User talk:Eion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Eion and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
[edit] Endorian Holocaust
I don't think that long debates help anyone when on VfD pages (I ususlly skip over them), so I'm taking this to your talk page. The point I'm trying to make is that while the discussion, such as it is, in all probability does exist (which is news to me, though I haven't been following the Star Wars community as closely as I used to) debates among fans are not encyclopedic. If you asked me as a scientist "Would Endor have got hammered by debtris?" then I would agree, in the real world, it would have. And in the real world giant worms couldn't live in space without food or air, and the herso couldn't stand outside with just filters over their mouth, giant yeti things couldn't be at the top of a non-existant food chain, tiny furry teddybears couldn't really take out elite stormtroopers, hole in the desert floor monsters couldn't really digest someone alive over 1000 years, guns, tie fighters and lazers couldn't make noises in space and so on.
In real life Endor would have got hammered. The laws of narrative demand otherwise, however. Every science fiction film/series/book has elememnts where scientific truth has played second fiddle to the story. For this to be in any way notable it has to cross over from pure fan speculation into something more important. A couple of fan essays and a few comments (is there anything other than a few throwaway lines in the canon sources?) does not make something notable. It is speculation, not something that is, or even something that is in fiction. Sabine's Sunbird 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I can completly see your side. However, I'm one to use suspension of disbelief analysis with Star Wars (mostly b/c I quite interested in such analysis), and as such I have to accept that all those events happen for a reason, which I must now rationlize. No, we never see the EH happen, but as you said it would happen, and unless some means could be found in canon to prevent the disaster, it would happen. I think the article should stand as a documentation of SOD analysis, and a relevant part of Star Wars culture. If we can archive the moon landing hoax, why not this. I think the analysis goes beyond "Kirk would kick Picard's ass" fan debate. There is a full response to the EH argument in a "letter's to the editor" section of SW:Insider, penned by Pablo Hidalgo, which basicly says, don't look to closely at the event, after all there are giant yellow letters flying through space as well. There is also a caption in the Inside the Worlds book regarding it, saying basicly that the Rebel Alliance will later deploy small area deflector screens to shield the moon from some impacts. This allows for the celebration events to take place. I do apologize for cluttering up the Vfd page, but if this article is deleted, I'll have to fight this battle over at the wookieepedia as well.--Eion 20:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I understand why people play these mental games, it's their appropriateness to wikipedia I dissagree with. I'm not one to use the fan-C word, and I believe there is room on wikipedia for plenty of fictional information (as long as it's so marked). My bug-bear is they way such information is organised. You ask why I want to merge pages rather than split them, it is simply because of style, presentation and organisation. One large well written page is much much better than a dozen substubs saying the same thing. People's reactions to information presented this way is more favourable. It's not deletionism versus inclusionism, it's lumping versus splitting. Although in this case having the info on the Endor page will restrict the ammount of info, and that to my mind is a good thing, detalied analysis of this subject is not needed here, but a mention of it is acceptable. To use the example of something I work on a lot, seabirds, an article on Western Gulls is good, a separate article on their 1998 breeding season of Western Gulls too much detail (even though it was an el nino year and is documented in journal articles). As a side, it would be a bad precedent to keep something here simply so that it could be saved somewhere else. This article should be judged by it's value to wikipedia, not it's value to other wikis. Just some thoughts Sabine's Sunbird 21:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good thoughts, good points. I agree with you.--Eion 22:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I understand why people play these mental games, it's their appropriateness to wikipedia I dissagree with. I'm not one to use the fan-C word, and I believe there is room on wikipedia for plenty of fictional information (as long as it's so marked). My bug-bear is they way such information is organised. You ask why I want to merge pages rather than split them, it is simply because of style, presentation and organisation. One large well written page is much much better than a dozen substubs saying the same thing. People's reactions to information presented this way is more favourable. It's not deletionism versus inclusionism, it's lumping versus splitting. Although in this case having the info on the Endor page will restrict the ammount of info, and that to my mind is a good thing, detalied analysis of this subject is not needed here, but a mention of it is acceptable. To use the example of something I work on a lot, seabirds, an article on Western Gulls is good, a separate article on their 1998 breeding season of Western Gulls too much detail (even though it was an el nino year and is documented in journal articles). As a side, it would be a bad precedent to keep something here simply so that it could be saved somewhere else. This article should be judged by it's value to wikipedia, not it's value to other wikis. Just some thoughts Sabine's Sunbird 21:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Wookieepedia
A tag has been placed on Wookieepedia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Blue-EyesGold Dragon 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
