What happened to the DBZ Wiki article?

Kendamu · Post by **Kendamu** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:47 am

I would help out but I'm putting my effort into watching over the DB Online Wiki. People like to replace the Japanese in it with perverted comments translated by Babelfish for lulz.

laserkid · Post by **laserkid** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:44 am

If I knew how to properly use wikicode and had any knowledge of sources to help I'd come back you guys up, this sounds like a ridiculously bad situation - but sadly, thats all I hear about wikipedia these days which has really put a sour taste in my mouth regarding it.

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:47 pm

What I find interesting, even though I already expected it, is that the only ones voting for the merge, or the deletion in the first place, are Sesshomaru, DBZROCKS, and Sjones23, someone Sesshomaru called in to help police the DBZ pages.

laserkid · Post by **laserkid** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:37 am

well thats pretty obvious - I mean its TWO DIFFRENT SHOWS. You don't see Wikipedia merging the four diffrent GI Joe series' together, and as well they shouldn't. Connected, but NOT the same.

jjgp1112 · Post by **jjgp1112** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:50 pm

I just undid the last revision.

It's back to how it once was.

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:22 pm

Normally I'd say it wouldn't matter, because Sesshomaru, DBZROCKS, or one of their groupies would simply revert it back... but it seems that shortly following your revert to the full article the article was put under full protection. So looks like it wont be changing for a while.

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:06 pm

Sorry for the double post but I want to call this to the attention of those trying to work on the page as well. Sesshomaru is now trying to get an admin to revert the page back to his version since it's protected and he can't do it. I think this is a perfect time to call the admin's attention to his disruptive editing actions and attempts to own the article.

Thanos6 · Post by **Thanos6** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:29 pm

Aye! Strike now!

*has inexplicably turned into a pirate*

Ex-Dubbie369 · Post by **Ex-Dubbie369** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:32 pm

Jeez..... I just read the whole talk page. Since when is giving information directly from the anime or manga against Wikipedia's policies?

Contra Deus · Post by **Contra Deus** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:49 pm

Apparently, wikipedia seems to think that everything, even common knowledge, needs to be cited to hell and back.

If you were doing an article about the sky, they'd probably delete it for not providing citations proving the sky was blue.

Olivier Hague · Post by **Olivier Hague** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:24 pm

Contra Deus wrote:Apparently, wikipedia seems to think that everything, even common knowledge, needs to be cited to hell and back.

Well... Yeah. I mean, Wikipedia is unreliable enough as it is...

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:47 pm

Contra Deus wrote:Apparently, wikipedia seems to think that everything, even common knowledge, needs to be cited to hell and back.

If you were doing an article about the sky, they'd probably delete it for not providing citations proving the sky was blue.

Information is to be taken in good faith. If there's reason to doubt the accuracy of such information, it is to be verified.

Thanos6 · Post by **Thanos6** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:41 am

We should also throw this at them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine

Completely fictional character article, with lots of plot summary, that got featured article.

Adamant · Post by **Adamant** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:28 am

Contra Deus wrote:If you were doing an article about the sky, they'd probably delete it for not providing citations proving the sky was blue.

Technically it isn't, it just looks that way

And the "sky" article has 4 citations regarding it's blue appearance.

Ex-Dubbie369 · Post by **Ex-Dubbie369** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:30 am

I was looking at a lot of the Evangelion articles, and most of those look pretty damn good. A good model for anime articles, IMO.

Onikage725 · Post by **Onikage725** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:01 am

Contra Deus wrote:Apparently, wikipedia seems to think that everything, even common knowledge, needs to be cited to hell and back.

Ironically enough, from "When a source may not be needed" -

* General common knowledge – Statements that everyone recognizes as true. Example: "Paris is the capital of France."
* Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions".
* Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.
* Text–source relationship – The maximum distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment. The source of the material should always be clear. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken.
* Where summary style is being used – The Summary style policy says there is no need to repeat all of the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point.
* Lead paragraphs of an article - The lead paragraphs of an article should summarize the contents found in the rest of the article. For this reason, they generally do not require citations, because the information should be provided and cited elsewhere in the article.

So it isn't Wikipedia that thinks that, just some of its editors.

I just reverted the Dragon Ball article (on the manga), and went to Sesshomarus page to explain very clearly why it isn't in need of blanket deletion. Not that he will listen, but if anyone wants to take a look. With Z protected, he'll have to turn his attention somewhere else.

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:08 am

I just made a new section on the DB talk page for discussion on improvements to the page (sources, re-writing of sections, etc). If Sesshomaru wipes the article again someone should report him for disruptive editing seeing as the rest of us are trying to work on it and he's just getting in the way.

jjgp1112 · Post by **jjgp1112** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:50 pm

Xyex wrote:Normally I'd say it wouldn't matter, because Sesshomaru, DBZROCKS, or one of their groupies would simply revert it back... but it seems that shortly following your revert to the full article the article was put under full protection. So looks like it wont be changing for a while.

Now they're messing with the articles on the sagas.

Tsukento · Post by **Tsukento** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:18 am

I know one thing that bugs the shit out of me. Fulfilling all the requirements for screenshots from DVDs down to reducing their size in both quality and ratio, yet still getting that ticket crap about it being up for deletion.

I remember a couple of times some idiots were scrapping my Dragon Box episode screen caps in favor of the FUNimation DVD screen caps with claims that I screwed with the images to make them look the way they did.

Onikage725 · Post by **Onikage725** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:41 am

Tsukento wrote:I know one thing that bugs the shit out of me. Fulfilling all the requirements for screenshots from DVDs down to reducing their size in both quality and ratio, yet still getting that ticket crap about it being up for deletion.

I remember a couple of times some idiots were scrapping my Dragon Box episode screen caps in favor of the FUNimation DVD screen caps with claims that I screwed with the images to make them look the way they did.

Yeah, they're called dubbies.

No offense to any dub-watchers on here, mind you.
But the dubbies on Wikipedia are a whole different breed. Obnoxious, combative, refuse to listen to legitimate arguments.

Like "We have to call her Android 18- so the uneducated reader won't be confused!"
Response- if we call her an android, and then say "but not really" in the opening paragraph, the uninformed reader will likely be MORE confused.
"But this is ENGLISH wiki. If you want to use japanese, go to japanese wiki!"
Response... selecting "english" wiki means you are selecting the language the articles are written in, not from which country information may originate in order to warrant inclusion.
"Take your fanboy cruft somewhere else, japanophile."

And that about sums up an average month of "working with my peers" to keep DBZ articles from not sucking.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."