☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to GenZedong@lemmygrad.mlEnglish · edit-21 year agoNazipedia gotta whitewash quicklemmygrad.mlimagemessage-square70fedilinkarrow-up1194arrow-down111file-text
arrow-up1183arrow-down1imageNazipedia gotta whitewash quicklemmygrad.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to GenZedong@lemmygrad.mlEnglish · edit-21 year agomessage-square70fedilinkfile-text
archived link https://web.archive.org/web/20230928010556/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Hunka
minus-squareTheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up22arrow-down2·1 year 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?
minus-squareSerdan@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up9arrow-down2·1 year 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.
minus-squareTheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·1 year agoSo there’s not an article about the event yet?
minus-squareTWeaK@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·edit-21 year 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.
minus-squareSerdan@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·1 year 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.
minus-squareCriticalResist8@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoPeople shouldn’t have to pour over pages of documentation, debates and policies to read an online wiki that’s crazy
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