Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 30 November 2008

Please keep all discussions on their original talk page. If I start a discussion on your talk page, please respond there, and if you start one here, I will respond here.

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 August 2008 to November 2008

Petey Piranha

I was just trying to be bold when making it into an actual article. Can we chat a little on why not to make Petey an actual article before reverting again? Fire Emblem Freak! 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The character does not and will not ever establish notability. There is absolutely no reasoning as to why it could possibly establish a full article. If you're insistent on keeping it around, I'll just end up putting it up for deletion, so it would be better to just keep it as a redirect. TTN (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see... Fine then. Just trying to help. Fire Emblem Freak! 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Universe of The Legend of Zelda

Please add your input on the debate at this page. I'm willing to abide by whatever decision you and other editors come to.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally - if you did indeed put forward support for merging the Races page, could you please explain where? I wholly accept its merge, but I can't find anywhere where you voiced support for it, as was claimed.

Also - I apologize if my comments on the talk page seem like an accusation at you. They aren't meant to, and I worded them extremely badly.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Frankenstein characters

I am restoring the characters that you unilaterally removed on the grounds of the category's being "useless". If you believe the category is "useless" then nominate it for CFD. Otherwise please do not depopulate it without discussion. Thank you. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is following necessary process and then there is just being unnecessarily bureaucratic. It only lists a few relevant characters, while the rest are trivial, so it should be easy to tell that it is just pointless. TTN (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

TTN I'd like to say your edits are great! I agree with the person who awarded you the barnstar below, and think you should keep up the good work. I don't believe that every fictional character from every movie, or every episode from every tv show, deserves it's own article. So keep it up, and I'll try to help (a good place for me to start is to see where others just decide to go and revert your edits, and boldly revert them). 128.223.131.21 (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD summary context

I have a request. When you nominate fictional subjects for AfD, could you mention the fictional source in the AfD summary, rather than just saying "its series"? It seems you do this sometimes, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Doctor_Septimus_Pretorius_(2nd_nomination), but not usually Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Naylor, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Dimitri_the_Echidna, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Willona_Woods. With such a high AfD volume, being able to tell at least which series you were working in would be helpful (and the third-to-last bullet point at WP:AFDHOWTO supports giving a little more context than you typically do.) gnfnrf (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's something I'll try to remember. TTN (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your many AfDs in the area of non-notable film characters. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on template

You have a good sense of where fanboy enthusiasm gets in the way of the bigger picture, so can I get a second opinion about the need of User:Sgeureka/Carnivàle template? It is not used in any of the five Carnivàle articles at this time, all C subarticles are linked from the main article via hatnotes, but at least two of the C lists have to use SeeAlso sections to crossreference to other C articles. If even you are neutral on this, then this template would be alright in the eyes of most wikipedians and I'd move it to template space. – sgeureka 09:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would probably be fine to use it. You can see them fairly clearly from the main article, but it certainly wouldn't hurt anything to connect them. I personally hate see also sections, so removing those is also a plus. TTN (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interested in a demolition job?

TTN, since you have a reputation for AfD'ing non-notable fictional elements, would you be interested in taking a look at {{vmarsnav}}? Cornucopia and I are in the process of cleaning up and redirecting some of the content there, and we haven't gotten any pushback yet, but if you were going to go through that series of articles, what would you merge, redirect, or delete? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To TTN, EVERY fictional character is non-notable. If he had his way you'd get rid of everything. ----DanTD (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in other people's mouths. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. DanTD, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't bother saying anything. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for trying to prevent articles from being destroyed. I just had another image I uploaded tagged for deletion again because people like TTN are so eager to get rid of the articles they're attached to. If there were a way to say this without even sounding like I'm attacking him, I'd like to know what it is. ---DanTD (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not describing people with various titles, no strong bias-inducing words, and not jumping to conclusions. For example, respectively, calling User:Akradecki a "communist", saying articles are being "destroyed", and very promptly reuploading Image:Anti-Red China Poster.jpg, saying it was an unjust deletion. There are guidelines on what makes or breaks a contibution, and more often than not, something is removed because it's lacking something. Learn what you did wrong and just make sure it's done right, instead of finding a scapegoat. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I call User:Akradecki a communist? I don't think so. Not unless he was originally under the user name User:Dzhugashvili, who did in fact proudly claim to be a communist. And judging by the age of Akradecki's user page, it's safe to say that he wasn't. And, a lot of articles are being destroyed, some of which are justified. ----DanTD (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fifi Le Fume

You might want to check the other Tiny Toons characters, none of them seem notable either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 16:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Small request regarding your merges

I noticed that when you merged Abe (Oddworld) into Oddworld , you didn't name Abe (Oddworld) in your edit summary. When you are merging one article into another, could you please name the article you are merging in your edit summary, per the instructions at WP:MERGE:

• Save both , and note the merger (including the page names) in the edit summaries. (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it or omit the page names.)
  

Thanks. Bláthnaid 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as barely anyone else does it, it's generally just a waste of five seconds. If it becomes more common, I'll start doing it at that point. TTN (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At the very least it might be a good idea to do it to set an example for others, since it says that it's a requirement to conform to the GFDL. It's only five seconds, right? - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing it since I was a newbie. I was under the impression that it's best practise to name the articles. There needs to be some way of getting to the edit history of the article that has been merged. Isn't that part of the reason that an article that has been merged cannot be deleted? It would also be a good idea in case a conglomerate article full of information from many merged articles is transwikied to something like Wikia in the future. You are an active and high-profile editor and--like Zero1328 says--you would set an example for others. Bláthnaid 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dizzy Devil

No worries re: the re-direct, I don't think anyone expected it to be re-opened the same day. Have a nice day. StarM 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your first BarnSakura

		The Anime and Manga BarnSakura
		For without you we'd be drowning in anime and manga cruft. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And because you're too busy AfDing articles, keeping your userpage from being vandalized, and defending yourself against an incredible amount of shit, I went through your talk page archives and counted your awards, to remind you of how much your edits are valued. Here is the result:

File:800px-VG Ribbon.pngFile:800px-VG Ribbon.png

(I took the liberty of counting 3 more exotic awards as whatever Barnstar I thought closest.) -- Goodraise (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Help me understand

Sorry if this is a silly question but we all have to start somewhere. What exactly do you mean when you say "This character does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy". And could you give an example of a fictional character that does meet this criterion and why. Thank you. --Beligaronia (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is explained here and here. A character notable of its own would be Palpatine, because he has had significant coverage in reliable independent sources. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominating multiple related articles for deletion

I noticed that you had nominated a number of related articles as seperate afds. For ease of nominating and discussion you can nominate related subjects in one single afd. See WP:BUNDLE for details how to do this. --neon white talk 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

People often use mass nominations as an excuse to vote to keep them all. I like to avoid that possibility unless there are hundreds of closely related articles, where nominating groups of ten makes more sense. TTN (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Creed Diskenth

Greetings, if you don't mind, could you tell me why this article was deleted, was it because of the lack of references. OgasawaraSachiko (Talk) 12:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not contain any real world information (reading over WP:WAF would help you) from reliable sources. It needs information detailed in WAF to stand as an article. TTN (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kudos!

Hi TTN, just thought I'd drop by and say how much I appreciate the work you do at AfD. It seems as though you're one of the few people there who still remember that we do have standards for verifiability, notability and original research and that those standards should be upheld. Good work. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Careful

Hello there TTN. Can I ask you to be a little bit more careful when merging content? You removed content from List of Densetsu no Stafy characters and placed it in Densetsu no Stafy (series) but you didn't give any attribution in the edit summary so it's a violation of the GFDL at the minute. When readding the content to the new article, you should of linked to where you got it from in the edit summary, e.g. "Text taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Densetsu_no_Stafy_characters#Characters " - that's the only way our content license can be satisfied. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't being merged into the article. It was recently split out for no reason, so I just reverted both of them to their states before that. TTN (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"See discussion"

Hey, I was patrolling in Huggle just a minute ago and notice your redirect on the List of Disgaea characters page, with the edit summary 'See the discussion'. I have looked at the AfD, and there is no consensus to merge - which discussion are you talking about? Thanks, — neuro 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the one on Talk:Disgaea (series). I didn't realize that he had removed the merge tag. Applying that the only person opposing it was due to style reasons (I didn't even end up doing what he was opposing anyway), and the common consensus that character lists for single games and mainly unrelated series such as this one don't require character lists, it's best to merge it. TTN (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I came over from the VG wikiproject and I have a different solution I wish to present here. Rather than redirecting the list of characters that contains characters from at least three games (of the same series) to one game, I would offer my help in merging the recurring characters to Disgaea (series).

Unfortunately, almost all of these characters appear with significant roles in all three games which may lead to redundancy in each of the game articles. It is for this reason that I am somewhat inclined to keep a character list. If we remove the character list, the main game articles would become needlessly long. If we keep the list, the character entries in each of the game articles can be trimmed and then linked to the list in question. A more long term approach would be to prepare the Disgaea (series) article to hold all recurring elements and characters that are shared among the games. A cleaner, better organized approach. What are your thoughts on this matter? DDDtriple3 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with trying to keep a main character list is that there really is absolutely no real content be used to build it. Besides basic personality details, everything else should be covered within the plot of the main games. It would basically amount to copying the current sections of the main articles and just pasting them right into it. I was planning on just listing Laharl, Flonne, Etna, Mid Boss, Baal, the Prism Rangers, and Pleinair in the series article. I'm just waiting to see what is actually going to become of it, as it may require that more characters be placed there also. TTN (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, though it goes without saying that this is a problem that almost every character list article on WP has. Though, such a problem would also plague the series article if we started it with character entries. It is for that reason that I suggested 'preparing' that article first. Main elements in game play and universe, and then finally major recurring characters, for example.

It is for the sake if being 'tidy' that I am inclined to keep the list. I admit I am more biased to trimming the several main articles and linking them to the series article. First to avoid redundant, copied information. Second to make three plus pages cleaner and shorter compared to leaving them in that state in favor of one less messy article.

However, your plan can accomplish both tasks if it is carried out with some care. I am weary of editors who let their enthusiasm get in the way of improving WP. The phrase 'tread carefully' certainly applies here. To facilitate this, I will lend a hand to this task, since it appears you are my elder in terms of cleaning up and I am familiar with the content, that we may satisfy both policies and those enthusiastic editors who are adamant that every bit of content is preserved. DDDtriple3 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Hey there. I saw that you nominated a bunch of articles at AfD recently. I wondered if you could consolidate them per this guideline, as it would make closing the deletion discussions a lot easier, and would make the decisions unified, rather than a possible scatterings of keeps, no consensi, and deletes. Thanks! - NuclearWarfare _{My work} 23:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Last time I tried a larger group nomination, it was rejected as "being out of hand." Granted, that was with thirty articles, but I'm avoiding that possibility for now. TTN (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Mischief Makers characters

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Mischief Makers characters, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mischief Makers characters. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Wanting to improve character articles is fine, but you know as well as anyone that real world information is required. You may not agree with the idea, but it still stands. Adding basic references and using a fairly sneaky summary to bring them back is not helping anything. Please continue to do so while AfDs and the such are in effect, but don't think that adding a single reference makes an article perfectly fine. Use Template:Splitsection or one of its variations if you think that an article is capable of standing on its own. TTN (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please help us add references. Nominating them for deletion with templated and oftentimes inaccurate "rationales" is not helping anything and nor is unilaterally redirecting especially for ones in which the AfDs closed as "keep". Almost all of these articles can and should be improved and we would all appreciate your help in finding and adding references to these articles to better help our project's goals of being a comprehensive catalog of human knowledge. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into yet another argument over editing practices with you. We've been through that dozens of times already. Currently, you are just being disruptive and, you'll eventually force me to waste time placing those up for deletion, as I cannot edit war. The only reason any of those were kept is because of a few closers who refuse to close a couple AfDs with a "merge" result, and that very messy mass nomination. In a proper AfD, all of those will be turned into redirects or deleted. Allowing them to become and stay redirects now will fit with your standard of always keeping the history, so you should really be content with that. TTN (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And please, use a summary like "I believe this article fits or could be improved to fit our standards, so I am bringing it back." or simply, "Restore." Using summaries like "Spacing" and "Format" is disruptive and not very kind. TTN (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be do not use disruptive and misleading edit summaries as you did here, here, and here, for example. This is exactly the sort of thing that gets people talking about an RfC to begin with. Please cut it out. HiDrNick! 17:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with a closing rationale I suggest taking that up with the closing admin. Accusing editors of being disruptive goes against assuming good faith and seems like a personal attack. It is best to focus on content. I agree that edit summaries should reflect the edits made. Redirecting or merging an article that recently closed as keep can seem disruptive, especially without seeking a consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't only about the articles for deletion. He also did the same thing with two or three articles that had proper merge discussions behind them. TTN (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you do not wish to argue, then that is fine as I also am not here to argue with anyone. I just wish you would help us sometimes with finding these references as I think a lot of time and energy is wasted/misdirected in AfDs. I think you would help diminish some of the criticisms you receive if you showed a greater willingness to compromise with your colleagues. I would be okay with merges and redirects if they are true merges and the redirects are not made unilaterally. But at the same time, one would expect topics that are mergeable and redirectable to not be AfDed. Just as I do argue to delete on occasion as seen most recently at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WoodyRimShot, I encourage you to help look for and add references on occasion as well. By the way, what do you think of these ideas? I would be curious what someone who usually has a different perspective than me thinks of some of these brainstorming ideas. Regards, --A Nobody 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I do not wish to discuss editing practices. I've explained why I don't care about sources that much, and I've explained why I do not agree with your views. As for your proposal, I'm not really interested in community related things, so I don't have an opinion on it. TTN (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, you had actually previously merged that information (see and ) to the section where you say it already exists (that is why it exists there) and thus per the GFDL, my understanding is that the contributions of the various editors such as myself who originally wrote and worked on that content must remain visible, so when you say it is already covered in that section in the nomination and yourself merged the content a few weeks ago to the area where you are okay with it existing, the nomination strikes me as odd, because if you believes that section should exist, then we cannot delete the article, rather only redirect the article. Thus, you should withdraw that nomination and instead discuss the merge on the talk page. Finally, for some good humor, see User_talk:Casliber#Joke_for_today. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any sort of merge process that can stop somebody from logging out and undoing the redirect, so AfD is the best process for it. If the outcome is delete, anyone can have it brought back and redirected to keep the edit history. TTN (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)