User:Bunchofgrapes
| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bunchofgrapes. |
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||
| ||
Oh, hi there.
I'm Bunchofgrapes. If you like Patrick O'Brian then you might know where I took the name from. For the most part, it's meaningless.
I'm interested in Food, Oregon, and probably some other stuff. I also seem to enjoy doing minor copyediting on random pages.
Significant (or not) Contributions
- Cheese. Which is annoying, since apparently Cheese is hilarious if you are a vandal. Also, Swiss cheese.
- Frybread. My wife made some one day (she's half Native Alaskan) and, well, there you go.
Wikiphilosphy
For a while there, I thought I was a deletionist. Then I noticed myself voting keep on a few too many AFDs to really buy that. I'm no steenkin' inclusionist though - not yet at least. I just can't believe wikipedia gets strictly better by having a page for everything verifiable in the world. I don't believe the audience for people hungry for general knowledge regarding Singaporean bus stations justifies the existence such pages.
So I thought about it a while, and I finally decided on the discriminating principal that works for me. I call it: "The Encyclopedia of X" Principal.
If you can imagine a book in a bookstore called "The Encyclopedia of X" (or "The X Encyclopedia"), then X is a valid topic for having multiple Wikipedia pages.
This gives me a good lever for deciding broad issues.
Fancruft? Generally in: "The Star Wars Encyclopedia", "The Pokemon Encyclopedia", "The South Park Encyclopedia": these are all very plausible books. There's a limit, though: "The Too Close For Comfort Encyclopedia" doesn't ring true. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a Too Close For Comfort article, but it does mean that there shouldn't be articles for individual episodes.
Roadcruft: "The Encyclopedia of State Highways." Um. No. Roads go in travel books, not encyclopedias.
Schoolcruft. Ah, the dreaded schoolcruft. "The Encyclopedia of U.S. Elementary Schools." Nobody would publish such a thing; if they did, nobody would buy it. It doesn't belong in wikipedia. Perhaps you think schools are a special case because school pages serve as a starting point for the next generation to use, edit, and love wikipedia? I think that's a good idea, and I'd say we should create a special namespace just for schools. Keep it out of the article space, though: it's embarassing.