Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 5 May 2009

Hello there. If you're going to leave me a comment (or yell at me, which is seeming increasingly common lately), please start a new header at the bottom of the page (or add to an old one), and sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.

If you're here about a specific page, be it an article, talk page, user talk page, AFD page, or whatever, PLEASE LINK THAT PAGE. Odds are I'm going to have to check back to it anyway to reply, and more than once someone has left a comment about an unspecified page and gotten no help from me because I had no idea what they were talking about.

IF YOU'RE COMING HERE TO REPLY TO A COMMENT I MADE ON ANOTHER PAGE, STOP, GO BACK TO THAT PAGE, AND REPLY THERE. For example, if I made a comment on your talk page and expect a reply, your talk page is on my watchlist. I'm not interested in starting parallel discussions on my talk page.

Archives:

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 *
• Miscellanous archive

RfC

Do you have an interest in opening a user conduct RfC on Ikip, per Rootology's closing comment on the AN/I discussion? I think a draft should be written in someone's user space to help refine the relevant scope. I am hesitant to certify, as I was not directly involved with the most recent instance of mass posting, but I will endorse, at least. I have also contacted Themfromspace. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. I'm not sure what good that would do. The basis for an RfC is cooperation with the subject. I think it is far more likely that Ikip will just refuse to accept criticism from "deletionists" as legitimate and the usual suspects will chime in saying that we are attacking "inclusionism." Or he could just avoid the RfC entirely. Take a look at the Pixelface RfC for a sign of how that went (though pixel was marginally involved in it). Protonk (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If an RFC needs to be opened on Ikip, then Ikip, the community, and the RFC would be best served if I was not involved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought about doing some such thing, but I don't have the time at the moment to root through his edits (of which there are a lot) in order to find adequate evidence against him. Apart of the canvassing, I believe he displays a general battleground attitude that needs looked at, but it takes quite a bit of evidence in order to properly accuse one of doing this in order to comply with WP:AGF. Perhaps in a few days I'll be more free. I've never really partipated in conduct RfC's before so I don't think I'd be the right one to set up a draft. Themfromspace (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to imagine it not descending into yet another inclusionist versus deletionist battleground that only succeeds at raising tensions and animosity and does nothing toward actually improving any articles, which is after all what we're supposed to be here for. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, but it should be considered. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not try a proactive approach instead, i.e. work together to rescue an article and by working together come to a more collegial understanding that can allow for an exchange of suggestions that won't come off as aggresive? Best, --A Nobody 05:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I tried that, with WP:PRESERVE. Ikip described my attempt to ask for his input on how to rewrite that page without changing its meaning as an attempt to demote it to a guideline (which I had even argued against). He has a tendency to edit or misremember anyone who criticizes him as a long-time enemy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not with a policy page, but with an article. I usually take suggestions from editors more seriously when they come from those who I know also try to improve articles or how approach me in a friendly manner. Consider Saber's RfA. Those who reacted aggresively failed to persuade me to change my stance; when the candidate approached me in a mature manner, that was enough for me to switch out of the oppose camp. And I recalled in part that Saber and I did try to improve some article some time back. Best, --A Nobody 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a thought. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that the user RfC process functions best with mutual cooperation and has no teeth, but it is a required dispute resolution step – if there's no RfC now, the next AN/I discussion will ask for one. I was surprised at how much good faith apparently uninvolved editors were willing to assume, in the face of what I thought was substantial evidence and markedly defensive behavior. I'm willing to put in the time for research and step up to second certifier, but I think we need an RfC-experienced editor to oversee our draft. AMIB, would you prefer that we move this discussion elsewhere, maybe to Themfromspace's talk page? Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is fine. I'd be happy to comment, but the perception I had written it would be damaging, and as you can probably see from that ANI post I'm not very good at disengaging once I get involved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(De-dent and multiple ECs later...) - I've been reading about this today (catching up, somewhat).

Best I can tell, Ikip probably could have phrased his project solicitation banner, better.

But besides that, AFAIK, we canvass like that all the time. And it's supposedly a main way in which Wikipedian categories are supposed to be used: To facilitate collaboration among editors to edit/enhance articles.

That said, the ARS definitely walks a fine line as a project. And the posting clearly crossed the line of neutrality. Which "may" be ok for a project to do, except that in this case, where it crossed involved the headache of wikiphilosophies. (The neverending constant turmoil of which, we've discussed before : )

So anyway, now that I've put my thoughts out there, let me ask: what're your specific concerns in all of this. There have been so many accusations, and guessess hurled around, that somehow, in the midst of it, I haven't been able to ascertain it.

And rather than join the guessing game (and definitely avoid the accusation hurling game), I thought I'd merely ask : ) - jc37 05:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For an RfC, I want to avoid the quagmire of the partisan canvassing issue, and focus on more general problematic behavior, e.g. mass posting (hundreds of notices, twice in the past month), defensive behavior when brought to a noticeboard, and going on the counterattack with unsupported allegations of bad faith. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) - Though in truth I was asking MiB his thoughts (and still am...), thank you for clarifying yours : ) - jc37 05:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't yet have a clear idea of how to articulate of my qualms. Flatscan's probably got the best idea for an RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As an aside, I wonder how much of this current set of discussions might have been diffused somewhat if people spoke with rather than past each other...

And just to clarify for any other potential lurkers out there...

Perhaps my experience is unique, but I've always found MiB to have a reason for his thoughts/actions beyond "I want it because I want it". (Something which, unfortunately, I can't say of all editors...) And imo, his response above is another indication of his thoughtfulness (full of thoughts).

This is not to say I have any negative thoughts about Ikip (I don't know if I know the user, outside of a few interactions recently), or anyone else, just that I've known MiB quite awhile here, and while we've disagreed perhaps as much (if not more) than we've agreed, it's mostly been collegiate, a definitely civil.

Anyway, at this point, I guess I'll exheunt the field, and watch as the play commences, I suppose... - jc37 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do. At this point, all I can really do is go on what I know is unproductive. AN is right that we can't have another RFC like Gavin's or Pixel's. (Well, we can, but it won't help anyone.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand (been there myself in some different, perhaps juxtaposed, situations).

That's part of why I asked your concerns. If we can identify the substantive concerns (rather than just the poking each other back and forth), "maybe" we might find some middle ground.

Perhaps I rely to heavily on WP:AGF, but I'd like to think that those editors enmeshed in this really aren't just spoiling for a fight, and that this is really just a set of misunderstandings and mistakes which have compounded through further less-than-positive interaction.

From what I can tell (pardon me for guessing at this point, if I'm in anyway misrepresenting you, please clarify and/or set me straight : )

Anyway, from what I can tell, you (et al) are not happy with what can appear to be inappropriate mass canvassing through the use of templates that may or may not have been "neutral" due to the usage of postentially contentious words like "inclusion".

Was there anything else besides that? - jc37 06:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That bothers me. There's also something that bothers me about Ikip's manner of interaction with other users, but I can't yet untangle it from other things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the cross posting is (I believe) probably resolvable. Simply defining what it means to be a project, and therefore be allowed to cross post such invitations, and further some discussion as to what sort of wording in the invitations might be acceptable (or at least tolerable), should help.

As for your other concern, interpretation of how others present themselves, or even just the experience of it can be difficult to convey or at least (as you note) to disentangle. If Ikip's interactions are lacking in wikiquette (to put the fairest face on it), then if you feel they are open to discussing them, then that's a route. But if not, at this point, I think a mediator could be helpful to resolve this. As has been noted, a "mass" discussion at this point (an RfC) would likely just heighten the confusion and entanglements, rather than resolve them.

What do you think? - jc37 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't know how to approach Ikip in a way that won't degenerate into accusations of bad faith. An RFC may be productive, but I know my involvement won't be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(re flatscan) Seconded. As posted at ANI, I'd also like to avoid bringing the form and function of the ARS into this as much as possible. The RfC should be an examination of the user's behaviour and not his beliefs and opinions. Everytime Ikip's actions have come into question the discussion has devolved into partisan politcs and name calling, and this has happened on both sides of the fence, so it should be a point to prevent this from the outset. (edit conflict) As I typed this up I see that the partisan politics has started already. How unfortunate. Themfromspace (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Which of course is pretty much unpreventable as seen with the one on Gavin Collins on the deletion side and Pixelface on the inclusion side. If there's a problem here, then it's the massive assumption of bad faith regarding a user making proactive efforts to reach out to colleagues in the hopes of improving articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case I wont reply to you anymore since it is obvious that you're posting here only to disrupt the discussion that we are having. None of your arguments thus far have made the slightest sense and you appear to be defending somebody only because they are on "your side". You aren't examing his behaviour at all, only his views and opinions. As such, it is apparant that you haven't understood a single thing I've said or you willfully disregard them. Themfromspace (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass posting hundreds of good faith and constructive notices is hardly problematic, who isn't defensive when brought to a noticeboard especially when it's someone who was once named "inclusionist" brought by a someone with a deletionist userbox, and I can't blame Ikip for thinking there's bad faith, when seriously, now, Ikip just tried to notify editors about a project that they might be interested in with the end result hopefully being editors working together to improve articles, which again, is after all what we're supposed to be doing here. He did so enthusiastically, sure, but of the many things editors have done problematically here, extending a courtesy to fellow editors with the goal being either kindness and/or an end result of improving articles should not be regarded problematically. I would be hard pressed to not regard an RfC on him as frivolous (not surprising most editors at ANI didn't see a problem after all) and would urge him to ignore it. I doubt anything worthwhile would come out of one; it would just be more time spent doing something other than actually building an encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a preview of the obstacles any such RFC faces. Expect immediate accusations of bad faith, such as "especially when it's someone who was once named "inclusionist" brought by a someone with a deletionist userbox". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how else to describe the mischaracterization of Ikip's edits at ANI and here. This strikes me as an effort to stifle a good faith editor's attempts to make his colleagues feel appreciated and to better our project. If anything I would urge Ikip and anyone else whose goals are to improve the project to avoid such discussions altogether and instead focus on improving articles. That way, we can work to better the encyclopedia, while those who have other ... are at least not spending time trying to delete things. I pretty much said as much to Ikip on his talk page (see below). Best, --A Nobody 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ikip#Heads up is relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That way he won't be blind-sided. Best, --A Nobody 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be busy doing my best to improve articles but would appreciate a "heads up" if this goes anywhere!--Buster7 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to not see any mention of whateverism unless it is of how to best avoid degenerating into accusations of same, and no accusations of bad faith save possibly positing bad faith for accusations that would be made in an RFC (if and only if there is substantial evidence of bad faith). Nobody is to accuse anyone of bad faith here unless they're planning to write an RFC.

I will cheerfully revert any comment that runs afoul of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As much to myself as anything, this is what troubles me. The juxtaposition of decrying "a caustic, dismissive tone" with the tone of his own message is especially shocking. It was provoked, but it bothers me, not least because seeing that causes me to wonder if I am equally unaware of how I come off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has run into you in a heated discussion, I'd agree with this assessment. You sometimes (often?) are a bitch to work with and I'm glad I don't run into you very often when I am working on articles. (I'm assuming you don't mind me being frank. I mean no disrespect nor is this an attack, just giving you feedback.) This is good at times, when dealing with vandals, trolls and heavily POV-ed editors but sometimes it makes working on an article which you have stumbled upon terribly difficult. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Definite food for thought. It's always easier to see other peoples' flaws than your own, you know? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I know for damn sure I'm a bitch to deal with as well. :P (I spend too much time in Palestine-Israel articles and its made me very unhappy and unpleasant at times. I'm currently disengaging from pretty much everything. Or trying to. And failing more often than not.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is troubling as well; is he joking about Wikiprojects being nemeses? It doesn't seem like a joke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This problem hasn't gone away. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:ARS

separated from the above section

I mentioned this conversation here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_invitation_template_for_the_ARS Ikip (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC) later removed by Ikip - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I unmentioned it. WT:ARS is not the venue to discuss user conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I undid your change... AMiB, reply to people's comments, no matter how incorrect or misplaced you think they are, or ask them to withdraw or strike them, but please don't edit anyone else's comments again (excluding blatant personal attacks and the like, which this wasn't). Fram (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment was intended to bait people into arguing with him in an unrelated venue and topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So? You may feel that he uses underhanded tactics, but that does not give you the right to go against the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Reply, or ignore, but don't redact. Fram (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Way to be the diplomat Fram, nice job :)

Fram, on this page you only restored my own deletion, which I wrote myself, not the deletions of my comments by AMIB. AMIB can delete my comments here, I don't care. If you really don't want to be involved in this AMIB, delete this entire section, or archive the discussion, AMIB is within his rights, then we can go our seperate ways, except for the occasional AfD.

I will refactor out those comments on WT:ARS. Sorry AMIB!Ikip (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I. But I don't understand what you mean with "on this page you only restored my own deletion, which I wrote myself, not the deletions of my comments by AMIB". I did not restore anything on this page, and I only restored your comments that AMiB deleted on the ARS talk page. Could you provide a diff of what you mean? It's not that important, but I am puzzled now. Fram (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored his comment above, because the rest of this didn't make any sense without it. He may be under the impression you did that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Message received and responded to fyi. :) Have a good one. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy gonzales...

wow that was fast... i forgot you keep hours like me... -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 10:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i wanted to point out that I never claimed Mewtwo was a "shining example", and it was only meant to illustrate how editors are forced to promote a pokemon from list entry into article in one huge step, bypassing the collaborative aspect of the encycopedia. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been used as an example of a perfectly good article, though, when it's not, and the reasons that it is not are systemic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, and we can discuss the problems with that article on the appropriate page. You and i both know that disc. at that project tend to wander, and i'd like to return staying on topic (i can be verbose anyways). Since we both agree that the merge-all solution didn't work, we need to try and find a new compromise. I remembered you had your misgivings about WP:POKE/Layout, but it was at one time an acceptable compromise. if you don't think that's the way to go i'm very open to suggestions. These mass-deletion-mergers are produing worse articles, not better ones, b/c they end up being filled with only the most basic in-game info and devoid of context which decreases accessibility. content which is sourced to verifiable, reliable sources (whether you prefer the source or not) is often removed. and i don't believe that you really feel an article with 0% real-world context is better than an article with 5% real-world context sourced from a review. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 05:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The mass merges are producing equally bad articles. Shuffling things around again is not an improvement. Characterizing my qualms with sources which are not substantially about the subject as not liking the sources is a mischaracterization, as well.

We have an elephant in the room. Why bother listing all of the Pokemon in this way at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, for some reason i didn't catch that you responded.... I take it to mean you are asking why we should even be thinking about listing all the pokemon in the first place? simple enough, our first pillar - that we should be both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopdia (i beleive that might remind you of some very old discussions at the project). i think you can agree that this fundamental aspect of wikipedia at least provides for considering it an option.

Characterizing my qualms with sources which are not substantially about the subject as not liking the sources is a mischaracterization, as well.

— AMIB

in reference to

...(whether you prefer the source or not)...

— Zappernapper

i apologize if i came across as reducing your concerns about the sources to an issue of "liking the source", that wasn't the goal of my arguement. the premise was that some sources and relevant prose are removed/excluded from articles based on questionable assertions that there is something wrong with the said sources. I did go on to discuss a source that you had written off as sketchy and not "substantially about ", a source which spent a large bulk of the review discussing just Mewtwo. Mewtwo, the character.

you claim that shuffling things around will not improve the encyclopedia. I disagree on the grounds that people's work habits are influenced by the structure they are given. We gave free-reign article-status to any fictional element in the pokemon world, then we imposed a strict list-only format that only allowed articles that were already up to par. you and i have both seen how people have worked within these systems, and the kinds of edits that have been made. so i am suggesting that we try a new system. I am not trying to force WP:POKE/Layout down anyone's throat and would love to hear a novel idea. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (fiction) draft

It's been a while since I've paid any attention to the discussions at WP:FICT because it keep going it in endless circles. Just looking at the talk page, much else actually reading it, made my head spin. As such I'm going to take an entirely fresh take and essentially ignore the quagmire of a discussion entirely. I've attempted to write a new draft that is modeled on some of the other subject-specific notability guidelines, but also acknowledging and describe the controversial nature of notability in relation to fictional subjects. While acknowledging the controversy does water the draft down in comparison to the other guidelines, I believe that is the only way to compromise and still have a simple, workable guideline.

I would like you to look it over and give your thought. I'll be away for the next couple of days, so I will not be able to respond immediately. However, I am looking for some good feedback. --Farix (Talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria #3 troubles me. Regardless of whether the bar is set at Les Mis/Citizen Kane/Beowulf or at Buffy/Star Wars, you're setting a high standard for subtopic inclusion for most fiction, and then completely throwing the doors open to any little aspect for other fiction. I don't think that's a good idea, especially when the bar is so vaguely defined. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not happy with #3 as worded, essentially for the same reason as AMIB. "All aspects" is too inclusive. and not permitting some, like the main characters, for things that fall just under that is too restrictive. It's a scale, not a division line. MASEM's formulation was best, that the importance of the fictional work and the importance of the item within the work are both factors, with a strong bias to combination articles. Even I would not include separate articles for all named and unnamed characters in, say, War and Peace, or every place mentioned in it. Perhaps all of the named non-background characters, & a few background ones, and some places, is what would make more sense, and a paragraph or a line in a list for the others, depending on what there is to say. As a practical matter, if its black/white there's no room to compromise over individual cases; if there's a scale, there is--we can do more or fewer as appropriate, and adjust till we reach consensus. DGG (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So for the time being, strike #3 until there is more discussion. Personally, I don't like the "importance formulation" as it is far too ambiguous to be of any use. --Farix (Talk) 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

do you dislike the formulation, or the concept? How else could we decide on how much detail is warranted? Given that a primary source is acceptable for basic description, sourcing is not a limitation for this sort of materialDGG (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Just so you know, I wasn't ignoring your responses to my comments in the chronology discussion. I just thought that, with others inter-threading in the discussion (and really, the particular forum itself), any chance of you and I actually being able to "discuss", with the goal for mutual understanding (regardless of whether we may or may not agree), was starting to seem less than likely.

The key question(s) I have for you, which may (or may not, who knows) get at the heart of your opinion is: Where do you draw the line on what's "acceptable"? And semi-related (due to context), where do you draw the line between what you may determine as "fancruft", and that which you may determine is "encyclopedic"?

And further, are you opposed to the idea that Misplaced Pages, due to being "not paper", may act as a compendium of cyclopedias? - jc37 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. I don't draw any line on what's "acceptable" or "encyclopedic" or "fancruft". We can fight forever about what those mean and what they include. Feel free to dig through the many essays on the topic. Instead, the standard is "According to whom?" According to whom does any given topic merit comment? If there isn't anything we can verify in a reliable source, we cannot write an article on a subject.

In the case of fiction, we also run the risk of mistaking the author's or publisher's commentary on their own work as a reliable source, or even using the work itself. In this case, articles risk falling afoul of one (or more) of three traps. The first trap is simply repeating the plot of a work, in ever-increasing detail. We don't do this because Misplaced Pages is not simply an archive of every story ever written (or even every story a Misplaced Pages editor felt the need to cover in detail). We don't do this because it's a huge, sprawling task that when taken to its logical extreme runs afoul of copyvio. The second trap is writing original research, in the form of fannish conjecture. This is obviously inappropriate publication of original theories. The third trap is republishing original research, in the form of the self-published theories of authors (or, more often, companies in the business of franchise management). The Star Wars Encyclopedia and its various successors and descendants are a chief example of this: they can be taken as original, synthetic works of fiction, fitting previous stories together (falling into this trap), or they can be taken as Lucasfilm's self-published comments on their own work, falling into this trap.

In the case of Chronology of Star Wars, we have all three problems, which is part of why the AFD discussion is so sprawling and tangled. The article is composed chiefly fragments of plot, already present in other plot summaries (if in a more-appropriate level of detail), divorced of any sort of context in the real world. It is also full of fannish conjecture, rationalizing away conflicts and "doing the math" to figure out when things must've happened. And, lastly, it is chiefly based on Lucasfilm's own timeline, for sale at any nicer bookstore near you.

I think there's probably hope for an article that covers the Star Wars timeline. Lucasfilm's management of their franchise and the continuity has been the subject of a fair amount of commentary, and the timeline (the pre-original trilogy EU blackout, the introduction of eras as sub-franchises). That article may not be an entire standalone article at all (but rather a section in Star Wars canon or a franchise article), it wouldn't include every canon event ever(!), and it most certainly would be absolutely nothing like Chronology of Star Wars.

As for your question of cyclopedias, Misplaced Pages can serve the role of both a general and a specialist encyclopedia. This does not include licensed readers' guides written with an encyclopedic conceit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"According to whom?" - I agree. Which is a concern. Calling something "trivia" is so subjective (even the definition of trivia itself, which can be positive or perjorative), that can we call any application of that term to be "reliable"?

That said, if the text manages to avoid the "traps" through good writing, and through fixing such edits which do fall into those traps, then do you still oppose the inclusion?

And further do you oppose the usage of primary sources (when avoiding the traps noted above, and others noted at WP:OR)?

Also, I'm honestly not understanding your opposition to "duplicative information". If a small part of let's say 12 different articles would make a good article of it's own, wouldn't we present that information together? As I noted elsewhere, there are many many articles which do this. ANd not just under the heading of fiction. Mathematics and science-related articles leading the way.

As for WT:NOT#PLOT - I think I noticed you comments at that talk page. But there is now a poll over whether or not that should even be part of that policy page. (As an aside, and more related to this discussion, if this is a subjective choice of whether to include such information, or not, then it probably shouldn't be policy, but rather a guideline.)

As for the article under discussion, AfD is not cleanup. If the article fell into the traps of WP:OR, then fixit. If someone opposes the fix, then discuss on the talk page. This isn't a BLP, so AFAIK, there's no harm waiting while discussion takes place. (And as you note, this is a topic that should probably be covered.)

Cyclopedia: An assistive guide (reference) for readers is pretty much what a cyclopedia (or even an encyclopedia) would seem to be?

I'm trying to find the "spots" where we diverge in opinion, and the irony for me is that we seem to mostly agree, yet, we're coming to different conclusions. So there's obviously something we're both probably missing. Or maybe I'm just confused : ) - jc37 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No amount of craft can fix a lack of independent sources. There is a difference between unsourced and unsourcable. The three traps are all various consequences of having no independent, reliable sources. You either write an ever-more-detailed plot summary, make up things on the spot, or use sources that are not reliable or independent. None of these are good encyclopedia writing, even if the article's craft is exemplary.

As for duplicative information, it's a matter of organization. If a detail is so important it is essential to understanding of a topic, it belongs in the article on the topic. If the detail is not essential to understanding the topic, then it doesn't bear mentioning at all. If you have a pile of details with no topic, then there is no article, merely a list of trivial facts. Redundancy isn't an evil on its own, but when an article is merely redundant, creating new topics from details about topics that already have articles, you're merely rearranging things, not writing new articles.

We can argue up and down about whether a particular fact is trivial; that's an editorial decision. But the nontrivial facts belong with the topic they are essential to understand, and the trivial facts belong nowhere. Ask someone who spends a lot of time editing mathematics articles about their struggles with people wanting to write articles about every single number ever, or people who write science articles about new "topics" explaining self-evident things covered elsewhere.

As for Chronology of Star Wars, I feel there should be a completely different article under a different name that uses none of the content in the current article. That's not a cleanup issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 1: Let's not confuse writing with sourcing. Though the two can be intertwined, since we're trying to establish fundamentals, I'd like to try to stay aware of pitfalls of potential confusion. : )

Potentially, anything is sourceable, I suppose. Depends on whether our disposition is "innocent until proven guilty", or "guilty until proven innocent". (With "innocence" being "sourceability".)

Paragraph 2: That all is opinion, and is very changeable, falling under editorial discretion. And is contrary to no policy I can think of.

Paragraph 3: If it's "editorial decision", then it doesn't fall askew of WP:V. It's not a case of whether it is "sourceable", but merely that one or more editors don't want it here, for whatever their reasons are. It's subjective. Which may be fine, as that's how quite a bit of XfD works. That said, it seems to me that having such a subjective demarcation for inclusion just seems arbitrary, and may possibly be contrary to our mission statement.

Paragraph 4: Personally I think the idea of chronologies is very encyclopedic. And can offer examples of such in quite a few reference works. That said, unfortunately, here on Misplaced Pages, editors often fall into WP:OR "traps", as you note. Perhaps a guideline would be worthwhile? - jc37 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's guilty until proven innocent; the burden of proof is on those who would add a claim to an article. That some chronologies are appropriate doesn't mean that all are appropriate. Beyond that, if all you have for a response is "Well, that's your opinion,", I don't think this is a productive discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol.

Though I think you miss my meaning.

What we're talking about is subjective. WHether something is included or not has essentially two boundaries to pass. Does it pass immutable "rules"? Things like: copy vio, or that something should presumably be verifiable. (Noting that there is a difference between verifiable and verified.) And then does it pass subjective "rules".

And we have several "steps" of subjectivity.

The first step is a group of things at that have long time consensus that is not likely to change. (WP:OR tops this list. As does, ironically, WP:CON.)

Then we get into the real tangle of subjectivity. How do we define "indiscriminate"? How do we define "dictionary definition". Etc. And (as we both know) anything related to fiction is a regular mine field.

And so when we start to look at the parts and pieces, the aspects and so on, at what point in this subjective morass do we state: This stays, and this goes. Which of us is an expert to decide tht a certain type of writing is "unencyclopedic"?

So this very much is about opinion.

Where do we draw the line on what we're going to present.

And if we accept WP:OR as the core policy (and I do), then why should we claim that primary sources indicate bad or unencyclopedic writing?

The whole point of this being a wiki is that something can be added by one person, and "eventually", expanded upon by another. (The whole point of template:sofixit.)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia may be our overriding principle, but when there is subjective opinion on what an encyclopedia should consist of, then perhaps that is something that can be productively discussed?

In this case, for example, I look at how many people are conflating definitions of plot summaries. Some talk about a whole page that is merely plot summary, and some are only talking about a section.

If a chronology notes the primary sources, at that moment it's no longer "in-universe". So no one can truly say that the whole page only consists of plot summary.

There's all sorts of ways to look at this, discuss it, and try to figure out what is meant. And thus far, to quote Hiding, there are a lot of people talking past each other.

Perhaps some do it intentionally. (After all, confusion is a great way to get a no consensus result, and sometimes even a "pushed for" result.) But I tend to allow myself be blinded a bit by WP:AGF, so I try to discuss regardless. Perhaps that makes me foolish. At least it makes me idealistic : )

So anyway, I'm still trying to discern where you draw your lines. At what point do you decide that something should be deleted. What are your personal criteria. Even if it's "I don't want this here", then why don't you want it here? What's your reasoning? - jc37 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When the topic has had no substantial commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. When reasonable efforts to find such commentary fail, then it's time to dispose of the article. Incoherent or idiosyncratic non-topics rarely have such commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I honestly don't think I disagree.

But to be sure, what do you mean by "independent of the subject"? - jc37 08:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In what context? If you're talking about a fictional franchise, then not the works comprising the franchise or the creator of the franchise or the owner of the franchise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So if the "topic" has such commentary/coverage, then information concerning the topic, including in-universe information (if talking about a fictional work), would be acceptable, right?

For example, if the topic of Star wars has such commentary/coverage, then in-universe information should be acceptable. Yes? - jc37 08:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the in-universe information necessary to understanding the content sourced to reliable sources. And keep in mind that coverage of Star Wars is not necessarily coverage of every single Star Wars-related subtopic.

If you want to write Chronology of Star Wars, it's going to need (reliable, indepndent, substantial) sources that actually talk about the Star Wars timeline. Not only that, but it's going to need to chiefly be based on them, rather than having, say, two paragraphs of commentary and 100K of conjecture-laden plot detail. Otherwise we'll probably see a substantial cut-down-and-merge or another AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether there are such sources aside for a moment, why do you think that a chronology of Star Wars is inappropriate in an article about Star Wars? Why do you suggest a requirement of "additional" sources for this? We dont require additional sources about Star Wars character lists to place a character list in the article. (There are obviously other such examples.) So why this? - jc37 08:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've described the difference between a list and a pile before, but a quick version: lists have (at least an implicit) topic, piles do not. Character lists have as their implicit topic the characterization of such-and-such work. The chronology is "List of things that happened in Star Wars licensed works or which were implied by Star Wars licensed works." What's the topic, there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) - Not sure what you mean by "pile" (though I have a guess...), but that aside...

To answer your question, the topic is Star Wars.

How is a list of events any different than a list of characters? Persons, places, objects, events, concepts: they're ALL fictional constructs. Are you suggesting that any has a "greater" requirement than any other? - jc37 09:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars has a fairly decent article that is at no risk of deletion. Articles need to be about subjects in their own right, though. This is the requirement: articles must be about subjects which are blahdy blah the GNG. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So the chronology's fine as long as it's on the same "page" as the Star Wars article?

(This will come across poorly, but it's honestly not meant sarcastically) - So essentially, due to WP:SIZE, we're deleting articles? The technology we use automatically places a title at the top of a page, and so we presume that to be the start of an article. Why need we make that presumption? We have series of pages (such as long lists which are split alphabteically on separate pages).

So if I were to list the events in Star Wars at Star Wars, they can stay. But if I split them to a separate page, they must be deleted? No other encyclopedia I can think of works that way. Do you think that Misplaced Pages should? - jc37 23:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They'd probably be edited out of that article as excessive plot summary. The rules for what gets its own article don't apply to intra-article content, but other rules and principles limit that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but limited only due to SIZE and readability concerns.

As for "what gets its own article", I would presume that that should absolutely never be an issue in a content discussion, since the topic is content, not how we at Misplaced Pages may decide to present that content for our readers.

Which brings us back to: How should we define "excessive"? Is it only based on SIZE? - jc37 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If a detail is so important it is essential to understanding of a topic, it belongs in the article on the topic. If the detail is not essential to understanding the topic, then it doesn't bear mentioning. These are just principles of effective writing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Experts tend to disagree about whether Faulkner or Hemmingway was a better writer : )

Information "not essential"? How do we define that now? "not essential", "excessive", and so on, all seem to (roughly) be synonyms, at least in this context. Is this definable, or is it a case of "I know it when I see it", and so, varies by individual? - jc37 05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. You're not going to get a universal definition of "brevity" or "essential" for all articles from me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And so, coming back to the statement higher up, the dividing line would then seem to be directly subjective (based upon editor's discretionary opinion). I-DONT-WANT-IT-HERE, for such-n-such reasons. Which I suppose is fine if a consensus based upon that can be gained. But it doesn't sound like something which immutable policy can be based upon, but rather merely guidelines determined through consensus.

Do you disagree? - jc37 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we come back to "no more plot summary than is necessary to understand the topic." Which means you'll need to justify why we need Obi-Wan's birthdate to understand a topic, and what topic that is, and why that topic is notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"...than is necessary to understand the topic."

So minimalistic? Or merely trying to stay within what is "needed", due to possible fair use concerns? Or both? - jc37 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Brevity, with an emphasis on overview or summary. Like an encyclopedia. We have "we do not include plot summary for plot summary's sake," so plot summary needs specific justification. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, from some reading I've been doing, if an encyclopedia can get permission from an author, they provide as much as they possibly can : )

We still may not yet have an article on it, but the Masterplots cyclopedic series, is one such. And I suppose we could consider cliff notes to be another, though it's a bit different. - jc37 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Protonk's questions

TPS here. I've been watching this thread for a little while. I'm not sure what you're trying to drag out of AMiB. In my opinion, the line is subjective, unless we limit ourselves to third party commentary only. Doing so is a pretty easy solution but would make it very difficult to provide a meaningful summary of fictional works. In that sense, our editing policies should have formed out of a balance between third party sourcing and meaningful depiction of the topic. Instead, they have developed out of a conflict between editors who feel that "meaningful" means exhaustive and editors who feel that meaningful means sparse. We can't ignore the elephant in the room here. Most of our fiction articles are written by people interested in the subject (hell, most of our articles on any subject period are written that way), which for some subjects lends itself to an article style (e.g. Horus Heresy) which an editor may call excessive. That decision doesn't stem immutably from first principles. It can't. It is a balance between what one set of editors perceives as the needs of the reader or perceives as "what an encyclopedia is" and what another editor perceives as meaningful and good work. I just don't know what you could hope to extract here that might prove a point. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal isn't to prove a point, or a "gotcha" moment. It's an attempt to garner mutual understanding. (As I at least tried to say from the start.)

And so many words have been thrown around with each editor defining them differently. The latest couple of AfDs in particular, it just seemed to me that everyone was talking past each other.

So here, on a talk page, with no deadline, I thought and think that we can try to actually figure out what is actually meant and not what we may presume each other mean.

And my experience with MiB is one where I have no doubt that the two of us can do this civilly. Something not always possible, such as with other more, let's say, "enthusiastic" editors, or those who see Misplaced Pages as a personal crusade rather than a collaborative project.

Does that clarify? - jc37 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. sorry it came off as combative. What I really meant to say was that we can go in circles over notions of subjectivity with respect to editing policy and where judgment comes and goes. Protonk (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think potentially only if you get more than two editors talking at the same time : )

When you have a single editor, that person has a sense of where their own dividing line it, though they may not have personally evaluated it.

When you have two editors, it's possible for them both to convey their personal dividing lines, and by so communicating, several possible things can happen, many of which lead to some sort of understanding, either of one's self, another person, or both.

There are few better ways to find out how solid the foundation of something is than to test it through explanation.

And so right now, I'm learning not only some of MiB's perspecitive, but also, conveying some of my own.

And if nothing else may come of this, I think we both may both be at least equal if not better collaborators/editors due to this. It is through discussion that we learn how to discuss, after all : )

So anyway, as for subjectivity, that's something that not everyone understands. It took User:Hiding repeatedly hitting me with a 2x4 to finally start to see how truly widespread it was. (A myriad of examples - Such as we once had a lengthy discussion about genres - but seriously, don't ask : )

So we attempt to determine what type of subjectivity each policy and guideline requires, both in existence, and in implementation. It's part of why we shouldn't lean too hard on "rules", since applicability may be in the eye of the beholder, and of course, WP:CCC... - jc37 06:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people do not use the word "subjective" the way you're using it. It does not mean vague, or "has lots of leeway." "Only the information necessary to understanding the topic" is a subjective standard (and so is "substantial coverage" and "reliable source" and "undue weight" but let's not get into those), but it doesn't call for "Yes it's necessary" "No it's not" "Yuh-huh" "Nuh-uh" gainsaying bullshit. A subjective standard frames the discussion. "This piece of information is necessary because..." "I understand that, but it's merely an example of the group discussed here, and we have ample examples already." "Yes, but it also illustrates this, and..." etc.

Deciding what's necessary for understanding a topic is the hard part of encyclopedic editing and writing. You want to inform but not overwhelm, and break down the topic in logical ways without giving an overview that is uselessly vague. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Subjective", as in something (abstract) which is "subject" to the whim (decision) of an individual or group, and not based upon empirical (concrete) results.

To make a somewhat humourous aside (with apologies to The Matrix): "The problem is choice."

So just because something may be incredibly obvious to one individual, that doesn't necessarily make it obvious to everyone. And two people can be fully within the mission here, and yet have different perspectives on implementation, or even just simply where the dividing line between "acceptable" and "excessive" are.

And further, the solution to "excessive", I would presume, would be pruning (editing), not deletion (removal)? And that can go for anything from a sentence, to a paragraph, to a page, to a group of pages.

So, for example, the case of Obi-Wan's birthday. That may not seem important by itself, but as a part of a larger work, it may be. For a reader to understand the scope and the years involved in the story, for example. A generational saga. And while one individual event may not be necessarily important in and of itself, it helps serve as a guidepost for those tying to comapre, to understand the time frames involved.

To use a real-world example, The Roman empire was around for over a thousand years. Most people don't really understand that. "Rome was back then sometime." But to compare Rome to the reign of Alexander (great though he may have been), doesn't put the information into perspective. So chronologies are excellent ways to be overviews of a work. Use of a chronolgy can actually help concatenate the text even further. It's an important presentation tool, regardless of whether it's used for "real" history, or an fictional history.

But whether the use of one is "useful" in any particular case, is a "subjective" choice. (Hence why it can be debated at AfD.)

But trying to explain historicity and the effects of epic storytelling, and skaldic literature, and so forth, at AfD, isn't likely going to break through the back-n-forth shouts of IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT : )

That and of course, the question of the applicability of WP:USEFUL tends to come up : )

Even though part of our mission is to be "useful" to our readers...

So anyway, as I said above, I think we pretty much agree. What seems to be coming out is (possibly) a difference of opinion on where the dividing line may be, and upon what tools may be acceptable to facilitate presentation.

Though I'm honestly not certain about that.

What do you think? - jc37 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, interjecting. I think that there is a substantive difference between a chronology of the roman empire and a chronology of the Old Republic (BTW, a chronology of that scale might make the exact date of Obi-wan's birth irrelevant). There are hundreds of reliable sources for both dates in a hypothetical chronology of the Roman empire and hundreds of published chronologies alone. The upper bound for detail that we can achieve without plagarism or original research is quite high for rome (this is distinct from the editorial issue of presentation of detail). Not so for star wars. Arguably the Star Wars franchise has a great deal of published material about it (from an out-of-universe standpoint) and a considerable amount of in-universe detail as well (if we grant that licensed 'histories' are reliable sources...a stance that I'm lukewarm toward)--this comparison gets easier if we talk about the chronology of Firefly or Photon. But the point remains. Chronologies (or any in-universe heavy description) trends toward original research, non-neutral presentation and sometimes close plagiarism simply due to the nature of sourcing (arguably there is an element editor decisionmaking here. I have learned from fans of Warhammer 40,000 that my rewrite of the article was a hack-job that left out everything "important". In that case I would view their stance as a predilection toward exhaustive detail). How do I stitch together a chronology of World of Warcraft (assuming for a moment that licensed histories don't exist) without a close reading and interpretation of material presented in game? We try to thread the needle over at WP:PSTS (and do a poor job, IMO), but PLOT (and N) give us an easy way to sidestep that whole issue. I don't think we have to get into a discussion of "real" history versus "fictional" history. That's a canard (no offense intended). going down that path only raises hackles over perceived biases and unfair treatment. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You just missed (and conceivably made) my point in my last comments above rather spectacularly.

For one: "But whether the use of one is "useful" in any particular case, is a "subjective" choice. (Hence why it can be debated at AfD.)"

I merely used the obi-wan example (weak, admittedly though it was), because MiB used it above : )

Let's not get lost in the examples, and miss the broader topic under discussion.

For another: "But trying to explain at AfD, isn't likely going to break through the back-n-forth shouts of IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT : )"

Which is much of what I think you're describing (such as your WH 40K example). As an aside, I think part of it is that you're very used to having to discuss/debate with others at that level.

This isn't AfD, so you don't have to convince me (or MiB, for that matter) whether chronologies should stay or go.

(Though if you would like my opinion, I think that a chronology, like any type of list, is a tool. And like any tool, should be used appropriately, and not be used inappropriately. And of course, how we define the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, is (wait for it) subjective : )

Which was/is the import of this discussion. Learning where each other stand, and by taking a moment to put thought to word, learning where we ourselves may stand, is a helpful part of development, especially in a consensus-driven environment, such as this one.

I'm fairly certain that MiB isn't a raving deletionist, and I'm fairly sure I'm not a mindless inclusionist. And I would hope that others grow beyond merely "IWANTIT", and come up with well-founded reasons "why" something should be kept or deleted.

THAT is, in my opinion, the main problem with XfD. Almost all the arguments are weak anymore. The great debates would seem to be gone. And when one starts, someone invariably wants to move it to the talk page, since it interferes with "voting". Anyway, I digress.

For now, I'll point MiB to my comments above, since it has a question yet : ) - jc37 11:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add, other than I continue to be baffled by the obsession with the difference between removing some inappropriate content from an article and removing an article composed entirely of inappropriate content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant, I said something above, and then asked you a question. (Right above "Again interjecting".) - jc37 13:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to be too harsh, I cannot find any coherent thesis to address or question to answer in that comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I guess means you disagree? Or perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the comments, and need to clarify? - jc37 00:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarify please. Ideally briefly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) Sorry about the delay, I had a nice extended weekend : )

(Almost got to see the new Fast and Furious, but I suppose that it wasn't in the cards. Perhaps another day...)

Anyway, the question was whether you agree or disagree. But the question was dependent upon the prior massive blocks of discussive text. (lol)

Here's a repeat of the question:

• "So anyway, as I said above, I think we pretty much agree. What seems to be coming out is (possibly) a difference of opinion on where the dividing line may be, and upon what tools may be acceptable to facilitate presentation. Though I'm honestly not certain about that. What do you think?"

So (presuming you even remember half of what we were discussing), what do you think? - jc37 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That Guy with the Glasses

Hello! I only recently discovered that The Nostalgia Critic has his own article on this site, via here. Honestly, I don't think he is all that notable enough for inclusion on this encyclopedia, as most of the references are from his own website, as well as some from unreliable sources. I also don't think he's all that notable. I think a problem is that according to the the last AFD, almost all of the keep votes came from I.P.'s and new accounts, and one keep vote came from Brad M, so the result of the discussion was "No consensus." Do you agree that the user is not notable? If so, do you think I should go for a Prod or an AFD? I ask you because we both had similar viewpoints on the removal of the Nostalgia Critic section in the Angry Video Game Nerd article. CarpetCrawler 00:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we have the sort of sourcing we need for a proper article, but the Times and the Guardian both wrote articles about him. I've been fooling with drafts of an AFD, and anything I can come up with would be rightly torn to pieces. I'm uncomfortable with this as a BLP, but I can't organize a proper argument to delete it.

Sometimes it's worth picking a losing fight in order to say something that needs to be said, but I don't think this is one of those times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ehhh, I still don't believe that because he had two write-ups, it means that he's notable enough for inclusion. But unfortunately, you're right in that any arguments would be torn up. Another problem would be the various I.P.'s coming in to say keep because they like the guy. Alas, I guess it would be a losing battle. Thanks for your time. :) CarpetCrawler 06:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

While I agree with your revert here, rollback wasn't warranted. The edit wasn't vandalism, and it probably would have been better to do a manual revert with an informative edit summary. Thanks, Artichoker 00:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Torchic Pokemon

If you are going to revert my changes, at least tell me why.... Why does that talk page redirect? That makes no sense at all. Talk pages of redirects could tell WHY it was redirected. (Not that I need to know) --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip

A man once said "Sometimes it's worth picking a losing fight in order to say something that needs to be said, but I don't think this is one of those times". I think this is a case where that advice applies. Ikip certainly does everything he can to make sure that people inclined to keep an article see that an AFD is in progress, and makes no effort to discuss it with people that are inclined to delete. In this particular instance, he didn't cross the lines laid down by WP:CANVASS, though. You won't get far with the argument that a related article's talk page is a non-neutral location, even though it certainly is in practice.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, if you are not willing to unblock, you should immediately recuse yourself from opposing unblock, allow any neutral administrator to make the decision promptly. Whether or not you were "involved" before, you are now, and whenever reasonable doubt is raised regarding neutrality, recusal should be prompt. That doesn't unblock, it allows another admin to make the decision without wheel-warring. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If an admin warns you to stop doing something, and you spew venom at them in reply, is that admin now "involved"? The fact that Ikip doesn't like me doesn't suddenly mean that I don't like him. I don't like his disruption, and I'm empowered to act appropriately to stop it. Now, I may or may not be acting appropriately to stop it; on that point I am torn. But this idea that I'm acting on some sort of vendetta is silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, neither Kww nor I claimed that you were clearly involved. Were you clearly involved, something which I can't assert because I haven't researched it, recusal and avoidance of tools would have been a clear obligation. But it wasn't necessary to determine this, because when there are assertions, supported by more than one editor, that you are involved, immediate recusal is highly advisable. You correctly pointed out that your posting to AN/I was a recusal, of sorts, but it's obvious that many editors didn't take it that way, and had you immediately and explicitly recused, the matter might have been resolved much more quickly with less disruption. Once you've recused, argument regarding your involvement becomes moot and, indeed, disruptive. Recusal is far more important than many seem to understand, and I'm now before RfAr over this; I have little doubt but that ArbComm will confirm the importance of it. I was blocked last year by Iridescent, and Iridescent, with the block itself (or immediately thereafter, I forget) recused. As a result, though there was some debate that took place on my Talk page, no process reached to Iridescent, who had simply done, in the heat of the moment, what she thought best. I later used WP:DR to work things out with the *warning* admin, and quite successfully, and didn't take this up with Iridescent because, while I think she erred, it had become moot. I highly recommend, if you can find time, trying to patch things up with Ikip, there are steps you could take that might defuse much unnecessary disruption, and if you need help, I think he respects me and would cooperate, should I intervene. Suppose you develop a decent working relationship, and you thought he was canvassing. You'd warn him and ask him to stop. If he didn't stop, immediately, you'd short block to get his attention. Very short. And then you'd work out the dispute, if one remained. But with a decent relationship, even that much conflict is unlikely, assuming that Ikip is at all responsive, and if he isn't, well, that's his problem. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of recusal is completely foreign to me, which renders moot all of this talk about conditions for recusal. Isn't reversing an administrative action exactly like making one? You can reverse it if you feel the need is clear and pressing, or discuss it until someone is convinced to act. I don't own my administrative actions save that I am responsible for them. If I need to explicitly recuse from some sort of ownership in order to do that, then tell me how so I can just put that on my userpage and save myself the headaches next time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is worth losing to get things out in the open, though. This was enlightening, if less productive than I might've hoped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist's questions

• Hi AMIB. Please note that I've commented at the ANI so as to give you an opportunity to respond, as well as several other users. I would request that you answer my questions as promptly as possible.

1. You mentioned a pattern of behaviour and warnings over canvassing. Could you provide some diffs of specific examples of the warnings (and if not included in the warnings, examples of the canvassing behaviour)?
2. Some users think that you used these diffs as the basis for needing a block now: . Are they correct about each of these diffs?
3. Were there any other (very recent) diffs that you considered for the block?

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NCMV, let's give AMIB some time on this, now that it's out of the hot environment of AN/I, and the emergency of a debatable block. If there is a dispute remaining, on reflection, WP:CANVASS could be a place to discuss it, or, if there is editorial misbehavior, then normal dispute resolution can be followed on that. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on this elaboration at ANI. Good questions, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, it's now moot, Ikip has been unblocked by Rootology, and I archived the discussion, because it was just attracting disruptive comment. If you believe that you want to add something there, you may revert my archiving, I won't object at all, but my sense is that the most positive thing you could do is to acknowledge a block error, perhaps on User talk:Ikip, or below the archive box. I have no opinion on whether or not Ikip has been, previously, a problem with regard to canvassing, I did not investigate, I only saw a problem with this specific block, here. Your explicit recusal was a good move, just as was your taking the matter to AN/I in the first place. You could argue, I think successfully if push came to shove, that you perceived an emergency, hence you blocked first and asked questions later. Concerns about involvement, though, were not entirely unwarranted; but you made them completely moot by recusing. I suggest an apology because this can help heal wounds, but creates no prejudice for the future. Grovelling is not suggested, simply acknowledgment that "Oops! Sorry." If, on the other hand, you still believe that those notices were actually canvassing, and it's worth pursuing, then, no, don't apologize, but pursue dispute resolution. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is inappropriate because it's not a dispute between the two of us. RFC is completely braindamaged. RFAr is more nuclear than I'd like. Part of the problem is that this does walk a line; it's disruptive, but not do destructively so that an RFC will be clear enough to get out of the quagmire every single user RFC always descends into, nor so destructive that I can bring a reasonable RFAr case up.

Like I've said before. It's troubling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked a question above that should be answered. You warn an editor for canvassing. The editor spews venom at you. If you block the editor for personal attack or canvassing, at that point, with there being no more canvassing, you have acted while involved, because, on the face, you blocked for personal insult, not for canvassing. However, if the editor continues to canvass, and you block, then there is no evidence that you blocked due to anything personal. However, if the editor says, "I wasn't canvassing, you complete idiot," you inform the editor how the editor can resolve what is now a dispute. At this point, if you block, you should also notify AN/I and recuse from further involvement. If there is no emergency (actual canvassing is an emergency, because of damage done to a discussion), you don't block. You avoid any appearance of action while involved.

Notice, when you notify AN/I, some other administrator might block for personal attack. However, that's generally deprecated, because we expect editors told to stop doing what they want to do to get upset. Basically, at that point, the venom is moot. Ignore it except as there is something possibly legitimate about it, like a need to appeal your decision that the editor is canvassing. In which case, good uninvolved administrator that you are, you assist the editor. Right?

In a case like this, had I been warned for canvassing for putting up a neutral notice on an article talk page, I would have stopped doing it, even if I disagreed, but I'd have then, immediately, gone to AN/I for an independent review if discussion with the warning admin didn't resolve the issue, if I thought the matter urgent. If not, possibly AN, or, even less laid back, I'd have tried to find a third party to mediate. Good administrative procedure is to always assist the editor to do what they want to do, but within guidelines and policy. (Which might mean finding out they can't do it, but your position is always helpful, at the same time as you are firm in protecting the project.) "You redirected Barack Obama to Stuff and nonsense? I'd have to block you if you do it again, but you can go to Talk:Barack Obama and make the suggestion. It might be best to wait until April 1."

I hope this was helpful. --Abd (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is about step seventeen, however. He's been warned and warned and warned about canvassing, and rarely denies it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Misplaced Pages

The article went through the AfD process but doesn't seem to have the "this article had an AfD, result was keep" template on its talkpage. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sofixit, I guess? Those templates change all the time, and I don't keep up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, it's Template:oldafdfull and it seems to kinda be part of the official Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process that admins are supposed to follow according to Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nnooo

I don't think you are supposed to prematurely close an open AfD because you redirected the article. (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nnooo). --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The content was already merged into another article, so it couldn't be deleted, and the consensus was pretty clearly running to back that merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Table tech?

Hi, Man in Black-- I don't follow the off-article goings on much unless they sneak up and bite me on the arse, so I don't know what this "new table tech" is... but I'm intrigued. Are you referring to the Yokohama Film Festival article? If so, its format is actually pretty similar to the Pink Grand Prix format-- i.e., Ten "Best" Films of the year, and then the various personnel awards-- and my OR POV instincts tell me the Pink awards were modeled on the Yokohama. Other than the Japanese Wiki article on the Yokohama Festival, I haven't seen all 10 films listed for each year, so I've just done the "Best Film" and the personnel awards. I have the awards pretty jumbled up, and plan on putting them in a standard order later. My Japanese is pretty rusty, so I'm not sure on a lot of this. The category headings were copied off the IMDb listings which, though "unreliable" I've included as English-language back-up to the Japanese citations at the Yokohama homepage. I don't know the difference between the "Special" and the "Special Jury" prizes. The awards seem to be based on a fan poll, so maybe the Jury award is one given out by the professionals assembled at the ceremony? Just a guess... All the Japanese awards I've seen often list more than one winner per category. I'm not sure if this is a "tie" or if they give a "second place" award in certain years... There is probably explanation at one of the Japanese articles cited in the article, but these are questions I'd have to go to a native Japanese editor to ask about. Anyway, looking forward to seeing what you've got in mind with the format. And while we're at it-- could you take a look at the edit-history of The Machine Girl. It's been under some pretty heavy vandalism lately, and might need admin intervention. Dekkappai (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is far from done, but what's there looks decent. The new table tech is tables you can resort on the fly; can't think of any offhand, though, but I'll scrounge one. I'll see what I can do with a table there; revert if anything bugs you.

As for the vandalism, it's dealt with. WP:AIV is usually a better bet for getting an admin to come deal with obvious vandals, though; I'm usually not around long enough to dig in and figure out what's going on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)