Wikipedia talk:WikiFairy

WikiFairies
Shouldn't it be Wikifairies? - BalthCat 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it be WikiFaeries? Benjiboi 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki "fairy", eh?
Is anybody else aware of the ambiguous insult in that term? Do wikipedians have to be homosexual in order to apply for the title? &mdash; Ashmodai (talk &middot; contribs) 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no insult, ambiguous or otherwise. The mythological idea of fairies, faeries, or fey, existed a long time before it became used as a derogatory term for homosexuals, and despite that new meaning of the word, the original meaning hasn't faded at all.  In addition to not being censored, Wikipedia is also not a community which will bow down to political correctness at the expense of quality articles.  Please don't attempt to impose your personal hangups on the rest of the community, thank you. - Ugliness Man 11:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah trying to be politically correct sometimes has the opposite effect (look at this:Little Penguin)! We do not need to rename this. --WikiSlasher 11:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with the concerns... see Merger below. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Straight, gender-theorist, academic, writer, Texan living in NYC and I have no problem being a Wiki Fairy (however you spell it). HullIntegrity (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the wiki woodland creature articles
Hey everyone. You'll notice I made some changes to this article as well as WikiGnome and WikiElf and all three of the articles' related cats and userboxes so that certain things were similar across the Wiki Woodland Creature articles.

These aren't really content changes, but things like making sure all of the pages linked to the other two in a See Also section, or making sure that all three articles always capitalized the first letter of whatever came after wiki or making sure that all the articles had the same type of info on their respective userboxes.

In the same line, I tried to keep the format of the userboxes and the category pages similar. I wrote descriptions for the category pages lacking them, and made sure that form stuff was the same on all of them. I also changed the userboxes so that all of the userboxes had linkes to the category as well as the article (only one or two of them had before).

Anyway, like I said no real content changes--this pretty sums up what I did for all three articles except WikiElf where I made a few additional changes. Just wanted to let everyone know, especially as I doubt that any of you watch all of those pages. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  09:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Drop the fairy
I don't really like the wikifairy. That just sounds...tacky. talk
 * Agree with the concerns... see Merger below. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How to attract fairies?
What's a Dragon to do when he creates a page, then looks at it the next day and find if ugly? Is there a Request for Fairies template? Emmanuelm —Preceding comment was added at 14:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes as another dragon however i'm new and have not done much to be a true wikidragon i to would like a request fariy template manily because alas im no good at programing so my user page is somewhat messy and i would like a userpage "make-over" --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can always try adding the Expand tag to the top of an article (or even a section). It has worked in the past. Usually tagging articles will draw readers and editors. I often will, when warranted, add Expand, Unreferenced or Refimprove, Cleanup, or even Wikify to a page, sometimes many of them at the same time. I don't make a habit of tagging something with notability unless I TRULY think it should be removed/merged/otherwise dealt with. The PROD tag sure draws a lot of attention, but don't use it unless it's on an article you want deleted! There are editors - and God bless them! - that seek out articles thusly tagged and will improve them. VigilancePrime (talk), the WikiDragon

Merger proposal

 * So about this proposal (I'm not the one who recommended it).


 * The WikiZenMaster page is designed to complement this page. I wrote it using the Fairy idea as a guide, noting that some people - mostly men but also some women - may object to the term "Fairy" for various reasons (and this is by no means a homosexual-reference issue... I also see a feminization issue, and there could be others... even religious issues about mythological similarities... who knows?) and thus created the WZM. The term was already mentioned, but only in passing, on the WF article.
 * I do not support a merge. I think that the articles should be overlapping, complementary, and even inermixed. I think that to force a WZM into the term WF - or even vice cersa - goes against the non-judgemental attitude we should have. Besides, these aren't articles, they are little more than humor! No harm in keeping both.
 * My $.02 (and probably overpriced at that!). VigilancePrime (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not support a merge. It states in the article that users may be called this who prefer not to be called a "fairy".  I agree with the comment by VigilancePrime. PseudoOne (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge, admitted to be a duplication, if anyone objects to being called a fairy, just don't add a userbox...Random89 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge; in fact I think all of these "fauna" pages (except WikiGnome, I guess) should disappear, and this would be a first step. In fact, one could argue that the closing note at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiSloth provides strong support for deleting or merging this particular page.  The closing admin said, on December 18, 2007:  "Wiki-animal lovers should be warned: while there is no consensus here, there is a real concern simmering beneath the surface. If fauna-creep becomes a real problem, WP may one day have its own mass extinction event. In short, do not go forth and multiply (these categories.)"  The WikiZenMaster page was created after that.  While the admin specifically mentioned categories, I think the same applies to pages like this one.  6SJ7 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge done. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought
Rather than have a duplicative page, why not merge, and just have a single note at the bottom that says some Wikipedians prefer the name WZM.

Create your own userbox - possibly using the Pipe trick:

This user is a WikiZenMaster

or some such thing. - jc37 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain
Can someone, anyone, explain to me how any of these pages, with the faeries and the ZenMasters and the dragons or whatever, assist in the production of an encyclopedia? It seems to me that they just turn Wikipedia into a game. The one exception that I can see is the WikiGnomes which is a fairly reasonable metaphor for people who mainly go about the business of fixing and improving the encyclopedia without getting involved in a lot of drama. Otherwise, these pages are just silly -- unless someone can explain to me why they aren't. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All but the gnomes and the fairies are. WikiFairies are essentially WikiGnomes who work on the "look" of an article. I would have little problem with "the rest" being userfied at the very least. However, I think that should be an AfD nom to determine consensus. - jc37 10:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, gnomes and fairies, as well as gremlins and housekeeping zombies (not present) are characterizations imported over from WikiWikiWeb, the grandfather of wikis. The rest appear to be users taking the fantasy concept and running with it. - BanyanTree 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be pertinent to this topic: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiSloth from December. It might be time to re-hash another few MfDs. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To jc37: Yes, I understand that an MfD would be necessary to delete, merge or userfy anything.  I thought I would test the waters and see what people think, before delving into any bureaucratic procedures.  As for the "faeries", I will reserve judgment on that one.  Maybe I should post this same question on other pages like the dragons and the knights and see what happens there.  To  12Noon:  Yes, I had seen that MfD, in fact I left a message on the closing admin's talk page about it.  I thought he/she might weigh in on whether the two "fauna" pages that had been created since that time should be nominated.  Nothing so far, but his/her user page has a "retired" banner on it, so the question is whether to start nominating these things for deletion, leaving aside the gnomes and faeries.  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  6SJ7 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd have my full support in removing some of the more ridiculous ones, starting with ZenMaster. I'd suggest a merge on that one, start off uncontroversially. Random89 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know, the merger discussion is already going on, two sections up. The "vote" so far is 2-2, with the two for the merger being you and me.  So much for "uncontroversial".  It is a shame that more people don't care about getting this sort of nonsense off Wikipedia -- especially given the kinds of issues that lots of people do get worked up about.  Go figure.  6SJ7 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't how its supposed to work, but why don't we just merge it and see if anyone bothers to move it back. If someone objects, we can just take ZenMaster to MfD and worry about it there. Random89 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, if you're "counting heads", others supported "merge", without "voting". (Myself included).
 * Second, Be bold but not reckless, is, I believe, the policy. And I don't think that the merge, if done fairly, would be "reckless". - jc37 04:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the two of you have successfully egged me on, and I have now completed the merge and redirect, with related changes to the template. Hopefully I will not be chased through the WikiForest by angry WikiFaeries as a result.  I was not quite sure how to do the related editing to this article, as it seemed kind of strange editing statements that are completely made-up anyway.  In other words, how do you improve someone else's work of fiction?  But I did my best.  I decided to let readers figure out for themselves why some people might not want to be called "fairies", which is something that was dealt with more specifically in the late WikiZenMaster article.  6SJ7 (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 6SJ7, I agree with you. Furthermore, the idea that some obscure "fun" is going to keep editors from leaving is preposterous. There are real problems with the WP policies (one set of policies for many different types of articles), and these, more than anything else, create disaffection and burnout. Also, I think you amplify very cleanly when run in a Class B configuration. David Spector (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a thing for belated conversations, apparently. That said, no offence intended, but without the fun (I totally dig the fairy), I will take my my research time and my students elsewhere. So, that would *not* be so "preposterous" then, I suppose. HullIntegrity (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

joke tag
Does this need the joke tag? Is it a joke that certain people are WikiFaries? Pop6 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New topicon
I've created a new topicon called Template:WikiFairy so that it doesn't use the deprecated Template:click and offers the option to play nicely with other topicons by using the parameter "|icon_nr=". The only catch is that it doesn't play nicely (yet) because the icon's width is too small. If someone wants to create a new, wider version of File:Fée.svg, and then adjust the width in the template to 25, that should fix the problem. Admittedly, I'm more of a WikiDragon than a WikiFairy, so I'll let one of you muck with the details. If no one fixes it in a couple of months, I may come along create a new icon for it. –  VisionHolder  «  talk  »  15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)