☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to genzedong@lemmygrad.ml • edit-29 months agoNazipedia gotta whitewash quickimagemessage-square68 fedilinkarrow-up1188file-text
arrow-up1188imageNazipedia gotta whitewash quick☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to genzedong@lemmygrad.ml • edit-29 months agomessage-square68 Commentsfedilinkfile-text
archived link https://web.archive.org/web/20230928010556/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Hunka
minus-squareTheLepidopterists [he/him]hexbear21•9 months agoSo there's a separate article about the event and he should just be mentioned there? It doesn't merit two separate articles? Cool, where's the article about the Canadian parliament honoring him? link
minus-square@Serdan@lemm.eehexbear9•9 months agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yaroslav_Hunka The general sentiment seems to be heavily in favor of either keeping the article as is, or rewriting it to be about the event. It's interesting how Wikipedia is accused of bias from all sides, by people who can't be bothered to figure out how it works. linkfedilink
minus-squareTheLepidopterists [he/him]hexbear7•9 months agoSo there's not an article about the event yet? link
minus-squareTWeaK@lemm.eehexbear7•edit-29 months agoNo. Because, for whatever reason, the person who first decided to write an article chose to write it about the person instead of the event. You could write an article yourself if you wanted. linkfedilink
minus-square@Serdan@lemm.eehexbear3•9 months agoThe article about the person is still up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process Someone proposed deletion due to the subject not being notable. The next step is finding a consensus. Currently it looks to me like the article gets to remain as is. This is what I mean by not bothering to understand how it works. linkfedilink
minus-square@CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.mlhexbear3•9 months agoPeople shouldn't have to pour over pages of documentation, debates and policies to read an online wiki that's crazy linkfedilink
So there's a separate article about the event and he should just be mentioned there? It doesn't merit two separate articles?
Cool, where's the article about the Canadian parliament honoring him?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yaroslav_Hunka
The general sentiment seems to be heavily in favor of either keeping the article as is, or rewriting it to be about the event.
It's interesting how Wikipedia is accused of bias from all sides, by people who can't be bothered to figure out how it works.
So there's not an article about the event yet?
No. Because, for whatever reason, the person who first decided to write an article chose to write it about the person instead of the event.
You could write an article yourself if you wanted.
The article about the person is still up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process
Someone proposed deletion due to the subject not being notable. The next step is finding a consensus.
Currently it looks to me like the article gets to remain as is.
This is what I mean by not bothering to understand how it works.
People shouldn't have to pour over pages of documentation, debates and policies to read an online wiki that's crazy
deleted by creator