wikia? I tend to move some of the better stuff (with approval) to wikia projects. On 14/07/07, Ben Yates <bluephonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

If its a labor of love list - just cut and paste into the new wikia page and give creit to author in history and talk page. If its a coat of many colors and its in the death throughs of afd? A simple retreived from Wikipedia on (date) will also work. Every article is retreivable even if it looks dead.

Ray Saintonge wrote: Some are important (or at least lesser-evil) and should stay, some are...not, and should go. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I recently saw a discussion that was suggesting setting up an incubator.wikia.com where any wikimedia content could be transwiki'ed to; that wikia site would then work out what to do with the incoming articles. Sadly, I cant recall where I saw this; maybe I was only dreaming.

Recently there has been a lot of "Lists of songs about ...." deletions. Personally I have no love for lists about songs, but it seems like a lot of effort is being flushed down the tube.

I don't want to delete them, but a lot of them get deleted. Like -- a lot. If I go back through my blog archives and click on the "list of" entries, a fair portion have already been deleted. And that sample contains only those lists that I thought were awesome. It would be nice if it was a convention to transwiki them rather than delete them -- at least then there's the potential to still view them (and maybe move them back someday if the political winds change). Somewhat offtopic -- it would be cool if, in a few years, wikipedia was the tip of a churning iceberg of content: which is to say, it would nice if there was a multitiered system whereby very little gets deleted outright, and most stuff gets moved elsewhere. This type of system would fuel much greater public participation (decrease friction, if you want to get overly abstract). On 7/14/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ray Saintonge wrote: > > Ben Yates wrote: > > > > > >> I like listcruft -- it's one of my favorite parts of wikipedia. Is > >> there any way I can spearhead a project to transwiki these lists > >> somwhere, instead of deleting them forever? > >> > >> > > Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of > > Wikipedia? > > > > Ec > >

Why do you want to delete them? They are clearly an important part of Wikipedia?

I think these lists have value. I can see why they would be important to a number of people. But they are not congruent with our principles as an encyclopaedia and tertiary source which does not conduct its own original research or interpretation of sources.

P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"

>FSVO important. Important, then, in the way that the Trivia section >of articles is an important part of Wikipedia. That is, important to >the people who edit them. And maybe nobody else at all...

Except the readers.

P.S. I'm not acquainted with the abbreviation "FSVO"

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.

On 7/15/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: There are plenty of areas on Wikipedia that I never venture to, so I'll pass on discussing them, also. We're not Britannica. KP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 7/15/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've voted to delete articles that were intriguing. I think most of the minor also-rans in lower level pageants articles need to go, yet I've worked in pageantry, and do read the details of the articles before sending them to the crap bin. In fact, they're one group of articles on AfD that I do read almost the entire article every time. KP

On 7/15/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: >

As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to delete (or not) *without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I misread?

Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content. FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search, for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally: no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know they also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor comparison. phoebe

On 7/15/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sure. WP:INTERESTING is not a keep criterion. There's a lot of stuff which is, for example, original research. It may be interesting or informative research, it might be an inventive take on something. That doesn't mean it's alright for a Wikipedia article. There are a lot of opinion pieces I've greatly enjoyed reading throughout the years. They can be insightful and thought-provoking, but I'd certainly vote to delete any such thing that appeared on Wikipedia. That's not hypocrisy, it's keeping articles appropriate and within an encyclopedic scope. Wikipedia is not the Web, it has a limited scope as a tertiary, encyclopedic reference work based upon already-published information. There are thousands, if not millions, of other choices as to where to place interesting and informative content which isn't within Wikipedia's scope, including on a Wikia if one prefers a publicly-accessible and editable Wiki. What is hypocrisy, on the other hand, is for some people to use IKNOWIT/ILIKEIT/INTERESTING to argue to keep articles in their area of interest, but discount such arguments when used by others in other areas. For consistency's sake, I ask the same questions every time-"Is this article expandable beyond a stub without stuffing in trivia or using unreliable or primary sources? Does this article befit an encyclopedia, rather than another one of our projects, or a personal blog or opinion site? Can this subject be written about in a neutral manner? Can this subject be written about using mainly or solely independent and reliable source material, without significant use or interpretation of primary or unreliable sources?" If the answer is yes to all, I argue to keep, if no to any, I argue to delete, merge, transwiki, or otherwise remove as a standalone article as appropriate, no matter how well I liked the article. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Not so much a case in point, but a touchstone. Do *you* think we are better or worse than Britannica for having "List of songs about masturbation". Stand up and be counted...

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" wrote: No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching).

I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:41:22 +0300, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen" <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, a case in point. There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs about masturbation" because there is nothing about masturbation which has any logical connection with songs, and vice-versa (although I suppose one could stretch a point and say that, for example, Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" gives more pleasure to the performer than anybody watching). The connection is an arbitrary one, and pretty much every entry in the list was also unsupported by references, because in the end what constitutes being *about* something, rather than simply mentioning it in the lyrics somewhere? I am all for setting up a sister project, triviapedia or whatever, for collecting such examples of word association gone mad, but there's no question in my mind that a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia is not the place for them.

On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: There is an immense amount of illogic in the above paragraph. Are you claiming that songs about masturbation don't exist? Or that it's impossible to tell what "Turning Japanese" and "Blister in the Sun" are talking about? C'mon.

Actualy acording to our article on the song the author claims a different meaning.

On 7/17/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Writers might claim a song is "not really about masturbation", saying that all the lyrical references to masturbation (which might range from subtle to blatant) are actually, in their minds at least, "complex metaphors for something else". That seems fair enough and generally makes sense. On the other hand, dismissing any resemblance as coincidental is a disingenuous borderline attack on fans' intelligence. If the writers of "I Touch Myself" made a denial similar to the one you refer to (in "Blister in the Sun"), nobody would pay them any attention, hopefully.

On 7/18/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: . <tongue firmly in cheek> Well, you could add "Genie in a Bottle" by Christina Aguilera to the list, if you wanted. </tongue nominal> -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 7/19/07, michael west &lt;michawest(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such articles.

-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

>>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

> Yes, the tide has turned at afd against lists, probably without more > than a few percent of WPedians being aware of it. another example of > a small group of people making policy for everyone. I freely admit > they are too strong for me--I no longer comment on most afds on such > articles.

on 7/22/07 12:10 AM, Gabe Johnson at gjzilla(a)gmail.com wrote:

Then they just won. You have to stand up and be counted, or else what's next? Just make sure your voice is heard. ~~~~

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: Case in point: "List of songs about masturbation". I put it to you that however much paper Britannica had at its disposal, such a list would never make the cut.