73 replies to this topic

[Radien]

Okay guys,

I think everyone here needs to calm down a little. Dark Nation may have discovered a former opponent of the ZC developer team (something I know nothing about, so I'm taking his word here) who is contributing to the discussion, but I have to remind you that Wikipedia is supposed to be constructed in a way that is self-sustaining. ANYONE can contribute to a discussion unless they've broken Wikipedia's rules often enough to get banned.

Wikipedia's rules and guidelines do not specifically prohibit acting in accordance with your opinion. They attempt to prevent people from making submissions of pure conjecture posing as fact, but they do so through less direct means.

Also, the validity of articles is ALWAYS user-defined, and it's a fluid thing which is constantly open to revisitation. Someone claimed at one point in this thread that the ZC article had been "locked" (as I warned it might be in the future), but that is NOT the case (at least not at this moment). You are still free to submit a replacement ZC article. However, if you don't use the correct procedures, it CAN be deleted, within the rules, by just about anybody.

In fact, anyone can delete it without even giving a reason, but there's a catch (several, in fact). For instance, I could go and delete the article for Jon Travolta right now. But since articles are archived in the history for quite awhile, chances are it would be reverted within minutes or hours. And if I did it repeatedly, I would be IP-banned for breaking one of Wikipedia's user agreement rules about deletion wars and/or intentional vandalism.

Now, I expressed some incredulity about the article being deleted. But that DOES NOT mean I want to hunt down who is doing it and get them banned. Incredulity in this case means puzzled disbelief. I don't understand where they were coming from, but that does NOT mean they're breaking the rules, and it doesn't mean they can't be reasoned with, either.

Believe it or not, there are people who edit Wikipedia as a hobby (quite a lot of them, actually). Some of them "police" articles somewhat randomly, attempting to improve the quality of the site by changing and deleting things which contradict Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. It's even legal to use bots to do this, if they too follow the rules and guidelines. You don't need to understand articles to make sure they follow the rules, though it helps because you can expand them rather than delete the erroneous parts (both of which are possible responses).

Anyway, I hope I've cleared up some things about Wikipedia. Again, if you wish to contribute, READ UP on Wikipedia's contribution and citation guidelines. Think of it as writing up a miniature research paper on Zelda Classic which has to get a passing grade from your 10th grade English teacher in order to be posted on Wikipedia.

Please don't throw around paranoia or baseless suspicions, either; Freedom's done nothing to implicate himself in this, nor should it even matter.

[DarkDragon]

Also, the validity of articles is ALWAYS user-defined, and it's a fluid thing which is constantly open to revisitation. Someone claimed at one point in this thread that the ZC article had been "locked" (as I warned it might be in the future), but that is NOT the case (at least not at this moment). You are still free to submit a replacement ZC article. However, if you don't use the correct procedures, it CAN be deleted, within the rules, by just about anybody.

Yes, it used to be deleted and protected; protection was removed when they userfied the old article. Please please DO NOT abuse this deprotection by posting a new article!! Make changes to the copy in my user space, *then* we'll move it back following proper procedures.

[andrewmcd1]

I think we should possibly edit the first paragraph; I think the wikipedia staff would be able to say that it is slightly baised. I think articles are supposed to be impartial.

[Mitchfork]

It seems as if they deleted the talk page... am I looking for the wrng thing, or can someone else confirm this? I was going to make a comment, but it looks like they're making it clear that it's over. Not that I'm for throwing in the towel.

[Blue Link 2007]

I can confirm that. Mabey someone got mad at us for correcting them on it being illegal.

Plus, it's far from over. We will make a better one, and it will be accepted by Wikipedia.

Also, try doing a shortened down version of it, mabey at least a paragraph. There are some topics that work just fine like that, and it might be good to do that on ours.

[Limzo]

I can confirm that. Mabey someone got mad at us for correcting them on it being illegal.

Plus, it's far from over. We will make a better one, and it will be accepted by Wikipedia.

Also, try doing a shortened down version of it, mabey at least a paragraph. There are some topics that work just fine like that, and it might be good to do that on ours.

No. If we have the information, then we should use it.

[Mitchfork]

Agreed. Although I'm never wordy just for the heck of it, a longer article does seem much more credible than those two sentence ones.

[DarkDragon]

The talk page, like the rest of the page, got moved when the article was userfied.

There is no reason to add anything to the talk page at this time anyway; the original posters probably won't go look at it while it's in user space.

No. If we have the information, then we should use it.

I agree, but only if that information comes from a reliable source that can be cited.

Edited by DarkDragon, 19 June 2007 - 04:26 PM.

[Mitchfork]

And since you thoughtfully posted a full list, we should have a bundle of information to scoop from.

[Radien]

No. If we have the information, then we should use it.

I disagree.

Wikipedia strives to be like an encyclopedia. Contrary to popular belief, encyclopedias don't archive the entirety of the human experience in them. They just give enough information about each relevant subject for a regular, unknowing person to get a good idea of what the subject is about.

Secondly, a brief article with just a few facts is easier to cite and align to match Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thirdly, if the original article is short, it will be easier to make additions to the article one by one, testing the waters before we inadvertently give them umpteen reasons at once to delete the entire article.

Lastly, once someone knows roughly what the program does, they don't have to hang around on Wikipedia to learn more about it. They can follow a link to one of the ZC sites out there. Wikipedia's purpose is merely to summarize the research other people have done. Those "other people" are us, and the other ZC sites. Wikipedia echoes other sources, rather than publishing new information before it's been seen elsewhere.

[Limzo]

I disagree.

Wikipedia strives to be like an encyclopedia. Contrary to popular belief, encyclopedias don't archive the entirety of the human experience in them. They just give enough information about each relevant subject for a regular, unknowing person to get a good idea of what the subject is about.

Secondly, a brief article with just a few facts is easier to cite and align to match Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thirdly, if the original article is short, it will be easier to make additions to the article one by one, testing the waters before we inadvertently give them umpteen reasons at once to delete the entire article.

Lastly, once someone knows roughly what the program does, they don't have to hang around on Wikipedia to learn more about it. They can follow a link to one of the ZC sites out there. Wikipedia's purpose is merely to summarize the research other people have done. Those "other people" are us, and the other ZC sites. Wikipedia echoes other sources, rather than publishing new information before it's been seen elsewhere.

Well, I see your point, but it's obvious that there's some kind of "ZC article deletion" conspiracy or something, and if we showed a small article with just a couple of paragraphs then it would be deleted for being too short, and generally "stub" articles tend to be left in that form for quite a while.

[Link1]

So, what's happening with this? The article still looks unfinished to me.

[Deedee]

I know I'm kinda gravedigging now, but there isn't really a rule on gravedigging (unless I'm being really stupid right now), and this is kinda relevant, so...

 

I'm posting to say that now this story is happy end.

I brought it back.

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Zelda_Classic

I also included a sarcastic edit note, and fixed some errors. This should hopefully not be deleted again. If it is, well...

(Sorry to the moderators/admins if this is against the rules, I didn't think there was a rule on grave digging)

Edited by Dimentio, 19 November 2015 - 11:04 PM.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

A noble effort, but if you didn't notice, Wikipedia is a cesspool of bigots, idiots, SJWs, and outright dickheads.  If they wanna delete it, they will twist the rules in bad faith until they get their way.

 

In short, it probably won't stay up.