User:Deckiller/archive53

BTW
I want you to know I think your goals with the whole fiction notability thing are in earnest. Please don't take my counterarguments personally -- I trust that your intentions are well placed.

However, I believe you are looking at the problem of improving Wikipedia the wrong way. One question to consider is this: Assume that Wikipedia will be around 20 years from now. How many articles will it contain if it continues to grow at current rates? What percentage will today's Wikipedia take up? What percentage of the edits and contributions will have been done by the editors of the first 6 years?

(For a hint, see Modelling Wikipedia's growth.)

As I've written before, my take is that you can define the quality of Wikipedia to be a function of both the depth of coverage (using that as shorthand for the whole specific/accurate/verifiable/sourced class of concepts) and the breadth of coverage ( i.e. not missing information).

In fact, I would think that one *should* define the quality of Wikipedia as a function of both.

Then the "quality" of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily go down when you add more material -- though the average "depth" will go down. Similarly quality doesn't necessarily go up when you make content rules more restrictive, since every day the amount of potential information to be included in Wikipedia increases by some completely unreasonable amount (thus the average breadth goes down).

If our goal is to consistently have the overall quality of Wikipedia to go up (or at least stay stable) then that allows us to recognize that we should have standards for new material, but not to the degree that they overly restrict the inflow of new material. Where that inflection point exists is of course a matter of debate, but we can break down the relevant factors:
 * what is the average initial depth of included material
 * what percentage of the current universe of outside knowledge is represented on Wikipedia
 * at what rate does the depth of included material increase over time (i.e. how fast does unsourced material get sourced, grammar improved, copyright of images checked, specificity increase, etc.)
 * at what rate does the universe of outside knowledge increase over time (how much news is there every day?)

Again, these are all pretty damn subjective but it gives us a guide for understanding how to consider policies or the wisdom of spending energy and time deleting Dark Jedi from Wikipedia or merging franked mail into franking or concept mining into taxonomic classification or Captaincy General of the Philippines into Spanish East Indies. --The Cunctator 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, you are saying that dealing with a guideline for fiction is not worth the time and effort, because it will not necessarily increase the overall quality? This guideline doesn't really overly restrict the inflow of new material, because it's not merged or transwikied on sight; it is given time to establish itself as noted in outside sources per the main WP:N guideline and WP:V. The topics, such as the games or movies themselves, can almost certainly establish notability; the point is to prevent the coverage from going out of balance. With this rewrite, it's more about the subarticles, not the actual works. Most non-notable works are speedied by administrators anyway; it's the subarticles that are the main target of interest (and hopefully encouraging new users to put more effort into their work by establishing notability right away). &mdash; Deckiller 05:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect to the subarticles themselves, the rewrite will still allow newcomers to drop in and edit the information. In the end, the rewrite won't even restrict a ton of these subarticles; it will just require research to show availability for reliable secondary sources, and better organization to prevent excessive details. For all we know, it might get more people active, since a well written fiction article can be enjoyable to write and provide good experience on Wikipedia article editing on the whole. And the rewrite is very positive about "non-notable" articles/details, and it highly encourages the information moved to a more appropriate place, and that users enjoy helping the balanced articles at Wikipedia and the in-universe databases at Wikia or wherever. &mdash; Deckiller 05:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it hadn't occurred to me before, but nothing prevents getting an article BACK into Wikipedia from a Wikia (particularly the Annex which we intend to keep close to Wikipedia standards). This means articles that were not given time will also be retrievable easily. Or the giving an article time might mean keeping it at Annex for a while while we dig for more references. Renmiri 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A reversion of one of your comments
Look, I kept running into edit conflicts when I recently tried to reply to you, and in the end I got fed up with it and just cut and pasted a prior version of your comment back in as it was getting too hard to reply. It's not a nice thing to do, and I apologise. I appreciate it's hard to make arguments on Wikipedia at times, however, you might want to look at WP:TALK. It's better to strike through than to revise your edits. Anyway, I did what I did, and that's why, and I apologise for doing it. Hiding Talk 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't fully agree. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII seems to me to be full of what A man in black just told me was original research, looking at the references and the amount of times manuals are cited as sources.  For me, if an article is in bad shape, just fix it or ignore it.  I've given up on writing rules. Every time you write a rule, in a months time it has become something so far removed from what you meant it's worthless.  I'd rather just write articles the best I can. I don't deny you have good intentions, I just think that about two months after your proposal is accepted that vast numbers of articles will be deleted for failing it, rather than sitting here, doing nobody any harm until they get polished into meeting your standard sometime in the future.  For me, there is no deadline. Hiding Talk 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, if you believe in it and think it can make a difference then keep on with it. Keep pushing it and working out where to go with it.  You can certainly point to a consensus on the talk page, and my comments aside, I don't stand in the way of a consensus.  You can't ever come to a decent compromise, you just have to hold your breath, jump in and hope for the best.  Hiding Talk 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

wikibreak
Hey, I hope everything turns out well. —AldeBaer (c) 19:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, yes. It seemed so abrupt and since you wrote indefinite, I decided to send a sincere albeit generic message of good wishes. —AldeBaer (c) 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope all is well, Deckiller. Please e-mail if you'd like to chat with someone. Marskell 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Deck, this wikibreak seems sudden. I hope you'll have a nice rest now. &mdash; Bluerで す. 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My best wishes to you, and I hope all ends up well. LuciferMorgan 21:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you have a restful break and come back soon. My e-mail is always open.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you were needing a break. Come back soon, re-energized! I'll look at the transwiki/Afd stuff. All the best Renmiri 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MoS
I tweaked the MoS a bit. Nothing major; just reflecting current trends in article structure and whatnot. &mdash; Deckiller 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any controversial topic you will NOT jump into ? ;) Sheesh! Take it easy Deck, we don't want the trolls sending you to wikibreak indefinitely. How about some nice copy editing or other harmless area for you for now ? Please ? We need you in one piece! Renmiri 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... Just making sure you are not getting yourself into another WP:FICT tussle. You need some nice rest, that was rough. But you know that you have many friends here, right ? Renmiri 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, page me if you need help for it. I'll be out 7/10 thru 7/22 but other than that I'm around Renmiri 22:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Annex
Yay! We are in business then Renmiri 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. makes more sense. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export and paste the text below removing the pre Renmiri 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Arabicnav Template:Autoblock Template:Backlog
 * If all went well, the instruction above should have generated an XML file for you with the 3 templates listed. Then it's just save it to your desktop and upload it here Renmiri 02:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's normal, just do a file save as like you were saving a web page Renmiri 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems you imported them already :) Congrats! Renmiri 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty handy, no ? If you want history you need to uncheck the last box on the Export Pages form. Renmiri 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only bad thing is that it doesn't work well with images. But the rest is fair game :D
 * Yep, we need to protect them Renmiri 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pages yes, images no. But that is not such a bad thing IMHO.... If we start importing images people might try to use the Annex to run around copvio. What are your thoughts on images ? I propose we stick to Wikipedia polices and by having to load them one by one will surely help avoid people trying to use the Annex as their imagebucket Renmiri 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is slow :( Renmiri 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, with history it is even slower! I propose we only import relevant pages with history. Templates we could just get the most recent Renmiri
 * Yeah, good point Renmiri 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unless there are 10 or more pages, copy paste is easier. BTW, it was very slow for you because I was importing like 50 templates too Renmiri 03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, I'm hoping we can use AWB, a bot or something to fix the links on a page. BTW, welcome to the joys of "de-wikifying" a page ;) Renmiri 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww... txs, you are a gem! Yep, hubby is a gamer too :D Renmiri 06:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS:Don't worry about me, I have nothing to lose and won't have to live and work with those brats the remainder of the year unless I feel the need to torture myself a little more. That is why I'm doing it... So people who have things to lose don't have to ;-) Renmiri 06:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

AMiB's Talk Page Discussion
As I implied, I know my edits are probably more appropriate for the SC Wikia. I admit I'm not at all happy about what's happening, largely because AMiB and I have a history, and by history, I mean he's pushed me to consider leaving Wikipedia for good on more than one occasion. I've never done a single edit that I felt wasn't in Wikipedia's bests interests (ie, I've never vandalized, I've added data wherever I can). The merge of the many StarCraft faction pages, along with the earlier restructuring of Zeratul, a character, were my attempts to increase the quality of those articles. Apparently such efforts were in vain, and despite all my intentions and efforts, it seems that, if AMiB's opinions on the many policies are correct, there's little to no hope for about half the SC pages.

On that note, please don't misinterpret my many recent redirects as a tantrum of some sort, although I certainly understand how some could see it that way. The fact is though that many of the SC pages had little to no hope for being written in an encyclopedic fashion. They were in-universe and unsourced, and if I hadn't redirected or merged them, someone else would have sooner or later.

As for the SC Wikia, or the "Annex" thing you mentioned - I have considered the SC Wikia. But one look at their main page shows me it's very different from Wikipedia, and while I'm sure the rewritten articles that once existed here could have some merit there, I have no desire to attempt such. I tried to make constructive, useful edits to Wikipedia, and look what happened. I have no desire to become vilified on two sites just because I've tried to express an opinion. The Clawed One 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to the Annex, it was created exactly for situations like this one you mention. We will stay as close to Wikipedia as we can, to be a haven for good contributors who had their articles summarized recently. Renmiri 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exacty. Although StarFox Wikias and others are more than welcome to take the information from the Annex (just like with Wikipedia), there will always be the original versions (especially for those topics too small to have their own Wikia). Most of Wikipedia's policies will apply at the Annex, except for the ones related to fiction and whatnot. &mdash; Deckiller 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, before I join...what is it? The Clawed One 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A place to put good fiction articles that didn't fit here. . You might want to wait till me and Deck get some more ground work done though. We just got it ;) Renmiri 03:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Deck, I'll check that template out. What do you want on the Annex sidebar] ? And do you want to add to our Community Portal ? Renmiri 03:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong warning
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe :) No... I laughed, especially at the punk rock bit, because I totally agree ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... a bit of everything. I suppose some punk is OK, I like some Ramones stuff, some Velvet Underground, but the stuff that passes for punk rock these days makes my skin crawl :) Mostly what people call indie rock, I guess. There's more here :) I liked your list by the way - I don't play Final Fantasy so I don't know any music from the games, but Dream Theater is pretty cool! ~ Riana ⁂ 05:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

waf?
The discussion seems to have died down completely. —AldeBaer (c) 02:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinion on out-of-universe attempt.
You've noticed how the dispute between AMIB and Clawed One, accompanied by me, has led to the removal of most of the StarCraft articles to get them out of the firing line. I'm trying to pick up the pieces and put it back together, aiming to satisfy not only the current WP:FICTION and WP:NOT indiscriminate information, but what any future WP:FICTION revision. I've started with an attempt to merge all the planets together, in a similar fashion to those list of minor character articles that are dotted around, as in my opinion none of these warrant individual articles but are worth putting into a catch-all one (the test page is here). I'm also trying to move them away from in-universe plot summaries and trying to confine events related to the plot in a single out-of-universe paragraphs as well as elaborating on the planet and its role from an out-of-universe perspective.

I want your opinion regarding this attempt. There are no references at the moment, (whilst not widespread secondary sources are available) and it lacks full real-world information (things such "conception" are not easily come by for fictional locations) but I want your completely impartial opinion to know if this is workable and if I'm going about the right way. -- S@bre 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deckiller and I were discussing doing this, but neither of us had the time or energy to do it. Good to see someone is doing some cleanup.--Clyde (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Re:Request
Whilst I can see logic in doing an article in that fashion for the locations, I don't see how I can convert what I have to that format. I may be able to acquire a little bit on conception - I could go into the design of the actual ingame battlefields and the art side with the splash screens - and I'm sure that I can find reception on the technical side of things from IGN, Gamespot and other reviewers, but how I would do the other bits is a mystery to me, unless I simply stick the afore mentioned sections on each end of a similar list, so it goes something like:


 * Intro
 * Conception and creation
 * Key locations of the StarCraft series
 * Maybe separating between game and novel locations - after all, novel locations are created mentally by the reader, not designed as software.
 * Reception

... and I'm pretty sure that's not what you were implying for the end structure. I don't really want to say "Can you set it out a bit clearer, my mind can't cope" but I guess that's what I'm really saying. That is, unless this alternate structure is satisfactory if I try to extend what's in the planet sections regarding design. Actually, I discovered just as I was finishing this reply off that this sort of structure is not too dissimilar to that of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. On that basis is that acceptable (with a renaming of the article as well)? -- S@bre


 * We're looking into doing a similar page to the Final Fantasy one for characters, as there is a heap of interviews and reviews out there that go on about how the characters were developed by the actors and how well the characters (as a general point, rather than specific characters) were recieved. As specific information on some characters is really hard to come by, only the major major characters like Tassadar or Raynor will be getting their main articles back and linked to from a general character page (the actors for this class are the ones are the main ones that interviews have been made about), the minor major characters, such as Duke, Raszagal, etc, will have self-contained sections on the character within the general page, as there simply isn't the information to sustain separate articles. Minor characters will retain their article, linked to from the general page after a major rewording and culling of characters too minor to mention. That will be accompanied by the locations page (possibly with the races thrown in as you suggested) and maybe a factions page, depending on if general faction design etc references are available to form a general page. They should all follow a set structure and pattern, those Final Fantasy articles seem to make perfect examples. Thanks for your help Deckiller. -- S@bre 20:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing help
I asked Sharon this question, and she suggested you might know where I could look.


 * Do you know of a list editors who volounteer to help with the writing of articles? I have several sandboxes of avitation articles I've created recently with text-dumps from several sources that need to be rewritten, but, for me, that is the most tedious part of creating an article. I now have 13 new articles that need text added, with several more to come. I keep finding new articles to create, and with watching my watchlist, I hardly have the energy to do the rewriting. Is there a place on Wikipedia to ask for this kind of help? Thanks. - BillCJ 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the writers don't have to be familar with the specific aricraft, or even aviation in general, just have some time they want to kill!. I really just need a good rewriter or two to wade through the reaserch that is there, and condense it into something non-copyrighted. I'm familar enough withthe topics to keep everything striaght. Thanks for what ever advice you can give. - BillCJ 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Suikoden Task Force
Hey Deckiller. First off I wanted to say hello from Rhode Island! I'm a life-long Rhode Islander and a have been editing Wikipedia since December. I'm a native of Westerly. My friend and your fellow administrator, Leebo is also a Rhode Islander - he is currently residing in Connecticut but used to live in Richmond. So yeah, awesome! =] Anywho, I saw all of the tags you put on almost all of the Suikoden articles and I was hoping you could help me with my first major project on Wikipedia: I want to make a Suikoden task force. If you want to see what I've got in mind for it, check out User:Bwowen/Suikoden. It has a list of all the Suikoden pages (which is frightening), and a loose version of my plan. I know you are busy and that you do a lot of work across the CVD project, but I would really like a hand and you seem to share the core of my views on this. Please check it out and get back to me at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Best, bwowen talk .contribs 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey again! Glad to hear that you're a Suikoden fan - I started powering through the series again at the beginning of June. S1 only took me two days, but S2 took a couple of weeks. Now I'm on to S3 for the second time - in Chapter 4, Chris as FC. Still getting ready to play S4, S5 and ST for the first time. I'm really glad that you're up for helping when you have time - I know how busy you are, so I really appreciate it. Feel free to add yourself to the list of contributors on the task force page (currently on my userspace as you know). If you have any other friends within the CVG projecct who you think would be good, would you be so kind as to refer me to them so that I can contact them and ask them to join in? Thanks again!! bwowen talk .contribs 03:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * S3 is very long - when you think about it, you end up tooling around for nine chapters before the real "story" (e.g. building an army and a castle and whatnot) really gets started, whereas that begins much earlier in S1 and S2. I'm looking forward to 4 and 5. Despite its length, though, S3 was one of the first games in a long time (when I first played it) that grabbed me at the very beginning and didn't let me go until I finished the entire thing. Regarding the task force, thank you so much for your support! It's so good to have a great veteran contributor behind me on this one, as undertaking a huge task like this one really can be intimidating. Thanks again. bwowen talk .contribs 03:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Assistance
As User:S@bre has advised me to acquire your approval, I would like you too look at an alpha-stage of three character pages for StarCraft. Even as I speak I am looking for more third-party sources and out-of-universe data, but I believe what I have so far is a good start. Here are the links. Any input you have would be appreciated. The Clawed One 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:The Clawed One/Jim Raynor User:The Clawed One/Zeratul User:The Clawed One/Sarah Kerrigan


 * Thank you for your input. I too was unsure of the Unit Stat sections and was already considering having them removed. I'm trying to find as much out-of-universe sources and data as I can from the internet, but from actual real published sources like books and magazines, I can only hope S@bre has data on them. I didn't actually start playing SC until a few years ago, so I missed much of the initial buzz about it when it was released, and thus probably several useful sources. After nine years, most of the StarCraft media being released is now for StarCraft II. The Clawed One 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true, libraries will likely have such sources. Thanks. As for the credit thing, I'm 19 and unemployed, so right now I'm more worried about high school, work and a girlfriend than credit. :p The Clawed One 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and something big I was unsure of. In the writing style I've been using, is the present tense alright for such character pages?


 * I already have that article for Raynor, but thank you anyway. I have sourced it, but will be extracting more information from it in the future. The Clawed One 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Three of the articles have made great leaps in quality. Once again, your opinion would be appreciated. The Clawed One 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:The Clawed One/Jim Raynor User:The Clawed One/Alexei Stukov User:The Clawed One/Sarah Kerrigan


 * Um...no comment? The Clawed One 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. So, just to clarify, the Raynor article's in-game appearance data isn't too long? Because that's what S@bre and I are being told. The Clawed One 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for the offer (You're actually the second to ask!), but I don't want to be an admin at this point. Thanks again for suggesting it, though! --PresN 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, only three edits in portal talk? I'd get shot down faster than you can blink :-P --PresN 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Neon Genesis Evangelion
My mistake. I thought moving the page to user space would preserve the page history. Yup still has the article history, so I thought the GFDL concerns would be met. Anyway, sorry for the error. This is my 2nd AFD closure and my 4th day as an sysop. I'll go and revert undo my deletion.-Andrew c [talk] 02:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think all is well now. I have moved the pages back, added redirects, copy and pasted the article into the user space, and contacted a few people who participated in the AFD regarding the merger. Thanks for all your help. I guess you learn from experience, eh? -Andrew c [talk] 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)