User:Erik the Appreciator/Erik's Rationale
Editing Philosophies[edit]Here I describe my various beliefs about Wikidom and the editing of it: Wikipedia as a general encyclopedia[edit]Ever since I started editing on a wiki devoted exclusively to Nintendo’s Golden Sun series, I have developed the belief that Wikipedia, with its rules about not being a game guide and a crystal ball and all that, is a general purpose encyclopedia that is meant to provide a general overview of its subjects; its articles’ contents are meant to be none-too-specific enough to appeal to the casual reader. This is where the casual, probably uninitiated reader goes to read an encyclopedic overview of the Pokémon franchise as a whole. The various Wikis around the internet, on the other hand, such as those supplied by Wikia, are where the really specific coverage about really specific subjects belong. This is where the Pokemaniac goes to see information about what level Charmeleon learns Flamethrower and which episodes of the anime feature the recently revealed Nyaruma. To restate this outlook, while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia for everyone, the Wikis are self-contained encyclopedias by the fans and for the fans about various subjects. This is why attempts at articles about Pokémon moves like Fire Blast get AFDed from Wikipedia while these sorts of articles are outright encouraged on the Pokémon-centric wiki called Bulbapedia. This is also why I would support merging 493 Pokémon articles into about 25 list pages covering about 20 Pokémon each; the casual, uninitiated reader would much rather have it that way than 493 separate articles, many of them apparently impossible to write actual articles about, and having it laid out my way would have been a healthy alternative to an extremely lengthy, cramped, and overcrowded single List of Pokémon page. And these lists would also allow for Main Article links to full articles about the really noteworthy Pokémon like Pikachu and Mewtwo. Cruft[edit]You all are likely aware of the user A Man In Black, who in my opinion is a nearly chauvinistic upholder of Wikipedia’s anti-cruft policies. Well, it turns out my views on cruft are rather similar to his; There is a point where more data about a subject starts to turn into less meaning. Raw data being stuffed into an article can cause it to outright obscure the general content of the article, enough that the casual reader I described above will dislike having to read through it and perhaps lose interest. Cruft belongs and outright shines in Wikis, while in the general Wikipedia making a notice about how the size of Slaking’s pupils seems to be different in between the Pokémon game sprites and the official artwork of Slaking can outright repel the reader. Only a Pokemaniac would want to be told that, and he can be told that over at Bulbapedia away from the unforgiving eyes of non-pokemaniac general readers. If there’s data that doesn’t contribute to understanding of the subject because it’s very specific and there’s too much of it, it is deleted as “fancruft”. Mergism[edit]This brings us to my next belief, which pretty much is my belief on how to solve issues involving the upper two concepts. I believe merging several relatively notable subjects that don’t really have that much to say about them is a great solution that both promotes appeal to casual readers and dissuades inclusion of cruft into what would have been articles that needed the space filled up with something, anything. My case in point is about the four main villains in Resident Evil 4 (that game rocks); we have separate articles on Bitores Mendez, Ramon Salazar, Jack Krauser, and Osmund Saddler, and none of them seem to be able to have full proper articles written about them; more material to put into these pages would definitely be considered cruft. So, if I had a license to violate WP:OWN, I would merge them into a page called List of major Resident Evil 4 antagonists. Another facet of my belief reveals itself here; only if each of these characters were to reappear in more Resident Evil games and other media would there be enough material to warrant each of them being in their own articles, and if I were sure of that I would keep them in their own articles. But alas, all four of them die in the game, so it is extremely unlikely that any more content other than what is in each article can be uncruftily added. I would definitely vote for them to be merged in that case. Keeping cool when the editing gets hot[edit]Obviously I fully agree with No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith and all that, but now here’s my view about keeping cool when the editing gets hot; Suppose user A edits under what he thinks is the right way and believes himself in good faith, and then user B reverts believing that that is the wrong way, and she believes her edit to be in good faith. This normally blossoms into an edit war, which often results in temporary blocks; alternatively, this can cause user A to lunge at user B’s throat like a rabid wolf, and NPA warnings are handed out. In neither case is the problem any nearer to being solved. Here’s my belief on a far preferable third alternative; take it to the talk page of the article in question. This will encourage more of a community discussion because more users will be made aware of the problem, so they will be able to weigh in. This sometimes helps to reach a resolution faster. Bringing it up on an article’s talk page instead of each other’s talk pages also encourages the two combatants to be less incivil towards each other as they are now in the public spotlight. Who am I not[edit]Lastly, here is a list of individuals that perhaps would be in your best interest to not associate me with, along with a description of the main trait that makes me different from each case.
|
Editing style[edit]If you look at my edits to pages like Slakoth, you’ll surely notice that I conform to a heavy-handed editing style where I try to write in encyclopedic prose, move around images, and generally upgrade the quality of an article when I see that others have not been doing specifically that. Perhaps it is necessary, however, to provide an idealized hypothetical case study that fully illustrates how I can take raw information and convert it into quality prose, complete with images and an optimized paragraph layout. Raw Material[edit]The following was posted on User:A Man In Black’s talk page by a rather nefarious character on April 7, 2006, after the two had a dispute over whether to put in information into each Pokemon creature article about where in the real world each species would be found if they were real creatures. You read that right. Read this closely, and you’ll realize that this dirge could have been worded much nastier:
Edited for encyclopedic clarity[edit]I have taken this raw text and fully rewritten it as it conforms to my personal editing style. Now I may present an alternative Appreciative version of the above biography (And please bear in mind that none of this reflects my opinion of A Man In Black at all, you dolts!):
Eh, God knows what this write-up needs to make it less worthy of the space it takes up. Other details[edit]I have, however, been unable to decipher this one conversation that took place on that talk page nearly two months later:
We live in strange times, we do. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
What I can edit[edit]This is a mostly complete listing of all the games, movies, TV shows, and other subjects which I am able to edit or comment on because of my familiarity with each of these. If you see an article related to what's below that's in bad shape, feel free to bring it to my attention and I'll see what I can do. Video Games[edit]
Cinema[edit]
|