Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

During the summer I spent lots of time reading about the different primarchs and stories on Wikipedia. Now all the articles have been condensed into one generic Space Marine article and I'm really disappointed because so much of the content was axed.

I don't know if the purpose of Wikipedia is to just provide snapshots of topics rather than details, but I wish the articles dedicated to different chapters hadn't been deleted.

I read the discussion accompanying the Space Marine page and I get from it that some people decided that since the content couldn't be corroborated by 3rd party sources it wasn't fit to be on Wikipedia. Does this mean that all fictional stuff is going to be deleted from Wikipedia? I don't want to get off topic. I'm just disappointed.

I am guessing that GW complained about their IP being uploaded verbatim, and that Wiki was forced to comply with a takedown notice.

check out the lexicanum instead.

http://www.lexicanum.com/

JohnHwangDD wrote:I am guessing that GW complained about their IP being uploaded verbatim, and that Wiki was forced to comply with a takedown notice.

That's one possibility.

It's also possible that it's just part of one of the general periodic purges of fiction that happen on wikipedia. A lot of people seem to think that it should be treated as a 'serious' encyclopedia, and that fictional information belongs elsewhere.

They take themselves too seriously.

Why not? No one else will!

Obviously 'Auto-fellatio' was a far superior use for the server space.

Man, I was all ready to come in here with a scathing personal comment about Jimmy Wales, and Malfred upstages me with a witty comment.

Kudos, sir.

warpcrafter wrote:They take themselves too seriously.

Amen to that.

It's nuts that SIHULM isn't on Wiki.

warpcrafter wrote:They take themselves too seriously.

and that's why they invented uncyclopedia...to take no one seriously.

warpcrafter wrote:They take themselves too seriously.

When you are a one-trick pony, you want to make sure that your trick isn't well known to everyone before they start buying.

Wikipedia doesn't like having its servers weighed down by IPs about fictional universes. It's not the point of the wiki project. The world of warcraft entry for a time was like thirty times larger then the entry for all of Brazil. Thats why Wikias exist. Just use lexicanum.

sourclams wrote:Obviously 'Auto-fellatio' was a far superior use for the server space.

Oh, they've rubbed that one out too......

It's a pity they delete all the fiction info since Encyclopaedia Britannica already provides a much better source of hard info than Wikipedia. The best use of Wiki is precisely for the kind of Cardcaptor Sakura info no serious encyclopaedia will ever cover.

Deletionpedia pages.

Mattlov wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:They take themselves too seriously.

When you are a one-trick pony, you want to make sure that your trick isn't well known to everyone before they start buying.

It's free.

http://www.lexicanum.com/

This is a wikia. It is for 40k specifically and has thousands of articles. It is a wiki designed for a specific topic. It allows private servers and self contained content away from the constrains of legality suffered by supersights like wikipedia. It also allows a specific topic to be covered in its entirety, IE THOUSANDS OF ARTICLES. There are Wikias for most every nerd topic imaginable. Star wars canon does not belong on wikipedia, nor does 40k referential material. It is an online encyclopedia that is attempting to maintain its status as a scholarly research tool. Not a nerdrage database.

:cough:

It's my understanding that the articles were moved here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thats the one! Wikias. Like wikipedia articles but for cheeto stained nerds to shout at eachother over! Lexicanums a bit larger a database, but the main wikia is good too.

BigToof wrote:

sourclams wrote:Obviously 'Auto-fellatio' was a far superior use for the server space.

Oh, they've rubbed that one out too......

*snigger* sexual innuendo is a hard subject to get on top of.

The value of Wikipedia is that it harnesses the nerdrage and obsession with trivia that is essential to compile in-depth guides to Cardcaptor Sakura and similar minutiae of modern popular culture.

somecallmeJack wrote:

BigToof wrote:

sourclams wrote:Obviously 'Auto-fellatio' was a far superior use for the server space.

Oh, they've rubbed that one out too......

*snigger* sexual innuendo is a hard subject to get on top of.

I'm having a problem handling these double entendres.


Eric

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a pity they delete all the fiction info since Encyclopaedia Britannica already provides a much better source of hard info than Wikipedia. The best use of Wiki is precisely for the kind of Cardcaptor Sakura info no serious encyclopaedia will ever cover.

No worries they don't delete all fiction, the global warming junk is still there.

MagickalMemories wrote:

somecallmeJack wrote:

BigToof wrote:

sourclams wrote:Obviously 'Auto-fellatio' was a far superior use for the server space.

Oh, they've rubbed that one out too......

*snigger* sexual innuendo is a hard subject to get on top of.

I'm having a problem handling these double entendres.


Eric

It helps to start slow, and really explore the entendre while handling it. Don't expect too much at first, but the more time you spend playing with them, the more adept you get at handling them. Some professionals and highly skilled amateurs can skillfully handle many at one, sometimes with them all climaxing at the same time.

Have you ever read Finbarr Saunders in Viz Comic?

You would enjoy it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats the one! Wikias. Like wikipedia articles but for cheeto stained nerds to shout at eachother over! Lexicanums a bit larger a database, but the main wikia is good too.

Wikia... in for some conspiracy theories?

Wikipedia = Jimbo Wales project.
Wikia = Jimbo Wales project.

Wikipedia = Non-commercial.
Wikia = Commercial.

Fiction-stuff gets threatened with deletion on wikipedia.
Fiction-stuff gets offered a place at wikia.

Ka-chiiing!

Bye,
Tierlieb
*leaves, looking for parascience.wikia.com and trivia.wikia.com*

Polonius wrote:It helps to start slow, and really explore the entendre while handling it. Don't expect too much at first, but the more time you spend playing with them, the more adept you get at handling them. Some professionals and highly skilled amateurs can skillfully handle many at one, sometimes with them all climaxing at the same time.

All good advice and information, but if you watch the professionals, if you're not careful, that thing could still explode in your face!

I'm having trouble having sex with the double entendres.

Crap, I did it wrong, didn't I?