User talk:Trlkly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add all comments to the bottom of the page.
It makes it easier to tell what's been added. I archive discussions that I consider complete for the same reason. If you wish to talk about the same or a similar topic, please create a new section here. If you wish to discuss my edits, I'm all ears.


[edit] AfD nomination of TV Tropes Wiki

An article that you have been involved in editing, TV Tropes Wiki, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Tropes Wiki. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? WLU (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya,
Regards your discussion on the AFD, please make sure you refer to the deletion guidelines - right now your !vote is an actual 'vote', meaning there's no policy- or guideline-based reasoning for keeping the page (at least by my reading). Be sure to read arguments to avoid during deletion discussion, I interpret your 'weak keep' as a variant of WP:ILIKEIT. I agree that TV Tropes is a borderline case of notability, so generally the best thing to do is seek out more sources and expand as much as possible.
Regards drafting pages and presenting them for review, you can always userfy the page to a sub-page if the article does get deleted, then keep looking for sources until you find enough to demonstrate notability per WP:WEB, then ask an admin or other user to review before moving to mainspace. This way the previous work is not wasted in case the wiki does get sufficient attention in the future that it's no longer of questionable notability. Were I in your situation, that's what I'd do, but no one says I'm right. WLU (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is originally from WLU's talk page. I copied it here so readers can see the complete discussion.

I did not use policy in discussing this, as, frankly, I hate it when people do that to me. In my mind, too many "policies" assume bad faith. I mean, take WP:ILIKEIT as an example. It seems to assume that I edited this page out of ignorance or just because I liked the topic. It very plainly asserts that my opinion is worthless. How can you do that without assuming bad faith/being uncivil? Especially since I specifically wrote "I really don't care if the article gets deleted"? It's like calling me a liar.

Now, that said, I get your point. Since you used policy to back up your claims, you want me to, as well. Fine, I can try, even if that means actually reading them again, as they've probably changed since I started editing. (WP:BIO came out since then. I'd say it's been a while.). I hate that we have to have them, but I guess it is a necessary evil. Let's see if I can find that essay specifically written to combat yours. (It's in your domain, so you have some claim of ownership on it.) I can't at the moment, and I've been looking a while. It kinda bothers me that WP:ATA doesn't link to it's opposition. The essay I'm looking for basically says that even ILIKEIT should be considered, as people generally like notable, well-written articles. The unfairness argument above is entirely my own creation, and I have no idea how to search and see if other people might have the same opinion.

(Sorry for being so verbose. The only policy I flat out WP:IAR around here is the one that limits me to a 100-word response. Not even Wikipedia's worth the hours it takes me to concatenate my own work.)

-- trlkly 14:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here 'cause otherwise I might miss your talk page on my watchlist, but I'll drop you a line to let you know. I'll also refrain from my usual deluge of policy and guideline wikilinks, I love a lot of blue in my writing :) I'm also hardly one to criticize another editor for lengthy replies, so on this page at least please feel free to ignore the 100-word limit. Though 1000 words may be a bit much to read and reply to.
The reason why policies and guidelines exist is to limit the contents of wikipedia and try to make it adhere to a reasonable standard of verification that will make it a reliable source of information. Since everyone has an opinion, the guidelines exist to set standards that will ensure that the ability to verify takes precedence over the ability to opine - in general the standards for notability are pretty basic. There must be evidence that someone has paid attention to the article's topic, somewhere, that's not a blog or advertisement.
I've never seen a 'counter' to the ATA articles, though m:Inclusionism over at the Meta-wiki might have something to say. The only real 'counter' would probably be a reference to the WP:N that indicates the page has done something truly notable (i.e. arguably being the first website devoted solely to TV tropes would be notable, but you'd have to prove this through the us of sources; having sources to use indicates that the page has recieved attention in independent media; ergo, the page is notable because it passes guidelines for web content). Since notability and WEB are guidelines, not policy, they can be more easily ignored if a convincing (to other editors) case can be made that the notability is actually genuine. But again, this falls back on an issue of sourcing and verification, which is policy.
Ultimately the policies are the only touchstone editors have on a publically-editable wiki. For me a complete assumption of good faith in all cases without the policies and guidelines to say what is a reliable source and what is a reasonable standard would mean a battle between the vandals and the editors for who can edit-war the most persistantly to a version they like. I've always thought the policies and guidelines were quite good and really appreciate them (you can probably tell by my extensive use of shortcuts), but as a deletionist I'm dedicated heart and soul to brutally and cruelly culling content I don't think meets the bar (which is probably set unusually high compared to other editors). Anyway, the AFD as is was borderline, leaning to deletion in my mind, but a good source would tip it towards keep. That's why I suggest the use of a sub-page to preserve the content, and if a new source pops up, it's easy to add it to the page and re-create.
As you also might have guessed, I hate IAR and wish there were a policy about when rules can be ignored. Fortunately I'm not the boss of wikipedia, otherwise it would be a much smaller, doubtless much less fun place to read and edit. WLU (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't get from the AfD that all you needed was a good source. I may not be able to find it in time, however, as I am not feeling good and may have to go to the doctor. I personally like IAR, but only when someone can adequately explain why it is beneficial to the encyclopedia to ignore the rules in that instance, and also why it wouldn't just be better to just change the rules in the first place. I much respect you for not taking WP:AGF too strongly. I do the same thing, sometimes. Since you think TVTropes just needs a source (which I may be able to find later), I think I will take your advice and save it in my user space. I do care about the article now since it's so close. If I was the IP who created it, I'd probably care more, though. I usually don't care about articles until they are at least Good Article candidates.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. I appreciate it. -- trlkly 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In almost all cases the notability guidelines are variations on a theme - show a reliable, independent source that has paid attention to the topic, and you're pretty much good. That's only a notability guideline, the guidelines and policies for content of an article are totally different (RS, NPOV, OR, V for a bit of alphabet soup). Also note that it can't really be 'just a source', it must be independent of TV Tropes, and from a reliable source. The source must be vetted by someone independent of the person writing the information, or the person themselves must be a knowledgeable expert. Most of my nom is discussing the failings of the current sources to show as far as I'm concerned it doesn't pass notability, but the core problem is at the bottom. The part where I basically said all it needed is a source and discussion is at the bottom of my nomination, where I say "Per WP:WEB, there is a lack of non-trivial discussion in reliable sources to indicate the site has received extensive attention."
I realize it can seem tedious, but if you're going to spend a lot of time on wikipedia it's very worth reading at least the basic policies and guidelines - it'll make your wiki-life a lot easier and give common ground with other editors. It's a rocky and steep learning curve initially, for sure, but if you're going to be on-wiki for the long term, it's pretty much essential. Fortunately in most cases it's pretty basic:
  1. don't make stuff up
  2. show where you got your information
  3. make sure it's somewhere you can trust
  4. be fair to all views of the topic
  5. external links should be rare, and highly valuable
  6. make sure someone off-wiki thinks your topic is worth talking about
  7. play nicely
Sounds like you got bit, which is pretty common and definitely a souring experience if it happens early. If you're really interested in wikipedia, you might consider adoption, which pairs you with an experienced user and can make your life a lot easier. The other option is asking other users for help/advice, admins are usually good choices. My favourite is User:FisherQueen 'cause she's also really funny, and User:SandyGeorgia is a non-admin who is incredibly knowledgeable. WLU (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[from my page]

Also, here is a loooong essay that covers just about everything I think is worth talking about on wikipedia. It's sometimes funny and I try to cover a lot of the mores and rules of thumb that govern wikipedia as a community rather than an ideal. WLU (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[from his]

That was very perceptive of you that I got bit in the past. As a former Intelligent Design proponent, I got bit when I claimed that certain parts of it weren't NPOV enough. (Someone actually deleted some of my comments on the talk page explaining my POV, which really miffed me. Oddly enough, my changes made it through anyways.) I then dedicated myself to be more of a WikiGnome than anything, so policy doesn't come up often in my edits. Usually what I know and can source about a subject has already been said. I'll sometimes add things I want sourced to talk pages and ask people to source them.

Anyways, I've been editing on TVTropes for a little while, when I discovered I had a lot to contribute and that conflicts were rare. Someone mentioned the fledgling article, so I went there to try and bring it up to standards. That's were my "work" came in. I thought I'd done a fairly good job for a stub, and left it for someone else to improve. Then I get an AfD notice. I honestly wondered what I could do not to lose my work. TVTropes has this thing called You Know That Thing Where where you can propose articles, so I thought WP might have something similar. Using my user space never donned on me, as that is against policy on TVTropes.

ADOPTION sounds kinda cool, but, as I edit so infrequently, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. I had no idea who was considered a good editor around here, so I hadn't ever really asked anyone for help. I'm also a big Do-It-Yourselfer. I'm also pretty big on the idea that policies should be simple enough not to have to read them that often. I understand that every eventuality has to attempt to be covered, but that the average editor shouldn't have to know them in detail. I know the rules, I just didn't know that my sources weren't good enough for notability.

Oh, and finally, I understand what you meant in your AfD about the sources not being reliable enough. I misspoke when I said "just needed a source". I meant a "good source", one good enough for use on Wikipedia. It can take a lot of effort to find sources when you don't know where to look, and, as I am just a casual editor, it might take me longer than the time the AfD has left. I thought we would need several, which I didn't figure would happen anytime soon, so that's why I said I didn't care if the article got deleted. I would just add information about how Wikipedia still doesn't find TVTropes notable to the NoSuchThingAsNotability page there. (They definitely aren't deletionists.) I am BigT over there. I don't know if you'd enjoy it, but you're obviously welcome to check out that wiki. I think it's amazing what you can do with so few rules. Before the Great Crash, our articles were often #1 on Google. We're fairly definitive in our field, as we're the only ones who have bothered naming most tropes consistently. If only I could find a (good, reliable) source to back that up...

-- trlkly 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the work of Hrafn. I actually have a lot of respect for Hrafn, s/he's got a massive amount of expertise and balls/ovaries the size of a Glyptodon (by the way, I'm a huge fan of Darwin and evolution). From a pro-evolution perspective, there's so many cranks raising spurious creationist comments on many of the pages that it's often quicker for all around to bite first and not care about the result (doesn't make it right, just efficient). I mean, there's only so many times you can deal with 'evolution is just a theory' or 'macroevolution has never been seen' before fangs are bared (and they're so delicious). The creationist perspective gets virtually no real positive attention because there are no real reliable sources, the points are spurious and it's a cultural topic that keeps trying to intrude in the scientific arena. I have lots of advice for editors who are creationists who wish to edit wikipedia, following it would result in a long and fruitful career here, but they generally don't like the fact that for the most part it's 'leave the science pages alone'. Most of them are crusaders for truth anyway and don't understand NPOV, sourcing or verifiability, and aren't interested in learning or switching topic areas. That you're still here suggests you've grasped the essence of the policies, and that you're changes ended up on a main page suggests that you actually raised some valid points, even if you were nibbled in the process. Anyway, rant is over. Glad you're still here and contributing. Wikignomes are essential parts in the biodiversity of the wikiforest, to overstretch a metaphor.
TVTropes isn't (and wasn't) terrible as far as formatting, spelling, grammar and sources, the problem is one of notability, which is fundamentally different from sourcing with totally different sets of policies and guidelines. People are talking about using TVTropes as a reference in the AFD discussion - that's totally irrelevant to whether the page should exist or not. I see the distinction as fundamental and obvious, but I've been here for nearly two years and have crammed in a lot of edits in that time. Even if the page is deleted, I highly suggestion you ask the deleting admin to userfy so if some extensive coverage in reliable sources does come up, you can easily re-create. You mention sources not being reliable in the AFD discussion, my issue is that the reliable sources are not discussing the page extensively (which I place a lot of emphasis on) while the sources that do discuss it are not reliable. I'd say this is an area where people fundamentally disagree because lots of peole have !voted to keep based on the mention in any source rather than focussing on the real key to notability - attention, discussion. It's enough to make a deletionist cry. Anyway, it looks like the page is heading for a verdict of no consensus, which is a default keep (also enough to make a deletionist cry). Keep expanding the page, eventually it'll be clearly notable if it gets enough attention (and wikipedia is part of that attention-getting process since we're usually at or near the top of the google hit list).
Anyway, if you have any more questions about wikipedia, please feel free to ask for my opinion. I make no guarantee that it's right, but often it is defensible and I'm quite pleased to show off my erudition as well as generally help.
Also, you may want to add Template:Infobox Website to the TVTropes page.WLU (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome ideas—both the info box and userfying to keep the history. Is there an Infobox Wiki? Anyways, I'm surprised that no consensus == keep, as I always considered WP to be a more deletionist resource. I will do my best to bring the page up to snuff. I've at least got a few more places to look for sources that actually discuss the wiki. Also, just so you know, I am a Creationist, even if I think ID is useless. I just don't let my creationism interfere when I edit biological science articles. (You'd be surprised how many don't discuss evolution anyways.) And I'm not sure God didn't use evolution to do His creating. I just think it doesn't matter in the long scheme of things.

— trlkly 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox isn't so much an awesome idea as it is standard for most pages. There's infoboxes for all five biological kingdoms, actors, rulers, military leaders, boats, companies, books, movies, diseases and nearly everything else on wikipedia. There's probably not an infobox wiki as they're a within-wiki phenomenon : ) I usually try to find an infobox from a similar page and copy that one (though using "Template:Infoboxname" in the search box leads you to the infobox's page where you can find instructions on how to fill it out. No consensus is usually a default keep, I'm guessing the pages you're thinking of were less 'no consensus' as 'arguments that made sense to inexperienced editors but are unconvincing per WP:N' but I'd have to see specific examples to comment. Ever read Kenneth R. Miller's book Finding Darwin's God? Good book. By your description you're probably more a borderline deist than a creationist BTW. There's also a reply on my talk page and the article's talk page for you regards that Indian artist. A good option on pages with author's website-only sourcing is a quick google search to see if there's anything independent to confirm. WLU (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)