User talk:Brian K White
List of science fiction conventions
[edit]Please, always, remember to write the article first! I've been forced to write a stub on Chattacon to keep it from being removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh got it. Sorry didn't realize a link to a not-yet-a-page was a problem. Would it have been ok to simply leave it as plain text or an off-site link to the home page? There already is a field for the home page which is why I didn't do that. Thanks for writing the stub. Sorry to have inadvertently made you do it.Brian K White (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- That particular page has had such a problem with non-articles that we have a firm rule: no article, no listing of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wait that's stupid. Why? Why can't someone post the important details, ie: that a con exists, when/where/etc. why require the bother of a whole article page, which just robs me of knowing about cons that someone would have posted but didn't want to write a whole page about, or wrote one imporoperly. Making it difficult to post info does not service me as an info consumer. I don't mean allowing links to non-articles, I mean, why not allow simply plain text that makes no attempt to be a link? The simple facts that would be on the line would be easy enough to verify, so there is no valid argument based on not wanting to allow bad data. This is not the spirit of communal documentation and data store.Brian K White (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- We've had problems with hoaxes, with spamlinks inserted by promoters pimping for their commercial shows, and with non-conventions added to the list in order to publicize said non-conventions. Remember: Wikipedia is not a directory; it is an encyclopedia. If so little information is available on a given convention that no article can be written, then since we make no pretensions to completeness of listings, we feel it better to omit the non-article event. Creation of articles should always take priority over mere padding of lists; better to create an article on a convention/highschool/hamlet which doesn't have one, rather than spend your time filling in GoH/alumni/favorite-local lists on those which already have articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wait that's stupid. Why? Why can't someone post the important details, ie: that a con exists, when/where/etc. why require the bother of a whole article page, which just robs me of knowing about cons that someone would have posted but didn't want to write a whole page about, or wrote one imporoperly. Making it difficult to post info does not service me as an info consumer. I don't mean allowing links to non-articles, I mean, why not allow simply plain text that makes no attempt to be a link? The simple facts that would be on the line would be easy enough to verify, so there is no valid argument based on not wanting to allow bad data. This is not the spirit of communal documentation and data store.Brian K White (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- That particular page has had such a problem with non-articles that we have a firm rule: no article, no listing of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
RavenCon
[edit]I've significantly expanded and referenced the article you created for RavenCon. When creating articles, even stubs, it's always a good idea to include a citation to a news article about the event to prove notability per Wikipedia standards. Please feel free to expand the article as your time permits. - Dravecky (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)