Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day/Archive 1

message: I need to agree and amplify what Hedley and Virulent 78 said above.  Could someone please explain to me how this is not a grotesque violation of WP:BITE?  I am referring mostly to the title, which is the first thing — and as JzG points out, probably the only thing — most newbies will read.  Why is it acceptable to demean good faith contributions (even ones with subjects that are far short of WP standards for notability, verifiability, etc.) by calling their authors children?  People already act disrespectfully on AfD, this guideline just serves as validation, and as a tool to help them do so.  ×Meegs 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The whole of Wikipedia is ageist.  Compare the number of articles on Pokemon with the number of articles on knitting.  This is one of the very few articles whose bias is towards maturity, and none the worse for that. Just zis Guy you know? 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And discriminating against schoolgoers as a class in the title (yes, I'm fully aware that the substance of the text is about article subjects, but the title is not) is, of course, a hallmark of maturity. This sets a terrible example. Nach0king 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It might be a joke... 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus with three yea and three nay. —Nightstallion (?) 10:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: I've removed Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline from this page as it was never proposed or widely adversed for comment before it was listed as a notability guideline on 2006 January 19. The proper procedure is outlined on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; if anyone wants to peruse making this into an official guideline, they can tag it accordingly and open an RfC. ×Meegs 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the green check from the top of the page – that is the iconography of , just as , , and  have theirs.  I suggest replacing box at the top of the page altogether with , but I'll leave that to one of the page's proponents. ×Meegs 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline status 

message: This page lists examples of pages that have been frivolous enough to be deleted.  This would be useful to those of us new to WP, and we could look through them and compare them to articles which 'made the grade' as an indication of the sorts of pages we should be making. Unfortunately though, because they were frivolous enough to be deleted there isn't any way of seeing what these pages looked like, making the listing of them a little pointless... Is there any way these pages could be restored somewhere where we could look at them to compare.. without being normally accessible to someone who isn't specifically looking for them?  Kaid100 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I like this essay, it's very objective and provides copious precedent. If only more AfD precedents were this well documented. I made a small change, emphasizing verifiability by placing it before the other, more shaky reasons for avoiding such articles. Deco 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well written 

message: I'm gonna echo some other people and call this essay a bit ageist.
Arguments that it's not "official policy" are moot against this. It's ageism is a large reasona s to why it's not official policy. I can think it might be the only reason it isn't. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day is a very smart idea.
While I admit that a lot of content MU1D (Made up 1 day) is contributed by school/univerity kids -  it's not necessarily made up by them or originates at school.
Mini-mammoth was started by Triple J announcers Jay and the Doctor.
I'm currently lobby for deletion of PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments, which originated on a generally respectable blog - but still fails notability, primarily because it was MU1D. Alot of MU1Ding goes on, on the internet, and can be totally excaserbated (sp!) by Wikipedia.
How do you start yet another discussion on moving/chenging/editing this essay?--ZayZayEM 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another note is that none of the opposition to the move really has any guts. It generally is "The title doesn't really matter" (which it does) and that "this isn't actually a guideline", to which I'd at yet, one of the arguments against it becoming a guideline is its condescending ageist attitude which is perpetuated at the start by the us.--ZayZayEM 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea - should be policy - but it doesn't just apply to schoolkids