Talk:Interim

Okay, but I also object right here. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone want to delete this page??? --KF 00:02, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moving my comment here doesn't make a lot of sense (see above -- who'd start an argument with "Okay"?), so let me say the whole thing again:

Interim is a good page, whether you consider it a stub or the (almost) finished product or anything in between. I've discussed this question before (see Talk:Point of no return), and I'm a bit tired of it. With the help of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary you can argue both for and against inclusion in Wikipedia.

I mean, why pick on this page? And would you want to wipe out, say, crystallomancy and stallion, too? What would be left? Where do you draw (your highly subjective) line?

KF 12:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I moved it here as I felt comments should occur on the talk page, not on the article. I thought this was standard practice. It would be better discussing this at VfD rather than here. It doesn't make sense. Who are you addressing when you keep saying you? I didn't list it for deletion and I don't want it deleted; I want it moved to Wiktionary. What's wrong with that? Angela

Hi Angela. Thank you for your answer.

(1) As I have already pointed out several times, I feel uncomfortable with the way pages are being deleted at present. This concerns the choice of pages, the speed of deletion and the procedure in general. I wonder how many potential contributors we (we Wikipedians, not you) have already scared away that way. It used to be different, I remember that very well.

(2) When I say you I mean those of us Wikipedians who, for whatever reason, have made it their main (vocation-like) task to clean up after the others. As you have reacted to my message, you seem to be one of them. It makes me sad to think about it, but I remember two contributors -- Isis and Zoe -- who did more or less the same, got into a number of fights and eventually left. Whenever I come across a page I think doesn't fit in, I also do something about it, but I do not go about it systematically. I just don't think Wikipedia is that bad that such a thing is necessary.

(3) What's wrong with keeping the Interim page here? It contains valuable cross references, which is always an asset for an encyclopaedia. And again, why this page? Why not any (or rather all) of the following (a random list):

I hardly ever ask rhetorical questions, and this isn't one either.

All the best, --KF 19:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not make it my "main (vocation-like) task to clean up after the others". I was simply responding to your question which I noticed on the VfD page.

Secondly, the "valuable cross references" will still exist. They will just link to Wiktionary rather than to Wikipedia.

Why this page? Ask jimfbleak - he nominated it for deletion. Probably because he came across it, and has yet to come across the others.

You may also be interested in the current debate on the village pump entitled Stop the Stubs.

Angela

Dear Angela,

(1) I have taken my time rereading the Stop the stubs debate, and now I wonder why you suggested I should have a look at it. There, seven regular contributors (Fantasy, Camembert, Wik, Wapcaplet, DavidWBrooks, till we *), and to some extent also Pete) argue in favour of having stubs and express -- in more words than I have ever done -- exactly my own ideas about the subject. It is only ²¹², the apparent instigator of the debate, who argues against them. So what am I supposed to learn from that? (Again, not a rhetorical question.)

By the way, today I created an article about lozenge only because I was quicker than the deleters. Never ever would it have occurred to me to write about that subject if I hadn't come across an obvious newbie experiment.

(2) As I regularly try to point out, the overall procedure and also the underlying policy of expanding Wikipedia are inconsistent. Consider this: You have a long, wikified article with a lot of (or at least some) links which do not (yet) work. That's the standard. Then someone comes along and creates a new article by clicking on one of those links and writing a stub. If the wikified article contains links like fatigues (see the camouflage article) or Geoff Mute (because he was an extra in some 1973 B-movie), we are encouraging users to write dictionary-type articles as well as short biographies on irrelevant (or fictional) people. Speaking as an advocatus diaboli now, if you really wanted to prevent people creating stubs, you would have to remove all those dead links in the first place rather than clean up radically after someone has made a mess. But again, I would say that that would be highly counter-productive. I'd leave everything exactly as it is and slow down the deletion process a bit.

(3) My question why Interim is going to be deleted rather than, say, plaintiff remains unanswered. I won't ask jimfbleak because I'm discussing this with you, not him.

(4) In my last reply to you I was going to say something about the quick deleters' motives. I was going to say it is to do with some kind of power struggle and their subconscious need to sit in judgement over others. I'm glad I didn't say that because I found out only minutes ago reading your user page that you are a psychologist. Actually I've always been interested in how some people can be so sure that they are right. I discussed this some time ago with Isis (at Talk:Remake): Back then the situation was similar although the discussion revolved around NPOV rather than VfD. Generally speaking, we shouldn't take Wikipedia too seriously. It's great fun, but there is something called real life, too -- didn't you mention that yourself at one point?

(5) I'm not going to keep on arguing. It's not worth the effort. However, I wish I knew why you inserted a blank line between machete and plaintiff in my last message.

Well then, bye for now, --KF 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear KF,

I didn't say you needed to learn anything from it. I just thought you might be interested or want to add to it. Some people don't read things like the village pump so I point it out to them when I think it is relevant.

I would like to clarify that I am not against stubs. Have a look at the other Wikipedias I have been to today - they are mostly stubs (ar, cy, ia, simple, ru). My comment on interim was relating to the fact I thought it better placed at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. I have never said it should be deleted for any reason, and certainly not because it is a stub.

This page is not the place to argue against policy.

I do not want to stop people creating stubs. It is only blank pages I object to – not stubs.

Why are you discussing this with me, not him? I argued against the deletion of interim. I said it should go to Wiktionary. I have not looked at plaintiff so I can not comment on it merits.

Why are you accusing me of being a quick deleter?

I am not a psychologist, I just studied it. Neither am I a Software Engineer (although if you read my user page after 10pm UTC today then you would have no reason to think that anyway).

I am never sure that I am right. I change my mind frequently. I did mention real life once – on a deletion policy page if I am not mistaken.

I am not quite sure why you think this an argument. I don't disagree with anything you have said.

I did not insert a blank line between machete and plaintiff in your last message, at least not intentionally. Can't quite see how that happened.

Good job I moved your comment off the article page or it would be a very strange article by now.

Angela

My guideline is that it is a good article if a valid external link can be added to it. So if you can find an external link that is not a dictionary and is about interim it would end the argument I think. BL 01:33, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)