User talk:Piotrus

: 632

: 82

: 6

: 22

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

Please start all new discussions at the bottom of this page and include a heading. When in doubt, click the "New Section" button above.

If I left you a message on your talk page, please answer it there by indenting one line and starting your response with a ping: {{Ping\|Piotrus}} If you leave me a message here on my talk page, I will answer your message here by pinging you.

Always sign your message (by clicking the sign button or by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~). Thanks in advance.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms.

Lurking stats

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Detailed traffic statistics

DYK for Małe zielone ludziki

On 15 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Małe zielone ludziki, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the communist-era science-fiction novel Małe zielone ludziki presents a futuristic depiction of Africa that reflects Polish perceptions of the continent during the Cold War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Małe zielone ludziki. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Małe zielone ludziki), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Laun chba ller 00:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lo siento

I got a fair bit more agitated with you on that particular "Features of" afd (part of your bundle), and while I totally disagree with your idea of how to nuke it all out of memory and what I perceive as you not perfectly upholding the value of commenting on "content, not contributors", I went to some places I shouldn't've gone to, and for this I apologise. Consider my endorsements of other editors telling you to "get off your high horse" and one-off "if this guy keeps going, we'll take it to ANI", all, um, promptly nullified.

I honestly believe that in an ideal world, there should be a long-term draft for rehab for the content, and it's a hell of a thought to consider the terms hyperlinked through the dozens of MU, MCU and Spider-Man articles that would turn redlinked. I guess it's not bad once you think about red links with possibilities. Other editors seem to think that there should be a "glorious cultural revolution of the content" that frankly, I disbelieve will ever come to be. Leaving it be will cause it to sit there, as rehab-ing the sum total of the pages would amount to a climb up Everest, Mount McKinley, and Kilimanjaro, respectively. Ain't nobody doing that.

Whatever I said, I didn't need to. I offer my heartfelt regrets at having stooped. Wherever you may be, I wish you a good one. Barnt Toust 04:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posit that at least the MCU wikiproject could start out with like a goal to transform one or two sub-section(s) on their "Features of" article a week, but hey, I might work on a pitch later about that. Would you be down to discuss somewhere about like, coming up with one of these for the comic WikiProject to reform the Marvel Universe and Spider-Man FO lists? Obviously I'm not asking you to do any heavy lifting of the pen or anything, I'd just like your thoughts and maybe an endorsement of a plan—doesn't even have to be any of what I'm writing here—so that meaningful reform happens. Barnt Toust 04:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust Well. *silence* I did not expect that. Thank you. In my experience (I've been here a bit longer than you) the way we started our interaction generally ends up... nowhere good, to say the least. I am very happy to find this is an exception. As for the subject in question, I fully support rewriting such stuff. It can be done, I've done it myself on a number of occasions (hmmm, for example, hyperspace here is the old version, I recommend comparing them...). But in my experience such content generally needs to be torn down to nothing, nuked (per WP:TNT), then restarted from scratch. Here, I think the topic of Marvel Universe is obviously notable. I'd direct efforts to fix stuff there. I still feel that Features of... is irredeemably plot summary that does not belong here (per WP:TVTROPES). That said, it's clear consensus for now is to keep this stuff. So be it - we will see over the next few years if it can be fixed, or if consensus changes. Btw, if you are interested in notability (and rescue of) fictional topics, I recommend watchlisting the following pages: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. And by all means, good luck with rewriting/rescuing related topics. I love fiction, I just believe we need to upheld certain standards of quality on Wikipedia (simply put, good encyclopedic articles go beyond plot summaries and/or lists of media appearances of a fictional entity - that's what differentiates us from wikia/fandom type of fansites). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even better example than hypespace is what we (mostly TompaDompa) is doing with Template:Astronomical locations in fiction. Check the history of a number of entries there. Point is, content can be fixed. It just takes time, since there are very few of us doing the "heavy lifting", and there are zillions of articles to fix (not to mention, write up from scratch). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Thanks for your directory to all of these very insightful revisions, and for your recommendations on versing myself on content rescue. I may take some remedial action eventually based on your reccos. Barnt Toust 16:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your WikiCup submissions: three DYKs

Hi Piotrus, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. You recently submitted the following for DYK points:

Unfortunately, none of these are eligible for DYK points because they were all nominated to DYK as newly promoted GAs. I know this can be disappointing, but Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Did you know? states that only newly created or expanded DYKs are eligible for DYK points. The rules specifically exclude DYK submissions from receiving points if their appearance on DYK is solely because the article was a newly promoted GA. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius Thanks for the explanation, I understand. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Weddings in the United States and Canada for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weddings in the United States and Canada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weddings in the United States and Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

jolielover♥talk 18:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of W leju po bombie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article W leju po bombie you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SSSB -- SSSB (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]