User:Sonic Mew/My views

These are some of my opinions on Wikipedia. Feel free to disagree with anything I say here.

'Cruft'

I dislike the derogatory term 'cruft' being used as a reason to delete an article. Especially when it is a notable, decent article. (If it isn't, then it should be a reason besides 'cruft' that gets the article deleted.)

The definition in the policy pages seems to differ severely from what some people on afd seem to think it is. Generally, it is an article that only die-hard fans will find interesting. (Hmm...I wonder how many people find the history articles I contribute to interesting?) Some topics I have seen claimed as 'fancruft' are found interesting to a lot more people. In fact, it seems to be that if it is fictional, then it must be evil! Pokémon Diamond and Pearl has even been called unnotable and 'gamescruft', even though all of the previous games have a rightly-deserved article.

'Cruft' is not a deletion criteria and never will be.

Is Wikipedia a Crystal Ball?

Yes, and no.

Countless times, articles have gone on vfd simply because they haven't happened yet. And countless times, they have been kept. The general consensus seems to be that notability far outweighs crystalballery.

Such an article should certainly keep to the facts, but, (and this is important,) if a piece of information has been confirmed by an official primary source, then it is not speculation! So, for example, if JK Rowling says that the last word of the last book is 'scar', then it is not speculation that that is the case. But if someone says that the first word will be 'Harry', and they can't back it up, then it is probably speculation until proven otherwise. The general rule is to cite sources. And any pictures or official sites are useful if they available.

However, an article still needs to be useful and informative. And if no verfiable information is known other than its existence, then it adds nothing to Wikipedia at that time.

Wikiquette doesn't have to be confined to Wikipedia

Always try to be friendly and respect the views of the other contributors. That's just general niceness, (and not-getting-bannedness!) But there's nothing stopping you continueing that on other websites outside Wikipedia.

I have seen a personal attack made towards me on one of the forums I visit. I know it is to do with the attacker and that she is like that to everyone, but I was still very hurt by it.

Please be nice. Even behind another user's back. On the medium of the internet, they may just find out what you have said about them.

Do Some Research

Obviously, a bit of research is necessary when creating or improving an article, but that isn't what this section is about.

This is because reserach is vital even in the deletion of an article. Normally, the vfd process allows time for research, but not speediable articles. Normally, you wouldn't think this would be a problem. So why was Pichu speedied?

Admins are told to check the edit history, but when there are cases of them deleting templates such as {{nonsense}} because they are in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to leave it for 30 seconds of quick research. We do have Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, but is it worth all the energy for the small amount to not delete it in the first place?

Is non-notability a reason for deletion?

Strictly speaking, no. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. But we can't allow everything under the sun or the servers wouldn't be able to handle it.

So articles on such things as people who have done nothing to be notable will get delete, and no one will complain, (except maybe the creator.)

But as soon as we loose the entirely non-notable topics, articles on topics of some notability should be allowed. After all, Wikipedia still isn't paper and the servers seem to be able to handle it.

Look at 3,3'-diindolylmethane. It is a lot less notable than certain other articles put up for deletion, (and shorter/less factual/less of interest,) yet we keep it. We want to be a general knowledge encyclopedia, and that means working on all areas of some interest and notability.

Pokémon on the 'pedia

I have not mentioned Pokémon above, and I generally go by the same values for any article I see. When I saw an article on an obscure Teen Titans character, I didn't just bung it on afd. I saw that there were a number of similar articles and created Minor characters in Teen Titans (animated series). Then more Wikipedians came along, and it is better because of it.

But back to the subject of Pokémon. The only opposition to A Man in Blacks RFA nomination was that Pokémon apparently isn't encyclopedic. And this is what a lot of Wikipedians seem to think. Yet surely something that has been a notable phenomenon for almost a decade is worthy of an encyclopdia that is not paper. When one response to an afd was that "Wikipedia is not an encyclopeia of Pokémon", the response went along the lines of: "But it is. And an encyclopedia of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc".

Some people also seem to be of the impression that Pokémon is dead, or soon will be. Yet there is no hint to suggest that. On the contrary, the anime and manga continue strongly, and more games keep being made. Pokémon certainly isn't a fad anymore, that's for sure, yet that doesn't mean it has lost all popularity. Pokémon remains as one of the top three Nintendo franchises, right alongside The Legend of Zelda.

We certainly shouldn't keep every Pokémon article that appears. I've nominated a few for afd, myself. Yet why all the afds that end in a keep vote? If anything, that should hint at its continuing notability!