User talk:Raekuul

Sig Archive

12/31/2008
Raekuul, bringer of tropes
Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1/13/2009
Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (he does it without notability)
Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 20:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6/11/2014(!)
Raekuul's Socks (Left is blue, right is red) 00:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul's Socks (talk • contribs) [reply]

Soapbox

Okay, so looking over the XKCD/Voynich Manuscript discussions on the Voynich page, I feel compelled to remind editors that it needs to be notable before it should be added to a Wikipedia page. If TVTropes can't have a Wikipedia page, then neither should every Wikipedia Article that Munroe references make a note that he refers to the page's contents. Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED FORM BELOW!

Okay, so looking over the XKCD/Voynich Manuscript discussions on the Voynich Manuscript page, I feel compelled to remind editors that it needs to be notable before it should be added to a Wikipedia page. If TVTropes can't have a Wikipedia page, then neither should every Wikipedia Article that Munroe references have a note that he refers to the page's contents. I think that this needs to be made much more clear. I am aware that drive-by editors will still add XKCD sections on articles that he refers to, but we Wikipedians shouldn't be doing that.

You know what would be really nice? <sarc> A handful of psychics who can predict what Wikipedia article will be referenced next. </sarc>

Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that folks don't need to be making much of the edits that they do. As a Total Farker, I tend to check Wikipedia every now and again in relevance to articles just to see what is going on; at least once I have stated on a page's talk section that they might want to consider a temp protection to ward off anon edits. However in this situation (XKCD), I lean in the opposite direction in thinking that some editors are having significantly more issue with this than is warranted or even reasonable. Should the Voynich Manuscript mention the XKCD bit(s)? No. Barring more frequent mention and/or some journalist deciding to mention it in a bit about the manuscript, I think that is a "no-question" when placed in front of an action Wikipedia editor. However I think it should be held in mind that this is (I would presume) more hits on Voynich Manuscript than have otherwise been had in significant time; not the edits, I mean the people heading over to find out more. This is a good thing. So while the edits should be treated as they have, the general ranting and raving against XKCD to the point of some comparing them to "raids" in the like is ridiculous and displays a lack of relevant rationality in some regards. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was only talking about Wikipedians defending edits that added that <webcomic> referred to <article>. Funny thing, that. Now, back to troping. Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am Shouting fire in a crowded theater, :-) but I have noticed that students, who are no longer shown classics like Powers of Ten, have sought them out by following their references in xkcd. Xkcd's parody value seems to approach the level of Parody eclipses original work. Or perhaps because xkcd references a dusty topics that are interesting. Maybe the xkcd article could have a section like Gulliver's_Travels#Allusions_and_references_from_other_works so at least if someone clicked What links here they might follow it to xkcd and the links to the particular comic referencing the topic they were reading. Though it does seem sad that someone looking at The Once and Future King or Memento would miss the insightful xkcd Merlin on Memento. Lent (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]