Same old, same old... The discussion yet again degrades to "all your statements are false and must be ignored". I suppose your stand point is so weak that you have to attack me on first opportunity. Your tone is insulting and incivil. Here I am telling you that "I value your opinions on the matter greatly" and in return you name-call my views "rubbish". I am willing to compromise but you aren't at all as you aren't even 'agreeing to disagree' - basic consensus in practicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_in_practice.
Let's not talk about the past two years, shall we. You make it sound as if you never encountered me whatsoever for the two years.
My understanding of "consensus" is a community wide decision based on collaboration of different users who may even have opposing views which cannot be achieved via vote stacking of identically minded people. My understanding of "guidelines" is that they have community-wide support behind it before they are put into practice. My understanding of guidelines is that they are not enforced as there are plenty of conflicting guidelines. [[WP:EPISODE]] neither has community consensus behind it nor is it being applied consistently.
All you, TTN and others want to do is delete the work of others. They/You draft guidelines strictly for this purpose, to delete and not to expand. Such guidelines are more of a "how to" to delete. There are plenty examples of like-minded people consistently voting in groups in a similar manner to delete. TTN's contribution is dedicated to mass deletion and he is operating like a bot. He isn't willing to compromise, he isn't even willing to participate in the general discussion. So it isn't surprising for such people to even give the basic courtesy of respecting my views.
Fine, I'll let the matter escalate. No one can say that I have not tried discussing this. While I do not necessarily expect people to agree with me, I do require that my views be respected at a minimum for me to participate in a discussion. This matter will explode sooner or later. This arbcom case was merely the tip of the iceberg. I suppose people are right. Mailing lists are a complete waste of time. I am done here on this matter.
All I want to do is passionately write an encyclopedia. For that crime I must be put through all sorts of nonsense. I know there is a phrase "no good deed goes unpunished" but this is ridiculous.
- White Cat
On Jan 1, 2008 4:34 AM, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
You've just made a huge load of strawman arguments and misleading statements that border on outright lies of what actually has happened.
I recall you arguing passionately to save a recap episode that would never have any information to say about it. I remember you insisting that we have separate articles for -the same character- of that same show. I remember those of us on the talk page continually disproving your highly illogical and flawed viewpoint regarding notability, organization, and the amount of reasonable plot summary. You haven't changed in almost two years since then. If someone ever cited a guideline, you would attack that guideline. If we established a consensus, you would ignore the arguments and instead try to mislead others into joining the debate with strawman arguments.
How can you expect anyone, on either side of this debate, to have any respect for your views when you disrespect us with this rubbish?
--Ned Scott
On Dec 31, 2007, at 5:41 AM, White Cat wrote:
We do have some sort of b'cracy going on. First you mass merge articles to a few lists after heavy trimming. Wait a month or two to calm the fan reaction. Merge these lists to a single list after heavy trimming. Wait a month or two to calm the fan reaction. Blank the list and convert it to a redirect to the main article.
I really do not understand this tendency to "mass merge" articles out of notability concerns. What are you doing? Do they become notable when merged to a long and unintelligible list? This is helping wikipedia become a better encyclopedia? Not everyone has a private broadband line going into their computer you know. You might, but the vast majority of the world doesn't. GPRS connections for example are no faster than 56k
Merges of lots of short articles with no hope of growing is understandable. Merges of long articles is not. One key problem when merging multiple LONG articles is that the merged page gets ridiculously long. Articles are shortened for this purpose and you get very little content. Then people complain that these list of character articles are unencyclopedic because there is little actual information on them. In other words due to a lack of information that were removed during the merge, list of character articles get blanked. We break articles apart when they get too long. We do not do the opposite.
Just because something contains little out-of-universe info, why does that mean a non-discussion auto deletion? Don't get me wrong, I do understand why we *want* out-of-universe info. I want out-of-universe info too. It keeps the article interesting if nothing else. What I do not understand is why we *require* out of universe info for articles to exist. Articles are *required
- to be written with the use of [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:RS|
reliable]] sources. Someone should explain me why is out-of-universe info required without wikilawyering me policies, guidelines or essays.
As Jimbo stated that seeking of a "universal notability" is a mistake. Harvard will not publish an article or a book on Pokemon species, Simpsons characters, Doctor Who vilans, Star Trek episodes anytime soon. This does not mean they should be bulk removed. We have articles on Simpons which is the shining example of how fiction related articles can be improved. Simpsons have had about 400 TV episodes. If they all become FAs that will be about 1/3rd or 1/4th of our current number of Featured articles. This is the strength of Wikipedia and weakness of snubs like Britannica. If you want Wikipedia to be a Britannica, you could just buy Britannica...
*Case study: *Unown
For the following article I see plenty of sources. Granted it isn't featured quality but it certainly isn't a stub. Note that some referances are not shown because someone forgot to add {{reflist}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unown&oldid=148901394
It was shortened to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unown#Unown
Which version is more encyclopedic? More readable? Overall more useful? Better sourced? Did the shortened version increase article quality?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l