Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie

User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be some sort of inappropriate fan-fiction about Wikipedia users. It has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, violates WP:DENY, and verges on harassment insofar as it involves writing nonsense about real Wikipedia editors without their consent. See this post by the page creator on my talk page for more context. Spicy (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I will not !vote per WP:COI, but I feel you should know there are already multiple Wikipedia movies. See below:
Wikipedia I: The Movie Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story
Wikipedia: The Musical

Movies in bold are completed; movies in italics are still under construction.

Spinoffs:

None

I also removed any mention of Sportstir, since you found it troublesome. A ding ding ding... is already an established villain in the Wikipedia movie canon. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 16:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete – not what userspace is meant for (NOTSOCIAL/NOTWEBHOST/NOTESSAY), especially when it involves real users and sockpuppets. Regardless, I'd encourage JulieMinkai to read what userspace is and isn't. (Full disclosure: I TPS Spicy and posted in that thread so I an not an uninvolved voice here.) Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And re the other pages, while I haven't looked at them deeply I imagine the fact that they are multiple years old each (some over a decade!) make them somewhat eligible for the grandfather clause. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn’t need more embarrassing dreck from ye bad olde days of Esperanza, the Pokemon Test, and Steven Colbert vandalism. I get more than enough of that in the talk page archives. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to some of those commenting below, I'm not suggesting that we set a precedent of trawling through people's userspace looking for things to delete, but this is a userspace page that contains false information on real, editing Wikipedians. I enjoy humor on Wikipedia, but this is too much of a userspace guideline violation for me (and arguably all wikihumor is a violation to some extent). Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the sake of people's privacy. I don't mind innocent things in this category, but since it's a fan fiction involving real people then I believe you get the idea. I would be uncomfortable to find out that I'm an antagonist in a fanfic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: With a courtesy hold, in case the creator would like to move all of these stories into another platform, like Archive of Our Own. Curbon7 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - The list of cabals is humor. These 'movies' do not qualify as humor and are inappropriate with respect to the policies on biographies of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that this was going on for an extended period until one of the authors asked a question that gave away the existence of their cabal. If you have a cabal, it is supposed to be secret. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Looks like a few editors using our free software to create a rather boring fantasy world which does nothing to improve the encyclopedia and is unlikely ever to so do. – Athaenara ✉ 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the titles are very slightly amusing and largely inoffensive in a vacuum, but who the hell thinks it’s funny or okay to write fanfiction about real users on the platform they’re writing on?! A dumb one-off joke that got way out of hand. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (PS why couldn’t these have just been about the Wiki-sisters and other stock Wikimedia characters like the generic villain guy, Wikipede, and the cabals? Wouldn’t that be way funnier and more logical?) Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Preserving “Vandals in Scene 15 - Uncyclopedians unaware that they are acting in Wikipedia the Movie” because it’s the only thing I actually thought was funny. Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nitpick, but Attack of the Vandals has an infobox for a fictional battle in a clear violation of Wikipedia’s policy on in-universe writing [sarcasm]. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's only a policy for articles, though. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was kidding. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the old ones, at leastUpdate: see below - There are two separate issues brought up: one is that it's a WP:NOT or UPNOT issue, the other that it's a BLP/civility issue. On the first count, we have a ton of old goofy humor from the first ten years of the project, and as long as the people involved are otherwise WP:HERE, I don't see a problem with retaining it. Not my cup of tea, but these have been widely linked, widely mentioned, and a corner of Wikipedia culture. I remember coming across them when I was lurking/researching in ~2008 as one of many examples of a particular kind of at least somewhat endearing, geeky humor -- evidence that there was in fact a community of people who like each other here rather than a bunch of anonymous drones. User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie has been edited by 192 different people! As for BLP, yes certainly we should not host any attacks on people, and if anyone objects to being part of it they shouldn't be part of it. Could someone identify attacks or objections from people who wanted to be removed but weren't? I don't have a strong opinion on this most recent one, being the work of one person, but it also only mentions two Wikipedians. One is a sockmaster and meh, maybe remove. The other is Jimbo, who of course features prominently in many (all?) of these? So I wonder if Jimbo Wales would be interested to comment? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added a neutral pointer to Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun, given these have their own section of that project. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nostalgia doesn’t trump a clear consensus that these are blatantly inappropriate crap that doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus is what we're figuring out here. Also, you need to tag the other pages if they're to be included in the nomination FYI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should probably tell the original nom about that, especially since I fully admit to sucking at manual deletion anything. Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I’ll admit to jumping the gun on declaring consensus, but this is a slow-moving, uncontentious MfD with 6 “delete” votes and 1 “keep” vote. Forecast is a little chilly. Dronebogus (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no practical purpose to its existence. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural objection. There are multiple "delete all" !votes here, but only the newest title is nominated for deletion. The combined history of these pages goes back over a decade, so I don't think it's fair to delete the older ones without properly tagging them. The first one, for instance, has 40 watchers who might have something to say were it tagged. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you do that please? I’m terrible at manual deletion listings. Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deleting this page on its own without nominating the others seems like we're not really giving it a fighting chance. There are people who have watched the other entires in the series. We shouldn't call consensus just yet until those people are notified and have the chance to add their voices to the discussion. Alright, seems fine to me. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 11:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I listed all the others so we can stop debating the technicalities. Dronebogus (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are now other nominations for the other movies. Further discussion here is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal I believe there should be an immediate WP:SNOW delete of all entries from III onwards (chronologically), after which this MfD should be closed and the two remaining MfDs should be allowed to run their separate courses due to objections of the pages in question being historical in nature due to their age and large number of contributors. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (note: my personal opinion hasn’t changed, I still think the whole lot should be deleted) Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with this proposal. jp×g 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support I would rather all the pages be kept, but if push comes to shove I will accept this proposal. The first two Wikipedia movies have nothing to do with the overarching storyline of movies III onwards, can be enjoyed on their own, and are humorous, focusing more on the everyday travails of editors rather than a grand war between contributors and vandals. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Remove names of inactive users or anyone who objects, because otherwise why should we care about some goofy sandbox page? - now that the other ones are no longer [ostensibly/hypothetically?] part of this nomination, I'll revisit. If this were created by someone WP:NOTHERE (which does happen with this "humor" content sometimes), then I'd probably suggest deleting, but it's just a bit of goofiness in userspace, where one is allowed to be goofy, experiment with wikicode, collect userboxes, be part of the Wikipedia community, etc. as long as you're otherwise here for the right reasons. The main thrust of the deletion arguments seem to be about the names of real users involved here. It seems like fine practice not to include the names of inactive/banned users, and certainly anyone active who objects to being included or is cast in a negative light should be excluded, but otherwise, what is the deletion rationale for this vs any other "asdfasdf" sandbox? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not an article. It is a Wikipedia page. It does not need to establish notability to exist. I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting. Do barnstars improve the encyclopedia? Do FAs improve the encyclopedia? Sure -- we can sit on an ivory tower and say that the only meaningful contributions are to write GAs about obscure river islands or argue about semicolons or make threads on the drama boards. But that does not constitute a community. That is not the stuff that really gets the blood flowing. People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends. Surely, if someone spent all of their time giving out barnstars, they wouldn't be improving much. But they exist anyway: because they make the place tolerable to be around. jp×g 21:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't going to help user retention. Hell, the person who made it didn't really care anymore. It's pretty obscure and this story that starts with Jimbo Wales getting kicked in the nuts isn't going to keep productive users on the site. If we start letting these pages that are clearly unencyclopedic and don't help in any way (unlike humor essays) stay, how long until we revert to Esperanza? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’ll admit the visual of the opening line “ fades in to a slo-mo extreme close-up of Jimbo Wales getting kicked in the nuts, hard, by a sad clown/man with an afro puff wig.” (Emphasis theirs) is hard not to smirk at if you have an immature sense of humor (like me). But at least I try to keep my lame nut jokes off WP even if it’s sometimes tempting. Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve notified Jimbo that this discussion is going on since he’s the star of the fanfics. And gets kicked in the nuts in the first sentence. Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a U1 tag on the one in my userspace, since as I said "I outgrew this stuff many years ago". :) Double sharp (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - If we needed to get rid of WP:BJAODN, then it's fair we get rid of this and similar pages, not to mention potential privacy issues. --MuZemike 02:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don’t need to kill all humor on WP, this set is just an exceptional case because of the real people issue. Dronebogus (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm greatly moved by JPxG's rationale. We can do better things with our time than trawling through Wiki-space looking for things to delete. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WaltCip, so we all can write a Wikipedia film. The ones presented seem kind of dark, complicated, the edging touched by the recent culture I assume. Many could do better, and maybe Jimbo will write one. Maybe limited to this one topic to allow at least one userspace page and topic for creative writing. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Randy's proposal. On further reflection, the first Wikipedia movie is poor-quality, and Randy's proposal allows us to restart with a clean slate, albeit with the backbone I've supplied. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 16:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already mentioned the idea of “no real people” version above, so if we do decide to WP:TNT the series I think there should be a clause that states No real people except maybe Jimbo since he’s kind of an unofficial mascot / wiki-character by this point. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dronebogus: Almost all the named non-vandal characters appear to be self-inserts. I think in this case self-inserts are fine since people generally like writing about their reactions to hypothetical situations (that's how I feel about self-inserts, anyway). (TPK is pretty close to being a Mary Sue, tho...) Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • “bad” users get mocked/demonized, “good” users turn into mary sues, it doesn’t matter. WP isn’t a place for real-person fics. Dronebogus (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete all This is clearly writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also on that same page: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it does no harm in user space, and humor should not be totally purgedf rom Wikipedia.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the individual movies were all recently closed as “no consensus”. However since there were few if any new contributors who were against deletion I’d say that’s simply a confirmation that none of the pages’ watchers really care anymore. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m also seeing a lot of WP:ITSHARMLESS votes, which on top of just being plain bad arguments are also clearly at odds with WP:BLP. Even silly things from 15 years ago shouldn’t violate such a strong, well-founded policy. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you let the MFD run its course rather than trying to dissect each vote that runs contrary to your interpretation of consensus. WaltCip-(talk) 16:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark humor. It does not harm as long as it stays in the userspace. Bobherry Talk Edits 03:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as humor (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as humor. Good solution to what is really a non-problem. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as humor. Relaxing with other community members, on the project itself, is indeed related to Wikipedia's goals. Purging humor weakens the community, and drives away those few individuals who contributed to or are fond of it. – SJ + 20:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as humor- it's a silly fic from ages ago. It's not doing any harm sitting in userspace like this. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 03:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as humor. JPxG, as they often do, presents the most thoughtful rationale for this vote. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 17:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Easily sufficiently related to the project. These are reflections on Wikipedia personalities and culture, and is an important exercise, to be encouraged. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the absence of any reasonable reason why it is harmful to keep around an old project which surely helped with editor retention. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie&oldid=1057649467"