User talk:TTN/Archive 13

Archives
June 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to January 2007 January 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to May 2007 May 2007 to June 2007 June 2007 June 2007 to July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 to October 2007 November 2007 to January 2008 January 2008 to March 2008 April 2008 to July 2008

List of characters in the Ace Attorney series‎

I was wondering if you could take a stab at pruning this article of most of its ridiculoulsy inflated plot like how you cleaned up List of Wario characters. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends if the article is necessary or not. I was thinking about possibly seeing if the different games could be merged to the series article considering only their plots, one or two minor gameplay additions, and reception are different. That would depend on if any development information can be found or if the reception sections can be beefed up by a good amount. In the case of merging, most of the character details would already be covered, so one section providing the primary characters could work out. TTN (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would merge the games, "any licensed console game that has been published and widely released" is deemed notable enough to have its own article (similar to how albums released be major record labels or films released by major studios are granted their own articles). The Ace Attorney games meet these criteria so why would we merge them?

75.93.9.235 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with size and presentation, not notability. One section of gameplay is required for all four of the current games in the series (not counting the spin off). After that, the story, development, and reception sections are what makes them unique from each other. It's possible that development information doesn't exist in great quantity, which only leaves two unique sections. Those two unique sections can fit in the series article if necessary, which would build one strong article instead of a number of weak ones. It really depends if development information can be found or if the reception sections can amass enough relevant information to make them strong enough to stand. TTN (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles may not be in the best state at the present, but since they meet the notability guidelines they deserve to have their own articles. WP:POTENTIAL adresses this sort of scenario and advises not to merge articles that "has potential to be successful as a standalone article". This also seems to go against the notability guidelines for Toys & Games. Also, if you're interested in improving the games' reception sections their

Game Rankings pages have a wealth of reviews.

75.93.9.235 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mysterio

I would like to hear your opinion on this: Talk:Mysterio#Other_media -- DCincarnate (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowser, Ganon and Big Boss

Hi TTN. I was just admiring a lot of the pruning work you had done here and was wondering if you just hadn't gotten around to turning these three articles into proper redirects. I know that the Metroid series has had it taken care of with respect to Mother Brain, as well as others, but I just wanted to know if there was a reason why these weren't redirected yet, or whether I could do it myself. Thanks! 72.165.235.68 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock of banned IP messing with Blade articles.

Hi,

I see you have been responsible in the past for a number of Blade-related merges. I started following Special:Contributions/Nintendoman01 as a probable sock of repeatedly-blocked IP user Special:Contributions/24.93.236.98. I'm undoing the redirects since they 1) don't appear to be adding any sources, and 2) are done without any consultation to see if consensus has changed. Can you sanity check my actions? I want to make sure that I'm not being overly aggressive and reverting good edits. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those pages have no reason to exist, so undoing the edits is perfectly fine. If it were just some new user, a small little note would be fine, but this person is obviously doing this to be purposely disruptive rather than contribute to the project. TTN (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I'll continue reverting them as disruptive, then. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball character related merge tags

Please go back and correct all of the merge tags you are placing on the pages of various Dragon Ball characters. You are putting an extra "s" in the name. So instead of List of Dragon Ball characters its Lists of Dragon Ball characters. The extra "s" makes the link red. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was the name of the article, and I didn't even notice it. It was moved and deleted after I finished tagging. TTN (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No problem then. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good To Have You Back, Dude! :3

I was wondering, there is a page of merged Yu-Gi-Oh characters that's a huge mess, that and there's a debate on the Tekken characters. Do you mind if you could fix those up? Thnx. :3 71.123.97.5 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Doug episode stubs

The page/process you're looking for [[WP:SFD]. Alai (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Canon Sims Characters

Can you check if List of Canon Sims Characters is the same article as the one deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-player characters in The Sims? TTN (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. The latter has one-line descriptions of NPCs for Sims, Sims 2 and Sims 2's expansions, along the lines of "Human Maid" or "Gabby the Mime (House Party) - A mime that will arrive at bad parties to try and lighten the mood. He is also known to steal furniture." That is to say, even less relevant than the former. --Kizor 12:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's probably going to be an annoying AfD. How about Altaïr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altaïr Ibn La-Ahad? TTN (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are the same, though being me, I'd recommend getting others to merge Altaïr to Assassin's Creed before getting rid of it. --Kizor 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you see anything worth merging? Plot and gameplay seem to have pretty much everything down. TTN (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Those and development. Good point. Fire away. --Kizor 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

TTN, you may be looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pre-made characters in The Sims. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have placed a speedy on the article under discussion as G4, with the edit summary of "May as well try it out".As the article does not seem identical to that of two years ago mentioned just above, having had many additional edits since then, I have declined the speedy, and suggest instead another AfD, which will get a community decision--as you and I both know, the outcomes on articles of this nature are unpredictable. I will let someone else make any necessary comment on the edit summary. This is not an admin action, which I would not take on an article on this subject--any editor can decline a speedy.DGG (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been off probation for what, a week?

And immediately, you seem to be back to what led you to be punished in the first place. Is that really wise? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about three days, actually. Personally, I think it was a bit unfair to target just me out of all of the parties involved, but the reason for the restriction wasn't for merge discussions and AfDs. It there was any specific reason, it was for edit warring, which I don't plan on doing. TTN (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, all I know is that of the 18 active afd discussion in WP:ANIME, you started 16 of them. The majority of them in under 24 hours. Seems a bit obnoxious to me. Almost like you want to snow everyone under so no proper discussions can occur. Those who can't create, destroy. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if I were to begin utilizing more than a few redirects every once and a while, someone would eventually get on my case about how I should be using AfDs instead of "going around the system". It's better to use a system that can actually bind something rather than have them be reverted constantly. There's a large number of articles that need to go through it, so it seems better to get it done quickly than drag it out. TTN (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

...I agree with that guy. The avalanche of AfDs is a bit disruptive. You could've probably brought up the issue of merging/reorganizing a lot of the Legend of Galactic Heroes articles on a relevant talk page instead of putting up an AfD process for each one. Tone it down a bit. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Those articles are general trashy plot summaries not worth merging. If they had been, I would have used merge tags like with articles actually worth merging. Deletion is the absolute best option in that case. TTN (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, try prodding them first. G.A.S 06:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because anyone can remove a PROD, it is easy enough for someone to wait until day four, log out, and remove them as an anon just to make things annoying. I believe I've gone through that a few times, so I really don't bother with them at all. TTN (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with your assessment of all the articles you nominated, but I'd recommend adding the merge=yes tag to the project infobox instead of taking them to AfD. We have an active clean up staff, and while they're a bit preoccupied with importance ratings at the moment, anything that looks dubious is being tagged for merger later, and we will get to it in due course. Doceirias (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you again. Please, make use of the {{anime}} |merge=yes parameter instead of taking the articles to AFD as the result will likely be the same. The project do have a cleanup staff, as said, and they are cleaning up the identified articles. G.A.S 06:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If I believe that the article is worth merging, I'll place merge tags. I'm pretty sure most of the articles that I've nominated so far have been complete trash not worth salvaging. In cases where "content" (literally about five percent of the overall content of the articles) could potentially be merged, it would be better for it to be rewritten from scratch most of the time. TTN (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

May I then ask that you slow down a bit, for instance by limiting the amount of open AFDs/Merge discussions at any time? It seems that you are drawing too much attention too yourself;). For the most part it seems that the amount of new articles are under control (at least at WP:ANIME, refer to the log - Most of the new ones on the last update is due to someone tagging previously untagged articles), and continued editing/merging/deleting will give better results than a short lived spree. Regards, G.A.S 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely be sticking to between five and ten a day, but I'll be dipping more into regular television shows and soap operas. It won't be way too specified on any one set like I have been. TTN (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There are advantages to the merge tag, though; I completely understand why you wouldn't want to follow up on a PROD, but if you tag the project banner, we can handle that sort of tedium for you; since we have a narrower scope to our edits. Sure, we're not actually going to transfer anything when we 'merge' those character articles, but it helps avoid ruffling anyone's feathers. And feathers seem to get ruffled easily on anime and manga pages; letting the project editors handle that dirty work will keep tensions at a minimum. Doceirias (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

While you are off your probation, you cannot expect people to not raise an eyebrow at how you just nominated, what, nearly 80 articles since you went off of probation? Seven templates, three categories, merged at least 18 articles, etc. You were put on probation because of your actions, and you show no sign of learning from that. Seriously, you've nominated more articles for deletion in the past week than I've ever nominated any kind of Wikipedia page in nearly four years. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for it was edit warring (and a bit of bias towards punishing someone just to get people to shut up) rather than my actual edits. I don't plan on doing that anymore. Eventually, I should get to the point where merge tags are really the only option anyways, so hopefully people will tolerate it until then. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal anyways. Besides the first few days (which was just to get a jump start), I've only been contributing between 1/8th to 1/12th of the daily AfDs. It's quite a bit more than the average user, but it isn't that much in the long run. The main outcry comes from the fact that it's me more than the actual actions. TTN (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're just gaming the system. If you aren't careful, you may find yourself having to deal with additional restrictions and possible further probation. People here don't want to see that as it's likely you do some good, but nominating "only" 5-10 articles a day is still quite a lot and likely only calculated to try to fly under the radar. Please don't start reverting to your previous harrassing ways. You'll just waste a lot of time which could be used doing something actually useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have responded to anyone who nominated more articles than I have ever nominated in a week. You just came up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to repeat this fairly often: the restriction was based off of edit warring, and in my own opinion, the idea that they felt that someone needed to be punished in order to shut people up. It has very little to do with my other actions or the rate at which I preform them. TTN (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was about you edit warring in spite of results constantly, which I've had a personal experience with. It was a great idea to bar you from merging/AfDing/redirecting pages, because you were going completely overboard. It also helped people shut up about your uncooperative contributions in how much you've edit warred with people. The measure was put in place for a reason - if it was bad during probation for you to participate in these issues, it should still REMAIN a problem to an extent. Participating in them is one thing, but you're BINGING on AfDs, which shows that you only know enough to avoid getting blocked, not learning from your probationary period. For instance, if someone is put on probation and cannot drink while under probation, it says a lot about the person if he or she, when given the right to do so back, starts drinking day and night. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Saddle Club

Could you take a knife to The Saddle Club - particularly characters. Paul Melville Austin (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off doing it yourself. The most I can do with the character section is chop half of them off and leave the rest with two sentences. That would probably leave some relevant information missing. TTN (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

In light of your recent activity regarding the initiation of deletion debates after the recent lapse of your editing restriction, I have opened a request for clarification. You can find the request here. Many thanks, Gazimoff 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. TTN (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Necrid

Would you object to removing the merge tags at this point?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'll try again after the video game and anime and manga character categories are fully purged. TTN (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• sighs* Sometimes I really do think you'd be happy if every character was merged in some tiny little subsection.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

comment about the above

You have just commented on the talk page about something relevant to the two sections above. As I gave a rather lengthy response, I'm not repeating it here. DGG (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists

TTN, I'm glad you are back, but there are sooooo many articles on single fictional creatures that need to be deleted, why nominate lists? The redirect-to-a-list system prevents the creation of many articles on non-notable things, like these:

• Manshoon
• Lucemon
• Uchu Chu
• Admiral Kolhammer
• Thun'da
• Mogdaan
• Bert Ljung
• Shamrock Squid

Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Futurama character merges

A couple notes:

• I think merging the list articles without discussing first was a bad idea, not necessarily because I disagree with the merges but just based on well, you know, the whole mess. I also have concerns that the current page name/organization will also make it more difficult to control which characters are added to the list which in turn is what led to the lists being split in the first place. I am not going to revert based on any of this because I think it can be worked on but I thought I should tell you at the very least, I'll wait and see what other Futurama editors do.
• You messed up the attribution, this is my main concern at the moment. If you're going to start performing merges again (which I don't have a problem with, the arbitration remedy is over so do as you will) then please, please re-read WP:MERGE. From that page "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merge content from article name" (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" (emphasis original) while you know and I know what pages the text was merged from based on your edit summary other editors or whoever may be needing the attribution may not be familiar with the history of the pages. Please be sure to follow this in the future.

That's about it for the moment, we'll see what happens with the other merge proposal, I'm going to wait to comment there until after I see if this first merge is reverted but as I may or may not have said previously I think those are probably good merge to list candidates so assuming the page doesn't explode from the list merge I am likely to lend my support to the proposal. Stardust8212 20:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The lists were only separated because they were too large before I trimmed them. There is no need for discussion there, as there is no reasonable argument to keep them separate. I'll be keeping an eye on it for cruft, so that should fine overall. Feel free to change the organization of it. That was just a quick set up to get it going. Nobody really ever follows that instruction, so there really is no point in it. I really can't even recall more than one or two specific users that actually try to get people to follow it. Unless there is a large push for the community to actually start following it, I really don't see any point. TTN (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this editor's barnstar recognition of your strong work nominating articles about non-notable gamecruft, and the like, for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't learn anything

Your edits to the Ed, Edd n Eddy pages have been reverted. You did not start any discussion, and went against the will of the editing community, which had already decided that the articles should remain in their present form. I consider your unwarranted, baseless "merge attacks" to be vandalism, and will certainly take action if you do this again to any of the pages I watch. You have already been put on probation in the past for such actions, hence my opening statement. -- Elaich ^talk 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was unlikely that anything would come from proposing a merge (the pages seem to have little traffic, especially seeing as they are of quite bad quality), I took a bold approach. It would only be bad if I were to now revert war with you over it. Is there a specific discussion that you can link to explaining why they need to be split? Season articles are only created if they can obtain independent notability or if the initial episode list reaches somewhere over 100kb. It fits neither case, so the single episode list is quite enough. TTN (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The basis of Elaich's outrage is this AfD nom (which he made) which resulted in a keep which in this case meant "discuss it for yourselves, deletion isn't required but a merge might" but I haven't seen any discussion regarding a merge decision so "community will" stands in for anything more concrete than a AfD unrelated to the current issue. Traffic is at a slump and Elaich has taken to spats of crazy Wikidrama regarding edits like these in lieu of anything else to do, considering them vandalism which is overblowing the situation severely. Personally, I think WP:BRD (without allegations of vandalism) is the way to go. treelo _radda 20:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles were AfD'ed last spring, and the consensus was that they should stay as they are. People still use dialup, and having the articles split makes it easier to find something you are looking for. Claiming that "nothing would come of a discussion since the pages have little traffic" is a lame excuse, and you know it. You might be surprised how many people might comment if given a chance. And yes, I would suggest that you do not start an edit war over this, since you are on very thin ice to begin with. You take the offensive, using your own standards to evaluate the articles merit, and then take action without taking the community's viewpoint into account. That makes you, not a bold editor, but a rogue editor. Your zeal is commendable, but you draw a fine line between being bold, and WP:Own. You might ask yourself just exactly what your motivation is, since about 100% of your edits destroy the work of others. If you had a balancing volume of helpful, constructive edits, that would make you much more valuable to the community. -- Elaich ^talk 19:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate when people take a keep at an AfD as "This must never change no matter how much standards change over time." The page is not large enough to be split because of size reasons. If it were over 100kb, that would be one thing, but it is only at 55kb, and it could reasonably be trimmed by a good amount after superfluous details are removed. We try to accommodate dial-up users somewhat, but splitting such a small article in going too far. The articles have had only around 50 edits each in the last year with the majority coming from anons tweaking little thing here and there. That's a pretty good sign that very little people actually care enough about them to comment. TTN (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this isn't good. I already explained what the AfD actually means and people still using dial-up is as lame an excuse as low traffic is if we're going to be going down the incivility route.

Elaich, your reaction (and attitude) is aggressively defensive and please do not mention anything about rouge editors, it has no meaning. You fell into WP:OWN when you became known as the editor for this subject and assume bad faith anytime anyone does anything drastic with the articles without your knowing and blessing. I think TTN is as valuble in cutting content back as those who create it, sometimes it can just happen through nobody else wanting to step up and fix an issue those few who still watch these things noticed. treelo _radda 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a shout

I've changed your merge proposals for MegaMan.EXE and Zero.EXE to instead point at the mainstream character articles for each to buffer them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Strong Bad

I am currently still developing the article, and I do believe that it will warrant enough information relevant to the character to keep the article, as Strong Bad is probably the most notable character of the site. RedThunder 23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You do make a point, but I was planning on adding an influence on culture, reception, and merchandising/real-word materials section. Also, his role in the site is a section I am currently working on now. RedThunder 23:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Something to keep you busy for a while

*waits for someone to notice certain templates* *whistles innocently* G.A.S 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

With respect to the afd nomination of Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, that a simple G book search finds multiple references, seems to indicate that your reason of "having no coverage in independent sources" was made without actually looking. I know how easy it is to assume that because no sources can usually be easily found for a class of subject there will be none this time either, but I at least try to look before saying that. There may in a given case be other reasons to delete, though consensus there so far seems to say otherwise, but that reason at least was not correct, and if not an isolated mistake, casts some doubt on how carefully you are checking your nominations. Getting insubstantial articles on minor weapons merged or even deleted is a laudable enterprise, and you should take care not to compromise it. DGG (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually. my assertion is still correct, as the topic itself is not covered. The plot of the film is the part covered in the majority of them and any others are just trivial. I'm honestly dumbfounded that people couldn't discern that. The topic is basically comparable to giving funny quote from the film an article. Google Books is really only helpful for real world topics. With fictional topics, it only gunks things up. TTN (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Such incidents may be avoided if the AFD process is followed as laid out at WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, such incidents may be avoided if the original editor(s) would add secondary sources at the time of writing. Sorry to intrude, but we're dropping the ball here. Here's a quick recap from what I can tell, and pay attention, there's a quiz at the end: article is created without mention of secondary sources, possibly without the use of secondary sources; article is nominated for AFD for not having any secondary sources; links to Google searches are provided at AFD; the AFD is closed as keep under WP:SNOW; the AFD tag is removed from the article. Now for the quiz, and sorry, it's an essay: Identify the problem or problems in this scenario, and for extra credit, what is the most serious error committed in this scenario? This is open to anyone. Pagrashtak 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagra, I absolutely agree with you. Let's go onestep further, and try to fix the problem. Given an inadequately sourced article, it should be fixed if possible. The way to fix it is to try to help source it. And only then, if one fails, to bring it to AfD. I would love us all to be able to work on sourcing such material instead of removing it. As an analogy, flunking poor students is not the best way to make them better students--though it sometimes may in the end be necessary. DGG (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the AfD close, snow or not, was wholly incorrect per WP:RS and WP:N and even the attempted compromise at WP:FICT. Sourcing is a mere canard here. TTN is absolutely correct in pointing out DGG's erroneous and fallacious (if ingenuous) reading of GBook sources. The notability is not detachable from its context in an encyclopedic sense and no extant source exists to demonstrate otherwise. DGG (and others) are conflating dangerously this kind of drive-by reference and in so doing marginalising the meaning and encyclopedic value of "reliable source". I don't expect them to change their view (Heaven forbid), but the fact remains that anyone making reference to this would necessarily have to contextualise it, which mitigates as a matter of course against its independent, out-of-universe notability and its need for a standalone article. I share in TTN's disbelief.

I suspect the disjuncture is simply another instance of the overwhelming systematic bias in this project where the tastes of a white, male, <40, computer-literate, nerdy demographic with unusually advanced interests in Internet Memes, Star Wars, Monty Python and Anime become the norm. Eusebeus (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing about this is we are actually more likely to have sources because of that. We're not just nerds, we're nerds with money to spend, and that means people will write books, have interviews, magazine articles, etc, about this crap. Obviously that's not going to be the case for every situation, but we're talking about Monty-fucking-Python. I'm not saying this because I liked the movie (I LOVED the movie), I'm saying this because it's true. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

we are who we are, and the way to get more articles on other topics that are woefully underrepresented is to recruit editors who are interested in them, not remove the work of those who are already here. May I make a positive suggestion: if we were to limit ourselves to merging/redirecting/deleting articles on relatively minor characters & plot elements from relatively minor fiction there would be many fewer objections and difficulties. I'd even help--in fact, I do it anyway when I see something obvious. Let's get rid of the bottom layer. Perhaps we can all agree on doing that. I will sometimes defend middle-level material, but that's to keep deletionism from overflowing into the top. It's trying to remove everything on a subject regardless of importance that gets people bothered. DGG (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Turning the question to the deletionist/inclusionist debate is simply caricature of my counter-position and - rather worse - needlessly invokes the emotional freight of that useless flamewar.

As TTN rightly observed, we have yet to see either here, at the merge discussion or the AfD even one single solitary reliable third party source that demonstrates the notability of the topic at hand independent of its context.

That's not compensating for woeful under-representation of Monty-Python related iconography; that's called spamming our encyclopedia with junky, trivia-laden fancruft.

We have rules against that: hence WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NOT. TTN's AfD nom and his subsequent merge suggestion are fully supported by the principles that we work to uphold. Thus, as I see it the systematic bias I refer to (and please think about this Ned) means: while we uphold standards in general, we allow exceptions (e.g. for risibly unimportant fictional incidentals) because they happen to fall within the purview of our own prejudice.

Systematic bias doesn't necessarily mean topics are under-represented; it means far too many editors are willing to compromise our standards of inclusion (notability, references, sources) and encyclopedic quality when the topic gratifies their own cultural predisposition.

Onan has a hard time saying no. Eusebeus (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

could you clarify what you mean by "demonstrate the notability of [whatever] independent of its context"? I think we demonstrate notability in context and discuss things in context--talking about things out of context is being a Dictionary. Context is what makes an encyclopedia. Maybe an example will clarify: Is a peer-reviewed academic article talking about the role of the character Iago in the development of the plot of Othello, that mentions no works at all except the play, a suitable source for showing the notability of the character? DGG (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When I say that, I mean that a fictional topic needs to show that it is not just a piece of the overall plot. In the case of that source, alone, it does not outreach the main topic, but if presented with multiple other sources, it should be suitable. TTN (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I must still misunderstand, because I do not understand the literal meaning of "outreach the original plot."Nor do I see why a fictional topic must show that it is not a piece of the plot. These seem arbitrary and original distinctions of your own. I won;t bother you further hear about this. I don;'t think our views have enough in common for the discussion to be useful, but I continue to offer you my assistance in accomplishing changes about whose practical necessity we both agree, for whatever our reasons are. I once more offer to help you support the merge without excessive loss of content for minor characters to reduce the need for Afd. to make that offer was what I came here for. DGG (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with compromising our standards. If you want sources then I will find you sources. I've got the weekend off from work, and I'll probably have enough time to do some actual in-depth searching, but I doubt I'll even need to go that far. I'm still having a hard time believing you guys are actually going after these articles.. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page just now, sorry for the initial knee-jerk reaction. You are right on a lot of points here, and in one way or another the pages we currently have need to change, be it redirect, merge or more sources. Even the ones I think could be independent articles are in definite need of clean up. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A Favor

Hey, do you mind if you could trim down this mess of a page here? I would greatly appreciate it. Thnx. ZeroGiga (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on doing that over time. If you get a chance, can you switch the names over to their English counterparts? In a case when you don't really know the series, it's a bit annoying to have to constantly figure out who's who and switch them over. TTN (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless there has been a decision by the WikiProject to switch conventions, we are already using an English naming convention on this page. The English-language comics version by VIZ uses mainly Japanese names. Plus, we have the 1998 anime series, 1999 movie, English-language manga, and Yu-Gi-Oh! R series - none of them have ever had any of the dub names associated with them. The ones that have dub names (and therefore references specific to these versions use dub names) are the second (2000) anime series, the Konami trading card game, the second Yu-Gi-Oh! movie, and the "Yu-Gi-Oh! Capsule Monsters" series. Anyway, please see Talk:List_of_Yu-Gi-Oh!_anime_and_manga_characters#Which_characters_to_keep_and_which_characters_to_remove WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you want to do a merge, I want to have some characters merged into List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. They are: Alexis Rhodes, Chazz Princeton, Blair Flannigan, Bastion Misawa, Axel Brodie, Atticus Rhodes, Aster Phoenix, and Adrian Gecko. BTW, Yu-Gi-Oh! GX uses English names as both the manga and anime have the same naming convention (unlike in the case of the original Yu-Gi-Oh! series). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW you don't need to do an AFD for those characters- it has already been decided that they should be merged. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind about that for now. I really don't feel like bothering with a series I know very little about if I have start going through hoops. TTN (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For the Yu-Gi-Oh! GX merges, there are no hoops to jump through - we already had an AFD that concluded that the articles should be merged. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chumley_Huffington WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Drawn to Life characters

Hello, Your editing summary of Drawn to Life indicated that you'd done a merge of the character's list. It looks like instead you captalized one letter and removed a character rather than merging. Could you explain? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[1]. TTN (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm illiterate and misread. On the phoenix article, I think that the trimming was excessive. Unless I missed something there too I think you removed around 95% of the article, yes? Hobit (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon regions

Howdy. I think you may be getting your regions confused. Here you suggested that Sinnoh be merged into Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. Ruby and Sapphire actually take place in Hoenn.--Rockfang (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to rearrange it after I saw that Hoenn was already merged. TTN (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Oh My Goddess!

Check that. There is some discussion for merging articles about a manga character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Doc Wily

I revived it, but put a merge tag back on it. There's no development info really at all, and the reception doesn't go further than what I have cited there. Figured I'd give you a shout about it.

Also quick observation people are seeming to come to you with merges and whatnot that tend to be risky/asking for shit by doing it rather than them doing it themselves judging from your talk page here. While I disagree with you a lot, I will say it has the feel of someone being set up for a bit of a fall...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

About that

I didn't mean to revert you, I was referring to the guy who undid your edit. Ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have been told by User:EVula (a sysop) that including inter-wiki links to a user test page doesn't do anything. So, you didn't have to change this, but I guess it causes no harm in the end. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback

I would like to request feedback from you on the wording of User:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists). The page is a preliminary guideline proposal I have written in response to the WP:N RfC, which showed that there is no consensus that WP:N applies to stand-alone lists, but also displayed a lot of demand for an inclusion guideline that does apply to them. The proposal is intended to cover all types of stand-alone list, but it also covers fictional lists more specifically because I don't think a version of the guideline that didn't specifically address them would stand a shot at being accepted.

I'm personally asking you for help here because... well, to put it directly, you're one of the most prominent merge/deleters of pages, and I want a broad range of input here. Thank you. --erachima talk 10:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Colorize redirects

Per this, it should have said "a.mw-redirect {color:#308050}" (without the quotation marks). My copy-and-paste mistake. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Third Watch episodes

Hi. What is your opinion about the episodes located in List of Third Watch episodes? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The ten or so that I looked at seem to be complete trash. They should all be redirected unless they actually assert the ability to improve. If you're interested in the series, you may want to look for sources for the pilot and series finale, as they have the best chance of actually working out as articles. TTN (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the procedure to redirect them? Do I have to add some tags first? They all fail notability per WP:EPISODE. Can you help a bit in cleaning them up? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You can either boldly merge/redirect them or add merge tags and wait. I would suggest not bothering with tags, as it doesn't seem like much discussion will come from it. I don't really think much would come from clean up, though properly setting up the episode list and merging concise summaries into it would probably be beneficial. TTN (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added 45 merge tags. In the next I'll redirect them to the List. If you can help, you are welcome. As I noticed, you tagged them for notability more a year ago (June 2007) and there was no response nor an improvement. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(I seem to have sent an empty message): here is what I intended to write:

I am perfectly willing to support this and any other related merge, if done without loss of content, and after discussion, and if others support it. If done with major loss of content, as so many merges have been done, I of course oppose it & hope other will also. I have commented further on the talk page mentioned. . DGG (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters AFDs

Good work on nominating all those nn character AFDs. However, a lot of these can and should be merged or redirected to a list of characters. Have you considered doing that before nominating AFDs? AFD isn't really meant to be used to get a consensus to merge.

(I rely on the "You have new messages" bar to see messages, so if you are replying, please either copy your reply to my talk page or place a {{talkback}} there.) Stifle (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If I could just redirect everything without problems, I would be fine with that. I can redirect a few articles here and there, but that's about it. The main problem is that it is extremely easy for someone to just revert them, especially if they log out. I redirected five episode articles a few days ago, and an anon reverted those edits and a few other unrelated ones. That can easily be multiplied as people start AN/I discussions about my evil redirections. That mainly will just lead to an unnecessary step before nominating them. Merge discussions are impossible with most of the articles I nominate, as they are completely ignored. That'd just essentially bring me back to step one if I attempt to merge or redirect them after receiving no responses. TTN (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

TTN's logic does make sense. I think an afd is the best and fastest way to go about ridding of bunk articles. And believe it, a lot of garbage articles (which TTN happens to edit) are on my watchlist. I too prefer to see them gone than see them exist, at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that a redirect is too weak, AFD is too strong, and we have no established centralized middle-ground process. AFD is not the best solution, but it's sometimes the best solution we have at hand. Pagrashtak 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Redirecting without merging or discussion is part of what caused problems last time around. AfD is clearly a better choice. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

afd of all unreliable processes is the better choice?!? Merging is the compromise. A reasonable merge without loss of content will rarely meet a valid objection DGG (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of One of Us, One of Them

There was no discussion for this. I have reverted your edits and classified them as vandalism. Feel free to start a discussion, but don't make such a drastic change to an article without doing that first. Thanks. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I have requested that the previous remedy that recently expired against you be restored at WP:RFAr. The relevant section is [2]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:YuYu Hakusho characters

Shouldn't we start adding the redirects here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the name of the redirect categories are something like "x redirects to lists." It'll give you the name if you use whatever template is used to create them. TTN (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. How do I find those? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:CharR to list entry. TTN (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but how do I format that? I'm guessing it's like this: {{CharR to list entry|YuYu Hakusho characters}} — is that right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just YuYu Hakusho. The characters is added by the template. TTN (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably tackle this later on tonight. Do you want to get a head start? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I don't think its that necessary, so I usually avoid them unless someone has already started adding them. TTN (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There any other characters you plan on cutting from the list? Or do you intend to group them up by teams (ie, Team Urameshi, Team Rokuyukai, Team Toguro, etc.)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a couple of the characters, but Category:YuYu Hakusho characters is still empty. Was I supposed to move the categories to Category:YuYu Hakusho character redirects to lists? And I'd still like a response to my other concern. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll speedy the main category after four days have past. I don't plan on doing anything else with the list now that the characters are merged. TTN (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, but would it be a bad idea to move the categories at Category:YuYu Hakusho characters to Category:YuYu Hakusho character redirects to lists? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe categorize the redirects akin to how the Naruto ones are set up. Like the redirect Iruka Umino (which popped up on my watchlist). Which method is best? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Payne merge

Please before merging an article in which many users actively participating in contributing--and vandalizing--at least discuss the issue. The article included multiple references and according to guidelines justified notability. Furthermore as opposed to adding the referenced information to the article you simply deleted all content with no revision summary justifying your reason for taking this action. UniversalBread (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the WP:BRD process. Anyways, you misunderstand what exactly establishes notability. It comes from real world sources like the one reward. One reward itself is not enough to keep an article, though. You need a lot more than that to do anything (generally three or four paragraphs). TTN (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

who says one rewards is not enough? that seems pretty arbitrary and needs discussion. I'm reverting; now discuss. BRD. DGG (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the AfD has been started. TTN (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)