
posted by Nelson at 3:55 PM on May 21, 2021 [5 favorites]
We do have that! It's just there's separate sites for separate fictional universes. Which is a good thing, because then each fan community has its own flavor. Fandom (formerly Wikia) hosts a lot of them, we've already had folks mentioning Memory Alpha (Star Trek) here. There are some alternatives but I think "self-host MediaWiki" may be more popular than any of the major other services.
posted by Nelson at 3:55 PM on May 21, 2021 [5 favorites]
When are we going to get "fikipedia" for all the descriptions of fictional characters, events, places and other stuff that happens inside fictional worlds?
Rocklopedia Fakebandica, which was originally started in 2003, attempts to be a comprehensive reference source on fake musicians and bands that only exist in movies, TV shows, etc.
posted by jonp72 at 6:40 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
Rocklopedia Fakebandica, which was originally started in 2003, attempts to be a comprehensive reference source on fake musicians and bands that only exist in movies, TV shows, etc.
posted by jonp72 at 6:40 PM on May 21, 2021 [4 favorites]
There is a clear line from Godzooky to Scrappy-Doo to the Muppet Babies to The Tortellis to Poochie to Don Jr. and Eric.
Are you talking shit about the Muppet Babies? Careful there.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:20 PM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
Are you talking shit about the Muppet Babies? Careful there.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:20 PM on May 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
It's important to make sure less-notable things don't have longer articles than more-notable things because 1) Wikipedia is intended to function as a yardstick that measures notability in units of wordcount; and 2) we don't want to run out of room on the internet by using too much of it for dumb stuff.
posted by straight at 12:24 AM on May 22, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by straight at 12:24 AM on May 22, 2021 [13 favorites]
We do have that! It's just there's separate sites for separate fictional universes.
But that's not enough to move all the fictional content out of Wikipedia.
posted by krisjohn at 3:44 PM on May 22, 2021
But that's not enough to move all the fictional content out of Wikipedia.
posted by krisjohn at 3:44 PM on May 22, 2021
Two points:
1) Fiction, since it exists within the real world, is part of reality and has had an effect on society and history.
2) Given how poor our sources are for a lot of history, some of what we have is stuff we would understand as fiction today. Sometimes historians know that and try to correct for it (e.g. comedies from antiquity tell us something about everyday existence in Ancient Athens and Rome if we read past the genre conventions) and sometimes there’s just no way to know because all we have is much later literary sources (e.g. the Battle of Brunanburh, where the most extensive sources are a poem and a saga, neither of whom seem entirely to fit with other facts).
Therefore fiction will inescapably be a part of any encyclopedia.
posted by Kattullus at 11:34 PM on May 22, 2021 [3 favorites]
1) Fiction, since it exists within the real world, is part of reality and has had an effect on society and history.
2) Given how poor our sources are for a lot of history, some of what we have is stuff we would understand as fiction today. Sometimes historians know that and try to correct for it (e.g. comedies from antiquity tell us something about everyday existence in Ancient Athens and Rome if we read past the genre conventions) and sometimes there’s just no way to know because all we have is much later literary sources (e.g. the Battle of Brunanburh, where the most extensive sources are a poem and a saga, neither of whom seem entirely to fit with other facts).
Therefore fiction will inescapably be a part of any encyclopedia.
posted by Kattullus at 11:34 PM on May 22, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older blame lies with a patriarchal society that ensures... | Darwin was a racist Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments