Wikipedia talk:List of bad article ideas/Archive 1

Archive 1

strongly biased

I think "Writing an article about a subject in which you are strongly biased to." should be added.

Surely it's possible to be strongly biased to a particular subject, and still manage to write a fair article about it? Cai 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, add "anything written in a highly emotional state"?

Hey, that they already have that section: by PAC_MAN7

This page is actually a lot worse than WP:STUPID. That only offends people who should be offended. This page is just sniping. JRM · Talk 10:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about" Doesn't really make sense...? Cai 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't come across any, but there have been articles added wherein the only content was a sentence fragment. Шизомби 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek

I don't understand why writing an article only hard core fans could care about, like star trek. Shouldn't this be a complete repository of all Human Knowledge? Epachamo 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --cesarb 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

unless a verifiable encyclopedia article can be written about it

I don't like the changes in [1] It is very wordy. I think it should be reverted because it takes away from the meaning of the guideline. Of Course you can find a way to verify an article but This is supposed to say it doesn’t just have to be verifiable but that it can't just be a relatively unimportant topic. This change is wordy and repetitive. Please explain why you made it. It's been one way for a long time and this looks kike you copied and pasted one sentence over and over again. I feel this should just be said once on the page--E-Bod 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't like all that repetition. Шизомби 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I made those changes because the existing ones seemed pretty misleading - for example, the requirement for a street to be internationally famous. I think that's pretty odd. I think that saying that the street should be verifiable by a reliable third party source is less misleading. What did you like about the requirement to be internationally famous? Where did you get that idea? For great justice. 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The requirement for a street to be internationally famous only aplies if you live on the street. I asume this is there so that one dosn't creat artiles on trival facts. If however you din't live on the street it dosn't have to be internatinally famous becose you would have a better sence of how imprtant that street really is and if it is one of thoes streets important enough for an artile. The thing you added about verifiabiliy is imortant but part of another policy unrelated to this. This document is just to "List of bad article ideas" not all the polices on creating an artile--E-Bod 04:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to revert your change to Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, but I feel it changes the meaning of the whole article substantially. It is also very repetitive. A revert is a little inappropriate for me to do but I feel we should talk about the changes on the talk page before such a drastic change in the article. I feel the original was more user friendly. Sorry --E-Bod 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you felt the need to revert, perhaps you could be more specific about what you didn't like - I just felt that a lot of it was really not good, like requiring a street to be internationally famous? Where does that requirement come from? For great justice. 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yah a revert wasn't appropriate on my part but you repeat the same line over and over again and the change really changes the meaning of the article. maybe it should be discussed first before the whole guideline be reworded.--E-Bod 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe toning the article down would work because you are right and I do agree that we should be able to have articles on everything but I don't think changing the article that much based on solely our beliefs is appropriate--E-Bod 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't change it to reflect my views, I changed it reflect Wikipedia policy. Which bits do you think don't reflect policy? For great justice. 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I though this was the policy. could you point to the other policy i just personally like status quo for Wikipedia policies.--E-Bod 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Verifiably is a reason to delete an article but this is about a whole other reason not to create the article. This deals with importance while your edit deals with verifiably which is a different guideline/policy that doesn’t behind instead of but rather in addition to--E-Bod 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I thik the purpose of this article is to let people know before they write an article what may make it become deleted. If you write a whole article and it is latter deleted it cam be annoying and this is to prewarn people. Somebody can look for a verification after an artile is proposed for deleton but somebody can make the topic of an arile important latter. I haven’t atrualy conibuted to deleaton discussion so you are probably know more about this than I do but I still feel such a manger shift in the article needs to be talked first and that is why I reveted it.

Here is a sugestion. Creat a bullet saying the artile has to be verifiable but don't incude that in any of the other bullets.--E-Bod 03:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps i aready reverted once so sombody else should make the chage i sugestion above if you agree. (Sorry to entice a revert war. i think one revert is enoug for me or else i might end up breaking 3 revert rule) --E-Bod 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, all articles should be verifiable, but this list introduces a whole lot of criteria that are not part of policy, like being internationally famous. The point is that this page makes it seem like the policy is much more restrictive than it really is. The guidelines on what articles people should avoid creating should relfect real policy, not just people's personal opinions. For great justice. 03:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you (For great justice.) be more specific about what policy you feel you're bringing this guideline in line with? Шизомби 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am removing claims that have no basis in policy (like that streets have to be internationally famous). It's not that I'm bringing it in line with a specific policy, but removing claims that have no basis in policy. For great justice. 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Your are making Major changes to the article. The stret dosn't have to be internatinally famous, I't just that you shouldn't creat articles about things you only live on. The this Is the guidline for people. One shouldn't creat an artile for a street they live one unless it is internatinally famous. However if you go on vacation an feel a street is noteworty (and you have no personal conectons to it, then you should creat an artile on it. It only has to be famous if The Creator of the artilce lives on it. I liked the artile the way it was. You can't say this dosn' conform to policy becouse this is the policy/guidline. Wikpedia artices should chage a lot but i don't feel it is consrtuctinve if the policies and guidlines arern't constant. However you should feel free to write your own esseay on you feelings and ad a link to this page a nice essay. One essay i like is Wikipedia:Don't_stuff_beans_up_your_nose--E-Bod 22:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop Adding that everying needs to be verifiable. First off This is a totaly diffret poly withc deals with topicks of creating artiles, not wether or not the artile is a total lie. and altough it is the policy to verify things yourself if you can it is not that definite a line. Have you even read the policy you are talikng about. "Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial" Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_there_is_no_factual_dispute. And Don't Chage that policy becose you dissagree with it.--E-Bod 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) you (justice) please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This Page is a list about Topiks not verifiabily. This is a totally diffent issue. You may be right and you may be trying to provide justive But just becose it is a policy dosn't meen it should be included in this artile. Each guiline does not need to mention every policy. Infact their are so many polies i woul'nt be suprized if the contritict eachoher.--E-Bod 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) "please use the discussion page to propose any major changes" The page says not to make big chages like you Have Justice. if you want to chage the whole meaning of the discussion you should not while most people (out of an insignifican quantity) disagree with your edits--E-Bod 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What looks Better A or B [2]. Not counting the extrah link on the bottom you could add to the prior version--E-Bod 05:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. A lot of the stuff in here is really spurrious. I think that, if you think it is grounded in policy, you should reference which ones. I think the internationally famous thing is completely bogus. Chill out, aricles change. For great justice. 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ConsensusGuidlines and policies require consensus not bold edits and if youu want to be bold and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules you are alowd to untill somebody objects and then you have to be able to justify. Be bold does not me Revert war over it. And For great justice pleas stopp asking that Everying be linked to some policy. you are making more policy reqeststs that it is posible to locate them fast enough. You are interpeting these policyes to say stuff they don't. Beeing bold only applies to shy people. Making a change is Good but i just feel you are being too bold.--E-Bod 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft

For a long time this was about things that "only hardcore fans of [topic] care about. For some reason any attempt to reinsert this is now met with instant reversion. The fact that only hardcore fans care is the whole reason why it's such a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 07:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that there whether or not "only hardcore fans of [topic] care about it" is a useful criteria? Why do you insist on keeping this page exactly as you want it, rather than collaboratively working on it? For great justice. 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• A lot of stuff in Wikipedia is only of interest to hardcore fans, but if its based on reliable sources, it may well be legitimate content, especially in cases where there are huge numbers of hardcore fans. But, even if your perspective is correct, and Wikipedia should have that as a guideline, it certainly doesn't reflect the conesnsus of the community today, and doesn't belong on this guideline page. If we applied the rule seriously, we'ld delete the bulk of existing Star Wars, Star Trek, and other such coverage.
• A basic flaw in approach, is treating hardcore fans like vanity/inside writers on a topic. They're not. If the only people who care about the details of a piece of fiction, are the writer, their personal friends, and family (aka vanity); then we should obviously not write about that. But, if an item (even a highly specific item within a larger work) is of huge interest to many people, that may warrant inclusion, even though all the people interested in such detail, by definition, are "hardcore" fans. As long as its easily verifiable by non-fans, its doesn't matter if non-fans, or non-hardcore fans don't care. --Rob 08:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree we artn't suposed to write artiles about these really specific stuf, dispite personally feeling we should have an article on everyting. Keep the topic part on hard core fans in this page--E-Bod 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - 'HardCore fans' is a useless, POV, subjective term that is not a guideline in Wikipedia. It should go. For great justice. 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "hardcore fans" might not be the most polite term. I would suggest this wording "Extremely specific details about a subject which only a few, very devoted, fans care about; e.g., starships from the Star Trek universe or fanon.", what do you think? Henrik 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the above solution. about This change Seems good at resolving the dispute, hover i feel any example is better than none.--E-Bod 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair. It is the fact that only a dedicated few would care which makes it unencyclopaedic, per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Verifiability? Tom Cruise's left big toe is verifiable, but it doesn't get an article of its own. Ditto non-canon fictional trivia. There is nothing POV about using the phrase hardcore fans, we probably even have an article on it (we have one ono hardcore gamers, even though everything about the subject is inherently obvious from the words "hardcore" and "gamer"). Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but I take issue about Tom Cruise's left big toe being verifiable (in the sense of the wikipedia policy. Where are your credible third party sources? For great justice. 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls

If you feel anybody could be acting like a troll remember Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. (For great justice may also not be a Troll, but if you think He/She is ...)--E-Bod 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Reworded--E-Bod 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Stop making personal attacks, and address the issue of why you insist on keeping POV edits. For great justice. 18:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you two need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down for a second. How about a 24 hour break from editing this article for both parties? Henrik 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. You are not a Troll. Please don't Try to Revert your edits into the article. Now the argument has more than one person on each side but earlier when you were the only one on your side you shouldn't have kept reverting.--E-Bod 17:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand how For great justice has 3 times [3]Deleted my coments on her talk page without resonding to them going so far as to remove a Template:Drmmt without a resonse (Oh the Irony). If anyting my coment on this talk page should be romoved and moved to For great justice's talk page not the other way arond. Anyway I Find it hopless to respond to all of For great justice requests for a link to policy if He/She won't even resond to a Template:Drmmt Which states it's removal is agaist policy. I keep linking To Policy after Policy and even my opoligys have bee called personal Atacked by him/her. I have given up resong to For great justice untill i get a resonse fom For great justice This coment does not belong on this talk page but rather For great justice's talk page but for some rason For great justice keeps removing my comments from her page as a a personal attack and request i make the comment on the approprat talk page--E-Bod 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And what happened to...

the street you live on? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

huh? Isn't that still there? (Or am I missing something?) Henrik 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your organization

Does anyone know why the link for the above (see first bullet) points to the Wikipedia article? (I reviewed the edit history, it has always been this way.) Is this intended as an example of an "organization"? Perhaps it would be more useful to point it to a specific policy or guideline? (I've looked for one but it is eluding me.) In the absence of a policy or guideline, I think would make more sense if this pointed to the organization article, but I didn't want to make the change without discussing it in case it was written this way for a reason. Accurizer 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I changed it. For great justice. 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this was an attempt to illustrate how these "rules" need to be broken sometimes (using a some dry humor). That is, we would never delete an article on a famous organization (like Wikipedia), even if made by a member. For instance, if a well intentioned person made an article for a famous international charity they personally belong to, we would actually welcome that article, not delete. However, I doubt readers will get the point, so I'm supporting For great justice.'s change. Fortunately, we have Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create which makes the point with three nice examples. --Rob 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I liked it linking to wipidia becose it was playfull. Other orginizations don't apply to this though--E-Bod 04:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability

1. How about instead of saying under each topic that it need to be verifiable and that being extremely notable frees it from this list to the top or bottom.

We would say that you shouldn't create articles about things relevant to you but that they are allowed to exist.

1. Articles need to be noteworthy and articles extremely noteworthy are exempt form this list.

2. The link to Wikipedia for instance is notable enough to have an article and also. We the editors do not Work for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the World’s and so creating an article about it is not a violation of this guideline. Anyway is User:The Cunctator (the first edit for the page is probably the creator of the page) a Professional (is paid) Wikipedian. and even if he is it’s just a joke to link to the page and it is nice that the policies not be so strict. The whole point of the policies is that they are only here to guide or as something to fall back to when issues arise--E-Bod 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)spell check--E-Bod 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that it would be misleading and not true, there's nothing wrong with what I think you're proposing. Frankly though, I am having difficulty understanding you. You might try running your contributions through a spellchecker before you post them. For great justice. 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just spellchecked what I said before. Could you clarify what part of my statement you think is misleading. About the second part that I now labeled 2 I meant to say that the link to Wikipedia is a clever inside joke that people can think what they want it to mean.

--E-Bod 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stoped watcing this page

I am going to stop watching this page for a while so don't expect me to respond to a coment i made on this page. If you feel a coment i made agaist another user was inaproprat you can remove it (aslong as you are not the person it was directed against). Sorry--E-Bod 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

PS I am now watcing the page gain--E-Bod 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contra

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

How about adding the above section. Citation signal Or we could say A better use of your time or If you feel you really need to create a new article. (sorry I'm still not Watching this page due to )E-Bod 03:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop The Edit Wars On this Page

Does this look like about 33 edits to you (because it is). Maybe we should use Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas/Sandbox until we can stop getting into revert wars over everything. All I can see is the Guideline getting Wordier and less friendly. With very little constructive contributions. It is so annoying watching this page get worse and worse I just can't keep it on my watch list

I am proposing all Changes that could be debated (and all changes that are reverted once) be made on/moved to Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas/Sandbox because this is Ridiculous. Be Bold does not mean every other edit should be a revert--E-Bod 03:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)revised--E-Bod 04:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to Touch up Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas/Sandbox because we can always link to and compare it's history and use it to describe controverial edits we are thinking of making. We can use this to say i think A looks better than B becose of X,Y & Z. Once this looks Decent and we agree on it then we can move it into the Guideline. The Guideline should be quick and easy to read and link to other relevent Guidelines and Policies--E-Bod 05:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps. I am not requesting a reqirment for people to not be bold and sugest small changes to the artilce. I Only meant to use this to sugest Changes that are or could be debated untill we come to a resoution. Changes that are compramises can be made to the main page but if you think the whole change should be removed then i am suggesting you use this Sandbox page.--E-Bod 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Big change

This Posible future Edit has Major changes and Reverts. Tell me what you like and Don't Like about it. Feel free to modify it and propose the change under mine. This change is made in a Sandbox I made so we can show our big changes without big revert wars.--E-Bod 05:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You can agree with parts and disagree with other parts of this proposed edit--E-Bod 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the see also and Contra section after fixing it up and added alot of links to real policies so the sandbox version is not longer up to date but it does illistrate some important changes--E-Bod 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[4]Updated Proposed changes that we should talk about before we make. PS i made the sandbox for Big changes people might object to.--E-Bod 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)