User:Deckiller/archive52

I sincerely do not intend the disruptive, please no misinterpretations
Sir, you objection to my commenting was unjust. I urge you with respect, please focus primary efforts towards real-world. Thank You Wen Hsing 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Square Enix hall of fame
Recently two users have done extremely good and labor intensive work on the Kingdom Hearts (series) articles and the Mana (series) articles, and perhaps we should construct a hall of fame, it might help encourage more participation in the project. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's recent work you want to praise, how about a "Stars of the Month" section on the project page ? The reason I'm saying that is that the Hall of Fame might get pretty crowded ;) Renmiri 05:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Users can nominate a star of the month to make it fair. &mdash; Deckiller 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

reWarsaw
OK, good luck with your exams. We keep pushing the closing time back at FAR, anyhow (just closed Belgium after eight weeks). If you get a chance, you might drop a note to Sandy—mid-year blues. Marskell 12:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

email
My reply to you from a while ago bounced back yesterday. Cache full? Tony 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

pop
Perhaps, then, you can help me to define more closely what I dislike about pop and rock—the particular types, styles, or elements. Tony 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability (fiction)
Wow, it's an excellent policy proposal - I deliberately interpret it as such, rather than as an essay because I endorse it on the strongest possible terms, as you can imagine. I recently had a run-in with regard to spin-of articles here, but I couldn't effectively convey my point of view which I now found concisely summarised in your draft. When are you going to move it to WP space for approval discussion? —AldeBaer (c) 17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, the in-universe balance problem has been bugging me for some time, but I couldn't pin-point it for all the various involved aspects (like spin-offs etc). For a while, I patiently reworded introductions to make mention of the basic fact that this character and that planet are fictional, but I now know that this is really becoming a major problem on Wikipedia, for all the reasons you named, like project- and reader-oriented organisation etc. It's just not enough to approach this on an per article basis (like merge/AfD), because no policy is effectively managing this, so far. I honestly hope your proposal will become an official guideline. —AldeBaer (c) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:WP:FICT Too book oriented, unfair to new media
Wikibooks has a very specific charter and will not allow content pertaining to Video Games, TV Series or other media that has not been published or is too new to warrant a University program about it. Which means that a sizable part of fiction will not be covered by this guideline, re: working with the sister projects. I liked that you added Wikia as an alternative in your original draft, Deck, but I think you should expand it a bit, i.e. mention what kind of fiction goes where. Renmiri 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, both a blessing and a curse ;) Renmiri 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Transwiking and minor wikis
Sigh. Was hoping to look into the tag mountain of fair use images needing tags; hopefully your proposal for WP:FICT won't completely distract from that. I have some issues with that, but I suppose I'll keep those to the main discussion thread.

The reason I'm dropping off a message here has to do with transwiking, especially the Xenosaga wiki example in your draft. On the general issue of transwiking... let me first state that if good content is inappropriate for Wikipedia, transwiking the material then linking to it is a good thing, as it respects that content may be good even if Wikipedia isn't the place for it. And an emphasis on "be sure to transwiki the article first!" before redirecting without merging quality articles is absolutely a good thing. Nevertheless... I remain unimpressed with Wikia. The better Wikipedia articles on fictional topics have stayed clear of speculation and kept a fine factual account, even if it's mostly in-universe. Sure, not all of them are up to that standard, but a lot of the FF project of 6 months ago seemed pretty good on that count, for example. Wikia seems closer to the horrible fanboy swamps. So I can't help but feel that this is a "ninth best" option or the like. It's better than nothing, but I'd normally much rather see the Wikipedia treatment of the topic (and I suppose this ties into the "where should the notability line be drawn?" issue with fiction).

As for the Xeno wiki in particular... I'm not sure it's a good example for the guideline. It doesn't seem to have caught on at all, with no recent changes in the last 10 days. A lightly trafficked Wiki is vulnerable to uncaught passerby vandalism, or, in some ways even worse, a psychotic major editor who sculpts the place into their own personal shrine. Moreover, it seems that the various articles were de-merged to individual articles. What's the point? I'm a mergist largely because that's a better presentation of information, and the lists that were re-split upon moving to the XS wikia are much worse. A quick check of the Final Fantasy wikia shows some similar splits (like the list of FF9 locations) which are meh. Wikis need a critical mass of contributors to work right; perhaps the Xeno wiki should be disbanded with the content moved to a general gaming wiki? I know there are several, but ideally just one should be picked across Wikipedia to be favored, with the goal of having it actually be decent. SnowFire 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I proposed a new Wikia exactly to avoid that,. It has just been accepted and Deck is co-admin check it out Renmiri 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I saw that before, but you seem to be selling it as a "temporary waystation" before moving a topic to its own wiki. I think that most topics don't deserve their own personal wiki, and ideally there'd be something like only three or four general wikias gone to (one for literature, one for games, one for television, etc.  And I know that some already exist.).  If I misunderstood the nature of that project, then feel free to correct me, but if residence at the annex is temporary, then it's probably not an appropriate link to toss at the end of a main article should a subtopic be moved.  By the way, does the annex have access to en's image files?  That would get rid of a major barrier in proper transwiking- the moving of all the images. SnowFire 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a waystation in a way, but the original version still stays. It can still be edited, but there will probably be the restrictions of Wikipedia policy. We should have most of the details worked out in a few days. &mdash; Deckiller 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What he said ;) Also, literature seems to be well covered in Wikibooks and Wikisource so I see no reason for us to duplicate it in the Annex. Games, TV and other kinds of new media (Anime ?) don't have a home though, unless they get a big enough following, and even then when they get their own Wiki the editing policy and focus changes a lot, as you noticed with Xenosaga. The Annex would be a good place to keep them, as close to Wikipedia as possible. Of course we would add links to the specific wikis if available. Renmiri 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deck, for books and stuff that would be more at home on Wikibooks I was thinking we would accept them for a little while but suggest people to move them to the proper place ASAP. The reason for this "tolerance" is to make Annex n00b friendly, i.e. if someone ends up there we help them find a home for the content. What are your thoughts on this ? Renmiri 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea (sorry I'm not responding on your talkpage, but I'm anticipating a flood of comments/suggestions/ideas, so it'll be easier to keep it organized in one place). &mdash; Deckiller 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction (notability)
I have two minor ideas regarding the proposal: Do you think it'd possible to establish when article spinout are justified and when not? I'm asking with special regard to "XYZ in fiction"-type articles as spinouts of non-fiction subjects. Obviously, some are very well justified and are fully developed, like e.g. Earth in fiction, but many are not (edit: and I'm afraid most feature only primary sources, which may be yet another issue to mention).

The second idea concerns specialised wikis like, first and foremost, Wookiepedia. Is there any way to establish a rule of thumb as to when an article is more suitable there? It may e.g. help reduce the impact of ILIKEIT votes in AfDs if a guideline (preferably this one) offered some general advice on the issue.

Well, just my 2 cents. Best regards, —AldeBaer (c) 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are good ideas. For the last one, though, we're emphasizing no AfDs unless the info can't go anywhere or be merged. In general, though, the idea is that articles/lists that can never evolve beyond in-universe summaries should be transwikied/merged. It might need to be clarified. &mdash; Deckiller 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please disregard my AfD comment, you said what I actually wanted to say. I'd absolutely welcome that clarification. —AldeBaer (c) 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, people are "discussing" philosophical tangents on the mailing list instead of the rewrite proposal. Sigh. &mdash; Deckiller 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Took a glance and I see what you mean. But Phil Sandifer has a point, in my opinion. Maybe the essential necessary changes could be better implemented via a WP:WAF rewrite. —AldeBaer (c) 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a single, consolidated rule as well, but it might be impossible. With so many notability guidelines out there, it would be taken the wrong way (people would think dozens of in-universe articles are okay). If others bring it up, though, then something should probably be discussed. &mdash; Deckiller 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. isn't the most important point to emphasise the out-universe perspective as sort of a prerequisite to justify the article in the first place? The rest would then automatically follow from the attribution policy. —AldeBaer (c) 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, but the guideline rewrite combines the relevant points and also explains how to handle notable/non-notable topics in fiction. &mdash; Deckiller 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What I mean is: Combining NOR/ATT with the drive for an out-universe perspective (which in turn means: real world notability) could do the job. —AldeBaer (c) 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But people will need this written on a clear guideline page like Notability (fiction) for clarity and consistency's sake. Putting all our rules about fiction in one place could cause those problems like users unsure of what's "notable" or not (since WAF would have a lot more text on it). Separate guidelines (notability and a subarticle, the WAF manual of style) probably help clarify things. &mdash; Deckiller 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think I properly evaluated the respective purposes of FICT and WAF only now. As I understand it, the notability guideline should serve as a guide to establish whether a subject is in itself sufficiently notable for its own article in the first place, ideally explaining when and when not spinouts are justified, e.g. by emphasizing article size. I.e. the rule of thumb I'd prefer would be not to split when in doubt. I don't know how this could be coded into FICT, but page size may be one aspect of it.
 * Regarding the emphasis on out-of-universe perspective necessary for articles that do have a notable fictional subject, I'm preparing a rewrite of the first few paragraphs of WAF and see where it goes. Your input would be most welcome (my sandbox). —AldeBaer (c) 15:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So in a nutshell, the WP:FICT rewrite will still establish that notability involves having out-of-universe information (aka reliable secondary sources for fiction) and good organization, and WP:WAF will be tweaked so that it is more linked with the rewrite? &mdash; Deckiller 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rewrite basically says that info should only be split (1) if the main page gets to long and (2) if there is sufficient out-of-universe content in the subarticle/split article to show notability. Like you said, perhaps a specific length might help lessen shades of grey. &mdash; Deckiller 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a couple tweaks to the WP:FICT rewrite to establish that FICT and WAF are connected, yet different. &mdash; Deckiller 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I finished my somewhat bold proposal. I also incorporated your edit to warn against stuffing articles with too much minor trivia. —AldeBaer (c) 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I made a small tweak to the lead to clarify notability. &mdash; Deckiller 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good thing. One minor issue, though: Isn't notability technically speaking the availability of reliable sources rather than their inclusion? Not entirely sure, but I remember some AfD debates where this came up as an argument to keep completely unreferenced articles. —AldeBaer (c) 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, yeah; if users can prove that such sources exist, then the topic is notable (and should be kept for a period of time), but it's good to encourage users to add them from the start. It can probably be reworded on WAF to just say "availability" since it's outlined in FICT. &mdash; Deckiller 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? —AldeBaer (c) 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. &mdash; Deckiller 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what's next? Post it to WikiEN-l? —AldeBaer (c) 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm done with the mailing list. They never actually read the proposals; instead, they make assumptions and force people into redundant answers. &mdash; Deckiller 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably more fun to shoot down others' work with a sniper rifle. However, how about VP? Or we could wait for BrianSmithson's input and call it consensus .-) —AldeBaer (c) 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw: So may mail did get through... it gave me that waiting for approval bounce at first. —AldeBaer (c) 18:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the established editors of fiction are generally on the same page. If Smithson approves, then we can probably implement the changes without much flak. WP:FICT, on the other hand, will take much more time. &mdash; Deckiller 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weird, seeing as it makes much more sense and the current guideline is not prepared to lead to better organisation (which is how I interpret the primary purpose of your rewriting efforts). —AldeBaer (c) 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That, and the current guideline basically allows things that are not notable (lists of minor characters). With the rewrite, it becomes clear that it's all about true notability and organization, like you said. &mdash; Deckiller 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my second round draft. —AldeBaer (c) 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Saw your note on Sharon's page, hope you're not feeling too stressed out. We need you around here... the sane version of you! :) Take care. Riana (talk)  22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Put the mailing list in the junk! The real Wikipedia is much more fun :) Riana (talk)  23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, it's good for some stuff... asking other people's opinions... but the mudslinging rate is often high and people are less likely to control their tempers in real time, which is when it gets stressful. Riana (talk)  23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I read the proposal, looks good... we'll be in for some interesting conversations, I think :) Riana (talk)  00:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyler, baby, I see you're going through a rough moment yourself, and tho I haven't read the mailing list lately, I can figure it out from your explanation. I just read your guideline, and it strikes me as an excellent proposal; with your permission, I'll gladly chime in at the discussion. But please, know that many, many of us who value your excellent and hard work stand by your side; you're not, in any way, facing this alone. I know I speak for many people when I say you're one of the greatest assets our community can boast of counting on today, and no amount of silly discussion will make us change our mind. Please, if you feel like venting it all out, my emaila ddy is just a click away from here, and I promise my shoulder is just waiting for you to lean on, and my ears are ready to hear your worries and your concerns. We love you, Tyler!  P h a e d r i e l  - 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

copy-edit
Can it wait a few days? RL work frenzy. Tony 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we swap weather?
Noting the warmth is giving you stress - I'd be happy to actually get some, you know, sunshine in Summer. To use the vernacular, over here, it's fucking pissing it down. Seriously, half of Yorkshire (where I live) is flooded. Will (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 95 degrees is about 33 Celsius, right? While I agree it would be torture, it'd still be nice to get warmth. Luckily, I'm not flooded. Being halfway up a river valley has its advantages :) Will (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Telecommunication
Hi,

I am planning to submit the telecommunication article for featured article status in a few day's time. I welcome any thoughts you have on the article before I do this.

Thanks, Cedars 00:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)