Wikipedia talk:WikiDragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
WikiProject Department of Fun (Rated Project-class, Bottom-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by the Department of Fun WikiProject, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Bottom  This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

dying out?[edit]

A cursory census shows that WikiDragons are far more numerous than the almost extinct knights and even the otters, and I suspect that proclaimed dragons are the fourth most common species on the Wiki after gnomes, elves and faeries. But I'm not going to update the article and userboxes accordingly as I suspect that many of these dragons are mere wannabees representing humans at their keyboards. WereSpielChequers 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The following is from IUCN 3.1 Red List, which is a standard for evaluating whether a species is endangered:
"13. Transfer between categories
The following rules govern the movement of taxa between categories:
A. A taxon may be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher category has been met for five years or more.
B. If the original classification is found to have been erroneous, the taxon may be transferred to the appropriate category or removed from the threatened categories altogether, without delay (but see Point 10 above).
C. Transfer from categories of lower to higher risk should be made without delay."
Going by these guidelines, the WikiDragon population must stay above fifty for 5 straight years in order to be moved from the Critically Endangered category to the Endangered category. If the population is above 250 for five straight years, it graduates to Vulnerable. Once there are 1,000 individuals for five straight years, the WikiDragon will fall in the Least Concern category.
Basically, if we can keep the population where it's at until 2013, the WikiDragon will be considered Endangered instead of Critically Endangered.
Make sense?
However, I do feel that the userbox should be updated to reflect the recent censuses. I'm not sure how I'd go about doing that, except to simply leave off the "one of the last of a dying species." Any other thoughts?
Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If we include those with the topic icon as well as those with the userbox then I'm pretty sure we have over 50. I'm not keen on changing an existing userbox as its tantamount to changing other users user pages. However I've drafted some alternatives:

Ljubljana Dragon (head only) 50px.png This user is a WikiDragon. of the last of a dying breed...

Ljubljana Dragon (head only) 50px.png This user is a WikiDragon.

Ljubljana Dragon (head only) 50px.png This user is a WikiDragon.
...endangered per the IUCN red list...

Ljubljana Dragon (head only) 50px.png This user is a WikiDragon.
...flame on the wing...

Ljubljana Dragon (head only) 50px.png This user is a WikiDragon.
...flying fast, burning bright...

Draig.svg This user is a WikiDragon.
...flying fast, burning bright...

Thoughts?WereSpielChequers 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The orange one is rather appealing. I like how it uses the German one instead of the Slovenian one, which was rather dull and drab. The new orange one has such a positive attitude to it, something that the green one always lacked. I'm not sure about the text, however. It seems a bit awkward, but I don't have a better idea myself. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
However, I'm proposing you remove the italicization, as follows:
Draig.svg This user is a WikiDragon.
...flying fast, burning bright...

It looks cleaner that way. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
How about (and kind of how I feel at the moment):
Draig.svg This user might be an unhatched WikiDragon.
... best left undisturbed...

htom (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Something broken there in the newline or lack thereof? htom (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(Yeah, I just added a bunch of line breaks to help out. Easier to read.) Hmm. The "best left undisturbed" brings out the bad. Wikipedia isn't a battlefield, so we shouldn't represent WikiDragons as bad guys that might hurt you. Also, most WikiDragons are already hatched and will readily point out that they are a WikiDragon. Perhaps something like this:
Draig.svg This user is a WikiDragon
making massive, bold edits everywhere.

It could probably stand some draconification, though. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 03:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I picked the username "OtterSmith" for reasons that have nothing to do with WikiOtter-ness, but I suspect, looking at the Wiki-fauna, that I'm probably a WikiOtter who is repressing an inner WikiDragon. I see lots of places where there should be articles, and resist the temptation to make them. htom (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with you all, we also need to update some of our images that were deleted. Apparently they will be undeleted in 2017? See for more info. --Macha Panta (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

June 2009 census[edit]

I've taken another every-so-often-ly census. If anyone wants a copy of the census data from February 2009 or from June 2009, I have both and will share it with anyone interested.

Proud to say we've got 18 new specimens, and most of them are new users. That puts us at 112 specimens as of today. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, can you post it on my talk page?
Are these new users really dragons, or just saying they are because they like the sound of it? --MahaPanta (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The census is based on people who claim to be WikiDragons, and only on those people. It would be mind-bogglingly impossible to review and classify every single Wikipedian according to our own standards. Besides, isn't it possible that a WikiDragon could be lazy or evil, just as a manager can be a lazy manager or pointy-haired boss?
The WP:DRAGON, WP:GNOME, WP:FAIRY, WP:ELF, WP:WikiMercenary, and WP:WikiKnight (even though WikiDragons shudder at the term) are all positive roles which don't just happen overnight-- we become them. Some of WikiGnomes will never master the art of being helpful, some WikiKnights will never be successful at defending Wikipedia, and some WikiDragons may get stuck on a single article or never make a large, bold contribution. Then again, some company presidents will never serve their companies for the better, leading them into a spiraling bankruptcy, making poor decisions right and left, getting on every employee's bad side, and ruining the company's reputation.
One way to look at the WikiFauna persona is as a goal for the Wikipedian to aspire and become, and eventually a role that (s)he represents and is. The role of a WikiFauna (in my opinion) is a mission for any Wikipedian to assign himself (or herself). Some succeed, some aspire to succeed, and some don't succeed at all...but the point is that that's the hat they're trying to fill and how they want to be perceived.
One could also argue, however, that the WikiFauna are labels placed on other editors based on their edit history (as might be implied by WP:IMP, WP:OGRE, WP:SLOTH, and perhaps even WP:PRINCESS, but most especially, WP:TROLL.
So what we have then are two types of WikiFauna-- what we try to be, and what we come across as. The latter is more important to us, although there's some morality associated with the former. However, it's impossible to review every Wikipedian's edit history and classify him/her accordingly, so for the sake of the census, I think we ought to continue going by what they say they are.
You've inspired me to start a new discussion, though. See below in a few minutes after I finish typing it. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A way to get WikiDragons involved and known?[edit]

I was thinking we could start up a sort of WikiDragon meeting place where we discuss what we're working on...but maybe that's a bad idea. Then again, we could do a sort of deal similar to WP:HAU (which provides a list of highly active users in case someone needs help). Instead of highly active users, we'd be WikiDragons available to work on large projects. Wait...would that make us WikiOtters? Hmm...I need to roll the dough out some more before I get the cookie cutters out... Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really like the meeting place (or meeting cave) idea. The WP:HAU idea may be better left for Otters, while us Dragons can get preoccupied with large tasks, if it is not something we are passionate about, it won't work. That's why I like the meeting cve idea better, we could then only work on things we are passionate about. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A cave...great idea! So what would we do in this cave?
  • Share what we're working on.
  • Perhaps request help from other WikiDragons in times of need (such as an impossibly huge project)
  • Maintain a sort of registration list of WikiDragons. (This cannot be done using Category:WikiDragons, as that has been deleted on multiple occasions.) Perhaps we should require each other to check in every six months or so to remain on the list (six months sounds fair to me...we all take long breaks-- I do, anyway).
  • Anything else?
Also, what's a good name for it? "Community Cave", "The Lair", "Dragon Den", "WikiWeyr" we've got lots of possibilities. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We could list our projects.
I'm partial to your "Dragon Den" idea because I'm a fan of the BBC show Dragon's Den.
--MahaPanta (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Inviting otters sounds like a grand idea. Why didn't I think of that myself? :)
If we invite otters, we can't call it an exclusive "dragon den"...Meeting Cave is probably best. Let's get started at User:MahaPanta/Sandbox/Meeting Cave. (I added a space, as it seems to be needing one.) Since it's in your userspace, feel free to start it. I'll check back either in a few hours or tomorrow and probably add my own touch to it here and there. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
User:MahaPanta/Sandbox/Meeting_Cave is now up.--MahaPanta (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Wtf? is this a ****ing prank or something?--Jakkinx (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what is the "prank"?--Twilight Helryx (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is no prank, it's just Wikipedians having WP:FUN. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New topicon[edit]

I've created a new topicon at Template:WikiDragon so that it doesn't use the deprecated Template:click and offers the option to play nicely with other topicons by using the parameter "|icon_nr=". Test it out, and if it merits a mention on this page, add it on. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

refimprove tag[edit]

The new ref improve tag is the newest laugh on this article. Seriously, what can be reasonable be expected for references? The source were the parody originated? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

2011 Census #1[edit]

The WikiDragon census for the first half of 2011 can be found at User:MahaPanta/Sandbox/Meeting Cave. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiPrincess and WikiDragon meeting place[edit]

I suggest there be a meeting place for WikiDragons and WikiPrincesses. I would like to be able to communicate with all active WikiDragons about a wide range of topics. :) Thepoodlechef (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What sort of topics? Also-- I find it interesting that people are now self-identifying as WikiPrincesses...when I created that page I hadn't meant for anyone to self-identify with it. Face-grin.svg Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much what I want to do on Wikipedia is talk to other editors about conflicts and settle disputes. I want to share my opinion and be aware of current edit wars. I also want to be able to give my opinion to wiki dragons on their massive edits. I am slowly learning all of Wikipedia policies and want to be able to use policies to defend my position during conflicts. I guess my goal is to be like a wikijudge or wiki lawyer. I will be looking for other princesses during my royal tour of wikiville. Even if I am the only princess on Wikipedia, I do fit the description. I think there should be a place to discuss edit wars separate of where the people in the edit war are going to look. I also want to help give my opinion on major edits. I have opinions about almost everything and I'm willing to try to explain why I feel that way. I'm Also a very nice person and not one to pounce. I don't actively take part in edit wars because I find them selfish and immature. All I want to do is help people find a resolution :) Thepoodlechef (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Several dispute case boards exist; have a look at WP:ANI, WP:COIN, WP:AFD, WP:MFD, etc. I don't think it would be beneficial to duplicate these, but you may be interested in joining those who already serve at these boards. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I know you'll be interested in WP:PR as well! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Magical Powers[edit]

What's this about [1]? WMC any particular reason for this removal that would actually help this article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment about the content before I move to restore it? It is intended to be a humorous allegory with subtle reference to wikipedia guidelines and policies, as if someone adopting WikiDragon magical powers would behave to improve the project. Since WMC long ago asked me not to post on his talk page, and he said he would accept all notices, I sent him a psychic message. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoration seems to be in order to me. This is the kind of humor that's good for organizations. htom (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Meeting den![edit]

User:Lee Tru./sandbox/WikiDragon, WikiPlatypus Meating den is now open!-- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Asian species[edit]

Asian species shall be separated in another article? Like Indonesia? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Behavior rewording[edit]

I have reworded the third sentence of the "Behavior" section, as it seemed to be a 1-for-1 copy of part of the listing for the "Diagnosis" section. Sawta (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Documented subspecies: eight vs. nine[edit]

Hi! I've noticed an inconsistency error, and I'm not sure if it's intentional. The error is as follows:

In the Taxonomy section, there is a sentence which reads:

As of November 2013, eight subspecies of WikiDragon have been formally documented.

However, the section proceeds to list nine subspecies of WikiDragon which have been formally documented.

Please let me know whether this is a genuine mistake or an intentional inconsistency placed for comedic effect.


Noah Kastin (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)