Wikipedia talk:WikiDragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 Save the Dragons 3 rename 4 Am I a Dragon? 5 Userbox and Category 6 CAT: WikiDragon 7 New Stuff Tonight 7.1 17 Feb 7.2 24 Feb 8 Unnecessary, redundant, and contradictory content 9 WikiDragons exist! 10 Comments on this page 11 Octapsids

[edit] Archives

ARCHIVE 001 - 29 Jun 2007 (inception) through 04 Feb 2008 (major mainpage overhaul)

[edit] 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) [edit] rename 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. 130.132.143.49 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) [edit] 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 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) If you want you can be! Be bold and add yourself. Phgao 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) <!end archive> [edit] 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) [edit] 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)

[edit] New Stuff Tonight

[edit] 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) :-)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 pages...you 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Octapsids

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)