Talk:Red Bull Art of Motion

Untitled
Please note that this article falls under two official areas of need for material on Wikipedia: 1. Sports, and 2. France, where parkour originated. In addiction it's largely based around youth, and top of that, a newer and less-documented discipline. All of these set it apart from a strict, scholastic, English-documented environment.

Honestly, I find the up-for-deletion tag offensive. It's counterproductive and hypocritical to declare special needs for subjects and then whine that the people who work to meet those needs aren't putting 300% effort in. There's no ineffable plethora of athletic youth-esque French/UK parkour articles lying around. It's just plain absurd to demand people milk every resource out there to document subjects intrinsically worthy of inclusion in WP.

There's nothing wrong with this article as a stub article. Allowing it to exist invites the expansion that WP is collectively demanding. WP establishes this precedent thoroughly by allowing "citation needed" tags and the like. I know the burden of proof lies on the poster, but is it really that hard for an editor to do 3 minutes of googling to see a subject is worthy of a stub article? You can't demand material and hold it to difficult standards. This should be labeled "kudos so far, help expand", not "write more books, idiots".

Squish7 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) calm down. Attacking people is not going to do you any good. 2) you should be talking about this stuff in the articles for deletion discussion, that I told you about. 3) at the current time the deletion discussion looks like it is going to be kept. 4) there is nothing "offensive" about someone having a different opinion than you about something. 5) It is also your opinion that something is "intrinsicly" wp-worthy. We in fact have very specific standards that can be used to PROVE something is WP worthy, which is what those policies are for. 6) Lots of people put in lots of junk pages - it is absolutely up to the author to meet the burden of proof that something needs to stay. 7) nobody called anyone an idiot. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I apologize for my anger. However, your own response here is also emotional; it is not stated politely.  Labeling 7 points in a single paragraph to demonstrate I'm utterly wrong, using capital letters, is something I interpret as a hostile tone.  You need not agree, but you just can't deny my right to an interpretation.  You couldn't put your post in all CAPS, and put 13 exclamation points after each sentence, and claim non-hostility.  Hence tone, and hence other actions, can be interpreted as hostile, giving me right to an opinion, if not a hostile post.
 * 2) I posted this before my help request, and specifically stated so, this in addition to it being apparent from both the order and dating of the paragraphs anyway. You posted your response just minutes ago; I did not have time to revise the entry. I constructively suggest being more attentive to such details.
 * 4) I am allowed an opinion of what is offensive and not, in terms of actions here. I happen to find the combination of specifically calling for needed information, then threatening to delete the work of people trying to meet those needs, when they've done a tolerable job for a tentative article, in a nonprofit environment, in the particulars of this case, offensive.  No, there is nothing wrong with having a template or policy, but in this case, I find the strictness and particular interpretation of the rules, disrespectful.  My quoted phrases reflected how I felt and interpreted this information; obviously I'm not saying the deletion tag literally has the word "idiot" in it.
 * 5) I am allowed an interpretation of your stated standards. My innapropriate anger aside, it is just rude to deny my right to an opinion of whether or not you are adhering to your standards.  If you are not, then this is hypocritical, and some may find this offensive.  I could have stated my opinions politely, but I'm a human being, and if I found them very offensive, it's natural to have an emotional response, albeit not appropriate. If an article is very worthy of inclusion and an editor has a good job portraying that warrant with work specifically asked for, again, I may have an opinion that a "stub article" tag is more appropriate than a "deletion tag".  Negative evaluation of one's work can bring with it judgement that the person who's work it is has not done their job or adhered to rules.  That opinion shows in your actions; you need not literally state "you have done a bad job, and are not adhering to rules".  If someone is, this is hostile.  You don't have to agree with my interpretation, but discounting the logical possibility of anybody speaking through their actions is absolutely absurd.
 * 6) The collective set of admins/etc are the ones who set these rules down. You can't claim total plausible denial if I express an opinion about whether those rules are fair.  Spitting back the opinion I comment on disproves you have any answer.  You could just say "no comment", or "please do not express an opinion on said rules on these pages", but re-stating what I object to does nothing but waste your time.  My objection on policy (it should not be so strict to discount mild investigation) is precise and particular to this topic.  I didn't vehemently bicker about the general rules.  As for people putting down "junk material", if I view something is not junk material, and view this is easy to see and investigate, especially in the case you are asking for help specifically (more material on sports and France), then I think holding people to full standards who are trying hard to meet your requests, in this particular case, to this extent, in my opinion, is rude.  I will try not to express this opinion again, but please try not to step on people's right to have opinions.  That's what discussions pages are for.  Critique my placement/tone/content, but please do not step on basic human rights. Squish7 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect note from "Art of Motion"
Is the basic existence of a page (even if it's a stub like this) enough to have redirect notes in overlapping other article titles? I.e. I feel the page Art of Motion should have a redirect note "For the Red Bull competition, click here", especially because it's so long a title, but I can understand if policy is that articles be more thorough to warrant such noting elsewhere. Squish7 (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a disambiguation hatnote to Art of Motion. There's no point in having our readers not find what they're looking for. Huon (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)