User talk:MartinHarper/PagesToMove

from user talk:MyRedDice

If there's content that you'd like on sep11, I recommend getting someone (aka Bryan) to copy the entry in its full version history. Obviously, this is a judgment call, but for most entries, the version history is both interesting and a helpful way to judge the content.

Clearly, we're under a disagreement of what content should be where, but I would appreciate if you'd consider accepting the criterion that objective content belongs on Wikipedia and subjective content (tributes) belong on the memorial site. "Joe Smith was an investment banker" is not a tribute. "Joe was a great guy, who always had time for kids" is not objective content.

Instead of using the criterion "I don't think this information deserves to be included in Wikipedia because it doesn't interest me." There's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that I wouldn't contribute or find interesting, but that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted. --The Cunctator


 * I thought this issue as resolved and decide on the mailing list. If not, let's take it to a Wikipedia: namespace page instead of bouncing about user talk pages. It's not about interest, it's about what belongs in an encyclopedia. We're not a telephone directory -- Tarquin 17:58 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not using the criterion "it doesn't interest me". You're right - that would be a poor criterion to use. I am using many criteria, but the two principle criteria are:
 * No original research - compiling of lists of casualties is original research. The correct thing is to carry this research out off-wikipedia and link to it as one of a number of compiled lists of casualties.
 * Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary - People whose biographies are included should have some sort of achievement.

These are all standard policies from What Wikipedia is not, which appear to have been widely accepted by essentially everyone. If you want to challenge those policies, take it to the relevant policy talk page. Thanks! :) Martin


 * Compiling a list of casualties is original research? That's nonsense. It's a lot of work, yes, but research, no. With respect to the "biographical dictionary": Note the "what qualifies as an achievement is of course open to wide debate". --The Cunctator

Martin, the 911 list page is more than 3x the normal limit at 103K... Shouldnt it be parted? - &#35918&#30505


 * I think it should be parted and moved to the sep11.wiki. Indeed, I have been doing this very thing - see New York City Fire Department, for example, or tributes to companies for the current list. However, The Cunctator disagrees, and has been reverting many (but not all) of my changes. If you think you can improve the page from its 103K massiveness in some way, be bold! Martin


 * The complete list on one page is a useful resource. I agree that it's not necessary for it to be on the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Casualties page. Probabably September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/List of all casualties. --The Cunctator


 * I uberunderstand - the Cungcator is bold in his bogus assertions, these days isnt he? - &#35918&#30505

Focusing for a moment on the things that are near-universally agreed on:
 * "Tributes and Comments" should link to sep11.wiki, not to the relevant talk page
 * The histories of certain talk pages need to be appended to the relevant sep11.wiki articles
 * Tribute and memorial information that's been misposted to wikipedia should be moved to sep11.wiki, while more borderline material should be copied to sep11.wiki

Are we agreed on those items? If so, then that's a fair chunk of work in itself. We could work together to achieve that, and then think about further changes at a later date? Martin

NB, those pages that I think we both agree are correctly placed on the sep11.wiki, and therefore require movement of history info, are listed at user:MyRedDice/PagesToMove. If any of those pages there are incorrectly listed, please revert at will... :)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks for being willing to compromise (and I appreciate that there needs to be a continued discussion).--The Cunctator


 * Cunctator - I added a few more pages to be moved - please review :) Martin