Welcome to Runetotem!!!
--Shoza 12:58, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
Regarding removed sections Edit
I've already gone through that the section "Well known players" is a section that could be very biased and a target for vandalism, which is against the neutral point of view policy. Furthermore the "Forum tradition" section is not encyclopedic and would be preferred to not be included.
I don't care how long you have been a part of your server community - this is not "your" article; you don't "own" it. If there are going to be more reverts of my edit, as an admin, there will be warnings handed out. --User:Gourra/Sig2 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand the concern for the neutral point of view policy, and we can certainly remove the defamatory parts that violate the Do Not Post policy (The Sethis entry comes to mind), but the rest are entries about known people and activities from our server.
- Since it's part of our Runetotem culture, I'd claim that they are encyclopedic in nature, or at least could be with a little cleanup. Would this situation be resolved by making a separate page regarding Runetotem:US Culture and adding a link at the bottom of the page? --User:Sente 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Well known players" and "Forum traditions" are not encyclopedic sections and are frown upon."
- What specifically is un-encylopedic about the entries? Our traditions listing was one one entry so far and literally consisted of the definition of a commonly used Term on our server forums. The intent had been to expand on the history of these and many other terms native to our community much as you would find in other real world informational sources like Britannica.
- As far as well known players are concerned how would entires on politicians and so forth be made, the nature is similar.
- Please point me to where this "entires on politicians" article is. --User:Gourra/Sig2 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I believe he's referring to the "Well Known Players" section of the article, I think he's making the correlation between Well Known Players and Politicians. I'd probably say 'Celebrities' before politicians, but the point still remains. The more that I think about it, maybe a separate culture page that is tagged as such would alleviate this whole issue? WoWWiki-Sente (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a "well known politicians" article anywhere, so your argument that the "Well known players" section should stay is invalid. I'm open for a discussion about these so-called forum traditions however, but keep it in a neutral point of view, by not typing "Runetotem is the best server at doing this and this" for example. --User:Gourra/Sig2 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The point I was making was that encyclopedic entries concerning well known or popular figures do exist so referring to them as not being encyclopedic is incorrect. I'll concede Sentes point about the Sethis entry but beyond that the listing is fairly neutral.
- As far as our traditions section was concerned the only post that had been made thus far was the beginning of a post regarding the definition of a commonly used term on our server, additions including the histories of the aforementioned term would be added as well providing a neat look into the history of our server culture and detailed information about it.
- "encyclopedic entries concerning well known or popular figures do exist" I am yet to see you providing one such list. Provide one and I might believe you.
- There are a variety of articles listing people of a particular nationality. People on these lists should be notable in some way and should ideally have articles of their own.
- This page also includes several related lists, such as lists of people by ethnicity, citizenship, language, or location.
- Just for an example. A basic google search alone reveals much more.
- You fail at seeing the very basic thing that WoWWiki is a wiki site that anyone can edit, which that site isn't. Give me an article on Wikipeda or any other wiki, then you might have an argument. --User:Gourra/Sig2 07:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- You stated they were not encyclopedic. You have been shown that they in fact are.The argument remains valid. That the public can edit is article is irrelevant. The issue is the content not the context which is that of an encyclopedia gestalt or not the context is the same.Sirus011 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, that site isn't encyclopedic in the same way. Like I said, unless you can provide a list on a wiki site, you don't have an argument and this discussion will be closed. --User:Gourra/Sig2 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have provided many lists below in a less then 2 min search. There are many more links then are feasible to re-post here.
- Notable Scientologists
- This is a list of known "mainstream" celebrities who actively train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.
- list of celebrities in the fictional simpsons world.
- wikipedia which has a VERY detailed list and sub categories.
- They only say what names they are and what occupation they have/had, except for the Simpsons character list which describes in detail about the character. Neither of these apply to your list of "well known" players - if you can't grasp the simple fact that characters in an MMORPG, especially in World of Warcraft where people can change names and move servers, aren't the same as people even if they are fictional (see The Simpsons list), then there's nothing more I can say to convince you. --User:Gourra/Sig2 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- All I've seen are repeated instances of little more the semantics on your part.I'll seek review by an impartial admin.Sirus011 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Edited to follow this format.