User talk:Piotrus

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.

Reasons for my raising wikistress:

Some general observations on Wikipedia governance being broken and good editors trampled by the system

Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)

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 Wielka, większa i największa

On 11 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wielka, większa i największa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Polish 1960 sci-fi novel Wielka, większa i największa was very influential for Polish young-adult literature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wielka, większa i największa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wielka, większa i największa), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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=Launchballer 00:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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. BarntToust 04:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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. BarntToust 04:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)