Revision as of 17:25, 10 January 2013 view sourceThibbs (talk | contribs)28,090 edits →Dream Basketball: Dunk & Hoop← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:45, 15 January 2013 view source SNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,243 edits →AnitaNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
::::Yeps, what a pity. :( Btw, I forgot to tell you: I created a tumblr account few weeks ago and posted your ads. http://hydao.tumblr.com/ ... Maybe tumblr is a good "tool" to share these things once in a while. If you have a tumblr account or plan to create one in the future let me know so I can follow you. o/ --] (]) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ::::Yeps, what a pity. :( Btw, I forgot to tell you: I created a tumblr account few weeks ago and posted your ads. http://hydao.tumblr.com/ ... Maybe tumblr is a good "tool" to share these things once in a while. If you have a tumblr account or plan to create one in the future let me know so I can follow you. o/ --] (]) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::Yeah good point. I'll let you know if I get a tumblr account. And thanks for giving me credit. :) -] (]) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | :::::Yeah good point. I'll let you know if I get a tumblr account. And thanks for giving me credit. :) -] (]) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Anita == | |||
I responded to you. (Remember: always actually check the sources.) --] (]) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I responsed again and, seriously, I meant it with ''always actually check the sources''. --] (]) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:45, 15 January 2013
HELLO - This is the talk page for Thibbs. Please place messages to me at the bottom of my talk page and I will reply as soon as I find the free time. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Normally I will leave my reply here on this page. Thank you.
Archives |
Aug. '06 — Jun. '09 (35mo.) How active am I currently? Look at the number of months covered by my archives. If the numbers are shrinking I'm becoming more active. If they are growing I'm slowing down. |
What defines "cruft"
I'd like to here more about what you consider cruft. I have had experiences with anti-cruft editors before, but none of them approached it with your to rational discussion and calm conversation. I oppose much of the Misplaced Pages:LISTCRUFT essay mainly because of WP:NOTPAPER, and because any list passing content guidelines (mainly N, V and DUE) should be OK.
Are you interested in having this debate in more general terms than what can be discussed in the list AfD? I'd be thrilled to learn about the cruft worldview from you. Diego (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've dealt with a lot of "list of fictional x" articles in the past and my view on them has evolved from an outright call for their deletion to a more nuanced view with the thrust of my argument being to clean them up dramatically. The essential root of my concern over them is that they are by and large unencyclopedic and this is an encyclopedia we are crafting even if it's not a paper one. I think that in their present condition they often greatly harm the credibility of wikipedia as a serious work and make it look like an autistic child's playground. These are hard terms and I don't have the time just right now to go into all of my thoughts on the issue (I'm pretty busy irl and relating to work on newsletter stuff), but I will try to respond more fully as soon as possible. -Thibbs (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK this is going to be a little tl;dr so I'll put it in a box below.
Why individual list-member notability is important for avoiding listcruft The three common selection criteria listed at WP:CSC impose varying levels of verifiability requirements to correspond with varying sizes of articles. CSC Type 2 lists (very short lists where "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria") seem to lack explicit verifiability requirements although presumably WP:V still applies if anyone challenges an entry. CSC Type 3 lists ("Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group") explicitly mandate bare verifiability as an inclusion criterion, and CSC Type 1 lists (large lists in danger of becoming indiscriminate collections of information or in danger of becoming "too large to be useful to readers") require notability as an inclusion criterion for every member of the list. Notability, of course, is nothing more than verifiability with the additional requirement that the RSes cover the topic "significantly." So essentially the longer a list the greater the degree to which WP:V must be met.
But why are these limits suggested as the "common selection criteria"? What benefit does Misplaced Pages gain from limiting the scope of what content is acceptable for a list article? This question is the crux of the matter for me. As I see it Misplaced Pages gains credibility as an encyclopedia by treating its content as encyclopedic content. As I see it this is a fundamental requirement of Misplaced Pages's Pillar #1 - "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia". According to this first pillar, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Furthermore, "Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed". I understand these as clear suggestions that enormous lists of everything that is verifiably a member of the parent group are neither encyclopedic nor are they wanted at Misplaced Pages. As the world becomes increasingly well-documented, thanks to the internet, the line between verifiable information and stuff that was just made up one day becomes thinner and thinner. Bare verifiability does not make something suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, and the bundling of merely verifiable material into huge potentially unbounded lists undermines the purpose of having lists in the first place.
There are three basic purposes for having lists: Information, navigation, and development. As I see it, none of these three purposes are well-served by very large lists not held to the elevated notability standard. Considering that we're talking about the introduction of material that is not notable into lists like this, we can forget about development from the get-go. Traditional articles will never be written on non-notable topics so that "list purpose" is clearly a non-starter here. Information and navigation aspects are intimately tied together and basically I see their undermining in the inevitable need for article splitting. Throughout WP:LIMIT, the suggestion is made that The likelihood of a need to divide/split "goes up with size" and that a split list "should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope". This is echoed in WP:NOTPAPER's claim that "keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Misplaced Pages's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time." As I see it the splitting of articles harms their consistency and the filling of large lists like this with non-notable material means that readers will spend large amounts of time wading through information that may be only one step away from something that was "just made up one day". This has the effect of obscuring information that readers are in fact likely to be searching for (assuming that notable topics tend to be of greater relevance to readers interests - a basic assumption of Misplaced Pages's operations).
I have seen frequent arguments at the various "list of fictional X" articles I've dealt with in the past, that sources in general are not required for list members. And I strongly reject this idea. I have to admit that I am really happy to see someone arguing for the basic verifiability criterion rather than arguing for doing away with sources altogether, but for lists that grow beyond a certain point or that risk growth beyond a certain size, I think only a notability criterion will be of any use in meeting Misplaced Pages's goals and in serving the readership usefully.
- In the way of a summary, I think that failure to use notability as an inclusion criterion for large-topic lists leads to the inclusion of indiscriminate collections of information, directory-style catalogs, and (even in a best-case scenario) to the reduction of navigability resulting from the inevitable split(s) such an article will require under WP:LIMIT. -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note that having just read through Torchiest's comment at the AfD I agree with his thought that notability can be foregone as the extra limit on top of bare verifiability provided that other limits are imposed like limiting the list by game series, year, etc. As a general rule I prefer to suggest the use of notability as a single and simple standard, but it's ultimately a case-by-case matter. -Thibbs (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the way of a summary, I think that failure to use notability as an inclusion criterion for large-topic lists leads to the inclusion of indiscriminate collections of information, directory-style catalogs, and (even in a best-case scenario) to the reduction of navigability resulting from the inevitable split(s) such an article will require under WP:LIMIT. -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Sniff! That was beautiful! :'-) Diego (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC) |
- Well thank you. I was pretty shocked by some of the frankly history-ignorant claims coming out of the AfD regarding notable aspects of interactive fiction, but on the positive side it's led to more RSes for a genre-shaping game and to the establishment of notability for one of the genre's highest awards. So thank you for your efforts as well! -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Festivus
Happy Festivus! | ||
Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest edits 14:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
- Hey thanks and the same wishes to you! I hope your holiday season is filled with restfulness, good cheer, and all the other seasonal trappings. I'm still working (slowly) on a newsletter feature, by the way, and I think I'm still on track to put it out for the Jan 2 deadline. -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. Let me know if you'd like another copy edit this go round. —Torchiest edits 15:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hah, OK. Thanks for the offer. -Thibbs (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. Let me know if you'd like another copy edit this go round. —Torchiest edits 15:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
2013
Hey Thibbs, just wanted to say: "Happy 2013!". o/ --Hydao (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Same to you! -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Thibbs! Happy New Year. Hopefully a better one. RaidenRules! (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've got a busy Day 1 of 2013 since I'm working on an article, but it's shaping up and hopefully I'll get it done before evening. I hope you have a great 2013. -Thibbs (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Thibbs! Happy New Year. Hopefully a better one. RaidenRules! (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Female characters
About your last comment in the discussion, there's not a "a lot of resistance" to tightening the inclusion criteria, it's against using notability in particular as the way to tighten it. Your argument would make sense in theory and is used to keep in check topics much bigger than this (buildings of the world, movie awards). But the field of video game study is not as developed as to expect that applying a generic manual of style will provide a balanced coverage with more than one source for each important (to reliable sources, not to us) character. Diego (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think we've just got different perspectives on it.
- My past experiences have been in trying to get very messy and unmanaged lists into some sort of decent shape. And these experiences have been with large articles on fictional animals like "list of fictional dogs." Prior to some basic cleanup these articles were full of entries like "unnamed collie who appears in 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure" and "The Puppy Formerly Known as Prince, from The Simpsons." These were characters from notable fictional works but they were totally and utterly trivial and there was a potentially infinite number of them. In trying to argue for reasonable limits on the inclusion criteria of articles like these my efforts were met with stiff resistance from editors who just really really liked the way the list currently looked regardless of whether it looked encyclopedic or regardless of whether it was difficult to navigate. Although the limitation of "list of female characters in video games" narrows the topic more than "fictional dogs (in all fictional media)," the term "female character" is just as broad if not broader than "dog" and that makes me have visions of a bad future for the article without some semi-strict limits.
- From what you said at the AfD, it sounds like your past experiences have been with editors who under a CSC#1 regime sought (improperly) to remove notable characters from lists simply because no Misplaced Pages article had been written about them. And I can see that this misapplication of the rules must have been frustrating to you especially if there were several editors who took this incorrect approach leaving you little recourse. And so I can understand why you would be mistrustful of notability as a useful inclusion criterion.
- At core, though, I think we are basically interested in the same thing - usable and high quality articles. Where we differ is just in where exactly to draw the line. -Thibbs (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Edge - Minter
Haven't forgotten, just having trouble with Google's OCR image to text since they changed it. Will have to get the camera out and send you photos of the pages. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds great. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Dream Basketball: Dunk & Hoop
Hey Thibbs, just created the article, if you have the reception thing, please add it when possible. o/ --Hydao (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a cross review for this game, sadly. -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you added for this one, I thought that... o/--Hydao (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I almost had it since I have issue #309 which covers November 11-18 of 1994, but I'm guessing it must have been reviewed in the next week's issue which I am missing... -Thibbs (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeps, what a pity. :( Btw, I forgot to tell you: I created a tumblr account few weeks ago and posted your ads. http://hydao.tumblr.com/ ... Maybe tumblr is a good "tool" to share these things once in a while. If you have a tumblr account or plan to create one in the future let me know so I can follow you. o/ --Hydao (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah good point. I'll let you know if I get a tumblr account. And thanks for giving me credit. :) -Thibbs (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeps, what a pity. :( Btw, I forgot to tell you: I created a tumblr account few weeks ago and posted your ads. http://hydao.tumblr.com/ ... Maybe tumblr is a good "tool" to share these things once in a while. If you have a tumblr account or plan to create one in the future let me know so I can follow you. o/ --Hydao (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I almost had it since I have issue #309 which covers November 11-18 of 1994, but I'm guessing it must have been reviewed in the next week's issue which I am missing... -Thibbs (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you added for this one, I thought that... o/--Hydao (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Anita
I responded to you. (Remember: always actually check the sources.) --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I responsed again and, seriously, I meant it with always actually check the sources. --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)