User talk:Phil Sandifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: You may want to glance at my userpage before leaving me a message, especially if the message has something to do with policy.

Contents

[edit] wow

You'd PROD articles that should go to AfD? Huh. This is something you're proud of? Isn't that just laziness? Herostratus 05:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, well, maybe. Still, a lot of articles are obvious AfD's rather than PRODs. But I see your point. Herostratus 07:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting Things Simply

Hi. Since I understand that you're not going to let process get in the way of writing the encyclopdia, an admirable plan, I've decided to phrase this in a simple, straightforward, and obvious way: stop making obviously bad edits that make the encyclopdia worse. Thanks! Nandesuka 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Phil. I'm glad to help you improve your editing. I believe the crux of the matter is that your understanding of what the word "verifiable" means is flawed. Perhaps chatting with some journalism professors might help? I'm sorry that you feel my blunt observation that these edits are bad is incivil, but I really think I'd be doing you a disservice to mince words. You need to step up to the plate and do a better job. To put it in terms that you should understand, I think you need to consider what would happen if someone other than you showed up at an article — let's pick "George Bush", for the sake of argument — and said "Oh, I talked to George Bush's wife at a dinner party, and she says that his favorite color is green." That's the type of edit you are making; even if true it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. That's a bad edit. It's not incivil to point that out. Hope that helps!Nandesuka 14:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
When you say "such corroboration is uneccesary," you're clearly mistaken. I think what you meant was that such corroboration exists, because it was a public forum, etc., etc. Unfortunately, since you don't actually provide any such citation to reputable third-party reports of that public forum, we're left with just your word. Which, obviously, is insufficient. I mean of course I trust you -— your word is absolutely golden to me, Phil! — but it's utterly inadequate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I hope that clears things up for you. Nandesuka 14:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't throw the baby out too

Some more things you need to include in your fundamentals. Well, WP:V, for a start. How else can factual disputes be resolved? Stephen B Streater 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dobedo

Hi Phil - according to the deletion log you deleted Dobedo on 14 September. I can't tell what your rationale for deleting was as you didn't give an edit summary, so would you mind telling me why you deleted it? It has already survived an AfD, so PRODing wouldn't be appropriate. --Kwekubo 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting the text back up would be helpful, thanks, I've been meaning to tackle the article for a while. Might as well do it now. --Kwekubo 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. --Kwekubo 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just write the bloody encyclopedia

So I figured why not try it? After all, I've been here for two and a half years. I've got a pretty good idea of what we're doing here. Why not just stop worrying about what all the policy pages say today, and about what the process to list something on AfD is?

Sure. Guess how long I've been around. In the spirit of experimentation, I suggest logging out for a while too. I'm serious. 72.137.20.109 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I did that for about a month. Watchlist free living is wonderful. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Bah. That's what Related Changes is for. But, you have my worthless anonymous blessing either way. Go, and sin no more. 72.137.20.109 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good luck

Just wanted to wish you well with the project. Wish I had your balls. That's all, really. --Steve block Talk 15:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MFD

Don't bother with a DRV on Wikipedia:Identity verification, I assumed too much good faith in the comments made in the deletion discussion, after a much more thorough review there is no reason to hold up the emerged consensus in that discussion. I've deleted the page, it's talk page, and it's redirect, and updated The MFD record. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OUT OF PORCESS ROUGE ADMNIN

Bah! I keep looking at your process log hoping for more ... - David Gerard 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Armstrong

Louis Armstrong is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L'affaire Bogdanov

Greetings and salutations. I noticed that way back when, you helped bring the dispute over Bogdanov Affair before the ArbCom. You might like to see the current state of that article and find out how a few of us have tried to improve it. My personal hope is that getting all the details in the open will make life easier the next time such a brouhaha erupts, either in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Anville 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use common sense

You seem to be saying "use common sense". Isn't there a guideline that says this already? I'm probably thinking of WP:IAR, but I wrote something on this recently that seems similar to what you are saying: see here. Carcharoth 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court of infinite appeals

Like you said earlier, I've now seen rather more 4th and 5th AFD nominations than I'd care for. It's a well-known fact that if an article is deleted a bunch of times, we protect it against recreation unless it passes through DRV; how about if an article is kept-on-AFD a bunch of times, it is protected against deletion unless it passes through DRV? Would it be instruction creep to say that "after X AFDs that didn't result in deletion, any further attempts may be speedily closed unless DRV decides otherwise"? >Radiant< 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this here while following up something else. Hope you don't mind me butting in. I would say it depends on the reason for the renomination. If the reason is based on an argument where consensus may have changed, then AfD is a suitable venue. If it is a bad-faith nomination where not much has changed, then that should be incorporated into the speedy close reasons. I would add something to the AfD guidelines (or expand the existing guidelines) to guide people on when it is suitable to renominate (ie. article content has changed - though surely reverting back to the earlier version would address this; a policy has recently changed; previous debates were very close or did not reach a consensus). I would be against any protection of articles merely because they had been nominated for deletion lots of times. Also, it needs to be clearer whether contesting "keep" results at AfD is done through DRV or a new AfD. Carcharoth 10:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

WT:RS#Top-to-bottom_rewrite_proposed - I have taken your name in vain and could do with your contribution wearing your professional hat - David Gerard 10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would this be enough to help with the situations you find frustrating? "There are certain articles about pop culture and fiction that are forced to rely on self-published posts on bulletin boards, blogs, and Usenet, because no other sources exist for them. These kinds of sources should only be used for articles about pop culture and fiction. The material relied on must have been posted by named individuals with a known expertise in the area, although the individual need not be a professional in a relevant field. Anonymous posts should never be used." See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published_sources, point 4. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've also added this in the section discussing primary/secondary sources: "Articles about pop culture and works of fiction may sometimes rely on editors' interpretations of primary source material, because of the lack of secondary sources. In these cases, editors should use good editorial judgment and common sense." I'm hoping that will help too. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional to recognised

I've attempted to get a change from professional to recognised through. Thoughts appreciated either way. [1] Steve block Talk 19:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Gonzales

Hey, Phil. Replying in full here, as I don't think it's extremely pertinent to the WP:ATT discussion. I considered rewriting the Speedy Gonzales page, but I've just got too much on my plate right now. In addition to Schneider's That's All Folks!, the standard animation histories by Beck, Maltin, Solomon, Barrier, etc., and the DVD commentary on the Golden Collection discs, there is quite a lot of information about Speedy as a Mexican stereotype and whether or not this is a good thing. Just look at these Google Books hits. These Google Scholar results are also potentially useful, though I haven't looked at them carefully. Finally, newspaper and magazine archives can probably turn up information on any protests/anti-protests against or for the character. I think there's more than enough there for someone to whip that article into a good, scholarly FA. — BrianSmithson 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Felony vandalism

When I wrote that edit summary, I thought that vandalizing the main page of Wikipedia was grounds for an indefinite block. I apologize if you misheard. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Removing your semi-protection

It's nice of you to leave me a note but please don't screw with any of my pages unless you are indeed a sysop/admin.

I think it's important for newbs to contact the appropriate people on Wikipedia for any questions and concerns they may have, not me. I do not welcome, appreciate, nor respond to Anonymous comments unless I absolutely feel the need to. Thanks, Phil. Sweet Pinkette 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing semi-protection

Hi. I've removed the semi-protection on your talk page. I know that vandalism of talk pages can be a problem, but it's important that users be able to be contacted by newbies with questions and concerns about things they don't understand. I hope you understand - please feel free to contact me with any questions. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem--my page seems to have pretty clearly fallen w/in the "special circumstances" clause[[2]] of WP:SPP, but the vandal has since moved on. I actually would appreciate your removing protection on my front page as well. Note: I understand your position and opinion on this subject, but looking at the discussion at WP:SPP that you are involved in, it does not seem to have yet been accepted as WP. -Robotam 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA deletion

Mega Man weapons, though its GA status is contested (and thus it's removed from the list). However, that was due partially to a merging of badly written material into the article. But it was a GA when it was nominated, which suggests to me that some AfD nominators don't care about GA status. I believe under a strict interpretation of the current WP:V rules the sources wouldn't be allowed in. I'm not sure if a more lenient interpretation would have allowed them in either. ColourBurst 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for explanation

Hi. Thank you for your aid with getting me to understand Wikipedia:Attribution. Your points were an important help, though I still think that the task of determining whether or not a site enjoys respect within its community... sucks.

I'm sorry for the pointlessly confrontational tone. More than one editor had previously told me that clear, uncontestable, publically available evidence of our own eyes is completely worthless. "We are an encyclopedia, therefore we don't write about what is Wikipedia:Readily_Observable" ... "we write about what is Wikipedia:Verifiable through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources..." Gah. :P

[edit] Timeline skew theories for The West Wing

You deleted the above page after a prod expired. I have previously read that article, and was about to read it again today, but it appears I came one day too late to remove the prod and save the article. How would one go about getting this article undeleted? Suoerh2 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It has already survived one AFD, so what makes you think it will not survive another? After all it is the main article to a section in a "featured article". So if it's good enough for a section in a featured article, its probably good enough to expand upon.
Your reasoning against this article is contradictory, you say:
the article is an unsourced fan theory that is necessarily based on unreliable and minor sources.
Which is it? Either it's sourced or it's not. I'm not sure what your problems are with the sources, but for articles about television shows, the television show itself is a very good source, not minor, not unreliable. The article also sources things directly to the producers of the show, another very good source. Anyways, if you want to put it up for AfD you can but I really doubt it will get deleted. Suoerh2 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth Party System

What happened to the original Sixth Party System article? This article survived its recent (few days ago) AfD. Thanks Joseph 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Was proper process followed in deleting it? (Please respond on my talk.) Thanks Joseph 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The last deletion was proper even though it appears to have been deleted a few mere hours after being posted on the DRV [3] ?

Also, what is your distate, that you speak of, for the DRV (that I am begining to share)? (As before, please respond on my talk page.) Thanks Joseph 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting all of reality together

You wrote "The problem is... well, let's pull up a solid midlist Marvel character - Speedball. 1603 word article. Only 500 words of that pertain to the real world instead of the fictional world of the comics. That's the problem. Fancruft is in many ways a poor choice of terms for this. Especially since it's not even necessarily the case that the information itself is the problem. The problem is that virtually the entire article was written so as to pertain to the Marvel Universe, with occasional citations of issue number." here.

Which made me think of the problems in articles about economic systems in which enthusiasts pro and con anarchism and communism and capitalism go on and on and on with pie in the sky theories and barely coming down from their clouds long enough to source ideas much less tie ideas to concrete real word implementations of ideas (see mixed economy for the real world).

Which made me think of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop in which the "science is based on evidence" clan does battle with the "ideas are science too" clan in the field of cosmology as it related to plasma.

Which made me think of Logical positivism which holds that all knowledge should be based on logical inference from observable facts.

Which made me think of our troubles in wording Wikipedia:Attribution The point of attribution is credibility; which is achieved with an internal consistancy combined with connecting it all to objective reality. Sounds like our pop culture articles need to be grounded to objective reality to a greater degree.

Which reminds me of answering "Because the author thought it would sell books" when asked why a fictional character displayed a certain psychological trait by an English teacher in my youth. But I digress... WAS 4.250 17:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BnG AfD

I wasn't sure if you were aware of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_and_George, but as a webcomic AfD I figured I should mention it to you. The article probably does need some clean up (to indicate popularity/historical importance in popularizing sprite comics), but it shouldn't be deleted. User: Thok 11:40, 25 October 2006.

[edit] Prestige

Hi, I left you a message on Talk:The Prestige (film), under the heading, "Rivalry". Could you explain what you mean by speculation? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. I saw your comments on talk, and I'm a little busy at the moment, but I should have a reply up within the next 12-24 hours. I just wanted to let you know. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting discussion

...concerning what is, and ain't, original research is to be found over at Talk:Ghost ramp. Salient points:

  • The term ghost ramp doesn't appear to be formally defined anywhere that is a clear reliable source--some "roadgeek" pages do provide definitions for the term. However, in the roadgeek community, there is FTMP a consensus about what the term means, with some quibbling over details.
  • The page provides an extensive list of ghost ramps, primarily in North America with a few in the UK. Many of them are documented with satellite photos from google, MSN earth, or similar imagery services, in which roadworks which lead nowhere are easily visible. Some users are suggesting that this sort of documentation is unsuitable--and that inferring that a given roadwork is a "ghost ramp" from such imagery is OR. (Disclaimer--I was responsible for quite a bit of content there...)
  • There also seems to be a bit of confusion between OR and unsourced material. (Some claims in the article are currently unsourced, though sources can be provided in most cases--I have no issue with suitable application of {{fact}} tags).
  • There was an AFD for the page--the discussion produced a lack of clear consensus (though the tally was 9 keep and 5 nuke), so the article was kept. The proponents of the AfD are largely now the ones raising the OR claims (note--I am not objecting to their presence on the page or to their arguments).

I thought that your opinion and/or analysis, should you choose to drop in and take a look, might be helpful. "Roadcruft", like fancruft and other pop culture topics, is one of those areas which is generally not well-documented in scholarly secondary sources, and has to rely a bit on self-published material and/or generous inference from prmary sources--although in this case, the inferences are reasonable.

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Recent block to Thenatureboy

Hey, thanks for handling this so promptly. Things had gotten VERY out of hand VERY quickly. I was not aware that he had upset anyone else besides me and perhaps that "Amber" something. I was attempting to handle the situation more slowly; I had not yet personally contacted an admin regarding this, but was going through consultation with AMA, and was about to file an RfC with the help of an advocate. Just a few questions from here 1) With the current block in place, should we consider letting it cool down for a while? I have already instituted a personal moratorium myself on editing the articles in question for at least a week, maybe longer, to let things blow over. 2) Even in light of the block, I assume the RfC is moot at this point. If he continues the problematic behavior, should I contact you directly, or should I proceed with the RfC? Thank you for your help with this (even if I didn't ask for it). Please respond on my talk page, as I don't watch others talk pages (makes my watchlist too unmanagable). --Jayron32 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiturfing: to reference or not to reference? that is the question

hi phil, i empathise to some degree with your comments about wikipedia policy. In any case, if you look at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Citing_forums_in_articles_about_themselves you'll see some links to an actual confusion regarding "reliable sources" in the context of wikiturfing and Criticism of Coca-Cola - feel free to wade into the pages themselves (discuss with me and stbalbach on the relevant talk pages, or just edit the articles) rather than try to argue policy. :) Boud 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction essay

Thanks for the heads-up. I want to carefully consider what you have written so far before contributing. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Excellent answers, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction essay

A cursory look over doesn't throw up any real red flags (as you say, it's brainstorming) except that it might be pertinent to note that fictional biographies can go some way to supplementing articles that have grown a bit too large (History of the Daleks, for example), keeping in mind, of course that it's all supposed to be from a non-fictional perspective. I'll keep an eye on the essay, see where it goes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some help if you can

I noticed you left a conspicuous box on top of the Byron (Babylon 5) page. I didn't find the help on "in-universe" writing from the boxed link particularly practical. By their very nature, I find that pretty much every fictional biolgraphy in Wikipedia contains large elements of an in-universe perspective. Are we going to place a box on them all?

Obviously you have strong views on the subject - perhaps you could elaborate on the sort of style that is appropriate for Wikipedia on the Talk:Byron (Babylon 5) page. Or even better, make changes that present the same information in a more appropriate style. Dr Aaron 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Seconded! I looked up the David Sheridan site, and saw that it had been tagged for deletion (not just for reworking). It was missing some sources, so I added a few, but now it's apparently back on the delete list. Along with almost 40 other B5 characters, which you marked for deletion or cleanup within the space of 16 minutes. (Very efficient, I'll give you that.) Instead of forcing both of us to carry on a debate on 40 seperate pages, I thought I'd just ask here what's going on.
Is there a gold standard for fictional characters which deserve a mention here? Major part in a novel? Minor in three? Minor in a best-seller? If so, please let me know, then start applying those standards to every work of fiction on Wikipedia. As for the style - maybe you can start going after pages without any references before you worry about about the tone of such articles. Or suggest a style of writing which meets with your approval - if "fictional character" at the start of the article isn't enough, should it be in every paragraph? Every line?
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I agree that minor (emphasis on minor) characters should be merged into a list. I also agree that such articles need to be referenced, and not turn into expansive fan fiction without a single source quoted. However, if these sources are listed, and it's clearly stated that the article is based on fiction, I don't see a problem. Quack 688 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your response re:SPOV

Phil, I really like your response to the NPOV-SPOV question. Your answer is easily the pace-setter so far; it captures all the proper nuance with admirable concision.--ragesoss 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Way to Amalthea

Can you please clarify why did you put a "cleanup fiction-as-fact" there? I honestly cannot see what in this little article demerits such classification. To me it looks like a pretty straightforward retelling of a plot, using only commonly used terms (the only term which is used in a slightly unusual way, "sail", is specifically explained) and no "perspective" at all. Just facts. Trapolator 01:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response was rather unhelpful, sorry. I don't see how this article is not compliant to this requirement: "a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional." It is a brief summary, and it is clearly defined as fictional in the first sentence ("a science fiction short story"). Short of prepending "In this fictional story" to each and every sentence and "fictional" to each noun, I don't see what might be done. Is this what you are proposing? Please offer some specific critique or remove your notice. Trapolator 06:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:IChrisI

Hi, IChrisI (talk • contribs) was recently autoblocked for sharing the IP address of Terryeo (talk • contribs). Since he was forthright about declaring that he was Terryeo's son before being challenged about it and looking over his editing history, I'm inclined to believe him so I've lifted the autoblock. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of user Terryeo

Hi Phil, would you please log your block of Terryeo in his Arb Com file? It would be good to have a history since there has been an ongoing problem with this user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo Vpoko 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Slightlyright

Too early for a CheckUser at this time, but User:Slightlyright is the latest Scientology gallery duck to pop up. Apparently originally posting as 24.18.239.151, starting about 4 hours after Terryeo's final post. May have nothing to do with Terryeo at all, but this brand-new user has jumped in swinging, well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and on the major attack towards me. See this. wikipediatrix 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Wiki Template

More information can be found at this Freedom Wiki:

With regard to this, just thought I'd nudge things along a bit. WAS 4.250 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


There's been a lot of resistance in the past to using boxes for non-Wikimedia Foundation sites that look like the sister projects templates. This has come up often in template deletion. The objection is that having boxes set aside is an advertising tool which should be limited to Foundation projects. All others should use "standard" bullet-list style entries in "External links" (ala Template:Wikitravel). I'm not sure if the culture has changed lately to expand acceptance of non-Wikipedia boxed links, as I've been away from that argument lately. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Regarding fiction and B5

I agree that, where available, out-of-universe sources are welcome. A writer or commentator can discuss themes behind the character, and reveal aspects the audience never considered. Real-life issues with the actor/writer/publisher/studio also add to this understanding, as they might explain why a character takes an unexpected turn. But the character's direct actions, as portrayed in the fiction, must be the heart of the article - these extras only add to the understanding of said character. People can debate the motivations behind an action, but not without knowing the actions themselves.

As for the other B5 articles you've tagged for deletion (Turhan, Jason Ironheart, Pius XV, and Branmer), I agree that they should be combined on some sort of minor characters page - I'm thinking of a format right now. (Btw, were any other B5-related articles tagged for deletion, or speed-deleted, that I missed?)

Whether or not characters like David Sheridan (who stars in one novel, is mentioned in others, and happens to be the child of the two main protagonists) counts as minor, significant, or irrelevant is currently a matter of debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sheridan, but it's not worthy of deletion simply because I can't name some out-of-universe sources off-hand. Once I have a minor characters list established, I'd like to setup a merge discussion and get the deleting threat out of the picture.

You mentioned the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) community standard as a reference. May I ask exactly how many people it took to reach this consensus? And whether those people had any involvement in the large number of fiction articles listed on Wikipedia? Given that the vast majority of fiction articles on Wikipedia don't follow this guideline, most fiction editors are only made aware of it when a page is tagged for deletion or reworking, and that there is a substantial debate going on at the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and on this very talk page, I'd suggest that this is a standard applied on the relevant community, not defined by it.

Like I said last time, I'm honestly impressed by your tenacity to "take on the Wikipedia challenge". However, a primary goal for any publication is internal consistency. With that in mind, might I suggest you take a look at some other characters from TV and literature - let's say CSI's Gil Grissom, ER's John Carter, and Stephen King's Paul Sheldon - and explain why they've escaped reworking or deleting tags, since they're primarily written with an in-universe perspective, and introduce hardly any out-of-universe information? This could prompt other people to take interest in the topic, and make for a more representative debate. Quack 688 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for retracting the deletion nomination, at least. But I have a few concerns regarding that external wiki. For one, all the links within the article are broken, since none of those articles exist on that wiki, with the exception of John Sheridan and Londo Mollari, who earn one-line bios. It's better to have all this information in one place than split it between two - and right now, between Wikipedia and that B5 wiki, the de facto primary source people use is Wikipedia. Before you take that statement as a challenge to single-handedly move the majority of Babylon 5 content to an inactive wiki simply because the odour of in-universe writing offends you (I noticed you've already started on the Susan Ivanova article), you should let the debate about in-universe writing on Wikipedia continue for a while longer.
I was going to repeat the need to apply your current standards equally to all works of fiction, to avoid any suggestion of impropriety, but I just noticed while writing this you've tagged the Gil Grissom article, so I applaud you for your intellectual honesty. I'm sure that if you tag a variety of notable fictional articles, you'll get a variety of complaints here. While quoting them the official "consensus", I'd like you to consider just how many people are needed to disagree with a "consensus" before it loses said status. Quack 688 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


"Consensus", as I understood it, wasn't just based on the number of people, but on the issues they raised. Using the consensus to defend the existence of the consensus, and say it is beyond reproach, is circular reasoning. If you go into the reasoning by which that consensus was reached, that's a different matter.
Copying Wikipedia's B5 articles to an unmaintained wiki is equivalent to leaving someone out in the cold - an "indirect deletion". I don't believe it's responsible to move articles there en-masse unless you're prepared to maintain the wiki yourself or you believe in good faith that it will be maintained by others. Its current status suggest this is unlikely. Besides, other major fictional sci-fi shows have existing well-maintained wikis, yet still possess articles here, which include in-fiction sections. They can link to the external wiki if the external wiki contains extra information, and it is a reliable source (I would suggest that "well-maintained" is a criteria a website must meet to be considered reliable.)
You mentioned Fancruft - I looked it up and noticed this quote:
"It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion....
... Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion."
If fancruft is posted which is "poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral", then it deserves to be deleted or reworked on those specific issues. However, by my reading of that essay, if an article passes those criteria, it shouldn't be deleted or moved off site using the fancruft excuse. I'm working this weekend, so I'll be out of touch for a couple of days, but like I said, I'd appreciate it if you let the debate play out a while longer.Quack 688 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/User_talk%7EPhil_Sandifer_4f7e.html"