User talk:Theopolisme/Reversion

Swear words

Take any swear word, you'll find articles here that include that word. I doubt if our coverage of punk and heavy metal music would be possible without it. Often undue especially in pop-culture use, but even if you switched your wording to reverting all unsourced uses you might find that contentious. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gay

Some people and some fictional characters are gay. When real people are involved then you need to insist on reliable sourcing. Again I'm hoping you meant to say that you'd revert unsourced edits, but even some unsourced edits are uncontentious. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! Theopolisme _TALK 03:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but I'd still be uncomfortable if you treated information about fictional characters as contentious. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable persons

May I suggest you rethink your C6 criteria "Any edit that includes a non-notable person". Currently our policies are almost the opposite of that, and people who are only known for appearing in particular films, crimes and bands will often wind up as a redirect to the article they are named in. Many actors are uncontentiously named in multiple cast lists before they are deemed notable enough for their own article. Shifting from the current arrangements to one where you can only name a real person if we have a biography of them would be a big policy change, and it is difficult to see the benefit of it. There is also the issue that per {{A7}} if it is unsure whether someone is notable or not then you need a consensus decision - so an article would go to AFD not speedy deletion. Currently we don't need to decide if a particular actor is notable until someone creates an article on them, but if someone starts removing all mentions of them as "non-notable person" then others will need a way to get them classified as a "notable person who we haven't yet created an article for" and you'd have a bureaucratic faff when writing about any film or TV program if you could only name the "notable" cast members. Better IMHO to continue with the current system - hopefully at some point in the future we'll require that any mention of a living person needs to be sourced. But if an article on a 17th century painting names the subject even if they are only known for being the subject of that painting? Are you sure you'd want to revert such information? If the info was sourced and you reverted it because the person was not notable then some might construe your edit as vandalism. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]