User talk:TTN/Archive 15

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

Petey Piranha

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

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

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

Talk:Universe of The Legend of Zelda

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

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

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

Category:Frankenstein characters

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

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

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

AfD summary context

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

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

Barnstar of Diligence

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

Feedback on template

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

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

Interested in a demolition job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifi Le Fume

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

Small request regarding your merges

I noticed that when you merged Abe (Oddworld) into Oddworld [1], you didn't name Abe (Oddworld) in your edit summary. When you are merging one article into another, could you please name the article you are merging in your edit summary, per the instructions at WP:MERGE:

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

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

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

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

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

Dizzy Devil

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

Your first BarnSakura

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

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

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

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

Help me understand

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

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

Nominating multiple related articles for deletion

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

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

Creed Diskenth

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

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

Kudos!

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

Careful

Hello there TTN. Can I ask you to be a little bit more careful when merging content? You removed content from List of Densetsu no Stafy characters[2] and placed it in Densetsu no Stafy (series)[3] but you didn't give any attribution in the edit summary so it's a violation of the GFDL at the minute. When readding the content to the new article, you should of linked to where you got it from in the edit summary, e.g. "Text taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Densetsu_no_Stafy_characters#Characters " - that's the only way our content license can be satisfied. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

"See discussion"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article for Deletion

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

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

Try groups of 5-10 maybe. Eusebeus (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Mischief Makers characters

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

Characters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding this, you had actually previously merged that information (see [4] and [5]) to the section where you say it already exists (that is why it exists there) and thus per the GFDL, my understanding is that the contributions of the various editors such as myself who originally wrote and worked on that content must remain visible, so when you say it is already covered in that section in the nomination and yourself merged the content a few weeks ago to the area where you are okay with it existing, the nomination strikes me as odd, because if you believes that section should exist, then we cannot delete the article, rather only redirect the article. Thus, you should withdraw that nomination and instead discuss the merge on the talk page. Finally, for some good humor, see User_talk:Casliber#Joke_for_today. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Because you have merged content that other editors wrote to another article, per the GFDL, the article cannot be deleted. The edit history must remain public. In any event, I have to focus on grading finals and all, so I may not be able to reply quickly for the next few weeks. Just so it is clear I am not ignoring anyone, just focusing on real life priorities. So, take care in the meantime. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether you'd support an editor merging some of the articles you've nominated, would that be enough to withdraw the nom or is your feeling once nominated it's best to go through with the process? Is the disadvantage of a merge the ease of recreating the character? Are there advantages to deleting? Just curious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I merge the articles that actually need to be merged. Most of those that I nominate are just complete junk that doesn't need to exist. If redirects could always stay redirects, I would be fine utilizing them all of the time, but that certainly isn't the case. TTN (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The big problem for these articles seems to be sourcing. Given the interest and enthusiasm to create them, they appear to be notable to many, just not wp: notable. Thanks for your response. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Several subcategories and no main category

Hi. What would you do in the following case: There is Category:The King of Queens characters with 3 (bad) articles that may very well be able to establish notability, but could also be merged (I am not interested in performing a merger). Then there is Category:King of Queens episodes with one (bad) article, but I don't intend to redirect it as it's a series finale and is likely notable. There is no Category:King of Queens. I have seen this with various TV show articles, but I am unsure how to proceed each time. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would probably move the articles from those smaller categories into the new main category, and have the now empty categories deleted. TTN (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Not_properly_attributing_contributions_in_merge_edit_summaries. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why there is a problem with using the r from merge template instead of using a method that has probably only been utilized in ten percent of all merged articles. TTN (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that we have to indicate where we merged from per the GFDL. I recall reading that in some places and have started to make sure that I attribute where I am merging from as seen here. My understanding is that it all has something to do with making sure people are properly acknowledged for their contributions and to prevent articles showing up at AfD that cannot be deleted due to a merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I know all about that, but that is also the purpose of the template. If we were to actually follow the GFDL word for word, we would actually have to merge the histories of any merged content. TTN (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the thread there as another user suggested we discuss at Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries, which will probably be more constructive. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An alternate option is to use the {{merged|Merged_Article}} template on talkpages afterwards, see e.g. Talk:List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1. While edit summaries are better, anyone can add these templates to talkpages. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've gone ahead and fully move-protected your user/usertalk pages, given this page's history. If you'd like this removed or modified, let me know. I've not edit-protected them. seresin ( ¡? )  01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

TTN, you've continued to remove content from articles and merge them into other articles without attributing the edits properly. When you merge content from one article, you need to state exactly where the content came from in the edit summary. An example would be using the edit summary "Adding content taken from List of Gantz Equipment" when placing the content into Ganz. Below are some merges you've done that do not offer proper attribution to satisfy the GFDL. Simply placing "merge" in the edit summary is not enough;

• [6], [7], and [8] merged to [9]
• [10] merged to [11]
• [12] merged to [13], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [14]
• [15] merged to [16]
• [17] merged to [18]

I'm not at all bothered about you actually merging the content, by all means do it, but if you fail to attribute the edits properly again I'm going to block you. Not satisfying the GFDL attribution requirement in edit summaries when merging content is extremely serious when it's the license that our editors choose to release their edits under. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea why I have been using Template:R from merge if it doesn't apply to this kind of thing. Oh well, I guess I'll be one of the seven people that actually utilize this method, which doesn't even matter, given how 98% of merges will never be correctly attributed anyway. TTN (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Afd

• That is exactly the problem. When people claim the sources are valid, the best thing to do to get a solid discussion is to explain why the sources in the article or the ones people suggest aren't suitable (so it doesn't turn into a debate were people are dancing around the actual issue). Then it might actually unearth the basic cause of the disagreement so some sort of policy, guideline or consensus can be formed as to what is acceptable and what isn't. It helps people to get your line of thought.

On a side note: I believe there are two different sources. Ones that establish notability and ones that don't (because they're trivial for example) but would nevertheless be useful for verifiability. That's why I don't understand people nominating something verifiable for deletion just because it doesn't deserve a separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges to Spirit (comics)

I'm not going to revert your edits, yet, but please explain to me why you merged a multitude of articles without prior discussion. If there was discussion, and I haven't found it, please point me to it. If I do decide to revert your edits, please don't start warring with me. Any way this may go, thank you for actually merging, and not just making each page a redirect. Tealwisp (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

They have very low traffic, so a merge discussion would likely only attract a couple people, if any. It is much easier to follow WP:BRD in cases like this. Only three of the articles have any sort of content, and the only one that is based from a real world perspective (White) is already covered. I do ask that if you wish to revert them, that you don't just revert them for the sake of forcing a discussion. That is counterproductive and unnecessarily bureaucratic. The only reason that they should be reverted is people have a problem with it because the articles can possibly follow WP:N and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the cases of Silken Floss and Sand Serif, but since The Octopus and Ebony White are referenced, I'm going to restore them. If you want to merge all four into a characters page, however, you can count on my support. Tealwisp (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The only references The Octopus has are already covered within the film article, and White's controversy already has a section in the main article. They're currently nothing but redundant. TTN (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Redundant references aren't great criteria for removal/redirection of an article, but I do think we should set up each of the character articles as one list, given the fact that none is very long, but they do have some content, and people are likely to try to view them more often with the film coming up. Tealwisp (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was that you felt that the references meant something should gone over, but there is no real point in doing that if they're already covered. Do you know if that series has many more characters than that? I certainly wouldn't disagree with a list if it were to match the list of Preacher (comics), but the current details seem to be very small, leading them to be able to fit in the main article easily. TTN (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the Spirit, but this site has some. Not a reliable reference, I think, but it's a start. Tealwisp (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are only six more characters that need to be added following that. After removing the two not covered in that list, they should still fit in the main article. The Spirit doesn't seem to be a very plot oriented series unlike Preacher, which follows a single main storyline with a number of subplots. Given that the characters seem very simple (two sentences will be enough for about half of them), I don't think a list would be of much use. TTN (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tealwisp (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you care if the two leftover characters are redirected again for now? TTN (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'd be alright with it, but I'd feel better if we at least held a discussion on a project page. Tealwisp (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers to the brave, mow'em down. I was, however, bemused to realise that WAF can mean something else than Wife acceptance factor. Hope you leave this one to stay. :)) NVO (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Afds of Zoids

I want to express my agreement that an article for each Zoid is unecessary, but I want to propose that, instead of deleting these articles, we merge them all into a list of Zoids. Would you object to that? Tealwisp (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides Zoids that are important to a certain piece of media, there is absolutely nothing relevant that can be said about them. Given the sheer number of them, it is also impossible to have a decent quality for such a list either. It is much better to just cover the important Zoids within their main anime or video game, and let the rest of them just not be mentionedR. TTN (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've dealt with this kind of situation before. Check out User:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters (which I have yet to get around to). It was AfD'd once as an indiscriminate list, but consensus was reached regarding its preservation. Once I cut it down severely, clean it, and organize it, it will be left in the mainspace. I think that's the best course of action regarding Zoids; it maintains the information that will be most useful without cluttering WP. I would offer to take such a list of Zoids under my wing, but I don't know which are most notable, aside from Liger Zero. Tealwisp (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about that other topic, but it really is a much different scenario. The only useful information is the animal type and special weaponry, while the rest is just complete junk. Each series has probably ten or so main Zoids that should be covered, so they should be good enough within those. Can you also respond to the above discussion? I've added the only useful reference from The Octopus to the film article, so that should reduce its weight a bit. TTN (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, List of Zoids does exist. The current information with an additional sentence or two for each one would make up any possible content. There really is nothing that can make that look decent at all. TTN (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning notable pilots, fights, or histories? What about unique construction? By notable, I mean in-universe. You are certainly right; that list is less than admirable. If you are familiar with the Zoids universe, I think we should collaborate on the list. As an unfamiliar third-party, I can select the really non-notable stuff for removal, but with sympathy for inclusion, and you could help me with what content could be added.Tealwisp (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The only Zoids that would have details like that are going to be those that have appeared in the different anime series, so they should probably be covered there in the first place. If I felt that they deserved coverage, I definitely would have merged them. It's just that nothing of quality will come from it in the end. If you saw the five hundred Pokemon articles in the past and look at the current lists of them, they're still complete trash. The only difference is that there are less extraneous details and articles overall. That'll likely be the same case with Zoids, but with even less details. TTN (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it would just take diligent work and a watchful eye. I think it would be best to redirect the articles to zoids for now, and discuss a compendium page on one of the relevant projects' talk page. That way, everyone can have their say. Tealwisp (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are currently under twenty articles not currently nominated, so I'd like to just finish up with the nominations over the next two days just to be uniform. You may want to look into establishing notability for the independent toy lines (Category:Zoids releases). If that is done, the specific Zoids from each of them could be covered within those articles. TTN (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything with a few googles, but I think we could find something with a stronger search. Let's put a post on the project page. Tealwisp (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Soul series discography

Do you still plan on putting that together? Otherwise, I'll probably merge them into the game articles at some point. TTN (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Down the line. There are some reviews for the music on the whole so I should be able to make a solitary page similar to those for the Final Fantasy discographies PresN put together. I'm still busy with the character articles/other things on wikipedia/real life stuffs more at the moment though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Ryan4314 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Per your recent AFD nominations I just wanted to send you some much deserved peace, Wikilove and karma. Even though I was a "keeper" on a few of them, I admire your bold editing and I don't think WP:BEFORE should void your nominations. Obviously if you'd of just tagged the articles etc, no one would've fixed em. Saying that, most of the noms are about un-notable subjects and no amount of "fixing" can change that. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's stupid when people say you should've tried to discuss a merge/redirect on the article's talk page first. We all know that a redirect is essentially the same as deletion, and if you suggest that on a cruft article's talk page, only one person is gonna reply (often the only person whose watching), the author, and what's his response gonna be? LOL "yes your argument is soooo good, please feel free to redirect/delete my article!" No of course not, it's pure silliness. I don't know what they're talking about anyway, merge/redirect votes have long been the accepted practice at AFD. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Hey there. What's with the redirect craze all of a sudden? ^^ Has a new policy been released recently? Or was it a AfD I missed? :-/ I just want to know the background, that is all (though I might have been nice to explain it in the edit summaries, to begin with...). --Koveras ^☭ 11:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The anime and manga project disliked a large number of character related AfDs, so I'm just redirecting the ones that don't need to be merged. Any that are resurrected will go to AfD afterward. TTN (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Do you perhaps have a link to the project discussion on this or something like that? I'm afraid I haven't paid much attention to what was going on there recently... EDIT: Btw, I've noticed you also redirected some VG soundtrack articles. What was the rationale with them? --Koveras ^☭ 16:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, people were just commenting in anime related AfDs that it was annoying to have that many, so WP:BRD is the best thing to use in that case. I'm merging the soundtracks to their main articles due to the fact they'll likely never be able to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. :) --Koveras ^☭ 16:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose its reasonable to mention, TTN, that you have been previous topic banned by arb com for redirecting articles in large numbers without discussion. The ban is expired now, but I'm surprised you are doing it just the same way again. I will leave it to others how to proceed. DGG (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the arbcom thing was for edit warring, not for following BRD. Any that are reverted by someone other than a stalker anon are put up for deletion or discussed depending on the circumstances (though AfD is much more likely). TTN (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AFDs for Wunderland and We Made It

Further to your AFD notification on my talk page, note that I initially created these items as redirects and therefore have no vested interest in them. I suggest you notify the person who first added some actual content - namely User:Kuralyov. --TheParanoidOne (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is just an semi-automated tool doing the notifications, not me specifically. TTN (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, TTN. You have new messages at MacGyverMagic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request at ArbCom

A request has been filed to have your restrictions reenacted and extended. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case: TTN. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not reopen closed AfD discussions

I have never edited any articles related to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risa Harada discussion. Please do not reopen closed discussions again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)