User talk:Blueanode
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] On the nature of wikipedia
You have no idea how good a good night's sleep felt. Your contributions show that you're online at the present moment, so I have another question to ask before I ramble on. You've said that 'Wikipedia is ruined' by impermissible fiction content - can you explain to me how? This is a very weighty subject that I have seen little about, your opinion would be valuable. --Kizor 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let me explain, after a good reading of policy I believe that Wikipedia is being clogged up by articles on fictional subjects which have no real notability or importance in the real world, they are written all in universe style and no reliable sources on these articles exsist, so they are not needed here on wikipedia and if someone actually wants to come and look these up they can go to the subjects wikia wiki's. However this is an encyclopedia for real stuff, important stuff, and relevant stuff. Blueanode (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. There are a few things I'd like to say to that, so are you up for discussing this? --Kizor 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I will be willing to listen, but please do not go into a rant. Blueanode (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to stay polite and not be forceful. (If you mean that you consider that long previous post of mine to be a rant, though, now's the time to say it - it wasn't unusually long by the standards I'm used to.) --Kizor 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, please go ahead. Blueanode (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to stay polite and not be forceful. (If you mean that you consider that long previous post of mine to be a rant, though, now's the time to say it - it wasn't unusually long by the standards I'm used to.) --Kizor 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I will be willing to listen, but please do not go into a rant. Blueanode (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. There are a few things I'd like to say to that, so are you up for discussing this? --Kizor 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'll give it a shot... first of all, you speak of "clogging up," damaging the rest. But content on a topic isn't affected by the presence of content on other ones the way it is in a printed encyclopedia. Information is sought using search and association. Our coverage on dramaturgy doesn't affect our coverage on plumbing, which doesn't affect our coverage of law, which doesn't affect our coverage of metallurgy. Fundamental to the whole affair is that m:Wiki is not paper: it doesn't obey the same rules as traditional works. Making the coverage of, say, a television series more detailed will only affect the coverage of that television series, and associated matters (for instance, adding information on the themes of a hardboiled detective show could help our coverage of the history of detective fiction, or the depiction of private detectives in fiction.) The rest of the encyclopedia is not harmed.
A smarter editor than me put it this way: "Someone would have to convince me that having sub-sub-sub-sub-branches on this here tree of knowledge would make the upper branches less accessible." --Kizor 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Character articles you've found
In many cases, especially when you sense that the articles are in any way notable, or if they aren't but people will be very upset by deletion, usually good to start with a merger proposal, such as putting the character articles in one article, and then looking to see if they, as a whole are notable, or if they still don't meet notability. Its good to keep deletion to things you feel are hopeless and wont be better served by merger. Remember, our goal isn't deletion, its having Wikipedia filled with articles like Jack Sparrow, Master Chief (Halo), Jabba the Hutt, and many others while also clearing away the deadwood. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tagging them for notability, unreferenced, and in-universe writing style would be a good start, to see if anyone can improve them, and if they can't, which is often, then that will strengthen your argument with you propose a merge to a new "Characters of" article. If that fails, delete! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it is a great idea to do a serious search for sources first and if you find any to add them to the article. Numerous times, articles have been saved during AfDs, because editors found sources through simple searches that could have been done prior to the AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very true. By the way, Blueanode, that new template of yours on fiction notability is very good, I would show it around so everyone can use it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd prefer it if everyone fixed articles instead. --Kizor 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea, as you might imagine, I have begun thinking of ways to make article improvement and elimination a less upsetting process. I used to not be in favor of deletion 99% of the time until I understood the policy on notability, and even more so because their are fan wikis that this information can live in in many cases. At one point, I deleted about 70 articles I wrote, but I transferred them out first. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very true. By the way, Blueanode, that new template of yours on fiction notability is very good, I would show it around so everyone can use it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Football League 1889-90
Regarding the The Football League 1889-90, what do the numbers signify? Could you give me an order? I have started the table, but do not know which are the points etc/GD etc. Also, a source would help clear it up as well ;) Regards. Woody (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] stop please
I am not ignoring you, and I am not trying to be rude. Yes, I am aware of wikipedia policy. Your point? This is a variant of WP:DTTR and I don't need that crap on my talk page. Stop being so wikilawyerish, anyway and your admonition nur auf English zu schreiben est bien noté entonces déjame en paz, prego. Oui, ich capisco, vale? Eusebeus (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was trying to make a not-too-subtle point while being slightly dickish and show-offy about it
- nur auf English zu schreiben = to only write in English (Ger)
- est bien noté = is well noted (Fr)
- entonces déjame en paz = so leave me alone (Sp)
- prego = please (It)
- K, can we drop this now? I promise only to speak English from now on. ;) Eusebeus (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion warning
Sorry, I made the mistake of warning you when you were cleaning it up. I see you have already reverted the warning. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I figured that :). Blueanode (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocked by accident
[edit] List of Notable Geordies
This list wasn't like any other list gone before, those lists didn't have citations and that was the reason it was took down.
On this new list I think there were over 70 notable Geordies and everyone had was cited which is fair game, which is what wiki asks. By the way 'Eric Idle' wasn't on the list. But I'll research him.
I can understand you taking people in the list down if there was no citations. But what was up was adding to the article.--Gregs the baker (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note for you at the bottom of the Geordie Talk page--Gregs the baker (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
