Wikipedia talk:WikiDragon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Shouldn't this be named the exact opposite of Gnome, which is WikiGiant? I'd totally ascribe to that label, even the userboxen. VanTucky (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Dragon is pretty "big" compared to the gnome...--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but it's not the automatic polar opposite of gnome, which is what the moniker is supposed to entail. Anyway, not a big deal, just a matter of personal preference. VanTucky (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus, if the name were changed, that awesome picture of that terrifying dragon (I've seen it in person; it really is terrifying) would have to go. 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Giants doesn't have a lot of magical powers, while Dragons certainly have. Said: Rursus 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Save the Dragons

In order to start a Save the Dragons campaign the Wikia Club (modelled after the Sierra Club) has launched a hunt to find the surviving WikiDragons. Is is possible for someone to list down the 15 WikiDragons currnetly roaming the WikiLand? Aditya Kabir 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alteripse may be one of them.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A User:Michael Hardy ; another one.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Although I may well meet the first criterion stated in the article for WikiDragonhood, it is also the case that I do nitpicking grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and formatting edits. It is possible to do both. Michael Hardy 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I changed it.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably user:r.e.b. should also be considered a WikiDragon. Michael Hardy 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am a WikiOgre and I am hunting out WikiDragons. I found one. User:MahaPanta. Jibajabba 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I a Dragon?

If I translate a lot (either from one edition of wikipedia to another or compose and translate from open sources) do I qualify myself as a Dragon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorkalloner (talkcontribs) 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want you can be! Be bold and add yourself. Phgao 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I become a dragon?

Hi everybody, I am pretty new to Wikipedia,and I was just wondering exactly how to become a WikiDragon. They sound pretty cool, so can anyone give me a little insight?

Sorry, I had to move your question cause it can't be at the top. Well, just kind of tweak Wikipedia. Fix grammar here and there and add little bits and pieces of knowledge if you know it. That's what I do. --Awesomeness

Userbox and Category

Why are we Dragons the only WikiTypes not to have our own userboxes and category? I would think a WikiDragon with the requisite skills to create these two things would already have done it! I would but for my expertise is not in those areas (by a long shot). Any takers? VigilancePrime 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CAT: WikiDragon

It was deleted. One might think that people would have better things to do than fight to delete the Fauna categories, but that some but not all is a travesty of WikiEquality. Pathetic. Any thoughts on how to handle it? Users with the CAT on their userpage still will show up even without an actual category page, but no longer those who only use the template/userbox. Travesty. So, any other Dragons have some great ideas on what should be next? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: This morning there were 33 pages in the category. Now that it has been deleted and removed from the userbox, we only have five. Travesty. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New Stuff Tonight

17 Feb

Where to start...
  • Noted that Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons still works... sort of.
  • Major overhaul of page. Demonstrated what being a WikiDragon is all about!
  • (Finally) Created Wikipedia:WikiDragon/Kudos page. Added first Kudos.
  • Archived this talk page...
  • ...archived it in a different, unique way. Perhaps it will catch on. No need to keep track of a bazillion pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiDragon/Archive11001001 et al.
  • Created template for the "Not Blocked" message I have. Some people liked it, so I made it personalizable... see it here.
  • Stayed up too late.
  • Got tired.
  • Had fun.
  • Hopefully, inspired more WikiDragons to do some WikiDragon-ing!
VigilancePrime (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

24 Feb

More new stuff...
  • I worked to use the dragon page as a sort of a template and incorporate some Dragon-like material here, tweaking it to suit this page. Also cleaned up and expanded the section headings.
  • Incorporated some text from another wiki that suited this page well. "WikiVirgins"... that's great...
  • There's some stuff here that I'm not sure if we want to keep on the page or no, and thus I left some hidden comments in the code.
  • Noted the creator of the WikiDragon page and the creator of the WikiDragon templates. We surely have at least a couple other "Notable WikiDragons" that we could add to the page, eh?
That's all for now. There's a NASCAR race on in a little bit...! • VigilancePrime 20:12 (UTC) 24 Feb '08

Unnecessary, redundant, and contradictory content

Vigilance, its great that you are really inspired and filling the article out, but this section is completely unnecessary and detracts from the article.

  • It is already mentioned many times that the WikiDragon is supposed to be grandiose. Mentioning it again is not needed.
  • It is said in the intro that WikiDragons usually make bold changes...then why put internal linking as a behavior? It says in the intro that the other "creatures" do this kind of thing? This doesn't make a lot of sense.
  • The non-conformity is a given. Referencing you own creation is in bad form if you are attempting to boast your own qualities.
  • Unilaterally combining and creating have already mentioned this several times.
  • Reverting edits? Isn't this something that is usually done to the WikiDragon? It doesn't really match up with the rest of the article.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I see the grandiosity thing. Same with unilateralism. If here was another example I'd use it on the non-conformity. The internal linking and reverting what I'm (trying to) getting at is that WD's may go through an article and just link the hell out of it... overlinking even, and when in the right mood (the stick the head out of the cave but not really go flying around today) a WD can go on a revert spree, just undoing anything that doesn't seem perfect. I think these fal into WD behaviors (maybe less common), and I just haven't described them well. Maybe I'm just wrong. That's been known to happen before too. • VigilancePrime 16:40 (UTC) 1 Mar '08
I typically don't revert edits, but I just reverted a couple of edits tonight on Monty Python and the Holy Grail due to a severe information loss. I don't think the edits were vandalism, but they were harmful to the article.Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiDragons exist!

No, Vigilance, you're not the last one! I checked the category page and there's another dragon out there somewhere, probably sleeping in his cave. Lately I've been out and about working on the extinct fish pages. I'm finding that there is a degree of inclarity as to the phylogenic categorization of the fish, but I hope to resolve that as I continue my research.Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on this page

I'm unhappy about the fact that Wikipedia Admin people get to have a page such as this which is meant to be 'Humorous' but is in fact far from it. I did not even chuckle whilst reading the whole, overly long article. Now, how comes you Wikipedia Admin people or whatever you like to be known as, get to have this page but when I edit something, which I am in no doubt that quite a few people out there would find funny, you come along and revert it. Now I know you are going to say that Wikipedia is meant to give valid information to users, but what's wrong with adding a bit of light humor to the page so they can have a bit of a laugh whilst they read the article? Nothing. Thank you for reading, hopefully this doesn't get me banned as I am only voicing my views and if that is seen as a form of vandalism to then so be it.

Note: The above unsigned comment was voiced by User:Jwilson08 at 04:45 on April 10, 2008.

I only have one thing to say: "WTH???" (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Octapsids? Come on! Real reptiles are anapsids (one arch) or diapsids (two arches). Eight arches in the skull just sounds really, really, really phony. I know this is supposed to be made-up, but this doesn't even sound one bit realistic. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it back, since they are most like diapsids. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Counting

I would like to know how the WikiDragons are counted, on the reference labelled [1], it leads to a page titled Pages that link to Wikipedia:WikiDragon. Are all user pages counted or is it investigated and only some of the more fierce editors chosen? --Hegan (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The process is fairly simple, although it takes some time. WikiDragons are tallied using the following steps:
  1. Perform a User search for pages linking to Wikipedia:WikiDragon
  2. Open each user in a separate tab. Sometimes users choose to display the information on a subpage, so these must be included.
  3. Run through each tab quickly, recording the name of every user with the WikiDragon topicon at the top of his/her page. Be sure to close any pages determined to be a WikiDragon.
  4. 2nd check. On the remaining tabs, look for a WikiDragon userbox, and record these names. Close the pages determined to be WikiDragons.
  5. 3rd check. Read the userpage carefully! Every one of these pages contains the link somewhere, so you may have to click a few "show" links to find it. Once you've found it, read the context in which it's used. "I am a WikiDragon, a WikiElf, and sometimes a WikiOtter." Add it. "I was never a WikiDragon." Don't add it...close that page. "I hope someday to be a WikiDragon." Not a WikiDragon, either. "I contributed significantly to/created the WikiDragon page." This means absolutely nothing. Not a WikiDragon.
  6. Once all pages are closed, run through the list, checking for duplicates.
  7. Check each WikiDragon's contributions page. If the WikiDragon has been unsighted (0 edits) for 10 years (an IUCN standard for classifying the status of endangered species), remove that name from the list. (Since Wikipedia was founded in the early 2000s, none should be eliminated yet.)
  8. Tally them up. I find copying the list into an Excel spreadsheet works best for counting them, since each row is numbered.
  9. Come up with a clever way to incorporate the new research into the article.
  10. If you understand how to come up with a classification similar to IUCN's classifications, then feel free to do the best you can to accurately place the WikiDragons into a class.

From a quick look at your userpage, the topicon and userbox are instant notifiers that you are a WikiDragon, so you would definitely be included in the census. Either of these two methods is a surefire way to be counted, but had you chosen to incorporate the information into the text instead or put the userbox in some hidden area without using the topicon, your page would only lengthen the process.

The topicon is definitely the preferred method for census purposes, although these can build up quickly for users who overuse them, so they are sometimes avoided.

IMPORTANT: If you do not include the topicon or userbox, be sure that you link your page to Wikipedia:WikiDragon in your text! Exceptions: These are the WikiDragons that are hiding in their lairs, safe from WikiKnights. Unfortunately, hiding WikiDragons cannot be counted, due to the difficulty in seeking them out.

Thanks for your interest in the census! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that cleared it up for me. Looking at what you have to do, it must take some time to do it all, maybe a bot could be created to lighten the load. Though that probally wont work if the information wasnt in the infobox, its worth a look in though.

--Hegan (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the process for surveying the population. I'm going to try and come up with a classification that meets the standards of IUCN. We'll see how that goes. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent increase in population

Dear Sir, your editorial of this morning claims that the recent increase in numbers is due to "technological advancements and governments taking an active role in conservation". Evolution was not invented, it's been going on for billions of years - trust humans to try to claim credit for it. As for "governments taking an active role in conservation", that claim is WP:OR of the worst type - unsupported, false and most likely phrased by a sesquipedalia of spin doctors who have transferred their dubious loyalties to the incoming administration.

*roar* I'm just trying to get funding from the government to establish a new zoo with dragons as the theme OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody misread the section. Evolution doesn't increase the population, I'm not sure why you've connected it to that section. The increases in population are what the government has caused through programs to protect them, and the technological advances add a pun, because the technological advances refer to the tagging and identification system, which helps identify the numbers, meaning that when we count the population, it's a higher number. Remember the article is meant to be humorous. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I accept that the article is meant to be humorous. --Philcha (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)This user is a Wikidraco scholasticus.

What's with all the tags?

Why are all of the {{weasel-inline}} and {{fact}} tags on this page? It's not like it's a serious article that needs everything laid out like as if though it were an FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this page has been WikiImped. I think it would be appropriate to remove these tags. The weasel tags are a bit excessive, but could be narrowed to a few. The fact tags can be destroyed, I bet. I'll leave them until someone else voices their opinion. Wouldn't be fair to call a consensus on only two opinions. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, someone's already done this. The only fact tag left is something which does need citation, as it refers to a more serious matter of administrators cracking down on WikiDragon editors. This might not even belong in the article, as it makes the admins look bad, but it at least needs citation.

good page

I think other wikifauna pages should be like this. It's so detailed and yet, so easy to understand. I think other pages should be like this one.

oh great...I'm a wiki-imp. Solar Flute (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You gotta start somewhere. --MahaPanta (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently made a WikiFauna page, WikiMercenary. Lots to do for it! The Clawed One (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)