User talk:TTN/Archive 6

Archives
June 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to January 2007 January 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to May 2007 May 2007 to June 2007

List of Teen Titans episodes

I've noticed you redirected the episode articles on Teen Titans. I see you have done this with many other episode articles from other series as well. How come you don't take this up on the Lists' talk page? I am aware that the articles does not follow WP:EPISODE (I wrote some of Teen Titans articles), but why don't help out in finding relevant information for the articles and then edit them, instead of just redirecting them? Michae2109 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Most will not have a problem with it, so it is easier to bother discussing after it happens. There is no way that I can improve them because there is no way to do it. There are no detailed sources available, and you need to have sources before creating the articles. Hopefully, you can prove me wrong and provide some. TTN 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that; "there is no way to improve them"? This is Wikipedia, all articles (save perhaps for the featured articles) can be improved in some way. If there are not suffcient sources available for episode articles, then perhaps there are enough sources for season articles. That's why you should take this up on the articles' talk page, to discuss how to improve articles instead of just deleting them. I am working on writing articles on the two seasons of Black Lagoon, fortunately, there seem to be plenty of reviews and facts conserning the two seasons of the series. In my opinion, there are no Wikipedia articles that cannot be improved.

FYI ANI

If you were not already aware, you may be interested in WP:ANI#User:TTN redirecting. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball

TTN, you (or someone else) tagged the page {{db}} reason being "superfluous" and that caused a bunch of redirects to be deleted or marked for deletion. Why was this exactly? Lord Sesshomaru

It wasn't me. I would guess that someone thought it was a worthless redirect. TTN 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll simply have it recreated. Uh, any thoughts before I do? Lord Sesshomaru

Why bother? It's just a capitalized word. You may as well just recreate the others and leave that one. TTN 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Then should List of aliens in Dragon Ball, List of other aliens in Dragon Ball, List of other Aliens in Dragon Ball, List of other extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball and List of other Extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball be marked for deletion also? Lord Sesshomaru

The two with caps should probably be removed, but the others seem like legitimate redirects. TTN 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly tag the ones you believe should now be deleted with db, reason: superfluous? If it's not too much trouble for you, I have to go. Lord Sesshomaru

I just missed sampling one: List of Aliens in Dragon Ball. Lord Sesshomaru

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the redirects. If it were something akin to Brollli or Brollllli redirecting to Broly (something I've actually dealt with before, believe it or not), they should be deleted. Minor capitalization such as this doesn't pose much of a problem IMHO. // DecaimientoPoético 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just rather pointless to have redirects that won't be used. Nobody is going to try randomly capitalizing a word. I don't feel like putting them up, though. Someone else can do it. TTN 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Finito! [1], [2], [3]. Lord Sesshomaru

Pascal.Tesson took care of it — TTN, you were the only one who originally disagreed with it. Me, that user and Poetic Decay are alright with the caps. Lord Sesshomaru

Whatever, if people find pointless redirects fine, I don't really care. It's just sort of pointless to have random redirects all over the place. TTN 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Garth Marenghi's Darkplace

You should have at least discussed the merging on the seperate episode talk pages before merging. Although judging by comments by other users you don't seem to know how. --> 7+1 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When I bother to post messages for episodes, they're replied to one out of thirty times. It is much easier to do it and discuss certain ones after. TTN 20:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode pages

Why this project of yours to remove episode pages? Many are works in progress, and a note on the talk page to suggest they should be improved according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes guidelines would be more constructive. I note you redirected all the Foyle's War episodes without even the courtesy of a note on the talk page. Admittedly, most were stubs, but others were being worked on. You are destroying hours of work by many conscientious contributors without even engaging with them about the rationale, or discussing your actions with the wikiproject most concerned.Gwinva 06:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I put a great deal of work into making the Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister pages. Are you making this a personal vendetta against all TV series on Wikipedia? It's downright disrespectful to the efforts of others. Chris 42 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments above. If the articles are insufficient in your view, then let them be improved by others. You can't just delete episode articles wholesale and expect the people who create/maintain them to accept it without question. How many other shows' episode articles do you intend to obliterate? Lost, The Sopranos, House, Star Trek and Doctor Who (to name just a few) all have them, and most follow a similar format. Supposing someone wanted to add the extra info you describe to the Yes Minister articles? Are you really suggesting they should start from the ground up and recreate them from scratch? Chris 42 12:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply and the link to current discussion. I understand what you're doing, and possibly agree with some of your problems with individual pages, but I think wholesale redirects are happening too quickly and just winding everyone up. Perhaps a warning on each page that they do not reach wikipedia standards would be sufficient. You can't just delete pages because they are unsourced, badly written, or lack as much information as they might. A lot of people can't find the histories on redirect pages if they do want to work on an article, or only contribute to existing articles. Merges might be more sensible, but I realise that takes more time. But there is no rush, and you might find other people come on board with you, rather than getting angry. Get Wikiproject television behind you, and a decent consensus about when episode pages are appropriate. The fact is, whatever any style guide says, most people don't get all the resources and support together before writing an article. Most start as stubs and are eventually improved. Understanding of the programmes involved is also imortant. Soaps, sitcoms etc etc are hardly worthy of invidual episode pages, I agree (and I wonder why people bother writing them, but that’s up to them), but there are many programmes out there that are worthy. Take Yes Minister: an iconic programme that served as a commentary on British politics and the civil service. Some of the storylines are so classic (and 'true' in the sense they reflect reality) that they influence politics today, or are referred to by the public. As for Foyle's War, most were stubs, containing little or no info (which, again, I wouldn’t bother creating in such a state), but the concept of the pages existing (in full form) is a good one. They are all feature-length, complex, enjoyed by many, and as worthy of comment as any cinema-released feature film (and sequels). I did hesitate before restoring the stubs, I admit, but decided that interested parties are more likely to contribute to an existing page than create one (which last is still more likely than them hunting through a redirect history). Secondly, I canvassed for opinion not because I have anything against you, but because interested projects should reach some consensus about when episode pages are appropriate. Perhaps everyone will agree with you. Good, then you'll have help. Perhaps people won't... in which case, you'd do best to avoid your redirecting practice. Gwinva 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Same with me on the Cosby Show episodes. If you are going to do something so drastic, at least have the common courtesy to mention this on the talk page in advance so, if it can be improved, someone can make the improvements. WAVY 10 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on the Yes Minister episode articles, while you may think they are "mediocre", I was awarded a Barnstar for my efforts, if that says anything. I'm sorry if it appears that not many others have edited them, but have you considered (and this isn't blowing my own trumpet) that others have read them and have been happy with them as they are? If you'd bothered to read the main YM article, you will see that each episode of the series was specifically written to satirise/explain an aspect of the way that the UK is governed. In that respect, it could be argued that the episode articles need no further commentary: their content speaks for itself. I found this definition of 'encyclopedia' on the OED's website: "[it gives] information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject" (italics mine). The YM episode articles (and indeed those of any other TV show) are "many aspects" of their parent subject. YM is regarded by many as a classic series. How can those of today's generation who are interested in such things find out anything about them if you continue with this crusade? If you have read my latest post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes, you'll have seen a link to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes. I'll repeat the quote here: "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information [...] If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that." Please don't delete pages out of sheer bloody-mindedness: you are upsetting a lot of editors, and obviously have scant regard for their contributions, some of them constituting many months' work. Chris 42 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would personally like to commend you for taking a stand on this issue. Though I personally would not have just gone out and redirected everything without asking everyone else first, I have found that in my attempts to do that I don't get much of a response. I think the only time anyone actually cares what happens to most of these articles is when someone either deletes them or redirects them. I find it funny that WP:TV even has as system (Series article -> Season -> Episode) and yet people ignore it. If someone creates 150 episode articles for one series, with nothing but plots, despite the fact that they disregarded the guidelines for establishing these pages, the most we can do is propose merges for all of them. I think things can be done to improve them, I've personally worked to get Aquaman (TV program) and Pilot (Smallville) into better shape, but you won't find that much information for every episode of a series... probably not even half that. I even came up with a new format for season pages that would help curve this need to create these individuals episode articles. Though our methods differ (more so probably because I think you finally got fed up with the "it will be improved" responses), I appreciate what you are trying to do... which (as I see it) is make the system of articles better as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand. I've battled the same group of people on the Smallville pages. It's always "well, others are like this". Even when we had a clear consensus to not create anymore articles for those episodes, someone went in and created another seasons worth. I finally got tired of it and decided to clean them all up myself, starting with the season pages. I've gotten like 5 responses (only 1 real oppose). So, I'm going to give it another week or so, or until I can finish the first season in my sandbox. Then I'm redirecting all on the bases that there was only 1 clear objection to the merge. So far, I've had to actual objections to (in the least) the new format I designed for the season pages. Here's to one day not having to worry about over eager editors that create an article for the slightest thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across something, and don't recall it being brought up. Help:Merging and moving pages states: "If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you can't do that without discussion" is not a good argument."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen. If they can't attack you they'll attack the guideline (which they are doing on that page). It seems they'd rather it said "you just need a plot and you can have an article".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. We have several episodes that have followed that guideline to a "T", and you know where they are? In featured article status. The guideline works, they just don't like it. We need to work on a system that says "if you cannot expand an article to follow the EPISODE guidelines by a certain time frame then you need to redirect it back to the parent article", or something like that. I don't know, because we have a guideline that already says not to create them just to create them, and to work on expanding episode lists and season pages first. We need something that says "do not ignore this, episodes that have been in existence for ______ months, and have yet to fulfill the criteria established by WP:EPISODE are subject to be merged and redirected without notice". People want us to baby them and give them more time to expand. You've had as long as the article has existed. There are 40+ Smallville articles, and only 1 meets the criteria for WP:EPISODE, and that's the pilot...and even that only recently met it because I personally expanded it. The rest of been existing for over an entire year and have not even tried to meet the criteria. We need to establish it to say "do it by this time, or merge and redirect".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh!

Sorry about that – I feel like a right idiot now. However, in that instance it may have been better to use generic instead of general. Ashnard _Talk 18:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they're pretty much synonyms. Generic doesn't necessarily mean just "the same" and it isn't the difference that you pointed on my talk page. Just to let you know. Ashnard _Talk 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Game guide information

You still are not persuading me of anything on my talk page discussion. So, I've moved our discussion to the article's talk page (please reply further there if you have anything new to add) and will refrain from restoring or editing the article until I see what others have to say as well. Best, --24.154.173.243 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the Final Fantasy X article and see that they have a separate article on list of characters. Thus, if you would like to create a separate list of OCean Hunter characters article, I'd be happy to help flesh it in. Best, --24.154.173.243 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll hold off on Wikipedia for a couple of days and see where the discussion goes from there. I've said my peace for now. So, have a nice few days or so! Sincerely, --24.154.173.243 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

list of scrubs episodes

i disagree with your idea of redirecting these eps, therefore i propose that out of your list of list article to work through, you leave this one till last, allowing me time to improve them, as i have already done improvements of season 1--Jac16888 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

firstly, i have done more than just cleanup. if you actually look, you will see that every s1 ep contains an ep synopsis, guest stars, featured music, and external links (not all done by me)

second of all, you keep talking about sources. the source is the episode itself. if you watched it you would see the info is correct. thirdly, i have not finished with them yet. i propose a mutual compromise, and you just yet again refuse to accept another persons views, basing your arguments on policies that don't actually support your views. i intend to do my best to improve the scrubs articles, as i have been doing for some time and suggest that you find a subject that you are knowledgeable about, and try and improve it, rather than simply going around undoing other peoples hard work. no doubt you will not listen to this and simply keep doing your redirects, but i no longer care, as regardless of your opinion, i will not allow scrubs episodes articles to fall into oblivion--Jac16888 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

You're the only one who is believing they fail guidelines. Perhaps you should read the above and the guidelines themselves. Oh, and one could believe you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point the way you edit. Matthew 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Who agrees with you? Nobody. Frankly I feel sorry for you. Oh, and I consider notability inherited (and FYI: not interested in reading essays). Matthew 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with him. Want me to find more people? -- Ned Scott 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

I highly disagree with your so-called decision to merge everything into one big ugly article. I'm sorry, but no.

But you're going to do it anyways, because you are lucky I am not intelligent enough to defend the article. I can only fight and revert and readd, and you and your people will ban me for it as unjustly as can be.

That is why I intend to set up a wiki of Power Instinct's own eventually to protect it from you people, but whatever.

Sorry if I sound like such a jerk and a stubborn mule, but Wikipedia is just turning into a horrible place for extensive information on such subjects these days. It's terrible. Just terrible. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Have I read that right? You're... backing down?

I wasn't expecting that. But some admin or something's gonna do it anyway. I'll have to make backup copies for such an emergency...

But what did you mean "if need be, you'll copy the articles yourself?" I just want to know the specifics. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 03:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if by "moving" you mean moving them to the Shoryuken Wiki or whatever.

On the record, as far as making a wiki for it of it's own, I'm not the best at web programming or something, so, really, setting up a wiki... that's gonna be hard.

But I'll have no choice but to deal with it if it means providing extensive info on the characters and all. Power Instinct is a VERY looked down upon and cast-away game. It's only fair that people get the lowdown on it and see it as more than just some "Street Fighter 'clone' ", but that is just me and my jerkwad opinion, so, bear with me on my saying that. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. If I can find a suitable place for them where they won't come into any serious changes, then I will let you do as you like to the articles. Fair's fair.

Request it by Wikia, huh. I'll see what I can do. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to add.

That is if I DO find a suitable place. Wikia seems to want wikis on things that will spread all over people's interests. I say, fuck them. Power Instinct is often forgotten. I will NOT let that happen.

I will let you know if I do so you may do whatever you like. But until then, you must not touch them. These things take time.

Also, why is this not happening to the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat articles? And all the others the same? As such, go do something about them, if you want to enforce this policy so badly. If I can't get a site for these articles, then you're going to have to do something to convince the same should apply to everything else. This is not a dare, just that I won't allow it unless everyone else does.

I also noticed that Shoryuken Wiki is not the suitable place for them. That place is a strategy wiki, not an info wiki. My advice is that you please make sure you examine a wiki's contents more closely next time before you give links to them. Otherwise you make yourself look foolish. =P --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour

TTN, you need to back off and rethink your approach to episode articles. Your attitude is extremely confrontational, and is only going to create massive divisions within the Wiki community. You have no right to single-handedly march in and destroy work like this. Please reconsider your actions before this goes too far. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Removing an episode which actually has sources because you think they are "pathetic" is the wrong way to go about things. People are currently working on these articles. Many people who work on TV articles are teenagers, and many, especially in the US, have finals coming up and don't have as much time to work on these right now as they'd like. I'm studying for my finals this week so I'm on very little and I don't have time to go through all the episode pages I edit and improve them. Instead of waging war against TV articles you don't see fit to have pages, why not work on them so that they pass what ever you believe they failed on the guidelines. Why not just tag these articles with appropriate clean-up tags. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't sources; they're trivial reviews (two don't even work). If the article had real sources, it would be different. Nobody is working on it that well. In the month since I last viewed it, it has gained a trivia section and unreferenced reception material. Nobody is ever going to improve them, and they cannot be improved. I will never entertain this notion that more than a thousand episode articles will ever need coverage here. That certainly isn't one of them. Editing them and placing tags can only work if they can be improved. TTN 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait one second, here. I added a source for one of the episodes I revived, and you deleted it anyway!! ---- DanTD 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you link it? If it was a legitimate source, I apologize, but it may have just been a trivial one. TTN 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the agency that actually gave the show the award that I mentioned, so yes it was a legitmate source. ---- DanTD 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the episode? TTN 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Goat%27s_Tale&oldid=135433182), and some of the other episodes that were revived had links and further details too. ---- DanTD 02:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a link to one single award, nothing else. Add that to a general reception section for the actual series. An award on its own is not enough to give the articles content. It would only work along with real content. TTN 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe winning an award makes the episode notable. If it won an award there must be sources out there. Article just needs to be fixed up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be notable in a way, but it still fails for not having the needed content. Nothing shows that development or other reception sources can be found. The award doesn't justify a full article. A reception section in the main article can cover things like that. TTN 02:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's people like you who piss off the whole wiki community by deleting things as you see fit. What benefit is it to you to delete TV show articles? None. Then the people who have a use for those articles no longer are able to access them. So how bout you retype all the Entourage synopsises and all the music was on the show. You dipshit.

Don't let them keep ya down, TNN. You're doing a great job! -- Ned Scott 06:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I do have to agree (after I had time to think about it personally) that you are on the right idea that there are too many unworthy episode articles that need to be redirected to an episode list etc. However, a suggestion I have to make is that you temporarily cease and desist your actions, since if you check the noticeboard the debate is getting pretty debated and it wouldn't be wise to alienate more people, when already numerous editors are already against your actions. As I expressed this before I am willing to come up with a fair compromise since a simple revert won't solve this problem and I am preferring to think with my brain rather than to act on simple emotions. Of course you don't have to follow my suggestion but at least take it under advisement. -Adv193 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, another question: What was wrong with That's So Raven episodes Country Cousins and Goin' Hollywood? And for the record, as I recall, the discussion on whether to delete, keep, or merge all these episodes reached NO consensus. ---- DanTD 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes external links not sources? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me, as long as those links informative. ---- DanTD 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So the Internet Movie Database & TV.com aren't considered reliable sources? I can see that if the link was to a die-hard fan of any cast member on the show, or merely in the episode, but not for general sites like IMDb. ---- DanTD 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario character discussion

As a note, I've created this for a discussion about the merges (as I didn't see any very active ones, except for Petey Piranha): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Mario_character_merges. Feel free to comment there. RobJ1981 06:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI

You may wish to respond to this ANI post. --Fredrick day 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AN/I report filed with regards to episode deletion

TTN: I'm sorry to say that I have found it necessary to file a complaint about your actions on the AN/I board. As I mentioned earlier, your methodology in achieving your goal is divisive and disruptive. I really hope that you find it within yourself to reconsider the manner in which you are proceeding, before things go too far. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a flaw in how Wikipedia works, that you get used to having or making episode articles only to have someone come along and tell you no. Sorry it sucks, but that's how it is, and hopefully we'll get people to understand this better in the future. TTN isn't doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to List of Weeds episodes

Hello. I've reverted your edits to this list and the specific articles. There's obviously no consensus right now for the change. A centralized discussion will need to occur before edits this drastic can occur. Please do not change the specific episode pages back to redirects without prior discussion. Thanks. --MZMcBride 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the pages on the principal that there should consensus before there are major changes to an article. I'm a big fan of being bold, however, as that page clearly states, that means not being reckless. The pages that are being turned into redirects contain a lot of good information. If there are citation issues, we have templates for that. But before we throw the baby out with the bath water, let's see how the discussion on WP:AN/I turns out. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All of these individual episode articles have a "mother" article (i.e., List of whatever). Open a discussion there and let people weigh in. If there aren't responses, then you can feel free to redirect them. There is no deadline. Some of these articles probably don't need to be around, I'll admit that. But, for the same reason we have AfDs for hoaxes and other nonsense, there should be consensus and discussion prior to a major change. Additionally, if you open a discussion on the List of pages, I think you'll find far less opposition when you actually turn the pages into redirects. I hope that clarifies matters. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's about giving people an opportunity to discuss the articles being changed to a redirect. Not every editor gets on Wikipedia every day. However, if the discussion is left open for a couple of days, more people can have the opportunity to discuss the matter. Consensus and discussion are major aspects on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know. There are clearly objections to your actions, as witnessed on the Incidents noticeboard. However, there's a simple solution: give warning and the opportunity to discuss the changes before making them. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Those paragraphs are perfect. Put one of those on Talk:List of Weeds episodes and let it sit for a few days. If no one responds, I'll revert myself. But discussion and consensus are important, as is the opportunity for those two things. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Springfield Isotopes

Hi, thought you might be interested in this afd. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Small Sympathy For You

You are just getting eviscerated out there. Don't you ever get frustrated or annoyed by people whose content you remove? I mean, some of your edits/merges are far more controversial than others, and you're following the guidelines, but how do you keep up and not get bogged down with people calling for your head? By the way, what is the redesign of the List of Mario series enemies page you mentioned a few days back? Suigi 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for a dialogue

To TTN, Matthew and Calton, I request all of you to not edit the S60 episode articles without first establishing a constructive dialogue. I see that per WP:EPISODE, the articles may be redirected but as Matthew states, this is a non-consensual edit and hence not in the spirit of wikipedia.

I personally put in a lot of effort into those articles and the information present there is certainly a lot more than that available for most other shows (see West Wing, How I Met Your Mother, Friends and many others).

If the argument is based on the fact that there are only three articles for three episodes, then I would be more than willing to create articles for the rest (this time I will follow the WP:Episode guidelines). Do note that when I first created the articles that are currently available, the show was on hiatus and hence I was not certain if it was going to be finished and hence unsure of continuing to create articles for a defunct series.

At the very least, please comment on the talk pages of the aforementioned articles before needlessly starting an edit war.

Do get back to me and leave me a message on my talk page. Zuracech lordum 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

I accidentally posted this message to the wrong user yesterday. Here is what I meant to say:

There is nothing at Wikipedia:Television episodes to justify your redirecting all of them to List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. In fact, according to the Content section of that article, a plot summary and information on an episode's significance to the overall plot SHOULD be included in the article. If you feel that the articles contained too much plot summary as to be a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policies then you should have simply cut down those parts of the articles. As a result, I am restoring all the articles. If you wish to discuss this further, reply at my talk page. However, until then please do not redirect the articles again. Thanks for your understanding. Fullmetal2887 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a small section about the episodes to ANI

Hi TTN. Just thought I'd let you know I added a blurb to the discussion trying to get it on track. Some users have been attempting to use that forum for purposes other than what it was for. Meaning that they're trying to use ANI to dispute the content of your edits. Look, I'll be frank about this- none of your article edits or merges violates any Wikipedia policies. There, however, IS grounds on both sides for concern (which I've attempted to guide the topic regarding). I'm concerned about the personal attacks that were levelled at people during this dispute. Hopefully your input will help guide people away from trying to misuse the ANI forum. It's not supposed to be a place where people argue about content! 76.28.138.83 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, don't give up

You're getting a fair amount of stick lately for your mass deletion and other stuff (some of which I agree with). Nevertheless, despite my disagreements with your edits, I would still like to commend you for your hard work for the wikipedia community so far. If there is criticising and name-calling, I still hope that you will not get bogged down or annoyed as many editors in the past have. On the whole, I know you're doing a good job but I also hope that you learn to be a little more open after this saga transpires. Have a nice day. Zuracech lordum 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much going to second the above post - I may not entirely agree with how things were done but totally agree that it had to happen sometime (on the basis of WP:RS mainly) and that most of the stuff coming or likely to come in your direction would have been energy better spent improving articles. Orderinchaos 10:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An olive branch

I want to make clear to you where I stand in this whole sorry saga, for I would hate you to think I am in the anti-TTN camp who are causing you so much grief, even if I have raised my voice against you from time to time. Basically, I think your motivations are right: there is too much cruft and pointless stubs littering up Wikipedia, the episode pages amongst them. The problem is, most editors wade in and create/develop articles based on what they see around them rather than guidelines. They're not always easy to find when you are new to Wikipedia, and some people don't even think of looking for them. Then, when articles are deleted they think 'Who's done that? Who cares about a guideline no one's even heard of?' etc etc. I acknowledge that you've been trying to remove the cruft, and are finding that people either ignore you completely (as they've forgotten the articles they once created in a short-lived burst of enthusiasm) or start shouting without actually engaging with the issue. Enough to drive anyone to despair, so I don't blame you if your responses became a bit short-tempered at times. However, I have said before, (and I don't plan to say it again after this) that I do consider that some of your edits were hasty, and others would have caused less heartache if the editors had felt they were informed rather than ridden over rough-shod. Perhaps you got into a routine, perhaps you were so used to removing unwanted and unnoticed pages it became second-nature to revert them all, I don't know. Thankyou for stopping, and allowing people to cool off.

As to the specifics of my involvement: I don't really care about Yes Minister; it was just an example of a parent page that was well-sourced, episode pages that had dedicated editors who would be likely to come on board with WP:EPISODE and didn't qualify for redirection under the Episode guidelines (which encourages such pages be worked on). I also got cross about Foyle's War, which is funny really, since a while back I was expanding some of the parent page, and witnessed someone coming in all enthusiastic about episode pages, rattling them all off, creating a heap of half-empty templates, then disappearing, leaving them sitting there uselessly. I plugged in a few names, weeded out some stuff from the main page, played with a plot summary (more an exercise in deciding what I think of them...I'm inclined to think they serve little purpose on their own: no interest to those who have not watched the programme, little use to those who have) and generally wondered what the point of them was! If you'd stuck a merge tag on them, I'd have done it; redirecting them without salvaging what was there just made me cross. As you might have seen, I've retrieved them, and now merged them. Might be inspired to improve them too, one day!

I've thrown down a few thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#A proposal, but to be frank, I think the discussion will once again sink back down to nursery level; as you've said before, most people don't discuss, they just offer an opinion. You need some intelligent input from a smaller number of people to achieve anything constructive: perhaps a task force which could include such people as Ckatz, Bignole, Ned Scott etc. I'd also suggest speaking with Tony Sidaway, who has been encouraging those at Doctor Who to bring episode pages in line with WP:WAF, developing fair use rationales for screen shots, insisting on reliable sources, discouaging original research etc. Anyway, I hope we can move on constructively, and that your drive to improve Wikipedia is not blunted by the hassle and grief you have been getting! Also, I guess we must thank you for bringing matters to a head... probably nothing would have happened if you had simply tiptoed around from the beginning. Perhaps ends do justify means???!! Gwinva 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will add to this by saying that I, too, respect the fact that you have stopped for now, and that you are participating in the discussion to resolve this matter. I don't expect that it will be a quick resolution - but the fact that we are hashing it out as a concept rather than as a series-by-series battle will help to ease concerns over what is happening. The AN/I report began, as I've stated elsewhere, not out of an attempt to have you censured or blocked, but to get you to stop and discuss the matter before you alienated a sizable portion of the community. Again, seeing as how you have, I would be willing to drop the AN/I proceeding if you can agree to hold off until we reach a consensus on the WP:EPISODE process. What do you think? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My small opinion is that the extended argument over content doesn't have a place at ANI at all, but that the violations of Wikipedia's rules over civility and admin conduct DO. Drop and eliminate all (or most) of the stuff about the merge and focus on that... 76.28.138.83 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)