Talk:Vorarephilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vorarephilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please help improve the article by providing references to reputable sources which discuss the subject. Your own personal experience is irrelevant for wikipedia and will be deleted.
Archive
Archives


[edit] Where has everything gone?

It was a reasonable article last time I visited, Now it looks like a dictionary defenition-user:GeorgeFormby1 17:46 10 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

* Neutrality isn't gutting an article when perfectly verifiable sources were presented. 0xGauss (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But it is stubbing an article when the sources are blatantly unreliable and most fo the article was WP:OR. And that's what happened here. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please do tell me where all of Numa Numa's reliable sources are, surely that article should be stubbed if there isn't anything other than fancruft. 0xGauss (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The point I am trying to make is that when rules are applied unevenly, so too is the backlash from those who get the short end of the stick. 0xGauss (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Difference being, vore is divided into a barely-documented but real phenomenon and an unreal fantasy phenomenon, whereas Numa Numa has been everywhere and discussed as a meme in reliable sources. Apples, oranges. We have no shortage of fans of fundamentally unverifiable subjects telling us that we're deleting factual content, and so we may be, but unless it's sourced from reliable sources that's what we are supposed to do. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that, and support such a policy, keeps people from making articles purely meant to shill for a given point of view. What I'm not fine with is perfectly valid sources being turned down for not being "scholarly", when acceptance of personal pages in freewebs appears fine elsewhere. Know what? I'll just dig up the best sources I can, and see if we can't make this article something a bit more quality than it is right now. 0xGauss (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the opinions of everyone other than a tiny few obsessives, they were not "perfectly valid". Guy (Help!) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a healthy community (several, in fact) of vorarephiles, as one can see from an internet search or from the deleted links and references, and their observations should not be hastily dismissed as original research. Also, WP:Ignore All Rules seems to apply to this article (“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” (emphasis added)), as it certainly needs improvement, and I urge all who strongly feel one way or the other about that to read about what "Ignore all rules" means. With that said, this article should not delve into the subject as deeply as various revisions have, but some detail should be included. If you insist on ignoring IAR and requiring sources for every phrase, then you could consider every vorarephile who edits the article to be a primary source (and, of course, that means you can delete things like speculation and quantification by these editors). I believe consensus exists among all vorarephiles for much of what was in longer versions of the article, and would like to be proven wrong before a final decision is made re IAR. —Frungi (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:V is not one of the rules you can ignore. It is a core policy and is not negotiable. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought IAR applied to the core policies as well, being one itself (a pillar, in fact) and specifically stating “all rules” in its name and in various other places. Of course, the qualifier is that one must be improving Wikipedia at the time of the ignoring, and I believe that adding general details that are agreed on by everyone involved with the subject would be a genuine improvement. Neither side has shown much moderation here, and I think moderation is the key: those who add such content must not get carried away and solely observe IAR, and those who keep the first group in check must not indiscriminately remove every piece of information without regard to whether it’s general knowledge (among vorarephiles, at least). I’m not endorsing anarchy here, I just want this article to actually be useful and informational. —Frungi (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. WP:V is not negotiable, and neither is WP:NOR, and neither is WP:NPOV which requires verfication from reliable sources and no original research. Adding content from unreliable sources and personal opinion is not generally regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, as such. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you improve this article without ignoring rules? That’s what IAR means, and it applies to all rules, including all policies and guidelines—at least, that’s the impression I got from the Wikipedia namespace pages concerning it. But again, that’s only if those rules prevent the article from being improved. That said, would what I proposed not improve the article? You seem to be accusing me of advocating original research and personal opinion, but avoiding exactly that was what I meant by moderation. I proposed adding facts supported by consensus among those familiar with the subject. If those editors stray into OR or opinion while doing so, you and others can edit or delete it as needed. Or does what I asked for fall under the definitions of OR or opinion? If there’s a problem with what I asked, please assume good faith and tell me what the problem is, rather than making accusations without supporting details. —Frungi (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I did improve it. I took out a load of twaddle that read like someone's personal fantasy. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I meant from its current state. Why do you even bother responding if you’re not even going to make an effort to have a real discussion? —Frungi (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

← I am explaining to you, since you don't seem to understand, why the vast swathe of personal opinion backed by unreliable sources - or no sources at all - had to go. It's been restored several times, I don't see any attempt to exyand the article within policy, only to assert that core policy need not apply to this subject. WP:V/WP:RS does not mean we use reliable sources unless we can't find any, in which case we use unreliable ones; it means we use reliable sources or we don't include the content. Simple principle. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I never asked about the personal opinions you deleted, nor that personal opinions be added. I’ve been asking about allowing facts to be added, which at this point would require invoking WP:IAR since WP:V prevents improving the article in such a manner, as none of the many websites about the subject seem to be considered reliable sources. Please tell me your interpretation of what I’ve proposed, since it’s evidently different from what I’m trying to communicate. —Frungi (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiFur?

Why is there a wikifur article to this? Tarthen Brown (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it’s because that link contains a good deal more information on the subject than many editors are allowing Wikipedia to contain. Under the WP:EL guideline, this seems to be acceptable: “Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” —Frungi (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)