User talk:Dorftrottel: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Bigtimepeace (talk | contribs) →Jaina Solo AfD close: new section |
|||
| (231 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[User talk:Everyme]] |
|||
<noinclude><!-- |
|||
In case you wonder, the design of my talk page is basically a simpler version of [[User:Phaedriel]]'s. You're welcome to go ahead and take what you need, but please attribute it to her as a gesture of politeness, ideally accompanied by a link to her page. |
|||
-->{{User:Dorftrottel/talk header}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
************************ |
|||
* NEW MESSAGES BELOW * |
|||
************************ --></noinclude> |
|||
== streams of insults == |
|||
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29&diff=208969412&oldid=208959463 this] (now-removed) comment: '''(i)''' What precisely ''is'' the issue, iyo? '''(ii)''' I'm not "throwing insults against articles", I'm simply noting that pure plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles by any stretch of imagination. If you think otherwise and believe Wikipedia should allow this (which it currently does [[Wikipedia:PLOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|not]], to my understanding), you might want to address this at e.g. [[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not]] or [[WP:VPP]]. '''(iii)''' So what should I stop? Repeating what Wikipedia policy says about the issue of pure plot summary articles? [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]] ([[User talk:Dorftrottel|warn]]) 11:09, [[April 29]], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|||
:I removed that comment to phrase it better, but since you ask: '''(i)''' The issue in that particular section is the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen. This pops up every now and then, and it is best addressed promptly. Derailing the topic for any reason sucks. '''(ii)''' That is what you were doing, but I figured you would not object to my description considering that in doing so you went well out of your way and off-topic to belittle such things. Those enormous quotation marks looked nice, though, thanks for that. If I was wrong, then I apologize. '''(iii)''' I think '''(i)''' covers this. HTH. --[[User:Kizor|Kiz]]<font color="black">[[User_talk:Kizor|o]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/Kizor|r]]</font> 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::''the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen'' — If I'm not completely mistaken, we do indeed agree that it is generally a bad idea to plunge into blind actionism without awaiting an expert opinion. OTOH, a court case is not a good reason to ''defend'' crappy articles, either. What I (and e.g. also Ursasapien) are trying to establish is that disproportionate plot summaries are a matter of purely encyclopedic concern, entirely regardless of that court case. To make it very clear: ''No blind actionism'' does <u>not</u> equal ''No action that goes, even it's for only indirectly related reasons, in a similar direction (i.e. stubbifying/AfD/etcpp)''. [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]] ([[User talk:Dorftrottel|ask]]) 12:17, [[April 29]], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|||
== Jaina Solo AfD close == |
|||
==Jaina Solo AfD close== |
|||
Thanks, I was waffling between closing as delete and no consensus which ultimately led me to believe that I should go with the latter. If there is no significant improvement to the article in the future, it will be much more difficult to make the case for keeping next time around.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:13, 20 July 2008
Redirect to: