On 12/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Reading http://www.laboratorium.net/archives/SevenWikipediaFallacies.html:
So maybe the argument is that the fluff somehow degrades the tone of the encyclopedia. But that can't be much of a concern either. Are we really going to discredit something useful because it also chooses to be fun? No one ever forces you to read about Star Trek. If you want to know how a Geneva drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_drive works, what matters to you is that Wikipedia have a damn good entry on it. That the same web site also contains a multi-part list of fictional citieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_citiesis neither here nor there.
I tried to follow the link to the list of fictional cities (because I find the topic interesting). But it had been deleted.
Why? The argument was that a category would be better.
I have my opinions about that, but then WHY DID THEY NOT JUST REDIRECT TO THE CATEGORY?
Arghhhhhh.
Sorry for the rant.
You know what I find annoying? People who 'vote' to merge or delete on xFD. If you think something is mergeable, deletion shouldn't even enter your mind. Also, merging keeps information, deletion destroys it, they're two entirely different beasts. Votes like that are entirely meaningless, but especially annoying when the delete part is bolded and put in front. Why can't people just say '''Merge''' to article X. Deletion can be discussed again if a merge fails. Same goes for cleanup. Just because it's not up to scratch now, doesn't mean an article should be deleted immediately...
Ah, ranting relieves the soul... :)
Mgm