Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikian Empire

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete per WP:SNOW. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikian Empire

This is an ill-conceived, ill-defined, WikiProject, seemingly made to claim ownership of certain articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely. We specifically state this is not the case. We are merely guardians of articles. Please give this new project a chance. I promise that we are for the better. User:Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)— Emperor.of.Wikia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ALSO, if my project is deleted, there is no reason why you shouldn't delete this one as well: Wikipedia:Department of Fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor.of.Wikia (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary bureaucracy and titles. Honestly, the creator should probably consider getting a name change. GlassCobra 08:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and a change of signature... Fram (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm always amazed by brandnew editors creating a project of such a grand scale, but we have to assumle good faith for some reason. However, I fail to see how this would improve Wikipedia in any way. Fram (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment This whole thing is beyond ridiculous. There is no monarchy on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not like that. It is just a fun way of getting users to participate in improving Wikipedia.

Strong Keep Brilliant new project that should at least be given a chance. If harm comes from the project, it will be shut down. Otherwise, it has the opportunity to increase both the enjoyability (allows "little-user" bureaucracy in a fun and safe format) and reliability (see description) of Wikipedia. User:Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, can you please give this thing a chance. I have a great idea, just let me go with it! Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its just the sort of thing we don't need in WIkipedia; ego running wild --Snowded TALK 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to assuming good faith??? Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to accept that you are well intentioned, but its still a nonsense idea and please make your signature block a little smaller .... --Snowded TALK 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, Snowded, apparently such a question is trolling...[1]. Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, the ego has not yet landed! --Snowded TALK 10:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be similar to a WikiProject, only without the scope. Given the user name of the proposing editor, I can't help but see this as a vanity project (as it assumes a "head" for the project), which isn't productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am impressed to see such a new editor doing something like this, but is is really not a very good idea. — neuro^(talk) 10:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance. I've put some hard work into this project. I will try my best to make it work properly. Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never seen any "project" achieve anything notable apart from trumpet its own existence, but this is taking it to a whole new level. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is uncalled for. WikiProjects (including this one) are designed to unite users of Wikipedia and in turn improve it. Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There is nothing else to discuss here, Wikipedia is not a blog.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is this WikiProject. I fixed my sig and everything, can't you please give this a chance. It's brill, I promise. Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikian

For some reason, Viktor copied the below discussion, a continuation of a question I asked on his user talkpage, from my user talk page... Fram (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Victor, by the way. I am not Dutch, I'm Australian :)

Not really. Pages are only marked that are taken under "the Empire's" wing. Look past the corny empire thing and please see the true potential of this project. Imagine a Wikipedia where every page has a guardian, and you will understand my project. The Empire bit is just to make it more enjoyable (like a game). Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself. "Imagine a Wikipedia where every page has a guardian" => every article is tagged for this project... Fram (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because of the bias that "advanced" users develop against these sort of new ideas. Why don't you tag the Wikipedia Fun Committee with deletion? Oh, because its an established idea. Give my idea a chance as well!

Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the "emperor" apparently fails to realize is that there are already hundreds of WikiProjects that watch over specific groups of articles and protect them from vandalism and so forth. There is no defined scope to this project, and having a "ruler" that heads the project is not really in the co-operative spirit of WikiProjects. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to realise is that this project works differently from those current programmes. Also, there is no real ruler. My title is a joke to help motivate fellow Wikipedians interested in the project. Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how would other editors be motivated by you being titled Emperor? Fram (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is a brilliant WikiProject inserted into a pretend game sort of setting (designed to make Wikipedia duties more fun for certain users). The Emperor title's role in the WikiProject is much like the role Jimbo plays on Wikipedia. Tell me that the whole Jimbo thing doesn't rally many Wikipedians. Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or preferably blank and userfy as a bad idea. A bad joke. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no joke, but rather a serious project that works with the fun of a joke. This is the sort of bold, revolutionary idea Wikipedia needs to survive. Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support humour, but not if there is much possibility of misleading. In this case, I can see you confusing newcomers. Wikipedia does not need this to survive - it wil survive regardless. You'll find others to do the same thing, without this name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a bad thing. If you can "fool" newcomers into thinking Wikipedia is more fun than it really is, well, then you've got a good system. Why can't you give this thing a two month trial or something??? Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete commenting to the above, we have a bold guideline. Wikipedia does not need this to survive; it needs content contributors. Go edit some articles (which so far you have yet to do). Furthermore, please change your signature; see WP:SIG. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how will Wikipedia attract new contributers? Fun new projects like mine. I fixed my sig to WP standards a while ago, btw. See: Emperor.of.Wikia (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If meant as a joke, pretty bad, if meant seriously, misleading and goes against WP:OWN. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.