User talk:Duhman0009/Archive 11/15/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be careful where you put your archive. Academic Challenger 23:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did I put it? Duhman0009 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You put it at Archive 11-05-06, or something like that, while it is actually supposed to be a subpage of your user talk page, so I moved it to User talk:Duhman0009/Archive 11-05-06. This is necessary because the other title does not make it clear who the archive belongs to. Academic Challenger 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't quite follow you, but In any event, I'll use that coding you used next time. As long as it works, I don't care. Duhman0009 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii

I prefere flags, but the format I switched too has been approved of by WP:CVG. That mess that Scelpia wanted to use (which was butt-ugly) was not. Mine is also more neutral and accurate. TJ Spyke 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to stop using your Personal POV to generalize everyone's opinion TJ. For your PPOV to be true, that would mean that I found it to be Butt-Ugly as well, which is not the case, I loved it. Also, watch the language when adding comments to your reverts. I can't believe I need to say this to you, but others do see what's been going on in the History of a page. Anyway, I'll still get in touch with a mod or admin for the simple curiosity of seeing if what Scelpia wanted would have been approved. Duhman0009 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CANUSA Flag

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CANUSA Flag, you asked where the page should have gone.

Wikipedia uses a concept called "namespaces" to separate content out. All of the Encyclopedia bits just go by their name. Any page having to do with the internal working of Wikipedia have "Wikipedia:" attached to the front, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. User: for user pages, Talk: for talk pages, so on and so forth. Your page on the idea of using CANUSA image for combined release dates would best be served first as a proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

Does that help clean things up at all? humblefool® 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sort of get, but please tell me, did the creators of these pages have to go trough the same process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (law made up by an internet user)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base (some catch phrase from a video game)

Duhman0009 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, Godwin's Law and AYB are actual Wikipedia articles about internet phenomenons and memes, not Wikipedia usages proposals. Totally different things. Also, to link to a Wikipedia page, just use [[this format]].

If you want to write an article about the idea of using the CANUSA icon in a broader context, like labeling product packaging of something, then you'd create the page at CANUSA (but since the flag doesn't seem to be in general use on products, it'd be Wikipedia:Original Research). If you're writing about a Wikipedia-specific policy, you'd most likely put it at Wikipedia:CANUSA and ask for input on the idea. Does that answer the question? --humblefool® 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even close, I've asked you if the creators of these pages have to go trough the same process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (law made up by an internet user)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base (some catch phrase from a video game)

Duhman0009 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• No they didn't, because those articles are totally different from CANUSA. I'm not sure how to explain it any differently than I already did. CANUSA is not a normal encyclopedia article - in the form you created it originally, it pertained only to Wikipedia, and the title would be prefixed with "Wikipedia:". Godwin's Law and All your base are general-knowledge articles in the main encyclopedia, and have no prefix. --humblefool® 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, this is Internet related knowledge, not real knowledge that one would find in a real encyclopedia. Also, judging by what you're saying, Wikipedia would operate like a popularity contest more than anything else. I mean if I would have come up with the CANUSA concept 2 years ago and it would have caught on and still made than page a few days ago, it wouldn't have been delete, am I correct? Duhman0009 05:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that's correct. Encyclopedias are inherently only for content that's reached the "mainstream", however you define it. Wikipedia can just set its bar lower than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica because we don't have space limitations. Even Wikipedia, however, has standards; Wikipedia:No Original Research is a major policy. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce a new idea into the world; Wikipedia is the place to write about it after the world's looked at it and is using it somewhere. The bigger and more important something is, the more likely it is that it will get an article here. But it only works if it becomes notable first, not the other way around. --humblefool® 05:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Now continuing on the “Pop-Culture” issue, I do have a few more questions.

One website is currently being used for countless message board replies, it's the Objection website: http://objection.mrdictionary.net/index.php

The Objection website had a Wikipedia page, but it seem to have vanished in the past few months. Any reason why this “mainstream” Internet site no longer have it's Wiki Page?

Second issue would be this example: http://www.siliconera.com/

This website, which I personally go to everyday, had a Wikipedia page which also seem to have went missing in last couple of months. Now since this site is rather popular, I wondered why it went missing on Wiki. Looking at your “rules”, I found out that websites should not be advertised on Wikipedia, meaning that a page dedicated to them should not be allowed. I said fine, but why do sites like GameSpot have their own Wiki page, that doesn't make sense. Duhman0009 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection! is a very fun site, but it's not yet notable outside a small subset of the internet. I have added a bit on parodies and references in the main Phoenix Wright article.
• I've created a section on Silicon Era at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_6. Feel free to contribute.
• The reason that GameSpot exists is that it's one of the largest gaming news sites on the internet. Wikipedia covers the biggest things in an industry, generally. There are things that can be said about it outside of "it exists and does A, B, and C on its site." --humblefool® 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I will, probably not tonight, but I will write something this week, it will not be only about SiliconEra, it will cover a bit more. Duhman0009 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

Hi there; try WP:AIV or WP:AN/I. Happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Duhman0009 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)