User talk:Danbloch

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Please check out Brainwashing and Cordwainer Smith.
Please to check out. Thanks. BookeWorme (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) I am suggesting that Cordwainer Smith of fans might be an interesting. He is mentioning in the topic Brainwashing "Popular culture".


 * Thanks for asking. I would argue that brainwashing plays a very minor role in Cordwainer Smith's fiction, and an additional problem with mentioning it here is that people could read it as referring to Smith's background in psychological warfare. (which was not related to brainwashing) Dan Bloch (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not putting it if. But didn't have both mention? BookeWorme (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:REDLINKS
WP:REDLINKS identify articles that do not yet exist. The specific ones you removed were added because the links already existed on other pages, as the stories in question are covered in those articles because they are discussed by sources. TompaDompa (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. WP:REDLINKS specifically indicate a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable. There's no expectation that pages will be created for these stories soon, and their relative notability isn't clear.  In particular, redlinking some but not all stories in a list implies that these stories are more notable than the other, unlinked, stories in the list, which isn't the case.  I can see your point, but I think that consistency within a list is more important than consistency in linking all occurrences of a possible article, which isn't a Wikipedia requirement. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That those particular stories are covered (and linked) in other articles as a result of being discussed by sources indicates that they are indeed notable, which is the reason I brought it up. It may very well be the case that the other stories are also notable, in which case they can be linked as well. I might also note that WP:REDLINK specifically says Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. (emphasis in original). TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I still disagree. These redlinks make Wikipedia worse.  In addition to my arguments above, there's a case to be made that the sources don't show significant coverage as described in WP:GNG.  I guess we could take this to an RfC, but that's a lot of work.  Or you could put back the redlinks, and I would create the articles as redirects to Eight Worlds, which isn't ideal but it's preferable as far as I'm concerned.  Or we could forget the whole thing.  Any thoughts? Dan Bloch (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why?
Google it, it’s quite popular. Lead material. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I Googled it, and I while I do see some hits they're almost all product names or website names, or they use it as a catchphrase, but I don't see any which identify the name with a demographic cohort. Of your two citations, the UNICEF one doesn't specify a generation either.  And Medium isn't considered a reliable source (see WP:MEDIUM), so this is on pretty shaky ground.  You could bring it up on the discussion page if you want, but in my experience most of the editors there are more conservative than I am. The way it is now it can be upgraded if it becomes more widespread as a generation name.  I think that's the best outcome you're going to see. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well, but I can tell it'll stick. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok
I understand stand your position for Pigasus. I am that's it's do here goes on Wikipedia. JimDodson (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)