User talk:Mahagaja/Reasons to leave
1, 2 and 4 are very good reasons to leave in my opinion. I'm not that strongly against fair use -- shouldn't articles about political parties contain their logos? 5 is not a problem at all -- let all people write about what they want to, as long as it meets our notability criteria. We should work on getting more people to write about historical and geographical articles, though, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, articles about political parties shouldn't contain their logos. The logos don't provide any essential information about the political party, so there's no reason to violate copyright like that. The "no fair use" policy is just about the only thing I like about de-wiki. I think my biggest problem with the fanboy articles is that they are predominantly original research, yet they are so well established that they will never be deleted on those grounds. Descriptions of fictional characters' personalities and behavior are based entirely on what the editor himself has observed, not on published sources. I'll add this to the page. User:Angr 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to agree to disagree on fair use (though I agree that it's regularily overused in its extent). I concur with the OR problem of fancrufty articles, but would see no problems if they were cited; there's lots of websites about comics on the web which could be cited, I believe. —Nightstallion (?) 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I'm not saying there should be no articles at all on comic strips and the like, just that there don't need to be articles on every single character and every single place -- or even "lists of minor characters" and the like. If verifiability were strictly applied, I think 90% of the fanboy content would disappear, but I seriously doubt verifiability ever will be strictly applied to these articles. User:Angr 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Likely true, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I'm not saying there should be no articles at all on comic strips and the like, just that there don't need to be articles on every single character and every single place -- or even "lists of minor characters" and the like. If verifiability were strictly applied, I think 90% of the fanboy content would disappear, but I seriously doubt verifiability ever will be strictly applied to these articles. User:Angr 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to agree to disagree on fair use (though I agree that it's regularily overused in its extent). I concur with the OR problem of fancrufty articles, but would see no problems if they were cited; there's lots of websites about comics on the web which could be cited, I believe. —Nightstallion (?) 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, point 9; welcome to my world! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, to talk about the next few points you raised... I couldn't agree more with #6, of course. What's fucking wrong with "ß"? I wouldn't quite go as far with #7, as there are a number of rather notable schools (in Austria alone, there are at least one or two dozen notable schools, either for their age or for other interesting historical details), but yes, there's definitely too many articles about them. I wouldn't be opposed to having many articles about trivial things in principle, but there's just so much more which hasn't got any articles or badly written ones... Ah well. Regarding #8, I was rather surprised about that, as well... I naturally also agree with #9; who wouldn't? And #10 is one of the lowest points in Wikipedia's recent history, I believe, both for the AGF as well as the censorship issues raised by this. —Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I was actually going to ask Angr about #6 when I found this lively month-old discussion here. It was always my understanding that we are supposed to use English, and that since the alphabet of the English language consists of only 26 letters, all those funny foreign letters are supposed to be substituted (with established dictionary words such as "café" being obvious exceptions). Russian, for example, is romanized, so, I figured, is the case with other languages whose alphabets are either non-Roman or heavily utilize diacritics. From what I see in #6, Angr disagrees, but there is no explanation of why. Surely, a policy you just don't like isn't a good enough reason for leaving, especially when it seems to be broken left, right, and in the middle?
- I hope Angr wasn't bombarded with the variations of this same question in the past to the point where he doesn't want to chew on this subject a minute longer, so if there is a link to previous discussion, I'll take it and shut up :) At this point, I am merely curious. Angr?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Use English" means don't write your articles in any other language. It means use English names as the titles of articles where they exist (Vienna, not "Wien", etc.). It doesn't mean stick to the 26 letters of the English alphabet when writing about topics that don't have English names. Sticking to the Latin alphabet is a good idea, but the Latin alphabet includes letters like ß, ð, þ, and letters with diacritics. I do like the policy as it stands; what I dislike is (deliberate?) misinterpretation of that policy resulting in misspelled article titles. To me, having the article on Meißen at Meissen is simply misinformation: we're telling the readers something that isn't true. It's as bad as having the article on Mississippi at "Missisippi" instead on the grounds that it gets a large number of Google hits. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be combatting ignorance, not propagating it. Angr 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- True, but isn't "ss" an accepted way to represent "ß"? "Ue" to represent "ü"? And so on? After all, by your logic there is no place called "Moscow", there is "Москва", and only that. I guess I just don't see how you draw a line between what's acceptable and what's not. I realize that it's probably the type of script (Latin/extended Latin is allowed, but other scripts are not), but surely there was a reason why the BGN/PCGN co-developed a whole set of Roman-script spelling conventions for languages such as Faroese, Icelandic, and yes, German, and why these conventions are being largerly followed in academic circles? Conventions aside, why not propose clarifying the policy by including a description of the letter set that would be allowed in the article titles instead of just venting under item #6 on a subpage not many are likely to see?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- "ss" is only an acceptable replacement for "ß" (1) in Switzerland and (2) where "ß" is typographically unavailable, such as when writing in all uppercase letters. The two do contrast with each other: Masse and Maße are different words in German and are pronounced differently. My logic does not say there is no place called "Moscow", only "Москва", because Moscow is the English name for Москва -- although perhaps my logic does say there is no place called Blagoveshchensk, only "Благовещенск", since Благовещенск doesn't have an English name. Nevertheless, the policy says to transliterate non-Latin-alphabet names into the Latin alphabet, and it says that Latin-alphabet names that have no English equivalent should be left alone. There's no point in my attempting to get policy clear on this issue, though; it's just far too contentious and consensus could never be reached. Every straw poll I've seen on the issue has always wound up split about 50-50, with lots of harsh words and ill feelings all around. I'm sick of articles with misspelled names (per point 6), but I'm also sick of all the fighting about the issue. So instead, I vent on a little subpage of my user page that I don't expect very many people to see. Angr 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Understood. It'd be a pity if you left just because of this, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be just because of this. There are nine other reasons on the list. Angr 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Let me just add that I agree 100 per cent with you on this. —Nightstallion (?) 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather you stayed. You and User:A Man In Black are the primary reasons I have changed how I edit the Wikipedia. As an editor of computer and video game articles, I formerly propagated fancruft and original research and pissed all over the fair use clause. I agree with you that only two fair use images (at most) are needed in virtually all CVG articles. I wish strict guidelines established what CVG articles should be included (although verifiability should make this pretty clear) and how they should be structured. --Tristam 07:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let me just add that I agree 100 per cent with you on this. —Nightstallion (?) 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be just because of this. There are nine other reasons on the list. Angr 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Understood. It'd be a pity if you left just because of this, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- "ss" is only an acceptable replacement for "ß" (1) in Switzerland and (2) where "ß" is typographically unavailable, such as when writing in all uppercase letters. The two do contrast with each other: Masse and Maße are different words in German and are pronounced differently. My logic does not say there is no place called "Moscow", only "Москва", because Moscow is the English name for Москва -- although perhaps my logic does say there is no place called Blagoveshchensk, only "Благовещенск", since Благовещенск doesn't have an English name. Nevertheless, the policy says to transliterate non-Latin-alphabet names into the Latin alphabet, and it says that Latin-alphabet names that have no English equivalent should be left alone. There's no point in my attempting to get policy clear on this issue, though; it's just far too contentious and consensus could never be reached. Every straw poll I've seen on the issue has always wound up split about 50-50, with lots of harsh words and ill feelings all around. I'm sick of articles with misspelled names (per point 6), but I'm also sick of all the fighting about the issue. So instead, I vent on a little subpage of my user page that I don't expect very many people to see. Angr 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- True, but isn't "ss" an accepted way to represent "ß"? "Ue" to represent "ü"? And so on? After all, by your logic there is no place called "Moscow", there is "Москва", and only that. I guess I just don't see how you draw a line between what's acceptable and what's not. I realize that it's probably the type of script (Latin/extended Latin is allowed, but other scripts are not), but surely there was a reason why the BGN/PCGN co-developed a whole set of Roman-script spelling conventions for languages such as Faroese, Icelandic, and yes, German, and why these conventions are being largerly followed in academic circles? Conventions aside, why not propose clarifying the policy by including a description of the letter set that would be allowed in the article titles instead of just venting under item #6 on a subpage not many are likely to see?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Use English" means don't write your articles in any other language. It means use English names as the titles of articles where they exist (Vienna, not "Wien", etc.). It doesn't mean stick to the 26 letters of the English alphabet when writing about topics that don't have English names. Sticking to the Latin alphabet is a good idea, but the Latin alphabet includes letters like ß, ð, þ, and letters with diacritics. I do like the policy as it stands; what I dislike is (deliberate?) misinterpretation of that policy resulting in misspelled article titles. To me, having the article on Meißen at Meissen is simply misinformation: we're telling the readers something that isn't true. It's as bad as having the article on Mississippi at "Missisippi" instead on the grounds that it gets a large number of Google hits. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be combatting ignorance, not propagating it. Angr 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't seem to be going anywhere at the moment! My personal opinion is that encyclopedia articles should only be about things that exist in the real world. Computer games exist in the real world, therefore they are valid topics for encyclopedia articles. But characters and places in computer games do not exist in the real world, therefore they (in my opinion, not per WP policy) should not be the topics of articles. The same holds true of books and book series: Harry Potter and each of the books/movies should have an article, but Harry Potter (character) and Hogwarts shouldn't be. —Angr 07:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you aren't leaving anytime soon. :) I actually agree with you: Lakitu (blargh) is up for FA review; I actually recommended it be removed not only as a FA, but also as an article, since the existence of multiple published and reliable secondary sources is the most general litmus test for the inclusion of articles. I think one of my new goals is to help clean up articles at the computer and video games WikiProject (merges, redirects, removing fair use images, AfD, and so on). Just the other day I immediately removed a massive image gallery from The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Before the removal there was vague discussion on the talk page as to whether the gallery was "too big:" the response was that the images should stay because they are "beautiful." What part of official policy (FUC) do the majority of editors not understand? EDIT: Do you have any recommendations as to how CVG articles should be structured? The current format usually has sections for the plot of the game, the game mechanics (gameplay), development of the game, music, critical reception, and sales. --Tristam 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't. It's not an area I know anything about. What's wrong with the current format? —Angr 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are guidelines for writing about fiction, but the computer and video game space is rather prone to the attention of enthusiastic fans, which make enforcing policy a quite daunting task. Anyway, glad you've reconsidered, Angr. Combination 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's anything particularly wrong with the current format; I was just hoping to gain perspective as to what could be a more "encyclopedic" format (I can't base format off of written encyclopedias as they don't cover popular culture). It's unfortunate, because I usually like operating within as strict guidelines as possible. In general, structure of CVG articles follows that of books and movies, gameplay section excepted, so perhaps the format is just fine after all. --Tristam 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are guidelines for writing about fiction, but the computer and video game space is rather prone to the attention of enthusiastic fans, which make enforcing policy a quite daunting task. Anyway, glad you've reconsidered, Angr. Combination 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't. It's not an area I know anything about. What's wrong with the current format? —Angr 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Notability of Schools
editHi Angr, I tend to agree with you on the whole about schools, it is tedious seeing endless articles about mediocre high schools or comprehensives. Having said that there are other notable schools apart from Eton, such as Kings School Canterbury founded by St Augustine in AD 597 - if only by virtue of being the oldest extant school in the world. If you allow Eton, then why not Harrow School, whose famous alumnae include Churchill and Nehru. It is is to Eton as Oxford University is to Cambridge. Then to be partisan, one ought to include Ampleforth College, known as the Catholic Eton. St Paul's School has the highest admission rate to Oxbridge in Britain (60% in 2005) and therefore more academically distinguished than Eton... and so on. People will only look up the schools they are interested in, or have attended themselves. I guess that is the democracy that is Wikipedia. I don't have to look at low brow articles unless I want to. I find the quality of writing on serious subjects at Wikipedia is of a high standard and also less prone to vandalism.(not being frequented by puerile high school morons). Don't be discouraged and keep up the good work! regards,Natalieduerinckx 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I allow Eton because it's the only school I've ever heard of without actually having attended or visited myself. The other schools you mention I've never heard of. (I know, "I've never heard of it" is in general a poor guide to notability, but still...) —Angr 06:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Own opinions
edit1. I feel the issue where programs published under the new GPL are not allowed to be derived from programs published under the old GPL shows that copyright restrictions do not help freedom. I always say: no rights reserved.
6. I think this is like saying you have to use the long s to spell the name of some place in England that no longer exists and hasn't been written about since the long s disappeared. It also condones the terrible Saxon chauvinism of misspelling Irish words simply because they have for so long occupied Éire and so long scorned the language and people who taught them the letters they use. Certainly every article should include the native spelling, but to insist on it always only makes it too hard for Saxons to search for and comprehend articles.
- I realized I'm a massive hypocrite about this, because I do think they should make an effort to spell Irish properly. Still, I feel that's a debt they owe. 121.127.200.1 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
7. Just the other day I looked up a school an ignorantly chauvinistic acquaintance attended and found it was proudly English and had named its houses after some white supremacist genocidists, which was most enlightening. Maybe articles don't tell you what you want to know, but what if it was up to, say, the orange order to decide what articles are interesting and culturally noteworthy? Then we would be stuck with my edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica which only mentions the Countess (the first woman elected to their parliament!) and Mac Piarais in passing, if at all.