User talk:Qitelremel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, good to have you on board, hope you'll like it, et cetera. Someone should be along with the official welcoming paraphernalia shortly. Now, there's some talk that you nominated the Naruto article for deletion as a reaction to Warcraft deletions rather than on the basis of its own merits. I'd have to look into this some more before deciding, and I just got back from organizing recovery efforts on another wiki after a massive database meltdown and would rather not think right now, but if you did, then you should be happy to know that the person behind those has not been around since. Also -- please don't. AfDs are non-trivial drains on time, effort and morale, so we have enough trouble with the ones created for weighty reasons. --Kizor 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a reaction per se; I'm not that petty. However, there should be some consistency as to the disposition of fancruft.

And the Naruto article is indeed fancruft: Only hardcore Naruto fans are likely to be that concerned with the character's backstory; and the article on Narutopedia covers the same territory.

I did recommend that it alternately be consolidated with the main article (which still should be done). —Qit el-Remel 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear that. As this is an online community, you can imagine that we get all sorts. "Fancruft" is, in my arrogant opinion, at best a subjective definition of worthlessness and at worst an insult. It has not been examined nearly closely enough to have the mandate to be an inclusion criteria.

As for consistency, if that's possible in a work with an all-volunteer staff and 2.1 million articles, those Warcraft deletions still shouldn't be a standard. They were done with disregard of the end result, alternative solutions, the editors involved in the field, their abilities and the limits of the same.

That we did not stop it shows how little we can do to stop those who refuse the - let's face it - voluntary handicap to their cause that is collaborating and working with others, and that the community has to grow up to deal with that if this insane venture of ours is to succeed. I at least had the excuse of being busy rebuilding the most rudimentary forms of impulse control. (ADHD test gone sublimely ironic.)

Sincerely, Kizor 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one does get all kinds on the Internet. Anonymity seems to be interpreted as carte blanche.

By "fancruft" I meant material which is only of particular concern to fans (and according to that page, it is usually a pejorative term...so perhaps I was a bit more harsh than I should have been). Hope that helps.

And while the Warcraft material may have been arguably almost as "fancruft-y" as the Naruto material, it was (if I recall correctly) much tidier and more concise. The current material is, as discussed here, a mess. (Yes, there is WoWWiki, theoretically. But it's ridiculously mismanaged. And that's a whole 'nother can of wiggly worms.) —Qit el-Remel (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WoWWiki talk (moved)

Moved from Talk:Warcraft (series)

Qit el-Remel, so harsh. You realise, of course, that the articles are written by the community, just like on Wikipedia? Half the stuff on Wikipedia was copied from us in the end anyway. There are areas needing improvement, but bashing the entire community here isn't really fair or justified. Kirkburn (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel that my comments about certain administrators on WoWWiki (who will go unnamed here, but rest assured that you are not on the list) may have been harsh, but were both fair and justified. I've tried to contribute to the site, only to have someone do one of two things: either undo my work and be rude about it, or do an unnecessary complete revamp of the page. (For example, is it necessary to list all eight races that can be rogues when there are only two that can't?)

And the removed material was not "copied from" WoWWiki. It was less in-depth, but far more concise—as something written for the edification of people unfamiliar with the game should be. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft is not what wikipedia is about and should always be removed, no matter what series it is from. If you want to see what a good article written about a fictional subject looks like, there's always the Master Chief. If any of you want the page source of any deleted page, you only need to ask an admin (like me) and you can draft a better article that meets WP:FICT requirements in userspace so it's not in danger of deletion. Some content will always belong at WoWWiki, but you can have good fiction articles on wikipedia. It just requires effort on the part of the editors. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The removed pages, in their final form, were comparable to the Master Chief page. However, if you really believe that they needed pruning, feel free to send me the source. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Qit el-Remel, just regarding that example, I would argue it is necessary - partly because WoWWiki covers more than World of Warcraft (and one shouldn't assume knowledge on the reader's part) and partly because listing what something is not is rarely better than listing what it is. You also have to remember no-one owns pages on a wiki, and you have to put up with stuff changing - I wouldn't say that's much of an admin's fault as we exist to keep the wiki stable. I didn't say all the material was copied from WoWWiki, it went both ways. Naturally Wikipedia's articles should be more concise, wouldn't disagree there. Tbh, that the pages do not exist on Wikipedia does not bother so much as how the whole thing went down. Kirkburn (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The WoWWiki page in question was about classes in WoW, which I should have clarified.

I considered bringing up a somewhat nasty debate that I was involved in, regarding the physiology of fantasy species, but decided against it. (That discussion did directly involve an admin. And the admin in question was dismissive and condescending, did seem to think that he was far more knowledgeable than he was, and actually encouraged similar behavior from other users.)

And I'm bothered by two things here: Firstly, by the same thing that bothers you; secondly, by the fact that so much material on WoWWiki—which should be the primary source—seems sketchy, incomplete, and/or unnecessary. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the guy I think you mean, he's not an admin (and we also don't see eye-to-eye on certain things). Regarding the state of the wiki, it hasn't had as much time to mature as needed, and citing stuff can be difficult. I do understand the problems though - we really do welcome feedback and will never ban someone for (constructive - yay get-out clause) criticism. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled program. Kirkburn (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well...if you mean the the guy whose user name is an inversion of a certain Warcraft universe character's surname, his user page sure says that he's an admin... —Qit el-Remel (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, him? I'm surprised. Kirkburn (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, him. I don't want to air too much dirty laundry...but for a self-proclaimed professional, he's anything but. In fact, he seems rather ill-informed (despite valiant efforts to hide behind jargon). —Qit el-Remel (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never really heard complaints about that, but I will not dispute it. I would encourage you to "try again" though as situations frquently change over time. Kirkburn (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as that particular administrator is there, there's no reason for anyone to "try again" on those pages. He's made it clear that he'll revert any changes that he doesn't like. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)