Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


The name "Delusionist" is POV. Hmwith 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aahoo, it's funny though! rursus 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is... it would be okay to keep it if the people labelled as delusionist wanted to 'take it back'. If no one wants to self-identify with the term, then we should redirect and move to inletionism or possibly precisionism if that means the same thing.

Delusionism is wrong!![edit]

Proponing the inclusionist and darwikinist position, I wish wikipedia to be overflown with factoids, however unencyclopedic. Darwikinism should thereafter be applied so that less important factoids are orphaned by lack of links to them. This way everybody will be happy with writing whatsoever, but if that whatsoever is forgotten, it can safely be removed for lack of interest. Such a scheme increases the peace factor. rursus 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Currently, there are associations of Wikipedians of different User/Wikipedia philosophies at Category:User associations. There are actually many associations created for philosophies which do not even have articles like this one does. Should an association of deletionists or inletionists be created? Are there any active members of either movement who would like to create this? Tyciol 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This content page seems to be mostly satirical[edit]

Reading over the Delusionism page as of late 2021, the entire page seems to be mostly satirical. Assertions are made about "Some call delusionists delusional (hence the name)..." but there is no evidence for this.

The Talk page has a (very) few comments, and those all made back 13 or 14 yrs ago. Very unclear what this is all about.

In short, there is no there, there, about what this term really means, or how using it in the content pages of Wikimedia make Wikimedia and Wikipedia better. Should be discussed for possible deletion. N2e (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply