User:Aladdin Sane/sandbox

Hold this for me

 * Let me get this straight: An article that's been reviewed and listed GA in 6 different places (see top of this page), has existed for over eight years, and has undergone 10,908 edits by 4,258 editors is now all of a sudden a problem of "cleanup, confusing, deadend, essay-like, expand, fansite, plot, synthesis and weasel" because one out of 4,258 editors thinks so?  There's a bit of a credulity crisis here, and I hope it's not me having the problem.  I hate it when that happens.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes for a vote
Article: Proposed Guideline  Copying within Wikipedia

Open content

WP:CREEP WP:BEANS WP:TIND

Graphics that are both cool and free to use on User pages




External references
If Godwin's law had been around in World War Two.

Old WP stuff
Blocking WP editors, 2003 style.

Odd tools

 * WikiScanner
 * Wikistalk

504th Infantry Regiment (United States)
[editors note: Title should be '504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States)']

The 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (504th PIR) is a regiment of the United States Army. It is an airborne infantry regiment. It was constituted in 1942 as the first of three parachute infantry regiments in the re-designated 82nd Airborne Division.

species or race or what

 * OK, but we need an alternate word, then. My thing is that 'race' can only be human in normal usage of the word 'race' in context, hence I tend to use 'species' when writing of these others in fiction (and I catch myself writing mistakenly by my own standard all the time).  But if we use neither 'race' nor 'species', what do you suggest?  As to accuracy, I've just sat through 6,027 minutes of a fictional work listening for the mixed usage of the authors of that work of 'race' and 'species' for the fictional reference:  I've established we can safely write 'species' in the encyclopedia and ignore the mis-usage 'race'.  If you have a better term I'm willing to consider it.  Consider we have Metrons, Vorlons, and 1000s of other articles on these fictional "whatevers" to look at.  The concept, whether 'race' or 'species' is plenty well-enough defined by the authors of the fictional works to use at least one or the other, as the articles in the encyclopedia show.  Since out of 6,027 minutes of produced fictional work Babylon 5 'species' is used as often as 'race', I'm using 'species', since it fits my understanding of the distinction between the terms in normal non-fictional usage.  Should we not call fictional ships 'ships'?  Should we not at least use the terms the authors used, since we are writing about the fictional works?  Or should we change their words, merely because it is fiction?  What word should we change Jabberwock to?  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fictional universe (article)
Usage is:

Policies and Guidelines (Wikipedia:) space:

Wikipedia Manual of Style (writing about fiction) section "The problem with in-universe perspective" – an official Wikipedia MoS Guideline officially uses the term and officially wikilinks to the article to define it. Note that the term "in-universe" is an explicit reference to "fictional universe" and in this context is distinct from "setting" which is a real world term used to describe one of the seven elements of a fictional work in creative writing and English education.

Article space:

One example article, "List of locations in Babylon 5", uses the term "universe" or "fictional universe" 17 times in the context of "fictional universe" in order to differentiate it from the settings listed in the article and to differentiate it from the real world context that the article is supposed to reference per WP:IN-U.

Template space:

Infobox fictional planet uses the term "universe" in the context of "fictional universe" for a variable specifically to differentiate it from a setting: the planet (setting) for which information is given.

Wiktionary:

franchise "The loose collection of fictional works pertaining to a particular [fictional] universe, including literary, film, or television series from various sources." [emphasis added] The reference is not to a "factual universe".

Web resources
These are web search results from a few organizations that provide books and other references about "fictional universe" or "fictional universes". The citations contain selected quotes from the results.

Dear sir,

I've looked at the history of the article "Fictional universe".

I understand that you own the article and care for it deeply, and I understand that you're enjoying playing with it as a cat would a mouse, but I must humbly request that the article be restored by reverting the previous re-direct that was logged here. Thank you for your understanding and prompt attention in this matter.

Your obedient servant,

..admin help..

The article "Fictional universe" (founded 11 September 2002) was proposed to be merged with the article Setting (fiction) (founded 29 December 2005) on 31 May 2009. [see diff]

Very flat-out no consensus to merge was received on the Talk page on 31 May. (see full discussion)

On 15 June a non-consenting editor removed the merge tag but on 21 June it was restored. [tag removal by non-consenting editor] [tag restoration]

The merge tag stayed up on the article until November with no further discussion. [see final diff prior to re-direct]

On 8 November 2009 the article was unilaterally deleted via re-direct, with no further discussion. [see diff]

I requested the article be restored by revert of the re-direct. [see above request]

The request was declined (see above, or did I already say that?) per WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The article is now being held hostage by unilateral delete via redirect contrary to consensus and contrary to the same proposing editor's merge proposal (no merge was performed; quite the opposite, only the See also reference to "Fictional universe" was removed from "Setting (fiction)") and is now being held for the ransom of "other editors hand feeding an editor the seven source references that were previously provided for them (and all readers) in the now-deleted article".

In a case like this (see above, ahem), the other editor has made it clear that if I revert the re-direct myself, my action will simply be undone, rendering any unilateral action on my part pointless. This is a stalemate; yet there is only one correct action for the encyclopedia as a whole, for the article specifically, and most importantly for readers of the encyclopedia: conceptual articles like Fictional universe are needed when we write articles based on them. At the time "Fictional universe" was deleted, well over 1000 articles pointed to it. (see WhatLinksHere/Fictional universe)

The conceptual argument being presented is "Since I can't tell the difference between a setting and a fictional universe, nobody else can, either, so nyeh, nobody has a right to read the article and judge for themselves." I note the same anti-conceptual argument applies to all conceptual articles: On the basis of that argument, I can just as easily argue that the articles Apple and Banana should be re-directs in to Fruit, because they are all fruit and I can't tell the difference (and, after all, only people who can differentiate things without help need an encyclopedia, everybody else has "magical knowledge" obviating the need for the whole project).

This editor feels they should not have to stand for editorial blackmail, and this editor wishes they had a Userbox that said that.

Roots of Blood
/Roots of Blood draft article started April 2015.

Drafts for image description page: