User talk:Posiduck

Hello Posiduck and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

On your list of lists

Several Wikipedians want to talk with you on the possible deletion of List of all Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves. Here's the discussion page: -->here. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Association of Inclusionist

Hi, I'm Roachgod, I have been notified that I am anhonorary member of the Association of Inclusionist. I have no problem with this, though I am curious as to why I was given this membership? ZaQ 15:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would appear that everone who was listed as an "inclusionist" on the m:Inclusionism page was made an honorary AIW member by Merovingian when he created the page. Posiduck 18:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Mark Richards 16:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletionists!!!!!!

I find the deletionisnts are getting out of control :o). I voted against deletion on a highschool article that is going to be deleted, and i noticed you did as well. I see NO harm at all in having many interesting and esoteric articles on wikipedia. If these people dont want to know about that highschool then they dont have to search for it.

This is my reply on deletion articles:

Keep I am becoming somewhat disturbed at the level of deletionism occuring for what I think are worthy articles. There little, if any, harm in keeping interesting and esoteric material on Wikipedia. If you do not want to know about this topic then you do not be subjected to it. However, if it is kept it will be here for people who do want to know about it.--ShaunMacPherson 18:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should we make a wikiproject for inclusionists? I find deletionism is destroying good articles, and time spent deleting could be spent creating better articles. Deletionism is destructive by its very nature. See you, --ShaunMacPherson 18:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I've joined this organization as I feel it is a noble cause. I only wish I was aware of this organization last week when I found my articles under some sort of strange attack (and subsequently a sleu of retaliatory attacks for defending myself) by Meelar and RickK. -- RaD Man / talk 22:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism 2

Can you vote on this article [[1]] it is a school article that is up for deletion.

Should we make a group of wikipedians that will try and do schools? --ShaunMacPherson 19:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts on schools, and deletion in general

Please, by no means take this to be the opinion of the group - these are my thoughts, and my thoughts only. I'm not the most radical deletionist around.

There's very few subjects that I'll vote delete on if you hand me a really good article - with the exception that if it's a vanity biography, garage band, micronation, conlang, antipope, or some other form of vanity that's really non-notable, then I'm likely to vote delete regardless.

But then we get to areas that are distinctly borderline (in my opinion, anyway) such as schools, hospitals and major streets. With these things, I tend to judge them on a case-by-case basis. The odds of them being expanded aren't very good, so I'm prepared to err on the side of inclusion only if the article meets a basic standard. If there's some reason that makes it obviously notable, then good. If there's something there that anyone could find interesting (i.e. not just stuff that could be said for any school in the Western world), and there's more than a paragraph or so, I'll probably vote keep too. I don't judge each case specifically using it, but Dpbsmith's BEEFSTEW criteria are very close to my own.

The problem with the vast amount of school submissions lately is that they've been complete garbage. Substubs and short stubs. "Anyton High School has 1000 students and a principal and some teachers. We have lots of buildings and a carpark." If it was a clearly notable topic, I'd tolerate something of that length, but on something so borderline - and on something that's so uninteresting (to anyone) and so unlikely to be expanded, then I'll vote delete. And FYI, I created Fitzroy High School. Ambi 04:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess my question would be, if they are so uninteresting, why is it that there are so many of them created? It seems like there is plenty of interest in having school articles. Posiduck 06:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My opinion on your question above, and one of the main reasons behind my decisions on deleting schools, is that they are a form of vanity. Just like non-notable bands, non-notable Usenet groups, non-notable web sites. Somebody feels pumped up that this unimportant thing gets put into an encyclopedia, and it makes them feel important. I don't vote delete on all schools, just on most of them, because they are as non-notable as articles about their student body presidents and their principals. If we have an article on the school, then surely we should have one on every teacher there, right? Inclusionists say that schools are important because they're an important part of the lives of hundreds or thousands of people. Well, surely those teachers are, too, right? And then what? Articles on every prison guard? After all, they're important in people's lives. Besides, I think it's a camel's nose in the tent thing -- once schools are accepted, then the argument goes on to the next granularity of trivia -- the local post office, the local city hall. And like I said on the mailing list, then we should have articles on every building and every tree in the world. RickK 18:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Indrian comments (annotated by me)

I am glad you have a window into all of our souls. (I don't understand what you mean by this Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

To put it simply, I think that Moanalua High School should be deleted. (That's fine, I think you can hold that position, and in fact, need to to be consistent Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I also think it does not have a good chance to get deleted. Why? Because you are right that many wikipedians will keep an unworthy article as long as the information is factual and the article is well-written and of decent length. (I think most people wouldn't consider it unworthy, but yes, I agree with you, it would survive deletion Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I think this is unfortunate, but I will not list an article for vfd just to grandstand. I will vote for its deletion, however, if it would happen to be listed. (That's a fine position, I don't think you need to nominate everything you would vote for. Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

As for your formal arguement, it is flawed because your assumption is flawed. The lack of a vfd notice does not inherently imply that an article should be kept; it just means that no one has brought it up for a vote yet for some reason. (I think that the reason it hasn't been nominated is because the majority of users don't think it should be deleted; but this is, in fact speculation. As I said before though, my argument was meant to illustrate that you either have to be against Moanalua (conceptually), or can't use the non-notability argument Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Even if such an article were to be put up for deletion and survive, it would not automatically make it encyclopedic based on a standard other than popularity. My standard is my own; your standard is your own; it is all subjective. (Wikipedia policy is determined by majority opinion. Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Majority rule in this case does not lead to what is "right" (if such absolute truth even exists in regards to what should be in an encyclopedia), only to what the most people believe is the correct path. There is no fundamental truth involved in deciding what is notable, and it would be arrogant for anyone to claim that their idea of what is notable has some higher value. (That's true, but, logic requires that people at least have consistency for their own opinions Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

The vfd process is just a way to see which viewpoint is embraced by the community as a whole, not a way to discover a greater truth. If the majority finds that a school is notable, I will accept the will of the community because it is a community project. I would hope you would do the same if the opposite occurred, though sometimes I doubt it. (While I vote for schools to be kept, argue vehemently for their support, I do not interfere with the wiki process, I do not recreate deleted articles, and I do not disrupt the process, I just try, as hard as I can, to get people to come around to what I see as the only reasonable stance to hold regarding wikipedia. I don't think that there is any evidence to support the accusation that I would not accept the will of the community. Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Finally, Trying to catch me in a contradiction based on your formal arguement does not work because it is possible to both believe an article should be deleted and not actually bring it up for deletion. Indrian 22:40, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) (Again, as I said to Intrigue, I do not think that you have to nominate everything you would vote to delete for deletion. My point, and I think this still stands, is that you all know that if every school article was like Moanalua, you'd never get enough votes to delete. Because people want articles like that, its part of the unique service that wikipedia can provide, a reason to use wiki instead of Britannaica. And I don't understand why you are all so vehemently against making wikipedia compete with actual encyclopedias not just in price, but in scope of coverage as well. I cannot imagine why you wouldn't want wikipedia to eventually contain every piece of factual information it can. And that was all I was saying. Posiduck 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

• I really do see where you are coming from and I think it is a good goal to strive towards in principle. The problem is that it is impossible to include everything, both for space reasons (limitations are slight, but the project probably could not handle five billion articles) and because too much passes by that is not recorded by anyone for posterity. Circumstances force us to be selective; even if we keep every school article there is stuff that we will not be able to record. As a result, I choose to draw the line at a more selective point in the belief that wikipedia is more useful if it is not bogged down with factual information that is unlikely to be useful to many people. It is important to remember that an encyclopedia's primary purpose is as a reasearch aid; it is meant to summarize and to distill and serve as a starting point for greater discovery and is not meant to be a substitute for other sources. Other people are probably more selective than me; plenty of people are less selective; that is fine. My only problem with you, Shaun and Anthony is that you refuse to accept that we have this position and move on. Instead, you attempt to make formal arguements showing why we are being idiots. I do not think you are idiots for your position; I hope that you can come to realize the same thing about us. Indrian 02:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • The thing is that, in many cases, this so called "useless information" does not "bog down" Wikipedia. It is accurate and easy to find for those looking for it, but in a place where it would not cause confusion to those not looking for that information. Deletion should be used as a tool for improvement, but I believe that Wikipedia should not be improved towards some aesthetic standard of what is "worthy" for an encyclopedia, but rather a usefulness standard of the greatest usefulness for the greatest number. If an obscure article does not provide confusion to those who do not care about it or misinformation to those who do, it is a benefit to Wikipedia, and deleting it would not improve Wikipedia. --L33tminion 17:16, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I've fully understood the lengthy arguments above, but it doesn't look as though Posiduck is attempting to show that people opposed to including schools are idiots. His summary says "Either you (deletionists in general) oppose the current Moanalua Entry as non-notable or you stop using notability as a claim on VfD." It seems as though you fall into the first category, and that he recognizes that position as perfectly consistent. Neither of you are meaning to call the other an idiot, and I'd hate to see this sort of misunderstanding continue. If I've misunderstood either of your positions, feel free to correct me. Factitious 04:43, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • First, just to make things perfectly clear I am not calling anyone names (and I am not saying you accused me of that, because you did not). "Idiot" may have been to strong a term, but Posiduck did seem to be intent on discrediting some people. I think Posiduck has been very civil throughout, however, and that our dialogue has been meaningful; I hope he agrees. Shaun has been quite a bit less hospitible, and I do believe that he may consider some deletionists idiots. I suppose the above comment was more directed at his actions than Posiduck's. Indrian 04:55, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

On Schools

I apologise in advance for ripping your reasoning to shreds - pulling things apart and putting them back together again is something of a hobby ;-)

1. Articles about schools would contain factual verifiable NPOV content.

   Ultimately, the phrase "William Hague is male" contains facutal, verifiable, NPOV content. Most articles that don't can usually be changed to fit as such. This is no more than one of the baseline requirements for an article.

2. There is evidence of how robust an article about a "non-notable" school can become.

   Wrong. That school has achievements which make it notable, unlike other schools branded as "non-notable" which really don't have any, and whose "extended" article is no more than "X is a school in the Y area of Z" coated in a few hundred words of bullshit. Rather like some biographical pages which turn out to detail a perfectly normal person with a perfectly uninteresting life.

3. Many, many newcomers seem to create articles about schools.

   Substitute "schools" for "themselves", "clubs", "websites", "specialist fields", or indeed anything you like, and the statement still holds true, even the bit about staying and becoming more active. I've seen poorly-writte ntechnical articles turn up on VfD simply because the author didn't know that we had an article already (at a slightly different name).

4. ... but given practically any stub, someone can add a little bit to it at a time;

   Indeed. So much so in fact that it will reach the point where 6-12 months later it's still formed of "X is a school in Y" and its address.

5. A growing number of wikipedians consider schools to be, on the whole, notable merely in virtue of being schools.

   So, I am notable just by virtue of my being a person? How can a school in and of itself be notable, especially when there are millions like it around the world? People become notable by doing things differently. Companies become notable by getting rich, and they get rich by doing something other companies can't. Societies become notable through making something of their members (not to be confused with their members making something of themselves independently). Products become notable through common use in the household. Schools are merely entities on the same level as people, societies, products, companies, etc. There's no reason why they should not have to meet the same notability criteria as everything else. Towns and villages are on the same level as countries, regions, etc. as geographical entities that should be documented.

6. There is currently no better place for articles on schools than Wikipedia.

   "I've got nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?" Compare "There is currently no better place for terrorists than Afghanistan." That doesn't mean that we in the Western world or the Afghans themselves want them there.

7. unless there are very good reasons to eliminate an article on a school, it should be kept.

   Given that we probably have articles about generic types of school, why do we need articles on instances of those schools that are no different from the generic? Anyone can get an article on Wikipedia, but to get it kept in, they have to get of their proverbial and do something different which gets them in. For schools, "educating generations of children" is on a par with me "eating lots of food over my lifetime". Who (famine victims excepted) doesn't? Similarly, what school doesn't educate people? Now that would be notable - a school where people come out knowing less than when they went in.

Any fact-based reply is welcome. Pointless conjecture, however, will just end up in /dev/null. Oh, sorry. That appears to be full already. 8-) Chris 04:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)