Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Self ref

The fact that the footer will show up on wikipedia mirrors is a non-issue. I do not believe the mirrors copy accross things like stub templates at all. Also a stub template is arguably a self reference in itself, if you ask me. --Martyman-(talk) 11:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. I don't know that it's a fact, tho i've seen it asserted as one. If it is a fact as you allow it may be, it is an issue.
  2. It's different from mention of WP bcz the whole point of these is to link outside the article space, something that has been permitted in some cases bcz of being carefully done for very specifically discussed reasons (stub, AfD, etc.) after highly inclusive discussions. This case is the opposite: a standard template style without any provision for WikiProject spam was agreed upon, and rogue editors broke out of that format to do what would never have been agreed to if it had been raised outside a few parochial enclaves that think, for instance, that using projects as freestanding independent communities, instead of as a collection of specialized discussions on specialized editing problems, is a good thing. The decision for a WikiProject to go into competition with the rest of WP in recruiting editors is one affecting WP as a whole, and will not be permitted when it comes up in a WP-wide discussion. I predict that that discussion will result in specifying a list of decisions that can be made harmlessly by WikiProjects, without explicit decisions on WP:VPP, and that all WikiProject discussions not on that list will be required to state "this is just a straw poll prior to taking the matter to VP which has the community's permission to make decisons that we can't".
  3. It used to be that mention of WP was a self-reference in the sense that no one talked about WP elsewhere. WP has gone from annual mentions in the New York Times magazine to broadcast media stories that often assume they need to be careful not to bore the audience by explaining again what WP is. At this moment, WP's daily Alexa rank has been better than that of the #10 officially ranked English language site for a month, without interruption. Refs to WP are no longer refs back inside, but hot cultural currency. What percentage, among people who know what WP is, have heard of WikiProjects? How many people, that you have discussed Wikiproject:Australia with, can name another WikiProject?
  4. It's spam. It's a grab for the attention of people who are maybe on the verge of considering editing at all, to go in a very specific direction, just because they have a momentary interest in one stubby article. What is the attitude of WP toward spam?
    --Jerzy•t 12:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all spam is generally considered outside of the Wikipedia domain. I don't think it is a stretch to point out the existance of a project on the stub, how else do people find out about the project. And why do you keep spaming your user page at the end of all your comments??? Cacophony 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Jerzy, where it was posted and then removed by Cacophony:]

Please explain the following comment that you used to discribe your vandalism: "Remove spam of all WP mirrors about WikiProject which unlike WP no one has heard of". So your ratioinal is that if you haven't heard if it then it dosen't belong on WP? The puropose of the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges is to increase visibility to the project to those that edit bridge articles. If you would like to make changes to our template, please comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges. I'll go ahead and see what else you have broken, I mean fixed. Cacophony 19:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Jerzy]

Please explain the following comment that you used to discribe your vandalism: "Remove spam of all WP mirrors about WikiProject which unlike WP no one has heard of". So your ratioinal is that if you haven't heard if it then it dosen't belong on WP? Have your sharerd your views about the elimination all of wikilinks? The puropose of the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges is to increase visibility to the project to those that edit bridge articles. If you would like to make changes to our template, please comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges. I'll go ahead and revert all of the other templates that you have changed without even an attempt at consensus. Cacophony 19:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the default project template described on Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices that automatically includes a link to the project page. This page also encourages advertising, or as you say "spamming" Wikipedia:WikiProject_best_practices#How_to_attract_contributors_.28Advertise.21.29. Your edits were way off base according to all the project guidelines. Thanks, Cacophony 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted some of their template vandalism. And to think these guys are admins and accuse others of acting in their own interests. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)