|
|
|
Shamrock Shake, Granola-types have it in for McDonald's |
|
|
Emperor |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,871
Joined:
Member No.: 2,042
|
It occurred to me tonight that we're only two months away from Shamrock Shake season. I was so elated I could hardly speak, so I rushed over to Wikipedia to see what our friends, the good people who fight trolls and build the encyclopedia, thought about it. The answer - no article. It's a redirect to McDonald's Products, and has been that way since October. It actually wasn't such a bad article before that. Maybe they don't think it's notable? Well using their favorite research tool, Google, one can easily find plenty of articles in major newspapers about the Shamrock Shake. So what's the reason for deleting it? It's notable, it's economically important, it's a public health issue (many children receive much-needed nutrition from these shakes), and millions of people have heard of it. I think this is part of some larger patterns. 1. Wikipedians hate big business 2. They hate McDonald's specifically, 3. The notability guidelines are a mess, and 4. Deletion/merging has become a POV battle-weapon.
|
|
|
|
Emperor |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,871
Joined:
Member No.: 2,042
|
QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 15th December 2007, 9:18pm) QUOTE(Emperor @ Sat 15th December 2007, 7:05pm)
I think this is part of some larger patterns. 1. Wikipedians hate big business 2. They hate McDonald's specifically,
Who on WP hates McDonald's? I love McDonald's (for a chain fast food place, it's reasonably clean and my local McDonald's is new and the servers get the order right). Why would Wikipedians in general hate McDonald's? Is there really even a need for a separate article on each McDonald's product? Even obvious notability doesn't guarantee that each product needs its own article. You know as well as I do that the decision process for whether a product gets its own article is completely bizarre and irrational. Obscure computers and imaginary robot cannons get their own articles. What makes an article viable on Wikipedia is if the information tyrants in charge decide they like it.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 15th December 2007, 9:18pm) QUOTE(Emperor @ Sat 15th December 2007, 7:05pm)
I think this is part of some larger patterns. 1. Wikipedians hate big business 2. They hate McDonald's specifically,
Who on WP hates McDonald's? I love McDonald's (for a chain fast food place, it's reasonably clean and my local McDonald's is new and the servers get the order right). Why would Wikipedians in general hate McDonald's? Is there really even a need for a separate article on each McDonald's product? Even obvious notability doesn't guarantee that each product needs its own article. Guys, you're making this too easy. It's because they're a direct competitor of Mzoli's Meats! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 16th December 2007, 5:57am) QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Sat 15th December 2007, 9:18pm) QUOTE(Emperor @ Sat 15th December 2007, 7:05pm)
I think this is part of some larger patterns. 1. Wikipedians hate big business 2. They hate McDonald's specifically,
Who on WP hates McDonald's? I love McDonald's (for a chain fast food place, it's reasonably clean and my local McDonald's is new and the servers get the order right). Why would Wikipedians in general hate McDonald's? Is there really even a need for a separate article on each McDonald's product? Even obvious notability doesn't guarantee that each product needs its own article. You know as well as I do that the decision process for whether a product gets its own article is completely bizarre and irrational. Obscure computers and imaginary robot cannons get their own articles. What makes an article viable on Wikipedia is if the information tyrants in charge decide they like it. It should have an article, and I'd like to un-redirect it, but I don't want someone to say I'm acting as a proxy for banned users or something like that. I have noticed a weird tendency for Wikipedians to be more deletionist about ordinary "real world" aspects of pop culture, perhaps reflecting a kind of "nerd bias". (They like to stuff those kinds of topics into single articles, so-called "mergism", depriving them of space to breathe and grow.) It can be a struggle to write good content about commercial products, for example. There was one guy, Improv, who once went on a massive deletion spree of all kinds of commercial products, things like Chips Ahoy cookies. While those deletions were promptly overturned by overwhelming consensus, he was an extreme case of a broader tendency, which seems to involve paranoia about being perceived as advertising for corporations (on top of ordinary deletionism, of course). Even when these kinds of topics get stuffed into bloated single articles (such as a list of products by a fast food chain), they can still be alarmingly vulnerable to AfD nominations--usually surviving, but with a disturbingly strong minority favoring deletion.
|
|
|
|
Firsfron of Ronchester |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 442
Joined:
From: , Location, Location.
Member No.: 1,715
|
QUOTE(Emperor @ Sat 15th December 2007, 9:57pm) You know as well as I do that the decision process for whether a product gets its own article is completely bizarre and irrational. Obscure computers and imaginary robot cannons get their own articles. What makes an article viable on Wikipedia is if the information tyrants in charge decide they like it. I absolutely agree that the decision process for whether anything gets its own article is often completely bizarre. That doesn't translate to "Wikipedians hate McDonald's". There's a disconnect there.
|
|
|
|
Kyaa the Catlord |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 68
Joined:
Member No.: 4,108
|
QUOTE(michael @ Sun 16th December 2007, 12:57am) Many fiction articles violate the not plot part of the WP:NOT policy, though. I'd say the vast majority of them do. Not plot is not followed, its about as useful as speed limits.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Kyaa the Catlord @ Sun 16th December 2007, 2:20am) Does anyone else find it odd that in every fiction related deletion they scream "move it to Wikia?" Somebody seems to be trying to line the pockets of WMF....
Yeah, isn't that odd? Also, the next time you see someone say "Move it to Wikia!", just try -- try! -- to add a comment that, in addition to Wikia, if people wanted to build an entire sematically-tagged directory of these fictional robots, Wikipedia Review.com welcomes that. See how long that comment is allowed. Of course, since authors can earn 100% of the advertising revenue placed on their Wikipedia Review.com pages, one could even argue that Wikipedia Review is a better place than Wikia for editors, but, that still wouldn't fly. Indeed, Wikipedia's culture not only supports Wikia, it assumes a non-compete, no-mention clause for all other alternative wikis. Greg This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
Castle Rock |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined:
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 15th December 2007, 9:36pm) It should have an article, and I'd like to un-redirect it, but I don't want someone to say I'm acting as a proxy for banned users or something like that.
I have noticed a weird tendency for Wikipedians to be more deletionist about ordinary "real world" aspects of pop culture, perhaps reflecting a kind of "nerd bias". (They like to stuff those kinds of topics into single articles, so-called "mergism", depriving them of space to breathe and grow.) It can be a struggle to write good content about commercial products, for example. There was one guy, Improv, who once went on a massive deletion spree of all kinds of commercial products, things like Chips Ahoy cookies. While those deletions were promptly overturned by overwhelming consensus, he was an extreme case of a broader tendency, which seems to involve paranoia about being perceived as advertising for corporations (on top of ordinary deletionism, of course). Even when these kinds of topics get stuffed into bloated single articles (such as a list of products by a fast food chain), they can still be alarmingly vulnerable to AfD nominations--usually surviving, but with a disturbingly strong minority favoring deletion.
It's funny that real world things seem to have a higher notability standard than the mess in Category:Star Wars. I mean if a Jedi Knight appeared in one book that sold ten thousand copies of course its important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |