This is an archive of past discussions with User:TTN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
No need to run and hide, Mr. TTN. I'm not going to go crazy and make irrational demands or childish questions, or plaster your page with cookie templates again. This is solely for business reasons. I brought up, some time ago, the question of "would you redirect the South Park episodes", and you said you'd get around to it. There are a lot of them, and many of them are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Well, I've thought about it since then, and it might be better to cut to the chase, I decided. Could you look at these five articles, then: Probably (South Park), Trapper Keeper, Helen Keller! The MusicalPip (South Park episode), The Wacky Molestation Adventure. You don't have to do anything except read through them and tell me if you think any of them should be redirected. I have no idea how to tell if something should, and you're an expert on it, after all. If you decide some of them should be redirected, I'll do it myself. Please and thank you, TTN. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are we at this point?
In answer to you question posed in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), my view is that the current guidelines are too vague, are not prescriptive enough and need to have teeth to ensure that they are adhered to. At the moment, there are too many arguements about what/what isn't notable, and the guidelines are not being enforeced by closing admins in AfD's who too often follow the majority view. The guidelines need to be firmed up and I hope you will assist with this process by continuing to contribute to the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I nominated the articles together as I felt that the arguements for deletion applied to all of the articles. I do not think I should withdraw the nomination now as there has been a good amount of discussion between users with differing opinions, I do not own the page and I'm not sure if it would be right to negate the ongoing discussion. It might also look as if I was trying to close the debate becasue I didn't like what the (probable) result was going to be. I agree that at this stage a no consensus close looks most likely, however I think in the end the most likely final outcome will be that most of the pages involved will be merged into one article with the articles for a couple of the characters deemed most important to the series (even though his is not an inclusion criteria) kept. This would probably have been the case whichever route was taken. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]]
The animals page
Generally, for characters that belong in the mass pages, we go by their specialty first. So animals would go on the animals page, even if they are recurring or one time characters, celebrities go on the celebrities page, etc, etc. -- Scorpion042201:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Gilmore Girls
I noticed you started to redirect a whole string of articles about Gilmore Girls episodes to Episode Lists somewhere around 2 AM om 7 January 2008.
In less than three quarters of an hour, you seem to have gone trough dozens of articles, asserting that they are beyond improving.
I don't see how removing information from Wikipedia can make this a better encyclopedia. Tightening up the writing, sure, trimming duplicate information, no problem, but this?
I really fail to see who is helped by this. Your boilerplate "reason" for the redirects is
Redirect per WP:N. This should only be brought back if information like director commentary and reviews can be found.
As far as I understand it, the articles are now effectively gone for any but the most experienced and/or tenacious wikipedians, making it difficult for people to add sources or make the articles better.
I've gone and reverted those edits you did on Gilmore Girls. I'm sure we can get to a consensus as to how to best tackle this, without doing rash stuff. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles need a certain kind of information in order to exist. These episodes do not have that information available. While it may be your own view that it is fine to leave them, there are various policies and guidelines available to explain why we cannot cover them. You are free to use tv.com and wikia.com in order to read and write about that information. Unless you can pull some sources out of a hat, expect them to return to redirects sometime tomorrow. TTN (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I totally understand WP:V. Do you know of any information in any of those episodes that is either challenged or likely to be challenged? This is fairly uncontroversial information, and while it may be your own personal view Wikipedia should not cover this, I don't see why we shouldn't.
What you did there was essentially "soft-deleting" the articles, and I feel, as in the deletion of articles, that the burden is on the person removing the information. We're not talking BLP stuff here, after all.
I realise I could get some of the information on IMDB.com or any number of other sites. That is not the point: I really like having it on Wikipedia. That way I know it's not going to remain stale but that it will steadily improve over the years. To make an analogy: say I felt like making an article about every single stop along a given railway line, would that then not be okay with you either? Or should there not be an article about Mos Eisley here because there's such a thing as Wookieepedia?
As for the sourcing: what sort of sources did you have in mind? Just like the existence of railway stops or Mos Eisley can easily be documented, Gilmore Girls episodes can easily be documented. Would a reference to a TV Guide or an internet site be sufficient? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You cannot just take WP:V alone. V is right along with WP:N, which requires verifiable information to assert notability. This information must come from reliable sources, which are third party sources (not the episode). The information to establish notability is information placed in the real world. For television episodes, it includes director commentary and information taken from published reviews, among others (see WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE). The information does not exist for these episodes (maybe the pilot and the finale are exceptions, but they'll go until sources are provided), so they cannot exist. TTN (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. First, about WP:EPISODE: that comes with a header that says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed" (and even that is disputed :) -- so it's pretty safe to say, I think, that it's certainly not set in stone.
Second: I don't happen to agree that it is a good thing to take a deletionist stance here. That's only this editor's view, of course. WP:N and to an even greater extent WP:WAF are common sense guidelines, open for interpretation, and should be interpreted, I think, so as to minimise the amount of lost information already provided. The most important point I feel is that as far I understand it, on Wikipedia most not-immediately-blindingly-obvious things happen by consensus. That redirecting was pretty unilateral. Why not leave a message on those episodes' talk pages? And perhaps on the main episode list too, for good measure? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: "maybe the pilot and the finale are exceptions, but they'll go until sources are provided", you say. Do you have any suggestions on how people are to find out they need to provide sources if those articles don't for all intents and purposes exist anymore for the overwhelming majority of visitors? Better to leave them as is, with warning, probably. That way they're much more likely to get improved sooner, adding information to the 'pedia, and making us all and the world happier bunnies. :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore the tag. The only thing going on is that people want a switch to a style guideline rather than a notability guideline, which would just change the way that it is formatted. Your opinion on content is irrelevant, so I'm not going to respond to that. As for leaving messages, there is little to no traffic on the articles (there is only one with over fifty edits that I can find). It won't do a thing either way (a regular case would have had merge tags). If you can find a good amount of interested parties, we can waste some time on it. For sources to be added to the articles, a "expert", for the lack of a better word, will have to work on the episode, so they will be capable of bringing it back. TTN (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Just ignore the tag"? And what if I choose to ignore (your apparent interpretation of) WP:EPISODE instead? Ah well, in any case: if the articles do no harm, why remove them? Just as it's perfectly OK to have, say, one-line stub articles for all the disused Scottish railway stations there ever were -- unsourced, even -- I don't see what harm these articles are doing anyone. WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that WP:EPISODE is a guideline, (as well as WP:NOTE), not a Policy (disputed, no less). Also, the main Policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPV are all met by the removed articles. There is no reason to make Wikipedia worse by removing information that meets Wikipedia's policies, other than to piss off a lot of people and perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 69.121.136.217 (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) OK, just to recap. TTN, you unilaterally went through a large number of articles that violate no Wikipedia Policies and redirected them, effectively removing them from Wikipedia for the vast majority of users. I reverted those redirects, and came here to look for a way to resolve this between adults.
Do I understand you correctly that you stand by your "expect them to return to redirects sometime tomorrow"?
I have made a start at reverting the more recent of your undiscussed bulk deleting-by-redirecting. I recommend a full AfD-style discussion for each TV show / whatever whose episodes you have been deleting, before you make any more such deletions. See complaints in sections above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So many people are sick of what you're doing to articles: somebody has even described your "editing" of articles as "soft deleting". You redirect articles, which know absolutely nothing about, quoting various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You maintain that you are "improving" Wikipedia but very few other people see it that way; just look at your talk page! Many of the articles which you redirect and soft-delete to have issues but why don't you act like other editors and tag it? I even wonder if you read the articles. In minutes you can redirect dozens of articles, that doesn't leave a lot of time for reading, does it?
If you have concerns about an article, place a note on its talk page or place a note on its main contributors' talk pages. Don't make rash decisions without consulting people; you are not the only editor on Wikipedia. A bit more common sense and courtesy and a little less "policy-bashing". A little consideration towards other editors wouldn't go astray either.
Why don't you stop deleting information and redirecting pages and be like everyone else, CONTRIBUTE to an article. Everybody on Wikipedia wants to make a good, quality online encyclopedia; everybody besides you, that is.
I am sorry, but no one is "sick" about what TTN is doing; that is just your opinion, which in my opinion is misguided. Your complaint to the admin's notice board is unjustified and will not result in action being taken. TNT is perfectly correct to merge unnotable topics into large more coherent ones; this is good editing, which improves Wikipedia and is extremely valuable and TNT is to be comended for his efforts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Anthony that TTN's actions with regard to episode articles are misguided and harmful to the encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't speak for all of TTN's edits, but I have watched many of them, and they typically seem to be in line with Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiability. I can understand the original poster's frustration, but I am confused by this: "You redirect articles, which know absolutely nothing about, quoting various Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Why shouldn't every Wikipedia editor back his or her edits with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? This demonstrates to me that your problem doesn't lie with TTN, but with Wikipedia itself. I would request that the anonymous editor either seek to change the system by addressing Wikipedia's core values, or direct his attention to a project that is compatible with his values. Many, including myself, would argue that the redirection of an article about a non-notable subject is, in fact, a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, and a cornerstone of creating a "good, quality online encyclopedia." Pagrashtak18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The real problem is the extraordinary accumulation of non-encyclopedic material. This is disruptive editing, even if done in all innocence - defending it in the clear violation of our policies is rather worse. TTN's efforts have been routinely endorsed by editors familiar with our policies and he deserves gratitude for undertaking this cleanup. Eusebeus (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
TTN's efforts have also been routinely admonished by editors familiar with our policies. It's all well and good that the guy wants to improve the encyclopedia, but let's not kid ourselves and say that his methods aren't controversial, regardless of their effects. Fair's fair.
More importantly, can you point at me at a definition of "encyclopedic" or discussion on the same? The way I see it, we have no clear idea of what we should have, an environment that heavily favors solving disputes than force rather than reason. No offense to present company. --Kizor22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were a janitor and you spent all your time sweeping all the dust in the building under every rug, you would be fired. It's not cleaning up, it's hoping the place looks clean and nobody will notice. Maybe you can't fire volunteers, but you can certainly change the locks on the building. --Pixelface (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be redirecting them fairly soon, seeing as the project has a fairly good grasp on it. I also hope that it'll draw more help for the season articles. TTN (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you it didnt look like theri was a reason, but im sure this will help get people to notice it. THank you for the explantion and good idea! But couldn't you ahve just done that in one edit for each episode? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I had originally expected the removal of the tags to only take a few minutes with AWB, but the wide variety of tags and the multiple level ones sort of killed that. 71.101.157.7 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Generally, we leave talk pages as they are to just keep an archive of them. I do see that people sometimes redirect them afterwards, but the general stance is to leave them. TTN (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated List of The Fairly OddParents characters, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Before you even try to edit the Sonic the Hedgehog article you must answer one question. Are you a Sonic fan? Because if you aren't you have NO right to edit them espicialy the really important characters, they might be one timers there still important.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer
Theres still no reason for you to delete important characters like Black Doom it's practically vandalism, people come on to wikipedia for info and they need all the facts and your deleting those facts.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer
This site is not a place for people to learn every minute detail of their favorite series. It is an encyclopedia, which provides the basic details of a general topic. Wikia is the place for that info. TTN (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you removing articles without any warning? And the articles that you are stating as the reason, are awful or just list (which are discouraged on wikipedia) and as such are more likely to be deleated! Doktor Wilhelm 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the specific removals involved, but the assertion that only a fan is allowed to edit the article is patently absurd. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanboy club. If anyone wants to build an exhaustive list of all characters in some video game, a wiki specifically for that videogame is the right place for it, not Wikipedia. Friday(talk)15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to point out that people shouldn't do certain edits on certain articles where they don't know what they're what talking about, and a Sonic fan would definately know what they're talking about.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), you will be blocked from editing.
The way you are editing the articles, would be more suited to something like a Wikia! But that isn't my main problem, it's your lack of warning &/or discusion before removing/redirecting the articles! Doktor Wilhelm 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If your going to delete a character or merge a character at least make a good discussion of it before doing so. Its getting very frusturating. Fwooshlewooshle (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Your usual edit warring and disrputive afd nominations continue unabated I see, so I hereby present you with a trout. Tim! (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Quit it.
Why do you keep removing the images? They'll die if they don't stay. We'll reduce the stuff down to what you've got it at, but the images stay. That's final. End of story. Good day. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look, and if possible could you leave a video comment? Keep up the good work, if you don't have time to watch it, I can understand perfectly. But don't worry it's completely relevant to Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting message, I just saw it here. Anyway, TTN, don't listen to these "threatening" posts. They're just trying to scare you into quitting. I say, keep up the good work. {^_^} And just letting you know, I reverted an edit by this guy you know on the list of Saiyans article. You might wanna keep an eye on the article, if you're not too busy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I see they're still at it... the trolls... Nice seeing you again TTN! I'll be looking forward to working with you again really soon. -- bulletproof3:1601:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's really funny. Why do any of the rest of us bother with Wikipedia channels of communication when there's YouTube? Pairadox (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it can only be interpreted as trying to keep a certain standard. In that case, it's actually stopping him from wikilawyering by saying "I can name a book about the series, so this episode is notable." TTN (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated City of Bones, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Bones and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
seaQuest DSV
Thanks for deleting all those episode articles. It's not like I didn't work very hard on them to have them unceremoniously deleted. What a positive contribution. Kyle C Haight (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you also responsible for the deletion of the various character articles, such as Nathan Bridger, Lucas Wolenczak, and Kristin Westphalen, as well as the recurring characters? If so, what gives you the right to delete them and redirect without any discussion? As I said, if you're going to delete those, you should delete every similar page for every television show in Wikipedia. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting your multiple removal of correct categories on various articles. I may not bother giving edit summaries as you have not explained why you are removing them. Tim! (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be pretty obvious that the categories are empty besides a few articles, so they have no practical use. TTN (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to change the result of the AfD to "no consensus". Regardless, I think the majority of the current sources are strong and very WP:RS. Winning the Perrier award doesn't seem an insignificant achievement as far as I can see. And he (the character in a different show) was a runner-up for the award the previous year. Given what appears to be a very deliberate decision by the creators to maintain the in-universe persona in media interviews, it's difficult to completely discount some of the WP:V stories written with an "in-universe" perspective; that's obviously entwined with the presentation to the point of being part of the humour. I think that's markedly different than, say, WP articles about computer games or TV show episode plots written from an in-universe perspective, usually with no WP:V or WP:RS citations or references. Cheers, Pigman☿23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, how wishy-washy can I be? Apparently very in this instance. I'm changing it back to "keep". My original weighing of the opinions and arguments was correct. The merge to Darkplace were not compatible with the content and the deletes were actually only two, yourself and one other. I discounted the IP opinion because it 1) expressed a weak argument without adequate reference to policy and 2) it was a single purpose account (SPA) with the !vote/opinion being its only edit. The improvement to the article was substantial as compared to the beginning of the AfD process. When I closed the AfD, the article content and sources made it in no way a legitimate candidate for AfD. So I'm reversing myself again. Cheers, Pigman☿00:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, this is not a joke! I tried sorting through the South Park articles and redirected the non-notable ones I came across - four from season four, and four from season six, - and now a bunch of other users keep trying to restore them! Please go and tell them they're wrong! They won't listen to me! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It'll be deleted in four days using the empty category tag. That's because the articles in the subcategories didn't need to exist, so those are also empty. That and another one were the only articles in it. TTN (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A clearer edit summary would have been helpful then. All this only works of course if your redirects will stick. I am not so sure about that. Garion96(talk)13:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A quick review @AN/I will bring you up to speed. I have to head offline; care to look at the rest? To thee with failing hands we pass the torch and all that. Eusebeus (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If we're going by the general guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", a review is generally accepted as a significant coverage, IGN is a well known all-purpose review site and TWP is a notable review site, and are both reliable, and both have no affiliation with the network. Will(talk)19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using the guideline wording. By that, significant coverage means that the sources address the subject directly. I also don't think they're just ratings, either; it can help to see why the episode was given 8.4. And while two sources is a bit small, we shouldn't throw the baby out now we know it's in - that's what the {{sect-stub}} is there for - for people to expand it with the sources they can find. There's nothing wrong with taking it piece-by-piece. Will(talk)20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the Putt-Putt article claimed that there was not enough valid information for the article to exist, ignoring the two valid references on the page. Without any explanation on the discussion page, this edit could be perceived as vandalism and has been reverted. If you have valid reason for complete deletion of this article, please mention it on the discussion page.
Hi. I'm not sure who redirected it in the first place, but would you mind if I asked why it was redirected? If I remember, the article used to be much longer than any of the IP reversions, and currently I think another anon changed the redirect to a short sentence. How come it was redirected? Did it not meet the requirements? Maybe I'll find out if I check the edit history. Were any of the other episodes redirected? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding the ongoing TV episode merging and redirections, do you think you could use {{R from merge}} when you carry out redirects and merges? Possibly even a new template designed specifically to keep track of episode redirects? This would help keep track of the redirects and their page histories. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
why did redirect all the episode pages for List of X-Men episodes. I'm still working on all of them to get them good artcle status then maybe also featured article. so stop redirecting the episode pages. Gman124 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that along with that first episode that there are possibly a couple more good ones, but there is very little chance that you'll be able to do anything with the rest. Resurrect any that have sources available. TTN (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do me a favour and when you cut templates give an explanation why yo do it. For example "This article is an episode of a TV series and not a film" when you cut a film template. I can understand some cuts you did recently but not all of them. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If the article is redirected, I remove any project templates. There shouldn't be any confusion over that. TTN (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh, a malicious redirect. Would those be the ones that sit there and tease you with their redirectness, or does their maliciousness go further than than? Pairadox (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)])
It is malicious in the fact that TTN hasn't notified anyone of the redirect by all means redirect but open it up to discussion, I for one would have supported the redirect in the form of a merge. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! STOP! Look at this nifty icon I found of a hand. Everyone was doing it, so I thought I would join in. Now that you've seen it, please resume whatever it is you were doing. -- Ned Scott04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Would that be a Dr. Kelso from Scubs quote? ;) <quote Dr. Kelso> What has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap? Bob Kelso!<quote Dr. Kelso/> SeraphimWhipp19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
HEY! I GOT SOMETHING FOR YA
Ey, I don't usually don't do this, but since I'm a nice bastard and all, I thought I would present THIS to you, friend.
The Barnstar of Diligence
For getting rid of all of these useless and uneeded episode guides and fancruft from this cite. Keep up the good work! :3
Now how about getting to those Fatal Fury and Street Fighting articles, cuz I'll probably delete 'em myself due to lack of notability and funcruft soon. Peace! ^__^ ZeroGiga 09:13, January 2008 (UTC)
I am going to stop contributing actively for a bit, but if you need help or assistance in the RD efforts, while the usual suspects blow hot air vacuously demanding their precious fan pages, let me know. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, you wanna afd it? I don't really want to go through the trouble of setting it up. Initially, I thought of redirecting it but reconciled because it may just start a senseless war. I attempted to have it speedied (didn't work). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not surprising that you guys find destroying information, ahem, fun. Perhaps I should join in. I proposed Eggman's Vehicles and Eggman's Robots for deletion incase you're interested. ZeroGiga (Contact) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm probably not as familiar with the merging guide lines as you probably are but I was just wondering, are each of these notable enough to have their own article? --Is this fact...?03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The members of the Heroes project are planning on working on them, so if you want to help try to figure it out, head over there. TTN (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I came here for another topic, the Pee Wee's thing, but saw this, and wanted to say thanks. As to Pee Wee's, I'm gonna hit the talk and ask for solid citations about the Emmy's. maybe they can bring enough to talk to actually improve rather than edit war. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit summary
I recommend you add the link to debates concerning your redirection in the edit summary. Redirecting hundreds of articles with the insufficient summary "merge per discussion" is bewildering to other editors who try to follow your edits to tell what you have redirected and why. Thanks for considering, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Look through some of the recent archives, and you'll see some talk of it. It was spread all throughout different talk pages, and there is no specific discussion that provides a list style number consensus, if that's what you're looking for. TTN (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to find one specific debate, and having several discussions on separate talk pages could be a good thing. Would you mind giving me the links to exact talk pages, archives, sections, whatever there are? Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I mostly waited until everything was all set and ready to go before dealing with the articles, so I'm pretty much as unfamiliar with the discussions as you are. Look through the archives here or just ask the editors there if you want to find them. TTN (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Response To My Talk Page
Hello there, friend. ^__^ Incase you're interested, I made a response to what you said to me on my talk page. In sort, I'm not making a point by wiping out pages for the hell of it (which I'M NOT), but if you want to see the full reponse, then go to my Contact page. ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing, this is WIKI-PEDIA. It's our choice to edit articles to follow the rules. At this point, like you (which I am assuming from your "malicious actions," as a mod calls it), I don't give a damn about the information here if it ain't suitable for an encyclopedia. Do you think I would get piss off about my favorite articles being deleted and wipe out others out of spite if I PROPOSE the deletion of 2 articles of a series which I, like that annoying 12-yr-old British kid who accuses us of being "vandals", am a fan of? To tell you the truth, I like the fact that I know all the badniks and all the vehicles Eggman rides in the series, but if that's not suitable for an encyclopedia, then it had no business being in wikipedia. It's all unnecessary gamecruft and all in-universe information with no sources, outer-universe information, and the like. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The Merging of Pokemon Pages
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thnx. What's the point of keeping pages seperate when all it does is take up alot of space? This is sincere now. Good luck, and happy editting. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm the main contributor to the Darkly Dawns the Duck article you decided to get rid of. You justify the redirect to the list of episodes in the article's history by asking people to check out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 where you were involved. Let me make something clear now, this article is not about an episode per se, it's about the TV movie that served as Darkwing Duck's pilot. Please notice that the article is under Category:Disney animated films, Category:Television specials and Category:Television pilots. Also, do all the movies under those categories have to be notable according to YOU for them to have a page on Wikipedia? There are movies/TV specials/pilots under those categories that may not be notable to me, but they may be notable to other people. Think about it. --Nat91 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I redirected it per WP:N, which requires topics to be given a real world perspective through the inclusion of reliable sources. The person reverting was the one linking to it. Anyways, you need to add sources in order for it to be notable. I suggest that you read through WP:V and WP:RS also. TTN (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Outrageous
It is outrageous that you are repeatedly redirecting that article on the highest rated episode in cable TV history, which provides solid, non-plot based information and references, while ignoring the talk page entirely. Use the talk page. I don't want to keep reverting, but if you won't even engage in a discussion, what am I supposed to do? Just let you unilaterally impose your will on the article? Everyking (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have discussed with you before, and you do not actually like to discuss, only wikilawyer. If you want the article to stand, add sources. Otherwise, place the citation elsewhere, as it does not hold an article. TTN (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You have one source that asserts notability. The other one should not even be in the article. That is not enough for an article. TTN (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The information itself obviously demonstrates notability. I'm sure other sources can be found, however—will you back off if other sources are added? Everyking (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It asserts notability, but it does not establish that the topic needs an article. I will happily leave it alone if more sources are found (not trivial ones like "It premiered with X and y, though). You need to state that in the first place instead of stating that the current version is fine on its own. That's how you show that you're willing to productively discuss. TTN (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think multiple sources are needed; one might be simply enough. The source in question does address that HSM2/HM night directly, and "most watched cable episode ever" is verifiable. Will(talk)19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just like a specific award(s), things like this help notability, but they do not warrant a large plot summary. The citation can either be placed on the episode list, the main article, a season article, or somewhere else that would be relevant. TTN (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, we are talking about two remaining articles here. The categories serve absolutely no categorization purpose, so why are you being stubborn about it? TTN (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotta say ... in terms of battle-picking, this seems like a poor choice. Let's get the articles killed, and then we can speedy the categories.Kww (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those will being going for a while (Bulbasuar will, but Pikachu is actually staying as an article), so there's no way to wait for those to be empty. TTN (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There was no one single discussion; they were all over the place. The Pokemon wikiproject started discussing a while ago, and came to the conclusion to have both lists and articles for each evolutionary line. I joined the discussions at that point to just have the twenty five lists instead. You'll have to either look around the projects archives or ask them about it. TTN (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been a couple of weeks and of course nothing has been added to establish notability *shock*. I have rv'd Season 1 & will start the others. If you could look in on the rest, that'd be great. Eusebeus (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For the love of.. please, I beg of you two to just wait on those articles. The Scrubs episodes in particular have really rubbed people the wrong way, and regardless of who's right or wrong, just give it a little more time to cool off. -- Ned Scott07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommend you guys hold off on those articles; there is currently a proposed injuction regarding this up for votes at the current ArbCom case regarding this that would prohibit removal OR restoration of episode/character articles for the duration of the case, and attempting to redirect these articles now, shortly after the proposed injunction went up for votes, could easily be seen as an attempt to "beat ArbCom to the punch" and get the redirects in place before the injunction could go into effect. While I always assume good faith, I suspect that anything that could be seen as an attempt to "end run" the arbitration would do nothing to help your case when the ArbCom makes its final decision. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it will end up doing anything productive. Even if the fans don't rever,t there are still plenty of other people willing to do it. TTN (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It'd be best to leave them and add proper sources. Even if the article manages to stay in the end, that should be a decent summary. TTN (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
He is one of these strange people that cannot understand that fiction can be summed up and described in main articles. He just happens to vote in a lot of deletion discussions and provide extremely irrelevant arguments and sources. TTN (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt he is really as much of a stalker as he is an "Afd patroller." He generally doesn't accomplish that much anyways. TTN (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes sir indeed. I'll be keeping an eye on the two of you. I must say TTN, I am disappointed by your recent actions of taking matters into your own hands and making these numerous controversial edits without initiating a discussion with the parties involved. You are a good editor TTN and we've been through a lot here, but the recent string of ANI reports against you have really hurt your image in my opinion. While I agree with most of the edits you do, it doesn't hurt to talk things out if someone else disagrees with you. -- bulletproof3:1606:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the editor who switched the Landmaster (Star Fox) page back from a redirect. I believe that its inclusion in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl makes the subject more notable than it once was. Also the tanks use in more than one series of games makes a separate article more appropriate. Having said that I understand the article needs improvement, although I do not know much more then I added, as I do not play the games. (I noted the above on Talk:Landmaster (Star Fox). I actually came across this after finding content about the Star Fox tank being added to the Landmaster article. —MJBurrage(T•C)20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that the newest game just came out, I would submit that it is too early to simply dismiss the articles notability. While the article does need work, I do not think it should be deleted. As for redirecting, to where? The existing redirect went to an article that barely went past mentioning that the tank existed in the Star Fox games. Almost all of the material in the article is from a real world POV (I cannot comment on the tank's in game capabilities beyond what is in the references.)
If we do not have—at least—a detailed section on this fictional vehicle (which article would this go in?) then details will keep being added hodge-podge in a variety of places. (Like the material I will clean from Landmaster sometime tomorrow as I about to depart for the night class I am teaching). —MJBurrage(T•C)21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
TTN, I restored the previous contents again. While I agree that the page needs work, and possibly should be merged as a section in some other article, neither of those things is going to happen if the existing version is simply removed in favour of a redirect. Note, I posted this here as a courtesy, but any further discussion we have about the article itself should probably be on its talk page for the benefit of other editors. —MJBurrage(T•C)03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Marth and Roy
I agree about the merges. Both are dead-in-the-water articles in which they can't really develop because neither has any out-of-universe info really available. Roy has a FE6 list as a destination; the only plausible one for Marth is in the "characters" section of Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. I'm not comfortable with straight merges, though; if it's alright with you, I want to propose a merge discussion on the two relevant talk pages. A two-day wait for a response should suffice, although I doubt that anyone will respond. Do you want to go ahead with the actual process yourself, or do you want me to do it? Either way, I don't mind. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Great. Let's hope some misguided users doesn't feel really indignant about the merge because "they're important; they were in SSBM". I'll chip in to the discussions if anyone objects. Oh, another thing, when Marth is merged, please maintain the few pertinent references to the info that will be merged please. I know that you'd probably already do this; I'm just making sure. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Roy's been merged. Do you fancy contributing to discussion at the talk page for Marth's merge—some anons have been hurling abuse at me, calling me "Assnerd". I know why you prefer to bypass discussions now—it saves you from talking to idiots. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs13:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the characters I will agree with you should be redirected. (Such as Charlie Altamont, Banjo & Sullivan, George Wydell, etc.) However, the main characters (Captain Spaulding being the most obvious example) ARE fairly iconic in the horror genre and have appeared on t-shirts, halloween costumes, action figures, etc. If you'll give me some time I'll try to sort them out. In the mean time, please leave them alone.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll put the redirects on five of the articles, being the minor characters who only appeared for one film. However, the main family that appeared in both films are fairly significant and have a cult following. I'm very busy, but when I get the time I should be able to add interviews, critical reception, etc to establish their notability.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If we were to delete every character article that isn't as iconic as Superman, there'd be barely anyone left. The characters I left up have all appeared in two or three films, are all fairly popular and it shouldn't be too hard to find a number of external sources about them, which I will try to do once I have the time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, if you'll give me some time, I'll try to add to the articles when my schedule clears up. I'm only keeping about half of the original articles. Am I going to find individual essays about each character? No, but I should be able to find interviews and reviews which discuss the characters outside of the films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
How can an actor talk about their character without talking about the film they appear in? Again, if we're using these restrictions, they'll be nothing left. The characters have appeared in two films. They've been discussed in various interviews, articles and reviews. There's merchandise based off of them. If they had appeared in one little-known film that'd be another thing entirely, but its not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you looking for then? Interviews don't count apparently. Reviews don't count. And then you want an unrelated article to mention Spaulding, and then that's too brief.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a rule that states a character must be 'iconic' for it to have an article? WP:FICTION states that "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" which I could easily do with the characters, which I could easily do. And anyway, I found an interview with Gunnar Hansen in which he goes into detail on Haig's performance.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Iconic within the horror genre, yes, but not necessarily the same level as Superman, which is what you seem to be expecting with this. And the interview I supplied you with Gunnar Hansen mentions the Spaulding character in detail independent of the film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Earlier you said "There is a difference between interviews about the characters to hype up or expand upon the films and those that truly get away from them. I've seen a few so far where the characters are talked about, but they do not actually separate themselves from the film. If you could just go and fetch one real quick, I'll shut up..." Which I just did. If you set your standards this high there's going to be nothing left but the 'biggies'.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Those aren't the sole indicators of notability. You're making the requirements too narrow. And it wasn't a side mention either in the Gunnar Hansen interview; a whole question was dedicated to the character. They're all important characters in a notable series of horror films that have been discussed regularly in interviews, reviews, merchandise, etc. They're notable. I keep on finding links that discuss the characters and you keep on making up new rules to discredit them.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Look. When I have the time I'll try expanding the remaining articles. I've agreed with you on an extent that some of them aren't notable (such as the grandpa or the pimp) and have merged. The list of minor characters are for those which there isn't much information to sustain a full article. With the major characters, there are. In addition to the plot summaries, there's a lot of background stuff to be added, which I will. I've looked at Wikipedia's notability guidelines and they do satisfy the main criteria. They're not on the same level as someone as Freddy Krueger or Batman, but the guidelines never said they have to be. I'd really appreciate it if you left the articles alone and let me improve them when my workload is lifted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Gunnar's quote could be used in an article if I decided to use it for reception. All redirecting is going to do is cause the images and links to be erased and make it harder for me when I get the time to expand the articles. These characters have appeared in two movies. They've appeared in comics. They've appeared in merchandise. Why can't you just let them be? You've already succeeded in getting rid of the other ones. WP:FICT says "critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable sources" are some of the required stuff, and with the exception of "viewership or sales figures" I could fit the rest of the stuff in their articles. I understand the articles need work. And like I've said numerous times now, I will try to expand them once I have more time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There are tons of reviews that discuss the characters and actors at length. Maybe not the characters alone, but again, this isn't in the guidelines. Can you show me the guidelines which supports your way of thinking?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
None of the notability guidelines are listing the requirements that you are. None of them say that the character has to be the sole subject of numerous articles to achieve notability.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles in other languages
Links to articles in other languages are lost when you decide to write a redirect to a list over an existing article like here There are eleven other language articles on this topic, the links to them just vanish. Is there a way of displaying them in the page that the redirect points to, or a way of making some inclusion, or do you think it's just not important enough to preserve what you don't find useful?Barnyard animals (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And neither should other editors be forced to cleanup after your messes. If you're unwilling to make the effort to perform a proper merge, you have no business redirecting in the first place. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If it were to satistfy my ego, I'd undo a lot more of the nonsense you try. This is about you dumping the work on other editors because you feel it isn't your job. If you don't want to perform a merge, don't redirect, because I assure you that attrition by edit warring will not work. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, most of those episode summaries has at least a one-line description you can pick up and throw in a list. Hell, you could even be lazy and just shove them in using indents. Either way, the information would be there. It will not kill you to take some time off from redirecting to fill in some blanks on an episode list template. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but if redirecting and not merging is the problem editors are having here, can't you copy and paste the plot summary into a hidden comment, so the material would be easy to find and allow editors to trim. To satisfy attribution, you could cite the article you merged from. If this decreases drama, isn't it worth it? Seraphim♥Whipp18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You and I would differ on the opinion of "best". The "best" thing you could do is leave readers with a basic understanding of the episodes, so as not to leave a useless table as you did with the Billy and Mandy list. Though I may have been arguing keep for the movie, the point was that I was fine with you merging it so long as you actually merged it. Same thing applies here. Redirection without trying to preserve the content is no better than deletion, and I know you can do better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There are other places to grab a summary if you really have trouble picking a line out of the episode pages (TV.com, etc). Making just a table is only making a fancy version of the no-content problem, nothing more. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't mind me but I honestly didn't know there was a difference between redirecting a page and calling it a merge. Of course, if I'd known this, I wouldn't have been a klutz here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dexter's Lab episodes
Sorry TTN, I tried to give you a hand back at the episodes, citing guidelines as my reasons, but it looks like we'll have to waste time starting a discussion. Your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.
When I saw in my watchlist that you had removed 35KB of text, I thought for sure I was going to revert...but then I examined what was actually removed, and have to for the most part agree with it. Character bios should be short and the revlevant plot info should be in the main game article. Great job being WP:BOLD. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Remaining anime episode articles
TTN, if you happen to find any more anime episode articles, could you please inform WT:ANIME about them. That way, the WikiProject can evaluate them and choose the most appropriate course to take regarding the articles. It also helps us create a list of what still needs to be cleaned up. --Farix (Talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[8] It's the kind of thing that I'm going to bother with. You are not wise to pull crap thing on me. I've defend you, stuck my neck out for you, have been a big supporter of cleaning up these articles, and yet here you treat me as you would treat some screaming fanboy? -- Ned Scott07:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a bit overreactive just now. Just, sometimes, I don't understand you. I don't want to see you get blocked, nor do I want you to piss more people off than you need to (for lack of better words). -- Ned Scott08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, nothing bad was meant by that. I just assumed that you weren't familiar with which content was kept and which content wasn't kept for the list entries, and wrote the summary accordingly. TTN (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm starting to lose perspective on some things.. Sorry I over-reacted, I don't know what I was thinking. -- Ned Scott05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Serious question
Original title: Why do you spend so much time and effort on removing the content that made Wikipedia popular in the first place?
I honestly have to doubt that the maybe 50,000 (total speculation) or so articles on fiction out of two million are the only things that have made this site popular. There are certainly many people that come here for that kind of information, but I honestly can't imagine that the unencyclopedic articles attract more than five percent of the traffic here. If those people have to go to other sites for us to have an encyclopedic standard, so be it. TTN (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"...pages related to entertainment and sexuality represent more than 50 percent of the most visited Wikipedia pages. In particular, many of the most popular pages are related to media celebrities and TV shows, which also constitute some of the most popular queries that were submitted to the search engines in 2006"
Does this mean we should accept any and everything? No, of course not. However, it does suggest that there is a far greater interest in entertainment-related material than you perhaps realize. --Ckatzchatspy17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about pure fictional topics, most of which are unencyclopedic. While many people come here for television shows and popular and iconic characters like Superman, the unencyclopedic articles most likely do not make up much of that traffic. TTN (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"An Encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.", I really don't understand why the whole world fiction is being pushed out? Next it'll be abything of relation to pop-culture! Unfortunatly, due to the nature of wikipedia the whole Deletionist-Mergist-Redirectionist section of wikiepedia will not win out, as the whole project is open to the public, so everything of public interest will be saved/readded and added until it's closed to the outside influens, but I don't understand why they (you) are trying to cause so much trouble! Some people need to go and become editor of dusty old books! Doktor Wilhelm 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Fictional topics are part of a larger topic, which they can be summarized within. It's not that fictional topics are bad; it's just that we give them too much weight. Allowing twenty repetitive paragraphs instead of five concise ones does not mean that we are covering the topic in any greater detail. It's just redundant. TTN (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What happens when people coming to Wikipedia expect information instead of a "concise" bundle of sentences that doesn't tell them anything though? - 4.156.54.96 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They should look for a wikia on that sort of topic, for instance, South Park Wiki instead of the South Park pages here, and look for info there. Too many people prefer an encyclopedia which isn't going to give them what they want to know, instead of a fan-encyclopedia which is. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
People don't know as much about wikias as they do about wikipedia itself. Plus, many of the wikias are in terrible shape, even compared to the episode pages you guys consider "terrible shape." For example, some aren't even regularly updated to the most recent episode of the show or contain all the songs used in the episode, or guest stars, or even the summary something these episode pages do just fine. Laynethebangs (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is because a lot of people don't know about them. Geesh, everything's connected, after all! Anyway, but with South Park Wiki in particular, that's different. A user there who calls himself after the old name of this character always keeps the main page and the current episode pages produced. I mainly work on the old episode pages and the character pages. But it's about 80% up to date. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Doktor Wilhelm, you may an excellent point and really hit the core of the first pillar of Wikipedia, i.e. that it ia an encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, almanac, etc.; in other words, it goes beyond any papaer encyclopedia and is open to all editors willing to help categorize the sum total of human knowledge so long as primary and/or secondary evidence exists. Wikipedia is many things to many people, not some limited thing for a limited number of people. Well put! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what allows us to cover topics like video games, television shows, and other "non-scholarly" pieces of media in the first place, not every single sub-topic that can easily be summed up within the main topic. These are not their own independent topics unless they show that they're more than a minor piece of the media, so we shouldn't treat them any differently. TTN (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think DGG hits on a great concept, which is that the episode and character articles are in effect subpages of the larger articles and thus inherit the sourcing and notability from the larger articles. I cannot really think of a good reason why we wouldn't want to be as comprehensive as possible when we have the editors and disk space to do so with only more people being born every day and more computer users around the world willing to edit every day. One of my major contributions is to welcome new users as a member of the Welcoming Committee and Kindness Campaign and it is stunning how many new accounts are created practically every few seconds. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Redundant plot summaries and descriptions that fit within other topics will never be suitable sub-topics. The absolute limit is a character list, which is often still too much. The point of this site is to provide overviews of topics, not every minor aspect. By keeping nice, condense sections, we tell the reader what they need to know about the topic. If they become interested enough in the topic to want to know what happens to character X during minute 18 of episode Y, that's up to them to find out. Do you think that Chapter 18 of "Some Random Book" is also a valid topic? TTN (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In some instances yes, Chapter 18 of "Some Random Book" can be a valid topic. Many scholarly books, for example, are collections of essays and sometimes some of these essays have lasting significance, just as some characters and episodes can have lasting significance as well. The main thing with characters are that they often appear in not just one movie, due to video game and comic adaptations and so a logical redirect is not always clear. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If a book is a collection of essays, it doesn't really qualify, as each one is its own separate topic. I'm talking about any book with a plot line that breaks the plot line down into sections just as a television show does with episodes. Characters almost always have a clear redirect topic, so that's pretty irrelevant. TTN (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Chapters in books that are not separate essays are really not analogus as individual chapters will still have the same characters created by the same author whereas episodes can have different directors and characters portrayed by different actors and actresses and can have different versions (some episodes appear in extended versions on DVD or are censored in different countries) and characters that appear in multiple mediums rarely have a good redirect place, not to mention that just about anything that is significant enough to say appear in a video game, movie, and/or comic book, novelization or some kind of scenario as implied is obviously notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless the show is really strange, episodes are not going to feature anything but the core characters, played by the same actors, and some one episode characters, which is just like various chapters of various books. While they're written by different people, they're still the same core group that makes the show, which is essentially just like the author. Unless the episode has an entirely different version that was produced, I don't see how that makes it more special than any chapter, and if the episode is censored, that's providing a real world context, which is irrelevant to this discussion (which is about keeping these topics without one).
If the character is part of a single film that has a few adaptations that do not really mean anything, it goes to the main article. If the movie has various different pieces of separate media, it is essentially a series, so it will likely have a character list. See this is where you really start to get away from the core of this site. The topic that the character appears in is what is notable, not the single character itself. The character is just a minor part of the topic, which is covered within the main articles or character list. It only becomes notable when it actually has enough information to separate it from the main topic. TTN (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually a good deal of shows have different characters, writers, and directors beyond the core characters in individual episodes (The Twilight Zone is a great example, but even shows like the X Files that have unique stories each episodes and frequently have guest writers and directors). "Essentially just like" is not "just like." The main issue that I see is that the articles just need more and better sourcing and not deletion or redirecting. Too often I've participated in AfDs for articles that wind up being saved after myself or others relatively easily find reputable third party sources. More effort should just be put in providing these sources and as Wikipedia does not have a dealine, there's no need to delete articles when unreference tags can serve as cautions to readers to take the article's contents with a grain of salt or to indicate that it is a work in progress that any reader can help improve. A good deal of characters are indeed notable in their own right; after all some characters appear in cross-overs for example that are not part of the same series. Spawn appears in Spawn the comic book, but he also appeared in Soul Calibur II, a totally different fictional universe. If nothing else, I am not worried if a handful of bloggers mock Wikipedia for popular culture content when a much larger number of good faith contributors and casual readers actually find the information useful and relevant. After all, the main thing an encyclopedia is is a reference guide and collection of information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I assumed the shows like the Twilight Zone were a given, but even shows like the X Files feature sets of main characters and one episode characters similar to one chapter characters. Each season would effectively work as a book, which do sometimes contain separate stories that are part of a larger one. Aside from the different writers and directors (which even if they do have guests, are still just part of the overall staff), there is really nothing different. Most of them do not have valid sources, and they have existed for quite a while, so they don't need much more time to develop. While I'm sure there are cases that can be improved, they are not the majority. The fact that we don't have a deadline applies both ways. We can wait until the main topic is developed in order to have an article on the sub-topic.
Seeing as Spawn is able to hold an article on his own, that isn't a good example. An appearance in a video game like that would be called more of an extended cameo than anything else anyways. This is a collection of information. Just because we don't have an article on every minor character does not mean that we are not covering them in enough detail. In general, a minor television show will have a plot section, a character section, and an episode list in the least. That is generally enough to cover them. We don't need twenty paragraphs per character to do that. TTN (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Once an article has been started, so long as it isn't a hoax, we should keep it and allow it to grow and improve over time as it is much easier to work with what's there rather that starting over again and again. Anyway, there's no reason we shouldn't be comprehensive as we have the editors and disk space to do so. If it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then we must be open to everyone and not narrow. I used Spawn because there's no way I could see his article getting deleted and I did not want to use a different example that someone (I'm not saying you by any means) would then seize upon as next on their chopping block as has happened to me in the past when I mentioned articles as examples. Anyway, as for not having valid sources, again, that comes down to a "so fix it," i.e. search for and add the sources. I have found improving articles incredibly rewarding. Deletion discussions have been perhaps the least enjoyable aspect of Wikipedia I've found. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet, as you've shown with chapters of a book, not every topic is its own valid topic. I was in a crazy and pointy mood, and decided to create hundreds of stubs on different chapters, would you defend them? If not, that shows that there is a certain level at which we need to keep topics together. Chapters without any real world context are just plot reiterations with a few basic details that belong elsewhere, and the same applies to characters and episodes. When it's impossible to improve them with real world content, "fix it" isn't really a valid argument. That is the case for at least 80% of the articles on fictional topics and episode articles (not the works themselves). TTN (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If you did create such articles, I wouldn't delete them, and again, chapters in a book that is written by the same author really isn't the same as an episode for which many contributed. A book may have reviews of the full book, but episodes have previews and reviews of individual episodes regularly in TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, and other magazines and newspapers. Episodes are treated in a fashion different than chapters in a book. Episodes have individual ratings, individual chapters do not have ratings by chapters. Episodes win awards. Chapters do not. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So you would defend them in an AfD, yet as you just explained, you do not find them to even be close to valid topics? TTN (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I would just not participate in such an AfD. I only tend to participate in AfDs for articles that I really think are worth keeping or that are hoaxes that need snowball deletes, so that I am somewhat balanced in my keep/delete "votes." For those that I'm not sure about either way, I'll leave it up to others to determine their value, but the main thing is that such articles really wouldn't bother me per se. There's probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia in the millions that we have that I have no personal interest in, but as long as they are factually accurate, it doesn't really bother me if they exist. If people are willing to work on them and some segment of the population finds them useful, then it's not loss of sleep for me if they exist. In any event, though, the chapters by one author versus episodes are not parallel scenarios for the many reasons explained above: 1) episodes are reviewed in magazines and newspapers on an episode basis; books are reviewed as total works, not by chapters; 2) episodes can win awards for episodes; books only win awards for the whole book, not individual chapters; 3) episodes may have different writers, directors, and actors and be edited differently in different countries; 4) chapters can be edited differently in different countries, but usually the author, characters, etc. in a book don't change from chapter to chapter as they are the product of a writer and maybe an editor, not as in the case of a TV episode, maybe multiple writers, a director, filmer, actors, actresses, editor, producer, etc.; 5) episodes have wildly diverse ratings and viewership; granted some may read the first chapter of a book and call it quits, but a book does not get Nielson ratings for individual chapters. The main interpretation of our discussion today and the whole fact of the arbitration case is that there clearly is not a consensus among our community as to the notability of episodes and characters and in AfDs when we have no consensus we default to keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Coincidence! I was just leaving TTN a message and I edit conflicted with you Stephen. That guy's obviously an imposter so he should be blocked indefinitely. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have to say that isn't me. I like how he bothered to try copying my little user page statement. TTN (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, any episode list with red links should always be delinked. I think that is one of the reasons that we have such a problem on our hands. People just think because something is linked that it is a viable topic. I'll take care of that one later if you don't feel like doing it. TTN (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that all your edits remove content from the encyclopedia, or so it seems from a casual browsing of your contribs. Have you ever tried contributing some? Say, perhaps, finding some citations for the stuff you delete for needing one? Just curious. Cheers! Captain Infinity (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You should consider linking this comment and the two or three comments preceding it on the recent RFAR. It will prove insightful to many uninvolved parties. User:Krator (tc) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the topic is about DVDs, I don't see how FICT applies. It certainly fails WP:N, though. I suggest that you either find some kind of reception on the overall DVDs or merge it somewhere. TTN (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not that concerned with what happens to it after the FLC. The article was already neat and tidy with the tables looking like they do, I just spent 3 hours yesterday putting references in and fixing up the intro and took it to FLC to test the waters on lists of these kinds. If the content ends up being removed and redirected afterwards, that's okay. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as there are season articles, you should probably just split it up between them, and place the second paragraph of the lead somewhere. I don't know if you're interested in the series, but it would be beneficial to work on those if you do have some interest invested in it. As for the tag, probably just use the basic one. There is no need to always be specific. TTN (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No interest whatsoever. I might still work on them a little, though.
Just to clarify, a notability tag would be better than a speedy tag? If the info is merged into each season though, then it can be speedied, right? Thanks -- Matthew|talk|Contribs19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Then where would the best place be to redirect DVD release articles to? The main page of the TV show, the list of episodes? It's not going to be possible to redirect one article to each season page, is it? -- Matthew|talk|Contribs19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I would probably merge that second paragraph of the lead to the episode list, and redirect it there (with the "r from merge" tag). If you merge anything to the season articles, just link to the article being merged, and I think that's good enough. TTN (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking through them, they're all just plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. I don't know if they have potential (a couple have relevant notes in the trivia section), but placing them on a list would be the best thing to do. It's easier to build up from a few paragraphs than try to cut a bunch down. TTN (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
TTN, after some time and thought, I have to say you're probably right about the character merger. I can't fight when I've been legitimately beaten and I'm in the wrong, and for now, I'm in the wrong. I might recommend that some things in your version be brushed up, like the character images for the integrated characters added in, but otherwise it's probably the best course of action for now. You're going to have to convince Doktor Wilhelm so you don't end up in another edit war with him, though, but I'm not going to argue anymore. I support the changes you're going to make in this case. Speaking of which, I have a request. I can see that you're a Mergist, since you're in that category, and there's a set of articles that I'd like to merge. I've proposed it to no objections, but I've never merged articles before because I am usually against it (though this REALLY needs to happen). Since this is my first merge, I was wondering if you could help me out with it, or maybe give me some pointers. The articles are to be merged into List of Virtua Fighter characters, check the tag there to see what I want to merge into the list. Thanks for all of your help in advance. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The articles are nothing but plot summaries, so it would be best to merge each summary to its respective game under a plot or story header. After that, you can either work to make them better or add Template:Plot. There is nothing to actually merge to the lists. TTN (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Afd tags and tags relating to G/FAs should remain in talk pages of redirects. Anything else should go unless the project has a "redirect class" for the articles. TTN (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
They're not notable enough to need mention, but the thing you would want to cite is the third paragraph of WP:WEIGHT. Giving pointless characters the same amount of coverage as main characters is silly. TTN (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the current RfAR injunction, it may be better to hold off on applying merger tags at the moment, even for the most obvious cases which you appear to be tagging. Thanks, Black Kite16:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as it seems to have no end in sight, and the injunction is so loose and harsh at the same time that it's laughable, I'm going to at least place merge tags that can be dealt with after the injunction is over (unless merging video game characters will also be workable). TTN (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've read your discussion on Talk:List of characters from The King of Fighters about merging the character articles into that list, and I've started to work on merging them. However, User:Kung Fu Man reverted several of them for no concrete reasons. This character for instance [13] I'm fairly certain doesn't meet the criteria for a separate article. I know roughly how Wikipedia works but I'm new, while you're a well-established user, so could you help with this issue? Thanks. FightingStreet (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest just trying to explain your position the best that you can, and seeing if the two of you can work it out. Otherwise, asking over at WT:CVG may be helpful. If neither of those work, you can just leave them for now. The fighting games are a large mess that will have to undergo thorough cleanup, so those will be taken care of eventually. TTN (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Smallville characters
I was just thinking about those lists myself, lately. My idea was to propose that we have a single list, for all the recurring characters. Since they span more than one episode, usually more than 3 episodes, and sometimes more than a single season, I felt they would be the only ones that needed the extra breathing room. Also, I've found that the recurring characters actually get some discussion in the companion books, whereas the one-time guest stars are usually regulated to "he/she was good in that role". All the other one-time stars can just live by their brief mentioning in the plot sections of the season articles. What are your thoughts about this approach? BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that we should have "List of characters in Smallville". This page should contain a list of all the series regulars, a list of all the recurring characters (characters spanning more than 2 episodes), and a small list of any guest star that might have returned for a second outting but wasn't really a "recurring" character? BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we do that I wouldn't make a "table" form like in the sandbox. I would go with the FF layout. My thoughts are that each section would look like it does at Smallville (TV series)#Cast, except a bit more detailed. I don't know of Chloe and Lionel would be able to fit on the page, removing their separate articles, that would depend on what secondary source information I could find on them. Their pages need major cleaning, but I'm focused on the season articles at the moment. I plan to clean them up though. It may turn out that when they are cleaned up that they can be merged, but somehow I think the characters have growns so much, with regard to the series as a whole, that there might be plenty to talk about them on their own articles. I don't want to give up the Cast list on the main page though, because I think it helps compliment the rest of the article well. The individual character sections could probably be trimmed if we had a "List of" page, that's for sure, but I don't want to lose it entirely. BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've moved all of the recurring characters and returning characters over to my sandbox. Take a look to get an idea of what it will be like. It's 80kb right now, but I don't know if that will get larger or smaller once I've cleaned it up. There are many characters with extremely long plot summaries, and some characters with almost no plot summaries. So, we'll see how it is when its cleaned up and I have more sources and real world information. BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a non-controversial AfD so, if I were to withdraw and close it early, it could actually be challenged at deletion review. I'm going to go ahead and let it run its course. I'm still not convinced myself that the non-mergable items are worth keeping. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Your Wikipedian editing ethic
Hello, I am a rather new editor who joined to try to clean up Invader Zim. I was admittedly surprised at all the fighting necessary to do things such as re-name it to its actual name, create character lists, and of course, the biggest controversy for wiki policies; creating individual episode pages as opposed to an all encompassing capsule page. All my beliefs of this being totally uncalled for aside, I understand that you are doing it to "clean up" all the unvalidated and poorly written material there is on Wikipedia, and that episode articles are ripe for the picking, so to speak. The only thing I really wanted to ask you about was this: If episode articles are so unnecessary, why do shows such as Avatar: the Last Airbender, Firefly, Twin Peaks, and the like, which are either shows on the same network or similarly canceled yet cult classic shows, respectively, able to have full episode pages if they aren't "notable" like apparently all Fox animated sitcoms; is it honestly that they have a large enough fan base to fight for the right to have episode pages against those who would "streamline" an online encyclopedia? My other question is simply that if you are trying so hard to keep Wikipedian standards high, why are you only redirecting pages you do not want to have with no support from the community at large, without contributing some of your own information? It is rather comparable to the famous scene in Amadeus when Mozart has written a new opera for the Emperor Joseph II, only for Joseph to say "My dear young man, don't take it too hard...there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect." When asked "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?", Mozart is basically told to figure it out himself, and is nearly reprimanded for trying to question the emperor of Austria. That's the best way I can think of comparing what editors like you are doing to the community at large; letting us know we're the ones at fault, but not offering any of your expertise to actually improve the article. By all means, please explain in which ways I'm mis-characterizing you or anything, but I'm just asking if you could take a more active role as a dutiful wikipedian and let the rest of us know what's going through your mind when you edit. :)65.12.233.213 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, as a side note, I understand this is mainly about references [or a lack therof] not being verifiable. That goes under my "cleaning up" point, and that is not what I am asking you about. I am merely posing the question of why you only note that references are not verifiable without providing some sort of contribution to the article you are so ready to take in to your own hands, so to speak.65.12.233.213 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I'll take your lack of response as a subtle hint that you didn't like what I had to say or an admittance of being in the wrong. Either way, I hope my diatribe had...an effect on your judgment, if I can be so bold. ;)65.12.233.213 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This is why I refuse to actively add to the mainspace. TTN is free to do as he pleases without facing sanction and several administrators support his every action. Even if he is restricted, he ignores it and nobody in power lifts a finger. He will not waste time answering questions with full detail, because there is no need to put forth the effort.
I want to expand college basketball articles significantly, adding team articles and detailed, well-sourced articles about each season. There is not a source on the internet that is detailed about season-by-season results from all Division I teams, including game synopses, and wikipedia could be the definitive source for college basketball. But, a quick study of how this site handles users like TTN shows that such a project would be a complete waste of time.
You might want to read WP:V in regards to your basketball example. Does it suck that we can't cover some things because of lack of sources? Yep, but that's the way it is. -- Ned Scott03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Newspapers do cover each game. There wouldn't be an article per game, but per season. Each season has hundreds of dedicated, full newpaper and magazine articles across several publications that cover their progress.
It would be difficult to put up individual seasons from before 2000, however, unless the local newspapers were kind enough to digitally archive all of their newspapers. The Sporting News has every page of every issue available online, which led to someone expanding the Billy Pierce article extensively.
If I can't cover a season despite the large amount of articles written about it, then this project as a whole is far worse off than I originally thought. There's a reason why the wikiproject for college basketball is dead. They can't even add anything that's actually relevant. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Light Yagami
Please stop now. Let me make this clear: 'I have Death Note How to Read 13. I have EVERYTHING that can be sourced about Light. Let me look through the book and add information.
There is too much to add to fit in that article (remember that I have to add info about everyone else, I.E. Mello, Near, Matsuda, etc.), and to add non-free images cannot be used in "list" articles so I have to restore the original standalone articles in order to use images. I only intend to make three standalone articles, but as I add more info more character articles *might* break away. I have stated on the talk pages that I will restore the articles once I get HTR 13. Now that I have it... WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but I will do this ONLY because there was an arbitration case (which I was unaware of) - I will add a lot of information so the article may get ridiculously long. This is not self-published either (as Shueisha/VIZ/etc have it) so this is bonafide reliable information. I said a while ago that I would restore those three articles once I got HTR 13 but this arbitration case seemed to throw a monkey wrench in those plans.WhisperToMe (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Violation of Arbcom injunction
You have violated the arbcom injunction by redirecting several articles on episodes and/or characters. Only administrators are authorized by the injunction to revert such changes. These edits, earlier adding of merge tags and a redirection against consensus here is a violation of WP:GAME. This is your final warning. If you persist in this manner you will be blocked. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you get them to clarify that only admins are able to revert them? I'm under the assumption that the part about admins isn't specifically only allowing them to revert, only that they should specifically watch for it (though it could just be really screwed up wording like the rest of it). As long as it is in accordance with the injunction, what exactly is the problem? Radiator Springs has a long history with various discussions over various articles, so you may want to find them all before making claims like that (though, I have no idea how the chronology goes). TTN (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(e.c. X2) It's a clear and obvious violation of WP:GAME before anything else. The language is pretty explicit. Let me use this analogy: Somebody subject to a restraining order can't go drop by the house of person who the restraining order is protecting to let them know about an important court date concerning the restraining order. That job is left to the cops (or in this case, janitors with tools). IronGargoyle (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The arbcom ruling is likely going to impose restricitions on you and I suspect that I am not alone in greeting such a one-sided and foolish decision with dismay. Many good editors have left the project because of these kind of poor decisions; I hope that you will not follow that pattern, although it would be understandable. Your efforts to clean up the reams and reams of dross and detritus that have accumulated here are well-appreciated, fully in keeping with the spirit of an encyclopedia, almost always supported by our policies and guidelines and entirely commendable. It is a sad day that a committed and vocal group has been able to thwart through obstruction what they have been unable to achieve through changes to our policies and guidelines. In the end, our policies have remained largely unchanged and efforts to clean up the mess of fan-driven fiction content should continue. I hope you will remain part of that effort. Eusebeus (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Many good editors have also left the project because of TTN's actions. To think that high ranking administrators such as JzG think TTN has never done a single thing wrong is something to be dismayed about. TTN is most certainly not a victim with a clean mind that always assumes good faith. When I see AfD's closed where the admin says, "You know what, it doesn't matter what I judge on this closing, because TTN will do whatever he wants anyway," that is a big problem. But yeah, keep fighting on that battleground to make Wikipedia a safe place from expansion. Hit that fancrufty cruft fancruft with all of your fancruft cruftsmashing abilities. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
TAKE THAT TTN!!!
That'll show you what happens to Wikipedians who ENFORCE WIKIPEDIA POLICY!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!! I hope anyone else who thinks about enforcing our policies over the wishes of the ignorant and malicious will look at what happened to you and QUAKE IN FEAR.....
(This post is of an ironic and humorous nature for those who don't think we need 200 million articles on every episode of Super Train or the Teletubbies).
Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it. He's been gone this lone before, only to come back and continue his rampage. Honestly, I think it would be better if he would "take a rest," so to speak. ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, leave TTN alone guys. Please refrain from "chatting" here and find something productive to do. BTW, ZeroGiga, this isn't very nice to say about good faith editors. Moving on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.
Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.
