 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:I Grave Rob. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Co-adoptee
I was wandering through the your contributions and saw you had created User:FingersOnRoids/Adoption, I am happy to have someone else I might be able to conference with as a fellow adoptee, but upon reading through it I saw you had given the same responses to FingersOnRoids and just thought that commenting about him welcoming himself might cause confusion.I Grave Rob (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe excellent point. I didn't re-read my comments well enough. At this point, you're both going through the same steps so I figured it was better to give you both the same material than risk forgetting something. Nice catch; I fixed it. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
New deletion templates
- Here is part of my assignment. I took the liberty of transposing it onto one of my userpages, to save time later. I couldn't quite tell what it should have been, but the most appropriate for King sanze seemed to be A7. Should I have tagged King sanze with {{db-person}} or would there have been a more appropriate tag? ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, that's a tough one. Sometimes I wish G1 wasn't limited to gibberish and random text (aowienr238nwvnsdwoenf) because that was actually pretty legitimate nonsense to me. I also wish A3 wasn't so specific because this doesn't count as A3 because there's a name. I guess A7 is the best bet, but for situations like these I wish there were another option... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we could make a tag {{db-fiction}}, {{db-implausible}} etc. It isn't the first time I have had an article that should have been easy to tag but doesn't quite fit under any of the existing criteria because it's fictional or implausible. Maybe we could use one that was like A7 but changed so it can work for fictional things or implausible events? I Grave Rob (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Claiming fictional is walking on thin ice. You can't really prove a negative so to prove that said article subject doesn't exist would be difficult. Implausible sounds better. I just wish we had nonsense content (in English, but obviously nonsense overall). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say the fictional subject has been created/exists. A7 is all about notability, so {{db-fiction}} would be focused on fictional people/places/things/places that the author doesn't prove is noteworthy. Even though that might result in people claiming we are attacking their heritage/etc., unless the article comes with verifiable sources of the notabilty of the character/place/object or the series etc. Thinks Maybe that didn't make sense, if the series itself hasn't had coverage by several outlets etc. then the fictional person/place/object most likely cannot be notable on its own. If the containing series is notable enough to get an article that doesn't mean the character gets an article, here is where it could be merged.
- Wade asked me to comment on this. It's a good idea — I think it would cut down the AfD load since separate articles about minor fictional elements rarely get kept — but I don't think we need a separate CSD criterion for it; instead we can just amend the language of A7 to accomodate this. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do agree with you, I believe an overwrite of A7 would be appropriate for the fictional aspect which I say below, the prospective template was just easy enough to do and {{db-fiction}} could end up as one of the parts of A7. As for the implausible might go in with a rewrite of G1 (Even though I think that would change it alot, even though G1 is summed up as nonsense it's all about meaningless text/gibberish which is a different level of nonsense, ie. Patent Nonsense) but, in my opinion, easily can become a criteria on it's own. (I believe they would undergo intense working over by the community long before anything happened) I Grave Rob«talk» 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wade asked me to comment on this. It's a good idea — I think it would cut down the AfD load since separate articles about minor fictional elements rarely get kept — but I don't think we need a separate CSD criterion for it; instead we can just amend the language of A7 to accomodate this. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say the fictional subject has been created/exists. A7 is all about notability, so {{db-fiction}} would be focused on fictional people/places/things/places that the author doesn't prove is noteworthy. Even though that might result in people claiming we are attacking their heritage/etc., unless the article comes with verifiable sources of the notabilty of the character/place/object or the series etc. Thinks Maybe that didn't make sense, if the series itself hasn't had coverage by several outlets etc. then the fictional person/place/object most likely cannot be notable on its own. If the containing series is notable enough to get an article that doesn't mean the character gets an article, here is where it could be merged.
- Claiming fictional is walking on thin ice. You can't really prove a negative so to prove that said article subject doesn't exist would be difficult. Implausible sounds better. I just wish we had nonsense content (in English, but obviously nonsense overall). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we could make a tag {{db-fiction}}, {{db-implausible}} etc. It isn't the first time I have had an article that should have been easy to tag but doesn't quite fit under any of the existing criteria because it's fictional or implausible. Maybe we could use one that was like A7 but changed so it can work for fictional things or implausible events? I Grave Rob (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, that's a tough one. Sometimes I wish G1 wasn't limited to gibberish and random text (aowienr238nwvnsdwoenf) because that was actually pretty legitimate nonsense to me. I also wish A3 wasn't so specific because this doesn't count as A3 because there's a name. I guess A7 is the best bet, but for situations like these I wish there were another option... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Indent break
CSD Proposal
So in summary db-fiction could say - This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a fictional person, an orginization (band, club, company, etc.), or location that does not provide verifiable sources to prove the importance of the containing material and the person/place/object.
Both of these are based around wp:Burden. Creating an article is adding content and as such if the author can't provide verification then I think it would be perfectly justifiable to tag it.
db-implausible could say - This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article that contains unverified, implausible content.
If anyone finds something implausible, as in King Sanze, then why shouldn't it be tagged because it still allows the person some time to provide verified sources, as surely something so implausible would have some coverage? I Grave Rob (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to go ahead and create the templates on my pages, tell me if you like them. They are db-fiction and db-implausible
- Whoops, I accidentally stuck them into mainspace :S and db-fiction would be a shortcut for A11 (all hypothetical)
- db-implausible done and would be the shortcut for db-a12 (or just so you can remember it) and again hypothetical I Grave Rob (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- They will need a new A# or a complete overwrite of A7, I will just use A11 as a possible new category of speedy templates :) I Grave Rob (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Egh, I don't know what is going on, whenever I go back to try and change something it overwrites the text in front of it >_<. Do you have any idea how I can fix this?
- Not sure why you're getting the error you do; I've never created a CSD template before :-). I've asked a trusted admin to come over here and have a look at your proposal. Most likely you'll end up making your proposal at the CSD talk page, but I would hold off on doing anything major until he takes a look. I'm not a huge speedy-deleter, so you'll want the input of this admin. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 11:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- All fixed now :)I Grave Rob (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)