Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictonics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete, per many Wikipedia policies. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictonics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See below Accounting4Taste: talk 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I assessed this article when it first appeared and removed my own PROD tag, hoping to find references and sources to bolster it. I also asked the article's creator to add those references and sources.  There are only three Google hits for this word, none of which qualify as reliable sources, and as near as I can tell this interesting essay is entirely original research.  However, there may be merit buried in here that I am unable to appreciate, and the possibility of a useful article, so I bring it to the community for discussion.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Some links have been provided on the talk page that lead to various fora concerned with on-line gaming; again, not reliable sources. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The token, spelling, word, construction, or representation 'gaming' seems an unfortunate choice from among gosh knows how many [such things's representations (within the relevant formalism(s))] the range of the function of keyboarding through bitstoring to representation by means of fonts surely must offer under the restraints and or conditions applicable?

For example, might I suggest such [such things] as world construction, simulations, manipulable representations, simplified models as distinct from actual this-year this-universe implementation by means of holodeck, or well, it boggles my mind to think of all the things out of which to pick such a potentially deprecable term as 'gaming'.

The URLs are to a GPL software package for performing world-simulating, which implements temporal nexi in the form of so-called 'savegame files', which files can be autogenerated at each iteration of the timedicing operation implemented upon the worldlines of the represented world. That it is GPL might qualify it for use in wikimedia projects of some kind in some timeline of some future world derived from the world we inhabit (by projection of our world's timeline(s) in some forward direction of time, for example, if by some means or mechanism our world happens to or is caused to or made to project one or more timelines futureward).

It also includes world construction capabilities.

To trivialise such a deep concept with such an epithet (Gaming! Bah! Who is 'gaming' who?) is, ouch, well, admittedly probably not as biassed as attempts to ban from the futureward states of our own world all worlds that were at some point in time regarded by some or even many or even huge numbers of inhabitants of our world as having been fictional and or impossible up to the present they occupied at that time.

In point of fact many many many states of our world that had been seemingly fictional turned out upon actual movement in some forward direction through time to be, lo and behold, actual facts that had been in our forward lightcone or some aggregation of our possible or potential forward lightcones. The bias that some pages or entire regions of namespace have toward trying to force fictionality (non-factuality? contrafactuality?) upon concepts and/or notions, well, hmm, kind of weird.

That the software tool linked to is an ontologically actual formal executable representation of precisely such a thing as a chronodynamic operation capable ficton-realiser escapes ones attention if one focusses on game-theoretical concepts, maybe? What would the referenced site need to do in order to clarify to its visitors that "Freeciv - because civilisation should be free", a .org, run by a registered ngo, developing under GPL, might have something a little less destructive than 'gaming' in mind? They might actually like to know!

'Online gaming' is a tokenisation that, taken as world construction theoretic terms, might have implications and ramifications far different than it might have taken as tokenspace-conflict resolution terms?

Knotwork (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) aka username markm on forum dot freeciv dot org

It seems the fundamental problem is that development of articles ought not take place in mainspace but in some other space. (Due to mainspace is too contentious a space to permit harmonious developmental processes, a problem arising from, among other things, the vast amount of research required in order to achieve formality, rigour, syntactical correctness, computability, executability, etc etc etc?) (Whilst also under a constraint of having to, in effect, construct the construction only using subroutines (substrings, semantic elements) taken with attribution from existing libraries of tokenstrings?)

Thus a move to some other developmentspace might be a way to go? Though something I read about userspace said something about not using images in userspace so there goes the handy table of potentially useful tokens' properties.

Maybe move it to my userspace so I can snip any useful subformulae out of it over time until any substructures or syntaxes or whatever of it that do have some potential utility can migrate to whereever they'll be of use?

Knotwork (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not an article. Move it to userspace per author request. JuJube (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:CSD, "patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content," so tagged. It resembles English, in that all of the words appear to be English words in an order that is a reasonable approximation to English syntax, but I can't extract any meaning from any of the supposed sentences in it. Maybe it's attempting to be self-referential? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD (nonsense) and WP:CSD (test) as well.  — Athaenara  ✉  09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not really nonsense, but some sort of essay. When I was in college, it would be termed BS.  Dloh  cierekim  12:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.