User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 13

Form and content

Sir, regarding my contribution to Form and content, I'm curious to know why you undid my revision? As part of a class assignment (read the talk page) that generally needed to have stayed there. Provided you can argue against its inclusion, I won't disagree, but considering the content of some of the other sections I see no reason why my contribution should not be included. Seiyaryen (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I must come off as a complete n00b. I'm kind of proud of that, I suppose, in my own way. But really, I have to thank you for answering my question quickly and explicitly, just like your edit summaries; I can clearly see the answer to my inquiry. --Seiyaryen (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. While I don't disagree - I think certain sections might be better than others - I think it is necessary to argue here the difference between original research and citing examples of the relationship between form and content in different fields. Certain sections of that article, even though they include references, are badly edited and do little to illustrate the article topic. If you're willing to look at most of the article as full of original research, then I'd rather you mark the entire article for deletion. I want to be petulant and suggest that you might as well mark every philosophical article for deletion as original research, but no personal attacks, right? I think it might be a good subject to bring up in class should my professors ever try to do something like this again (how to write for an encyclopedia so it stays included), but selecting parts of the article that although look like OR might further the article itself more than badly referenced content is slightly off base. It's a fine distinction, but in an article like this I think it's necessary to be aware of it. Also - there's probably little to no research on the relationship between form and content in different fields, so I mean... maybe the assignment was inherently and unintentionally faulty. --Seiyaryen (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Peasant revolt

Good idea. Further I suggest then that we redirect Peasant revolt and Peasant Revolt to Peasants' Revolt and change the hatnote {{otheruse}} at the top of Peasants' Revolt to point to your list. --PBS (talk)

I'll leave it to you to make the moves, but let me know if you need any help. -- PBS (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fanboi

Yes, apparently there's been a rabid fan editing the Abney Park page lately. I didn't mind so much when he put up a Robert Brown page, as Brown has really been a strong influence on steampunk music, and several acts have gone on from his band. But he wants to put up a lot of in-universe stuff and getting upset at me for reversing it ("who are you to be 'owning' this page? Wikipedia is supposed to be open to everybody to edit!" etc.). Very annoying; I hate rabid fanbois. Anyway, the reason I'm posting this to you is, I've noticed you're quite the guardian of the Steampunk page, and you cast your eye over to what's going on with the band page there; I just wanted to say I don't mind at all and that I might need a little help keeping the fan under control, lol. So anytime you see an edit you feel you need to reverse, feel free. I can't keep my eye on it all the time, lol! Cheers. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, while I have your attention (lol); how do I go about tagging pages? And is there a resource with a list of various tags for stuff like deletion, POV, cleanup, etc.? (Case in point: This page needs a speedy delete, methinks...) Thx --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay I'm a rabid fanboy now. If you have a problem with my thinking that stories from anywhere do deserve a place in an encyclopedia then I apologize. My assumption was that the same encyclopedia that contains articles about Harry Potter should contain articles about other fictional works. IzzyReal (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the two of you are not going to carry on this edit/flame war on my talk page. Let me disabuse you of that notion right off the bat. If there is to be any discussion on these, or other related, matters, it is going to be civil.

Second, as to your comment, Izzy, about "fictional works," there can be no question as to the notability and verifiability of the Harry Potter series. The same cannot be said for the wholly imaginary story of Abney Park's airship, and the comparison between the two is not apt. Furthermore, none of the many articles related to Harry Potter are written in an in-universe style or manner, as your H.M.S. Ophelia article is. The band's wholly in-universe story of how they get from show to show is relevant to fans, but is not encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the key to inclusion on Wikipedia is proving notability and it is unwise to start new articles (or split off parts of other ones) unless you can lock it down or it will leave it wide open to being deleted. I'm afraid its not possible to provide a completely comprehensive coverage of a topic as it tends to be fractal in nature and the edges will always run into difficulties with sourcing. So Harry Potter is mentioned but the Wikipedia's articles are vast but can't be anything compared to fansites as there are herds of fanboys and fangirls covering the minutiae (to the point were a HP print version of one of those sites got hit by the lawyers for copyright infringement, which is what you get from over-detailed plot).

It is always worth bearing in mind that Wikipedia is an attempt to build an encyclopaedia not a fansite and there are guidelines in place to help us do that and it will squeeze out material that doesn't measure up - like that HMS Ophelia article. There are sites (often on Wikia) which are more flexible and there is a Steampunk wiki there (and it looks in need of more content and enthusiastic editors). It looks to me like a more in-depth coverage of the fictional background the band use would find a better home over there. Unless reliable sources are forthcoming it looks like the best bet is to transwiki that article over there. I'd also think it'd be an idea to look at the reliable sources used on Robert Brown (musician) - the articles need to be focused on him not the band or the wider scene or all they are doing is proving notability for them and not him (it is not a good sign that nearly every source is located in a sentence of one section tagged on the end - WP:BLP is pretty strictly enforced these days and you have to go the extra mile in your sourcing of articles about living people and this is failing badly on that front).

If there are concerns about these or other articles thrashing it out on a user's talk page might not be too helpful - nominate one or both to merge or AfD (with an eye on transwiking) and see what the consensus is from the community and if it generates more links. (Emperor (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your contribution to the conversation, Emperor, it is much appreciated. He offers wise counsel that you other editors should take into consideration. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Hey there I've noticed you have started to edit the The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. I did a WP:MOSFILM clean up last night/early morning, and in my edit summary I said that I added the euro and pound sign. While I was editing it came to me that, duh France is another country, that doesn't speak English and has its own Wikipedia. So I removed the euro figures but forgot to remove the France title in the lead. Do you think the article's body should use the GBP figures rather than the USD? Also, what do you mean that the review section (RT/MC) needs a rewrite? That's how the WP:FILM would like it written, but you do see a lot of articles that have the "Rotten" or "Fresh" in the paragraphs and doesn't explain what or how RT/MC does scoring. Which is needed for an encyclopedia. Do you mean that more reviews need to be included? Looking at the edit history I must have forgotten to delete the old wording. That's what I get for editing so late. :-\ Thanks. --Mike Allen 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)