Castlevania timeline on Wikipedia

Where did it go? Didn't Quasar make that?

"[citation needed]"

You should argue about this on the talk pages, not here!

But it's gone! Completely obliterated. No talk page, no page.

Deletionist vampires at work.

*Ain't no stupid cat image macro here. I don't know what the hell AirRaid is going on about*

Can we make stupid cat image macros loserable or something? Hell, Any stupid Image macros at all..

I'm on it as we speak.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Castlevania_timeline

I like how they decided to delete that article for being in-universe, while there are like 5,000 Pokemon and Star Wars articles that are written in-universe. All the votes to keep were pretty much valid IMHO. Wikipedia is seriously full of elitists.

I like this artical because I like knowing the cronoligie in a series of movies or games.

You can have a stab at WikiTruth if you really want your timeline.

One of the deletion advocates said:

"This is useful to me" isn't a decent argument. "Usefulness" is not policy.

That pretty much sums up what Wikipedia has become. The policy isn't to do what's useful, but to do what follows policy.

I agree that a encyclopedia should be useful and usefulness implies redundant information.
But to do what follows policy isn't a bad thing. At least it qualifies itself.

I never made any timeline article on Wikipedia. Basically, putting any info about game universes on Wikipedia now is a waste of time. Such things are better off being placed in a universe-specific wikia site when one exists. I've been advocating the move of large amounts of Metroid material to the Metroid wikia.

Unfortunately some of the wikia sites are of extremely low quality and seem to be run by kids. It would take 10 years just to fix all the grammar, spelling, and usage errors, let alone get to any factual accuracy. And then you have little kiddies reverting all your changes because "hurrr p30pul d0nt n33d t0 t4lk pr0per on teh internets".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

Fredrik said:

That pretty much sums up what Wikipedia has become. The policy isn't to do what's useful, but to do what follows policy.

Yep. It's become a huge bureaucracy that cares more about rules being followed than there being real information there. Like their new policy to delete all the trivia sections. I always liked those and found them informative. It's usually oddball information that doesn't fit into the main article well, but is still pretty relevant.

I don't think it's encyclopedic. If people want to document that kind of minutia, they should use Wikia to build their own castlevania encyclopedia, like we've done with the Doom Wiki.

Kristian Ronge said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

It's not a democracy, actually.

And no original research either, a timeline would have to be a subsection of the Castlevania (video game series) entry and even so perhaps it would be best to have a concise summary that expands by clicking on the specific titles of the series' articles.

Yep. It's become a huge bureaucracy that cares more about rules being followed than there being real information there. Like their new policy to delete all the trivia sections. I always liked those and found them informative. It's usually oddball information that doesn't fit into the main article well, but is still pretty relevant.

But you can't really trust them, for the most part they've been completely unverified. If it's really interesting and provable it's probably very easy to fit it into the main text.

There IS a Castlevania wikia already. But like I said, there's nothing you can do about it if some kiddies have registered the wikia before you got there and are now running it under policies that result in articles of trash quality. This may not be the case with the Castlevania wikia in particular (I have not browsed it much), but a few others I have visited have absolutely reeked.

Wikipedia sucks more every day. I remember project Pokemon working so hard on articles for all the pokemon, only to have some new douche admin go on a deletion/merge spree.

Zaldron said:

And no original research either...

I never fully understood that. I mean, can you not contribute to an article about you, or about a band you're in, or some project you've worked on? What if the said page were full of misinformation?

But you can't really trust them, for the most part they've been completely unverified. If it's really interesting and provable it's probably very easy to fit it into the main text.

Not all trivia sections don't cite sources. Some are very well cited.

Csonicgo said:

Wikipedia sucks more every day. I remember project Pokemon working so hard on articles for all the pokemon, only to have some new douche admin go on a deletion/merge spree.

Oh man, that's fucked up. I didn't know that had happened. I remember a few of those pages making the front page even.

Danarchy said:

I never fully understood that. I mean, can you not contribute to an article about you, or about a band you're in, or some project you've worked on? What if the said page were full of misinformation?

This is what makes Wikipedia truly suck. SA.com already did a parody on this last year.

Danarchy said:

Oh man, that's fucked up. I didn't know that had happened. I remember a few of those pages making the front page even.

Yeah, The same admin tried to destroy the pikachu article as well, but Pikachu was too notable to get the axe.

Danarchy said:

I never fully understood that. I mean, can you not contribute to an article about you, or about a band you're in, or some project you've worked on? What if the said page were full of misinformation?

Notability and such. IF you're not mentioned by CNN, then you're not worth mentioning. At all.

Same goes for software, even though it was a proposed policy that didn't go through the adminazis follow it anyway. If it's not mentioned on CNN then it's deleted. Console games are exempt from this because they're not 'computer software'.

I mean FFS, Sven-Coop was deleted. Many times. For being simply "non-notable".

Zaldron said:
It's not a democracy, actually.

It's just a stupid quote from "The Simpsons". I was referring to the common idea -- or should I say misconception -- of the Wiki concept. :-)

Csonicgo said:

Wikipedia sucks more every day. I remember project Pokemon working so hard on articles for all the pokemon, only to have some new douche admin go on a deletion/merge spree.

Ah, yes, article mergers. Also known as pasting several articles into one page so they can't be linked to individually. Of course, this is not performed with even the intention of turning the resultant text mass into coherent prose. I give you the typical merged "article":

This list of main Pokemon characters is a list of main characters in the Pokemon universe.

==Ash Ketchum==
In the Pokemon universe, Ash Ketchum is a main character who ...

==Dawn==
In the Pokemon universe, Dawn is a main character who...

...

Danarchy said:
I mean, can you not contribute to an article about you, or about a band you're in, or some project you've worked on? What if the said page were full of misinformation?

Have some fun with it: find something that's potentially libel then hire a litigation lawyer...

Fredrik said:

That pretty much sums up what Wikipedia has become. The policy isn't to do what's useful, but to do what follows policy.

Yeah, that sounds about right. There's also this obsession about things being "non-encyclopedic". Someone might decide to put a banner on their user page saying they like ice cream and a bunch of jackals say it's a waste of bandwidth and the site will go to hell. And they're the ones bringing it there through their aggressive anti-user/anti-community stance.

Fredrik said:

Ah, yes, article mergers. Also known as pasting several articles into one page so they can't be linked to individually.

It's strange how popular mergism is among editors. I started an "Association of Splittist Wikipedians" on meta a long time ago partly out of curiosity. It has 7 members compared to 140 members for the AMW.

Danarchy said:

I never fully understood that. I mean, can you not contribute to an article about you, or about a band you're in, or some project you've worked on? What if the said page were full of misinformation?

Dissertations and original content is not Wikipedia's objective, come on, it's hard enough already for people to agree on what constitutes objective, fact-weighed writing. Can you imagine a bunch of douchebags shitthreading the discussion on some other mongoloid's inane rant about somesuch or another, all in the name of "completeness" and "freedom of information"?

Notability and such. IF you're not mentioned by CNN, then you're not worth mentioning. At all.

Notability is key, who the shit cares about things so specific and punctual that a google search of the same term yields the best homepage/fansite/compendium/wikia of X meme?

It's not a repository of all kinds of information.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php

amazing how a lot of this is still right on the money