That shouldn't have happened. The vote was held 2 years ago. AFD has changed since then and it's no longer a vote, so such counting wouldn't be allowed and would be howled down.
Not sure what your issue is though. The article was kept! Perhaps it might be time to move on? This happened 2 years ago, and the article was kept, which is clearly what you wanted.
Well... AFD isn't great, but in the absence of a better system it works OK.
The problem with the example given, was that it was trying to highlight a problem with AFD that no longer exists, as AFD isn't about voting. The central thesis was that there was systemic failure in the model... something I don't agree with.
Trivia will eventually hurt the project if it is accepted by the community. I think it would be worthwhile noting that Wikipedia is "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language". Note that it's not a knowledge base of all topics under the sun, it is an attempt to be a high-quality encyclopedia with relevant and factual information about notable topics. Not every topic should be included, and that actually sometimes includes Web Comics.
The irony here is that those who have webcomics wouldn't dream of complaining to Encarta or the EB, as everyone would just either laugh at them or ignore their whining. Just because Wikipedia can be edited by pretty much anyone, doesn't give you the right to have an article about your favourite topic or creation! Of course, you do have the right to whine and sulk about it, and ask people not to contribute funds towards the endeavour.:-)
Like I say, it isn't trivia if the information is useful. Thus the goal is not the removal of useful info (which some seem to fear) but the removal of useless and pointless information.
Your last statement is correct. Much of the "trivia" in trivia sections isn't trivia and should be merged into the main article.
Let me remind you that you are the academic vandalising Wikipedia. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should be malicious and vandalise it. There's really two ways of putting it: you are an arrogant prat.
Well, then it's not really a valid example then. Since 2005, AFD has changed considerably. Firstly, in 2005 it was votes for deletion. However, now it is articles for deletion, and closing admins are no longer allowed to do straight "vote" counts. Those who say "keep" or "delete" are now either discounted, or given less weight than those who give detailed reasons.
The system has changed. The example given is no longer valid.
Sorry, did I say that the article would be undeleted? I didn't guarantee anything. I've seen many organisations get deleted, and to be frank most of them needed to be deleted, as they weren't notable. Those that should not have been deleted went to DRV and got undeleted. Simple.
Care to point out exactly what you believe to be trivia in that article?
Incidently, Wikipedia doesn't remove anything. Editors remove info. It happens all the time. The nice thing is, you can be an editor to. Of course, if you remove material that you believe to be trivia, but others believe to be important, then the material will probably be put back. Then to put it back, you'll have to back up your edit on the talk page with good reasoning, and the ones putting the material back will also need to give a good reason why they are putting it back in. Those who can give the best reason will normally determine what goes into an article.
I have restored and added to AFD. Thanks for pointing this out. Can I point that any deletions can be reviewed at deletion review? grab an account and relist it, though you'll always need a very good reason why it should be undeleted. - ~~~~
Well, firstly, I'd like to inform people that admins shouldn't be seen as more important than other members of Wikipedia.:-)
However, as you did ask, it's interesting that you note that removing info that people want to see if a bad thing. I would agree. But if the information is interesting, informative and on-topic, then it's not really trivia.
One thing I would like to point out is that list of information is frowned upon by many, many Wikipedians. Trivia sections are generally disliked because they a. are about trivia (i.e. information that is generally not important or germane to the topic) and Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia, and b. we try to encourage excellent prose and brilliant writing in articles. List of unrelated information do not encourage that, and in fact can make an article less readable as they encourage sloppy and lazy editing. It's far easier to write a list of points than it is to carefully incorporate the information into prose. We don't want to encourage that sort of thing.
Trivia is bad because in essence it's about unimportant information. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a bunch of unimportant facts. If the information is important, then it's not trivia. If the information is not important to the subject, then it shouldn't be included. If the topic is about something trivial, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia - go put it somewhere else.
We routinely remove information. Our policies mandate it. For instance, you may not include original research.
I think people should quit thinking that Wikipedia is just a place to dump stuff. That's not its intended purpose, nor has it ever been purported to be.
I would disagree actually. The only way to be eligible for that criteria would be for an article to say "Such and such is a web comic." and that's it. The criteria states the article "does not indicate the importance or significance of its subject." I'd say this is pretty fair.
I read your comment with interest, but got a bit confused at "Occasionally, there are write-ins, but those are usually viewed as part of the spoiler effect." What exactly do you mean?
Goodness! Who listed the parent comment a troll? This is a commonly held view among many Wikipedians! Of course, it is diametrically opposed by many, many other Wikipedians... but still, to call this a troll is a bit ridiculous.
In that case, the slashdot summary is misleading. It very clearly says "but are the admins listening?"
If articles such as webcomics have been deleted due to speedy deletion, then the admin doing the deletion is in violation of policy and should be called to account. However, is there any evidence of that happening? I'm genuinely interested.
As an admin on Wikipedia, I wonder if it really is a problem with administrators. All comics must go through articles for deletion, where the community must decide. An admin just makes the closing decision based on consensus, then either keeps or deletes the article.
I agree that there are definitely some people who want to delete to readily, but then again there are people who are pushing trivia on Wikipedia, which is not good. It can run both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
That shouldn't have happened. The vote was held 2 years ago. AFD has changed since then and it's no longer a vote, so such counting wouldn't be allowed and would be howled down.
Not sure what your issue is though. The article was kept! Perhaps it might be time to move on? This happened 2 years ago, and the article was kept, which is clearly what you wanted.
Well... AFD isn't great, but in the absence of a better system it works OK.
:-)
The problem with the example given, was that it was trying to highlight a problem with AFD that no longer exists, as AFD isn't about voting. The central thesis was that there was systemic failure in the model... something I don't agree with.
Trivia will eventually hurt the project if it is accepted by the community. I think it would be worthwhile noting that Wikipedia is "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language". Note that it's not a knowledge base of all topics under the sun, it is an attempt to be a high-quality encyclopedia with relevant and factual information about notable topics. Not every topic should be included, and that actually sometimes includes Web Comics.
The irony here is that those who have webcomics wouldn't dream of complaining to Encarta or the EB, as everyone would just either laugh at them or ignore their whining. Just because Wikipedia can be edited by pretty much anyone, doesn't give you the right to have an article about your favourite topic or creation! Of course, you do have the right to whine and sulk about it, and ask people not to contribute funds towards the endeavour.
Like I say, it isn't trivia if the information is useful. Thus the goal is not the removal of useful info (which some seem to fear) but the removal of useless and pointless information.
Your last statement is correct. Much of the "trivia" in trivia sections isn't trivia and should be merged into the main article.
Who's yelling?
Let me remind you that you are the academic vandalising Wikipedia. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should be malicious and vandalise it. There's really two ways of putting it: you are an arrogant prat.
Wow, crapping all over a free project! What a responsible and mature individual you must be.
Arrogant prat.
Well, then it's not really a valid example then. Since 2005, AFD has changed considerably. Firstly, in 2005 it was votes for deletion. However, now it is articles for deletion, and closing admins are no longer allowed to do straight "vote" counts. Those who say "keep" or "delete" are now either discounted, or given less weight than those who give detailed reasons.
The system has changed. The example given is no longer valid.
Hardly. I strongly opposed changes to the Trivia guideline, and I'm a well known and experienced admin on Wikipedia. My comments did not hold the day.
I know, I know... force of habit now.
Sorry, did I say that the article would be undeleted? I didn't guarantee anything. I've seen many organisations get deleted, and to be frank most of them needed to be deleted, as they weren't notable. Those that should not have been deleted went to DRV and got undeleted. Simple.
I saw Dragonsfiend note that she supported a webcomic to be kept the other day. So much for "purging" articles. And Dragonsfiend is not an admin.
True... it does seem like a massive whine. Still, the tone with which he write does not mean that the subject matter isn't relevant or interesting.
Exactly what "votes" are you referring to? And why do you believe that the "votes" have been deleted?
Actually, I didn't understand what you meant by "write-ins".
Really? that link gives an internal Drupal error. Might be a little tough.
But, in case you didn't bother reading the slashdot summary, it clearly blames administrators of Wikipedia.
Care to point out exactly what you believe to be trivia in that article?
Incidently, Wikipedia doesn't remove anything. Editors remove info. It happens all the time. The nice thing is, you can be an editor to. Of course, if you remove material that you believe to be trivia, but others believe to be important, then the material will probably be put back. Then to put it back, you'll have to back up your edit on the talk page with good reasoning, and the ones putting the material back will also need to give a good reason why they are putting it back in. Those who can give the best reason will normally determine what goes into an article.
I have restored and added to AFD. Thanks for pointing this out. Can I point that any deletions can be reviewed at deletion review? grab an account and relist it, though you'll always need a very good reason why it should be undeleted. - ~~~~
Well, firstly, I'd like to inform people that admins shouldn't be seen as more important than other members of Wikipedia. :-)
However, as you did ask, it's interesting that you note that removing info that people want to see if a bad thing. I would agree. But if the information is interesting, informative and on-topic, then it's not really trivia.
One thing I would like to point out is that list of information is frowned upon by many, many Wikipedians. Trivia sections are generally disliked because they a. are about trivia (i.e. information that is generally not important or germane to the topic) and Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia, and b. we try to encourage excellent prose and brilliant writing in articles. List of unrelated information do not encourage that, and in fact can make an article less readable as they encourage sloppy and lazy editing. It's far easier to write a list of points than it is to carefully incorporate the information into prose. We don't want to encourage that sort of thing.
Trivia is bad because in essence it's about unimportant information. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a bunch of unimportant facts. If the information is important, then it's not trivia. If the information is not important to the subject, then it shouldn't be included. If the topic is about something trivial, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia - go put it somewhere else.
We routinely remove information. Our policies mandate it. For instance, you may not include original research.
I think people should quit thinking that Wikipedia is just a place to dump stuff. That's not its intended purpose, nor has it ever been purported to be.
I would disagree actually. The only way to be eligible for that criteria would be for an article to say "Such and such is a web comic." and that's it. The criteria states the article "does not indicate the importance or significance of its subject." I'd say this is pretty fair.
I read your comment with interest, but got a bit confused at "Occasionally, there are write-ins, but those are usually viewed as part of the spoiler effect." What exactly do you mean?
Goodness! Who listed the parent comment a troll? This is a commonly held view among many Wikipedians! Of course, it is diametrically opposed by many, many other Wikipedians... but still, to call this a troll is a bit ridiculous.
In that case, the slashdot summary is misleading. It very clearly says "but are the admins listening?"
If articles such as webcomics have been deleted due to speedy deletion, then the admin doing the deletion is in violation of policy and should be called to account. However, is there any evidence of that happening? I'm genuinely interested.
As an admin on Wikipedia, I wonder if it really is a problem with administrators. All comics must go through articles for deletion, where the community must decide. An admin just makes the closing decision based on consensus, then either keeps or deletes the article.
I agree that there are definitely some people who want to delete to readily, but then again there are people who are pushing trivia on Wikipedia, which is not good. It can run both ways.
Oh if only I had mod points for that previous post!
Because otherwise, how are people going to know how they can reuse the content?