User talk:TTN/Archive 11

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

ANI Thread

You're mentioned in the newest AN/I thread - well, actually its about you. WP:AN/I Avruchtalk 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again.

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 Musical Pip (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 have raised the issue regarding the policing and enforcement of the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). Your comments would be welcomed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load

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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:30, 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"?

If so: do you have any suggestions how to best escalate this? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go to WP:AN/I. We get at least one or two TTN threads per day. I'm thinking we should create a WP:AN/I_TTN subpage. ^Avruchtalk 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete-by-redirect

• 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)

restore redirects by undo

He seems to be blindly undoing stuff without discussion. undoing. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

a happy little note from a frustrated editor

TTN,

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.

124.186.189.72 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TTN bulk soft-deleting episode pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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." Pagrashtak 18:55, 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. --Kizor 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the best answer: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Among other things, this means that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries or lists of statistics. Wikipedia focuses on covering the real-world aspect of fictional works. To this end, we must establish a basic notability requirement and in particular, a basic notability requirement for fictional elements. That's the basic outline of how I see things, at least. Pagrashtak 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of Wiki-Project Template

Is there any reasonwhy you removed these templates from a bunch of Avatar: The Last Airbender episode talk pages? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:22, 7 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)

Oops, that's me. TTN (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to redirect the talk pages to the season pages that are in progress? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:49, 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)

AfD nomination of List of The Fairly OddParents characters

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").

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/List of The Fairly OddParents characters 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) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yessir

I'll be as cyclopic as I can. What a PITA this kind of childishness is. Glad your back! Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• this dipshit is back at it, wikistalking me and hence reverting some of the avatar articles. FYI. Eusebeus (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Happy to help. Eusebeus (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog articles

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.

I would consider myself one. The only main game that I haven't played is the newest one. TTN (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is?Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

"Which is?" Are you talking about the game? The game would be Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game). TTN (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest one is sonic rivals 2, maybe if you spent more time looking it up you'd know.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

I'm talking about the main series. I don't generally buy spin-offs like Rivals or Riders. TTN (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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 villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), you will be blocked from editing.  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. 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)

There is a message to you from YouTube

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. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:08, 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)

Warning about character images

Now, you listen here, buster. If you remove those images from the list of FHIF characters again, they'll be orphaned again. I hate it when images get orphaned. And what I hate most of all is article deletion. ~~I.P. Address 139.55.53.166~~ 1:30, 11 January 2008 (EDT)

Stringency

I would like to make you aware that the stringency you display in debates ([1]) could easily be interpreted as wiki-lawyering. Catchpole (talk) 10:47, 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)

AfD nomination of City of Bones

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)

White Cat on an/i

See: WP:ANI#Jack Merridew re the Oh My Goddess stuff; also Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes. --Jack Merridew 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories

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)

Garth Marenghi

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)

Certain category

Awhile back, I placed this nice category for you but a vandal changed it. With your permission, may I re-add it? Categories are sort of my thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. TTN (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, help!

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)

Please, TTN, I'm really scared now! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, on my talkpage, could you please leave a link to the article/s discussing episode notability guidelines? PLEASE! Please, help me! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad...

You taught her that? [2] -- bulletproof ^3:16 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, I'm a girl. In the second, don't blame TTN. He didn't try to; it just happened. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SeaQuest

The category would have no use if there weren't subcategories. Now that the category does has it its use it's pointless to remove the main seaquest article from it. See also all the examples in Category:Categories named after television series. There is not a single subcategory there without the main article in it. Garion96 (talk) 13:28, 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)

You missed a thread

Can you answer this, and see my reply here afterward? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Open All Hours episodes

Regarding your latest appearance on the Administrator's Noticeboard, it may be worth you re-reading WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs Episodes

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)

Yeah TTN, Eusebeus needs you to tagteam with him. --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars. John254 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: My Own Worst Enemy

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)

Hello!

Hi TTN! I beg you to accept me as one of your disciples. I want to learn how to become a "Wikipedia gate keeper". Together we will proceed to merge Wikipedia into one page. Hooray!!!!! 58.187.55.82 (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)