User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Bregan D'aerthe

I was told you were the one to talk to about this, 23 November 2007 you were the admin that deleted Bregan D'aerthe, on grounds that it wasn't notable. On this I and many disagree, It was a driving force in a book series since 1992, there is the same amount of documentation on it throughout 20 books, that have other less documented groups already in circulation, on wikipedia. I would also like to point out that there seemed to be some severe personal dislike against it's very existance in the AfD. It was also stated that it was to be merged, yet there is absolutely no mention of it in the "Menzoberranzan" page. The group has been fully established as a main group, part of a series that has at least 35 active pages. This isn't even the smallest group, yet smaller groups have pages existing, some only pivotal at their introduction. Also, 3 books were written of their exploits directly.Amaroyui (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to jump in, as I realise Tikiwont is strictly a neutral party in this case, who's only involvement was closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bregan D'aerthe debate. It was me who suggested to Amaroyui, that you might be the best person to speak to for further advice on how to properly reactivate the Bregan D'aerthe name-space. What measures must Amaroyui take to reverse the consensus established by this AfD?  -- WikHead (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the rough start, Amaroyui Five years ago there was hefty discussion about the coverage of fictional stuff in general, this Afd being just one, many topics moved to wikia, others never really looked at and me indeed trying to figure out in a number of occasions what to make out of it. The main reading is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Basically we should have a separate article on a group such as Bregan D'aerthe only if there is is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about them, that means other than the novels themselves which are simply not cosidered "documentation". It seemed clear in the discussion that this wasn't the case. As for the merging it wasn't clear to me how much and what should be merged, so I left that up to interested editors but nobody picked up presumably since folks moved on to the next debate. While nobody missed it for almost five years, I now did a slight merge, so at least the topic is explained at Menzoberranzan.
At this point you best work the other way round. Improve the Bregan D'aerthe section I just created and the Menzoberranzan page in general, trying to find good actual outside sources. If you find them you can state your case for a split on either talk page but even a nice and concise section would be an improvement of wikipedia over the state you found it in. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the thought, but doesn't really answer my problem. There are entire articles devoted to House Do'Urden and House Baenre, one of which is destroyed. There is less written about House Do'Urden, and about the same written about House Baenre than Bregan D'aerthe. There being pages about a group that no longer exists that is in the same situation of no secondary documentation as an active group with more written about it, even in general, seems preferential. If you think that these groups merit pages, then so does Bregan D'aerthe, if not, then neither do the other two.Amaroyui (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is a virtue, they say, but one hard to achieve on Wikipedia for a number of reasons. I really do knwo little on the topic, but if I look at the two I'd day they should indeed be merged as well, the previous No consensus regarding deletion not being an impediment. The approach is always the same If you're cautious check for previous consensus and and raise the issue, if you're bold expand or merge where you see fit, but start talking once someone reverts you. Best. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Welp, I wouldn't worry about me being bold or cautious. If this is any indication of how things work here, which it seems so, where one facet of a body of information can be prevented coverage due to a consensus more than 5 years ago on a lack of credible sources, while the rest of it has the same exact amount of sources and is able to be written upon, I don't think I will be taking part in anymore debates on weather legitimate information is being decided to be "not worth saving". Existing verdicts tend to be overruled with new information, even in the justice system. If three books on the subject aren't enough to merit a "Wiki" article, then I don't need to be here.Amaroyui (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. To be clear on two important points, though: (1) Existing verdicts are overruled here as well. While I appreciate that the gruop appears now in more novels, which carries some weight, the new information missing so far is whether or not this has translated into independent coverage. (2) After five years I personally wouldn't have noticed your expansion and wouldn't necessarily have reverted it immediately. Queried, you could have made it clearer than in the article that they are protagonists of three books, whilst being confronted with the expectation of something beyond, and the one sees, not sure if the outcome would have been different in the end. Good luck in any case.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it was a work in progress, I was adding information as I went, verifying that I had it right. It was just snuffed saying that it wasn't constructive. I have all of the books myself, and was using direct information from it to dictate where it had gone from that point, so I hadn't put the details about them being protagonists in anything. I saw that there was no page for them, and I had spare time, so I went about fixing that.Amaroyui (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to be snuffed as we usually try not to bite newcomers or mark good faith edits as unconstructive. I'll drop Wikihead a note if he doesn't read this anyways. Still many here think that you can go only so far in writing an encyclopedia by just taking stuff directly from the books, in-university importance is on the other hand seen by others as a valid argument to fork out separate pages, and that is the main philosophical issue you need to take into account. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tikiwont, thank you for your message. In regards to my two reverts; You'll notice that a full reason was given in my edit-summary on first revert, at which point, I immediately attempted to open a line of discussion with the reverted party (i.e welcome template). Having received no response, and having been reverted myself without explanation, was something I viewed as disruptive editing behaviour (i.e. failure to communicate). This explains the second (and final) revert, along with a second user-talk post in the form of a level-1 warning (which further invites communication). I was fully aware that I had again been reverted, but backed away from the article rather than engaging in a revert war... which is something I believe I handled responsibly. The discussion which followed thereafter, is perhaps a bit sketchy as I've never really understood the process of reversing an AfD decision, but offered the best advice I possibly could, in good faith. If anything, I figured you might be more displeased that I sent the other party to you rather than AfC or a wiki-venue dedicate to addressing what we had discussed. You must understand that my involvement in this case was based strictly on respect for the AfD decision to merge elsewhere, and my belief that I was preventing content/topic duplication (CSD A10). The newly added content clearly did not appear to address the concerns raised at AfD, and I responded to that WP:BOLDly... with a suggestion to involve a WP:3O rather than push my own version of right. I even posted to your talk page (above) in effort to help ease this user to quicker resolve. I apologise for obviously not having as firm a grasp of consensus achieved through AfD decisions as I assumed, but I'm now left a bit confused wondering what's the point of AfD if we're to shrug our shoulders and ignore the fact that a debate has even taken place. I'm fully aware that some AfD decisions become moot, I've seen many cases of this, but never without a good explanation and further admin review beforehand. It's why I suggested your involvement. If you said the page could be restored, I would respect it, and protect it, just as I protected your redirect.
On another note, you've also mentioned {{db-repost}}... which can sometimes be a very strange call (especially in the case of deleted items) as non-admins are unable to view the page-versions that were deleted. Using this tag is often guess work at best. The outcome of its use can drastically differ depending on what admin finds it first... and I've seen some admins become extremely annoyed by finding CSD tags on articles that could easily have been redirected or reverted to earlier versions. It's often difficult finding a happy balance between being a good observant editor who actually makes an effort when quality control appears breached, and one who sees the breach but does nothing. Either one will only ever please half the crowd. One thing that I've known for a very long time however, is that there is never a reason for revert wars. It might take hours, days, or even weeks, but if your version is correct (or makes good sense), someone will eventually come along and restore it... which appears to be what's already happened in this case. I would be even happier to see the article restored, as long as it came with a reason and some assurance that the efforts of those at AfD weren't being sneered and kicked to the curb. Thanks for your comments, I will try much harder in the future to be even more patient with new users. Regards,  -- WikHead (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and taking my ramblings into account. It is also understood but I should have said so, that maintenance and quality control are necessary and your contribution there is appreciated as your effort in eventually settle this and all that. Our relationship with new editors is an important issue as weel, what I say applies in general, and it is important to look at things also from the other receiving side. Benefits me as well.
A welcome message coupled with a revert will likely leave anybody bewildered and the second warning does not make reference to the reversion but will be understood to refer to content. Even if they immeidtaly find the edit summary they may still not gather why you think that the old discussion still applies. Which is why I encouraged you to make your editorial reasoning clear immediately.
This also addresses partly your question. If you and I and maybe also the third editor who reverted visbly affirm that for us without any secondary source expansion is still not warranted, then this amounts to a living 2012 confirmation of the previous consensus, but if people would just mechanically ‘defend’ the existing status then that's dead procedure. I gave the example of G4 mostly to clarify that redelting or reverting is subject to some qualification. Not just black and white. For deletions there's the asymmetry you mention, but with respect to merges all editors are on the same level playing field.
So no mistake, I stand by my recommendation above: improving the section and maybe the rather dire book articles and if there is a solid foundation for a seperate article, the lenghty character lists can still be added anytime. Cheers--Tikiwont (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for your response Tikiwont. Your comments, advice, and suggestions have been received respectfully, and well absorbed. In this particular case, had my welcome message generated some form of discussion or response, even in summary format, the rest would surely have played out much differently, and without the use of a user-warning template. This one factor is what set the tone for discussion that eventually followed. It was my intent to discuss and inform to the best of my ability, and without further revert or argument. I did not believe the new content properly addressed the concerns of the AfD, so my best advice at that moment was to request your involvement. It's a wonder we don't have a special WP:EDITNOTICE template for redirects-from-AfD that informs users how to proceed. Perhaps I should pitch this idea to one of my favourite template designers in effort to make the best of all we've discussed. Have yourself a great day Tikiwont, stay well, and happy editing !  -- WikHead (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't that I was actively attempting to "revert war", I thought it was a problem on my end, like I had/hadn't clicked something that I was/wasn't supposed to, and in no way was trying to skirt the rules. It just seemed that way.Amaroyui (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

EGR listed at Redirects for discussion

Hello, I've asked for a discussion to address the redirect EGR. Since you have had some involvement with it, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks, maybe I stop by. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Lake Terrace/Lake Oaks, New Orleans

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this article name however articles cannot contain an /. It is a technical limitation of the Wiki software. when an / is used in a name, the software treats that page as a subpage of whatever comes before the /, in this case Lake Terrace . You can use a dash (-), a , or any number of other characters but using /, regardless of the discussion at redirects for discussion, is an invalid article name. As far as Wikipedia is concerned you just associated Lake Oaks, New Orleans to Lake Terrace UAE. Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko. First of all it would have been good to comment at the RFD. Second, why then opening here with a declaration not to edit war? Third what exactly do you mean with 'cannot' or 'invalid' as I just gave it that name, the article looks okay, searching and linking works. What problem is it creating? If with 'associated' you I mean the subpage thing where does it surface, not in article space I thought, and I might have a solution in mind, that is renaming the other one as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
First I did comment at the Rfd, I created it. The point I was making about edit warring is that I am not going to get into a wheel war going back and forth with it. Its done and that's that. Yes the application allows us to create them with those names and even more so since you are an admin and have a lot greater ability. But that doesn't mean we should. The character / has a specific meaning within Wikipedia. It identifies a subpage. So when we create an article title like the one in question, it gives the impression that article is a subpage. I also agree that clarifying the name of the other article would be good too but adding / in the middle as a disambiguation is a bad naming convention. For more clarification check the article naming policy here. The last bullet titled Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another states not to do that. So we could call it Lake Terrace in Lake Oaks, New Orleans, Lake Terrace - Lake Oaks, New Orleans or any number of other things but the current title violates article naming policy. Kumioko (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back. I meant that it would be helpful if you could have followed up at the RfD oncee other editors challenged your assertion. Obviously its' good that that you don't edit war, it just seemed to me a strange way of opening a conversation. Now with respect to considering it a subpage within Wikipedia it might help to distinguish between the users and the software. The only software effect I can see is the link to Talk:Lake Terrace at the top of Talk:Lake Terrace/Lake Oaks, New Orleans as indeed mentioned at WP:NC-SLASH. This may be unusual but is in this case alleviated by the fact that this title now is a disambiguation page that links back to the neighborhood. What you're referring to above is a good advice but the question is whether the title the page had for the last years and which reflects its official name, gives to readers and editors really the impression that this is a subtopic of something and not just a neighborhood that happens to have a slash in the title. In the Rfd your concern was not echoed, so maybe users do not universally take the slash always as indicating a subpage. And even where they do, here the 'main' is now a dab page. If you have still concerns we can try to find a place for further input. Best --Tikiwont (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the comments in the RFD were mostly made from a lack of experience and I do not mean that in an offensive way. If you added up all the edits from all the people who commented at that Rfd including yours it would still be less than a quarter of mine. WP has a lot of rules, some are more well known than others. This is one of the lesser known ones but still fairly important. A few months ago I would have generated a list of all the articles affected Wikiwide (there are only a couple hundred minus redirects), submitted it to the village pump and opened up a discussion on it but I just don't feel like it these days. I still think the naming of that article violates policy but I'm not going to worry about it. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
As you see fit, If you change your mind, consider dropping me a note, Have a good day, too.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Found object

Thanks for moving the title from "Found art" to "Found object". Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikiwont/Archive_24&oldid=1078823749"