User talk:Percy Snoodle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 RE: Your comment on the FICT RfC 2 Username question 3 Refactoring of discussion at WT:FICT 4 Editing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) 5 Link please. 6 Mediation? 7 Wikipedia:Deletion policy 8 WT:FICT 9 The R.R. show 10 Awards as evidence of notability for Elements of Fiction 11 Fair use rationale for Image:Shadow_Knight.jpg

[edit] RE: Your comment on the FICT RfC

In response to your statement that articles which have in-universe subarticles too large to integrate into the main article are necessarily giving too much weight to in-universe information, the fault generally lies not with the article, but with that irritating thing called reality. The simple fact is, when a story has been in weekly serialization for half a decade, all you can fit of the plot in a section of comparable length to the ones on the important things, like real-world history and reception, is a summary of a summary of the first fragment of the plot. And while summaries like that may be fine for a lead section, they in no way satisfy the requirements of completeness and accuracy that an encyclopedia article needs to give.

In universe information must be kept succinct, yes, but we cannot make our summaries misrepresent the series just because we don't like how many words it takes to explain it properly. Brevity won't excuse being wrong. On your average long running manga series, for instance, if we condensed all the in-universe information down to a single, confusingly incomplete block of summary, then maybe we could cover the plot in a main article that was 120kb long, if we had very little out of universe information... but that doesn't help our readers at all, much less keep the article from being skewed towards fictional coverage! --erachima talk 10:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - it exists to reflect reality, not the other way round. If people outside wikipedia haven't seen fit to comment on a series, nor should we. For extremely long-running series, it's usually sufficient to say that they chart the adventures of their characters. If further plot details would just confuse things, then we shouldn't include them at all. For example, Doctor Who is described like this: "The programme depicts the adventures of a mysterious alien time-traveller known as "the Doctor" who travels in his space and time-ship, the TARDIS, which appears from the exterior to be a blue police phone box. With his companions, he explores time and space, solving problems and righting wrongs." It goes on to describe some of the characters (since they have real-world coverage too) but doesn't give any more description of the plot. For a series with no real-world coverage, that would be all you'd need to give. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WHO has articles on every single episode, last I checked. Many of them with a level of plot detail that far outweighs the corresponding out of universe information. [break]

Yes - I was giving an example of what a concise plot summary can look like, not of a non-notable fictional article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That brings up two other important practical differences that I've noticed usually come up when I'm discussing these things with editors who focus more on Western fiction: firstly, anime and manga series tend to be far less episodic than western television, so you can't give a generic summary like that and expect it to be accurate for anything past the first arc. [break]

I don't see why not. "Pokemon follows the quest of Ash Ketchum (known as Satoshi in Japan), a Pokémon Master in training, as he and a small group of friends travel around the fictitious world of Pokémon along with their collections of small monsters." Even if the entire cast changes, it should be possible to summarise almost any series in that way. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, the difference between an article that is currently missing out of universe information and an article where there is none available is a lot harder to distinguish when the majority of your potential references are in a foreign language. Eventualism should take care of the second one, yes, but in practice, how many deletion-seeking editors will be willing to go "ok, we'll wait two years for these characters to be included in officially released English content before complaining about their lack of development and inspiration info"? --erachima talk 11:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of foreign-language references is a big one. Nothing in WP:N or WP:PLOT says that the real-world coverage has to be in the English language, but some editors do ignore any non-English coverage. Perhaps WP:FICT needs to say something like "real-world coverage is not required to be found in English-language sources; indeed, it is usually to be found in sources in the work's original language. Tertiary sources which provide translations of that coverage are strongly encouraged, but not mandatory." Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username question

Hey, just out of curiosity, was this the inspiration for your username? Mine is a combination of The Pumpkin King and The Great Pumpkin, but in French. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I should get round to finishing that one day. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and I just notice you also link to it on your userpage. Good luck with finishing it! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring of discussion at WT:FICT

I would be grateful if you would refrain from inserting your comments between paragraphs of my contributions (breaks), and from adding subsequent comments before mine (interuptions). If you need to comment on something I have written, or something written by someone before me, simply draw reference to what was said and by whom, rather than placing your comments in between or ahead of everyone else. I know that breaks and interuptions are permisable and are sometimes warranted, but since my contributions tend to be short and or bulleted, I would be grateful if you could avoid interuptions, as I have a limited ability to follow my own discussions unless they go in chronological order.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Pot? Mr Kettle has a message for you. He says you absorb visible wavelengths of light. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

I would request that you refrain editing WP:FICT, and ask you to request that other editors do the same until the current RFC has drawn to a close. I have no right to ask this, but until the discussions have finished, I feel the creation of new versions every day makes the discussion at WT:FICT difficult to follow. I have asked the same of Masem. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Volume of contributions too much for you? Now you know how we feel about your tag spamming. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The volume of contributions is very high from you, Masem and now Sambc, but I think it is self-defeating: as soon as you add something to the guideline, it seems to get over written. I think your arbitrary redrafting of WP:FICT is making this page increasingly unstable.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You have better things to do than taunt me. Go away. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link please.

You keep mentioning recent RFC's on status of spinout articles. Can you link them so I can read them? Taemyr (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - the one I'm talking about is Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 - it was around just before you came to the discussion; you must have just missed it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

Percy,

You and Jeske are the two admins I associate most closely with Wikiproject D&D, so I figured I’d approach you about this (posting this on both talkpages). As you know, there has been a lot of drama over User:Gavin.collins and his editing style and how it applies to RPG articles and fiction articles in general. I know that both of you agree with some of the things he’s trying to accomplish but that you’ve both also had conflicts over his approach to editing. There is a long list of editors that have had conflicts with him, spanning over the talk pages of who knows how many articles and user pages. The RfC conducted six months ago softened his approach somewhat, but the conflicts continue, as seen most recently here today.

Now, we could all continue this way in perpetuity. Perhaps one or more people will get themselves in trouble over it, or it could continue to be a long drawn-out trench war. Maybe Gavin will eventually give up and leave, or maybe the most vocal/active of the RPG editors will do so. But that’s not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It’s supposed to be discussion, collaboration, debate, and consensus. It’s supposed to be civility, assuming good faith, no personal attacks, and handling disputes like adults. And we just don’t have that on D&D articles when Gavin is involved.

Gavin has very specific, firmly held, soundly-reasoned (in his own mind at least) reasons for wanting things the way they are. This is fine. Everybody he interacts with wants things their own way. This is fine, too. However, in a give-and-take atmosphere of compromise, “Do it my way or else” doesn’t work. Gavin may very well be right about some of the things he’s talking about, but bad interactions have colored people’s perspectives against him. People respond to his words and actions defensively, and soon incivility flies back and forth between both parties and nothing positive can be accomplished (or anything that is accomplished leaves a bad taste in someone's mouth). Sometimes other editors have attacked him preemptively, and sometimes he comes on as the aggressor. I don’t want to think that the numerous people who’ve had these interactions with him are always the ones in the wrong; with Gavin usually the only person on the other side of the coin, he seems to be the common denominator in the equation. If he really was always as right as he seems to think he is, wouldn’t more people be rushing to defend him and his viewpoints?

But Wikipedia, again, is not about being right or wrong; it’s about building an encyclopedia with consensus. Some of us have tried to deal with Gavin politely, and bring up the issue of his civility, or point out where he may be tagging an article inappropriately. This seems to have little or no effect, and this struggle has been going on for over six months now with no end in sight. So, rather than continue a seemingly eternal conflict, I would like to bring up a request for Mediation to try to get us to a point where Gavin can do his thing without butting heads relentlessly. I can only hope that will help. Maybe some mentoring would help with his WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and other issues. Perhaps some of the RPG editors could use this as well, but I can’t honestly see us being the crux of the problem.

Please let me know what you think of this. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I got Jeske's full support, so I decided to ask the Wikiproject members how they feel about a Request for Mediation with Gavin. BOZ (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll chip in there. For the record, I'm not an admin, but I'm flattered :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! I thought you were. Maybe you just speak with authority.  ;) BOZ (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion policy

You wrote: "Rv - AFDs are not votes and should not become votes". Your rush to revert my edit will only serve to avoid discussion of the fact that AfDs actually are decided by head count. Refer to [1]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about AfD being a discussion versus a vote here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WT:FICT

I beleive this remark was aimed at me. I don't mind a bit of venting, but these insults are hurtful. Please be civil, if you can. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The R.R. show

Just finished reading the Afd on Randy Richards (I was tempted to alter that exact phrase, but, no, I hope his auto-googling leads him to this comment). What an appalling douchebag. I ran across him a few years ago on the Necromancer Games message boards, and was flabbergasted by his peculiar combination of talentlessness and pathological self-promotion. It's sad to see him still at the same game, wasting other people's time to inflate himself. You displayed the patience of a saint. Truly Trivial (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards as evidence of notability for Elements of Fiction

With regard to the discussion you initiated at AFI 100 as an example, I would be grateful if you would make your views known regarding the inclusion of awards in Elements of fiction.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• My view is that awards can constitute evidence of notability of elements of fiction, so long as the award is a highly notable one; particularly if the elements that the awards have been given for in the past have all achieved notability under the GNC. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shadow_Knight.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shadow_Knight.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)