save the knightmares
save the knightmares
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" - John Adams
If you're going to actually discuss the deletion of the wikipedia page, you might want to post more than just short two, three word phrases exclaiming your happiness or concern.
Also, since it pertains to Knightmare Frames, which are Mecha and of Code Geass, it'd have been best to bring this up in the Code Geass Mecha Discussion Thread (I think).
Also, since it pertains to Knightmare Frames, which are Mecha and of Code Geass, it'd have been best to bring this up in the Code Geass Mecha Discussion Thread (I think).
Not really suprising. There was a guy a few years (Or months, I can't remember) back who went around trying to get all the "fancruft" (Or some equally stupid Wiki-term) Gundam articles deleted (Along with, among others, articles on Native Americans 
). So yeah, I'm not suprised this is the most recent target of some of the weirder Wiki-editors out there.
Also, krullnar, your avatar is oversized, so you'll need to remove it.
). So yeah, I'm not suprised this is the most recent target of some of the weirder Wiki-editors out there.Also, krullnar, your avatar is oversized, so you'll need to remove it.
I must betray Stalindog!!!
RPG TRINARY: Mash
Die Anti-brutale Kraft: mcred23 (Call me 'red', not 'mcred')
RPG TRINARY: Mash
Die Anti-brutale Kraft: mcred23 (Call me 'red', not 'mcred')
Then why does every other mecha get to have it's own topic for every thing : (Shori wrote:If you're going to actually discuss the deletion of the wikipedia page, you might want to post more than just short two, three word phrases exclaiming your happiness or concern.
Also, since it pertains to Knightmare Frames, which are Mecha and of Code Geass, it'd have been best to bring this up in the Code Geass Mecha Discussion Thread (I think).
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" - John Adams
-
ShadowCell
- Moderator
- Posts: 4716
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:59 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
We do this for shows that are currently running because they generate the most interest, and keeping all the discussion in one place prevents the forum from getting clogged up with a thousand "hay gaiz l00k att tihs!1!!1!!11!" threads. Instead, only one individual thread gets clogged up with a thousand "hay gaiz l00k att tihs!1!!1!!11!" posts.
They're looking to delete the character page and the settings and themes page on Wiki too, so if you want to save them, take it up there.
They're looking to delete the character page and the settings and themes page on Wiki too, so if you want to save them, take it up there.
-
Brave Fencer Kirby
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:14 pm
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia on real things, not a repository for plot summaries and tech specs for anime. An article on the real-life aspects of knightmare frames (notes on their technical designers, information on the influences on their creation, etc) is perfectly acceptable -- an in-universe history of their existence (which is what that wiki article is) is against their policy, and that guy is perfectly legitimate in suggesting its deletion (though, admittedly, he could be less of a dick about it and suggest a rewrite instead).
If you want tech specs, that's what sites like MAHQ and fanwikis are for. Hell, Gundam has two wikis, I would be a little surprised if Code Geass didn't have one, or was covered in a more general anime/mecha anime wiki.
If you want tech specs, that's what sites like MAHQ and fanwikis are for. Hell, Gundam has two wikis, I would be a little surprised if Code Geass didn't have one, or was covered in a more general anime/mecha anime wiki.
Fighting evil so you don't have to!
-
ShadowCell
- Moderator
- Posts: 4716
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:59 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
-
Brave Fencer Kirby
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:14 pm
It seems to be a lack of sources and in-universe style writing that the ones that marked it have a problem with.
I think that is the true root of the problem here, not the subject matter as I have seen for example the article for SRW character Axel Almer go through the same process. It was deleted for not having sources to back it up. A week or two later, someone reposted it with sources and such to back up the info and no one has made a peep in protest.
If someone were to fix that problem, then I doubt it would still be up for deletion.
I think that is the true root of the problem here, not the subject matter as I have seen for example the article for SRW character Axel Almer go through the same process. It was deleted for not having sources to back it up. A week or two later, someone reposted it with sources and such to back up the info and no one has made a peep in protest.
If someone were to fix that problem, then I doubt it would still be up for deletion.
The point is centralization. If I want to know something about pretty much anything, I type it into the Wikipedia search engine. It's much faster and easier than Googling for a Code Geass fanwiki, which will of course be poorly maintained and filled with speculation (think the Code Geass mecha thread, only messier and more twelve-year-olds putting in dumb guesses and ideas about Geass magic or something). Sure, there's a Gundam wiki too, but the Wikipedia pages are STILL generally maintained better than the Gundam wiki's pages are, and on Wikipedia there's constant pressure to keep the article clean and accurate and well-sourced to keep all the pages from being deleted every time some deletionist with an axe to grind cruises through looking for something that isn't sourced enough for their taste.
That said, let's not turn this into a inclusionism vs deletionism debate.
That said, let's not turn this into a inclusionism vs deletionism debate.
-
Kuruni
- Posts: 2927
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:43 am
- Location: sitting next to a yandere loli
- Contact:
*nod* Gundam Wiki at Wikia is incredible messy, I saw several pure fan-creat characters (possibly originate from an obscure RPG) and inaccurate info. Hey, they have article called Gundam Heavyarms Custom while it should be part of Gundam Heavyarms Kai, or at least call it "EW version" 
. Well, I known complain won't help but whenever I try to correct them, part of text extend off-screen on right, without slidebar. More than enough to piss me off.
Another at Gundamology is more accurate, but seem inactive (ok, it's our fault...partial).
Basically, I check Japanese Wiki and try to translate it, check with English's equivalent if available. They're usually more up-to-date and more accurate (though still has speculation flying around). It look like they have more sympathy toward fictional mecha as well. The best, while English seem to plague with mostly new stuff, Japanese extend their arm to classic series.
. Well, I known complain won't help but whenever I try to correct them, part of text extend off-screen on right, without slidebar. More than enough to piss me off.Another at Gundamology is more accurate, but seem inactive (ok, it's our fault...partial).
Basically, I check Japanese Wiki and try to translate it, check with English's equivalent if available. They're usually more up-to-date and more accurate (though still has speculation flying around). It look like they have more sympathy toward fictional mecha as well. The best, while English seem to plague with mostly new stuff, Japanese extend their arm to classic series.
My girlfriend was a loli.
I can understand why this article is being deleted. I've noticed that wikipedia is increasingly becoming an online storage space for anime and video/RPG gaming information. I also see a lot of fans abusing the legitimacy (however loose) of wikipedia by placing their opinions in articles as an attempt to win fanboy debates. I'm not surprised wikipedia is starting to take a dour stance at the anime and gaming sections of their site and pruning them appropriately.
Bascially, if these fans want this kind of in-universe fiction widely available online, the fans should be building dedicated fansites, like the MAHQ or my own Macross Mecha Manual. It's not the role of an online encyclopedia to act as a dumping ground for the trivia and minutiae of fictional constructs.
There are examples of properly run fan wikis out there, but they take a commitment to do so. The new wiki format for the Macross Compendium is working out very nicely and I like the Battlestar Galactica wiki for the most part. Efficient organization at a fan wiki is possible, but it takes effort.
Bascially, if these fans want this kind of in-universe fiction widely available online, the fans should be building dedicated fansites, like the MAHQ or my own Macross Mecha Manual. It's not the role of an online encyclopedia to act as a dumping ground for the trivia and minutiae of fictional constructs.
There are examples of properly run fan wikis out there, but they take a commitment to do so. The new wiki format for the Macross Compendium is working out very nicely and I like the Battlestar Galactica wiki for the most part. Efficient organization at a fan wiki is possible, but it takes effort.
I really don't think we need to be discussing this here. Whatever happens on Wikipedia has nothing to do with MAHQ and MechaTalk. However, as I've pointed out in the past, I want to highlight what I think is a very obvious hypocrisy with how all these deletionists handle things there. If Knightmare Frames aren't deserving of their own page, then why is there an entire page devoted to Reginald Barclay from Star Trek: The Next Generation, and why is there an article for the Snowspeeder from Star Wars? If people are going to run around and delete all these articles from Gundam, Code Geass, etc, they should do exactly the same with Star Wars, Star Trek and all these other big franchises that have extensive coverage on Wikipedia.
Co-founder/editor-in-chief, MAHQ
Pronouns: he/him/his
Pronouns: he/him/his
-
Brave Fencer Kirby
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:14 pm
Well, it affects us here in as much as it affects the entire fandom, and we're part of that fandom...
I think MrMarch is right, pretty much. What we should be doing is not focusing on "saving" the Wikipedia articles like Xanadu is suggesting, but rather working on building, maintaining, and improving the fanwikis where that information actually belongs.
Chris is right too, of course; there is a fair amount of hypocrisy and favoritism in these deletion schemes. The thing is that they're supported by Wikipedia's standards. Effectively, you're supposed to be able to cite everything to a "reliable secondary source" -- which effectively means published material or an official website. Fan sites do not count under Wikipedia's standards. Things like Star Wars and Star Trek have these reliable secondary sources, because their English-speaking fanbase is so much larger. While Gundam has a such sources as well, they're generally in Japanese, which makes it impossible for most people to read them (and fans translating from the Japanese versions may actually be considered original research and thus against Wikipedia policy -- I'm not certain).
Anyway, the point is, if you want to help out the fan community, rather than fighting an endless battle against Wikipedia's standards, it'd be smarter to help the fan wikis get on their feet. Wookiepedia (the Star Wars fanwiki) is excellent, as is the Halopedia, and the TV Tropes Wiki, while not exactly a fanwiki in the sense we're discussing here, certainly deserves an honorable mention. While all of these have bigger fanbases (and thus more editors) to draw on than Gundam (or Code Geass) does, that doesn't mean that we can't try to improve our own fanwikis anyway. The thing is that wikis rely on their editors to grow and improve -- if you want it to be better, then help improve it yourself.
That said, links are probably appropriate. There's Gundamology which I believe was started by Hellcat -- though to be quite honest, The Gundam Wiki is larger and would probably be the better one to focus our efforts on. Google search reveals a Code Geass Wiki but I know nothing about it, so I can't offer any commentary or opinions.
So go forth and wiki! If they don't meet your standards, you've got no one to blame but yourself!
I think MrMarch is right, pretty much. What we should be doing is not focusing on "saving" the Wikipedia articles like Xanadu is suggesting, but rather working on building, maintaining, and improving the fanwikis where that information actually belongs.
Chris is right too, of course; there is a fair amount of hypocrisy and favoritism in these deletion schemes. The thing is that they're supported by Wikipedia's standards. Effectively, you're supposed to be able to cite everything to a "reliable secondary source" -- which effectively means published material or an official website. Fan sites do not count under Wikipedia's standards. Things like Star Wars and Star Trek have these reliable secondary sources, because their English-speaking fanbase is so much larger. While Gundam has a such sources as well, they're generally in Japanese, which makes it impossible for most people to read them (and fans translating from the Japanese versions may actually be considered original research and thus against Wikipedia policy -- I'm not certain).
Anyway, the point is, if you want to help out the fan community, rather than fighting an endless battle against Wikipedia's standards, it'd be smarter to help the fan wikis get on their feet. Wookiepedia (the Star Wars fanwiki) is excellent, as is the Halopedia, and the TV Tropes Wiki, while not exactly a fanwiki in the sense we're discussing here, certainly deserves an honorable mention. While all of these have bigger fanbases (and thus more editors) to draw on than Gundam (or Code Geass) does, that doesn't mean that we can't try to improve our own fanwikis anyway. The thing is that wikis rely on their editors to grow and improve -- if you want it to be better, then help improve it yourself.
That said, links are probably appropriate. There's Gundamology which I believe was started by Hellcat -- though to be quite honest, The Gundam Wiki is larger and would probably be the better one to focus our efforts on. Google search reveals a Code Geass Wiki but I know nothing about it, so I can't offer any commentary or opinions.
So go forth and wiki! If they don't meet your standards, you've got no one to blame but yourself!
Fighting evil so you don't have to!
The problem with on going series is that the 'official' reference book may not become 'official' a few years down the road. Star Trek a good example. Another example is the 'Red Cross Book' on Evengelion. What is 'official' is usually decided by the studio, and 'official' book may get discredited.Brave Fencer Kirby wrote: . Effectively, you're supposed to be able to cite everything to a "reliable secondary source" -- which effectively means published material or an official website. Fan sites do not count under Wikipedia's standards. Things like Star Wars and Star Trek have these reliable secondary sources, because their English-speaking fanbase is so much larger.
And that could be up for dispute. A good example is the length of the original (1980s) Battlestar Galactica. The original length of the Battlestar was disputed because it did not match the scale to the special effects.
The funny thing about Gundam in wiki is that the hardcore fans (like us here) already know that it's not a good source. So we have abandon it long time ago. But for english base fandome, like comics, I do find it very accurate.