User talk:TTN/Archive 7

Naruto:Rise of a Ninja Bad Redirect

This is being referred to your list instead of getting it's own page. Unfortunately, this means a lack of an ability to add it into categories and get it working with lists like 2007 games, Xbox 360 games, and Xbox 360-only games. I understand wanting to control this information in one area, but the problem is that you are making the game get less exposure on Wikipedia by having your fortress of bad redirects.

episode tags

I see no evidence that you have evaluated the episode articles that you added the tags to - you made no attempt to discuss, just stuck your tags on in an arbitrary manner, and pointed to a guideline. I don't think this is a valid way of constructing the encyclopedia, and find it disruptive and rude. On the other hand, my involvement in these particular pages has been minimal - mostly trying to bring them up to standard in terms of language, grammar, and comprehensibility - so I'm not sure how I'll proceed. But I do object to the arbitray way this is being done. Tvoz |talk 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to see you spam the episode articles. I think you might try understanding that people other than you have points of view about how Wikipedia should work - and that includes whether the guideline WP:Episode must be considered gospel - and you might try a more collegial attitude. Tvoz |talk 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, having just read your notice on the main page, I'd add that giving 14 days and threatening to delete the work that many editors have contributed to is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Tvoz |talk 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I too am a bit bothered about the tags you added all over. I realize that you only mean to improve Wikipedia, but, WP:OWN or not, these tags clearly step on quite a few toes. My problem with this however is, that you are just adding them to all Futurama pages by default (correct me if I'm wrong!). You ask that every single article be reviewed, but you attach the tags without any explanation or other notification on the talk page. I hope you can see how this can be viewed as attacking other people's efforts. I am not saying that they might not all be reasonable (The notability section in WP:EPISODE definitely has apoint), but I strongly suggest you go about this differently – individually. Maybe set those (huge!) things on the talk pages, not the top of the articles. — Mütze 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect to receive any sort of response on separate episode talk pages? The point of doing it on the episode list is to actually get a discussion going (it's not that hard for people to find it). Separate cases can easily be discussed there. TTN 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why not start a discussion on the "List of..." talk pages rather than adding the tags to each episode page? Tvoz |talk 01:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there needs to be no room to complain about a lack of open discussion. TTN 01:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about there actually being an open discussion, rather than what sounds like the construction of a case and a priori pre-judging? Tvoz |talk 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We tag episodes, open a discussion, and wait. If people respond and show that these can meet standards, they stay. Otherwise, people take a quick look over them and keep or redirect them depending on potential. The episodes are bad, so they must assert notability. This is the best way to deal with them while having minimal complaints. I'm not getting why you find the tags to be bad. These are essentially cleanup and merge tags in one. One of those would be added otherwise. TTN 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are "bad" because they are being added without justification to all episode pages of one series at the same time by default. As I said before: You are asking people to defend the existence of all these articles in 14 days, but at the same time you aren't making any individual comment on any of them. If you just add a default tag this becomes a random attack on the pages, not a constructive way to better them. Are you expecting the entire community of Futurama contributors to start defending themselves against this for every episode individually? If you want to help, look at the pages individually, but don't just assume they are all non-notable. — Mütze 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The tags are to get the general word out there. After that, a discussion over the quality of all the articles happens on some main talk page. If the general quality isn't up to snuff, the bulk are redirected and special cases are looked at. That is how it works. TTN 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it shouldn't. I agree that many episode pages need work, but this just isn't the right way. It simply isn't nice, and frankly your constant "This is the way it is, deal with it"-attitude is starting to annoy me. If you think there is a general problem with the Futurama episode articles, the polite and most productive thing to do is take it to the people who take care of these articles as a whole, the Futurama WikiProject. At least for my taste, you are proceeding far too boldly with this, considering that WP:TV-REVIEW is still only a proposed guideline. All I ask for the moment is that you put the tags on the talk pages, not the articles, because 1) they are huge and 2) they are written quite harshly, strongly suggesting that the concerning article is rubbish anyway, but without giving any justification. IMHO, Template:TelevisionWikiProject is far more useful for assessing the scope of any episode article, because it presents itself in a constructive, not a destructive way — and it is put on the talk page. — Mütze 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you care that much, take it up at one of those places. This is the way it is being done at this point, so complaining to just me won't do much. TTN 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, You're right. I reposted my objections here — Mütze 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think complaining to you will do much. It will show you that people think you're an asshole. You tagged all episodes of a TV show without reviewing each article individually. That's not how it's supposed to work. Now you've forced everyone who worked on them to defend them in order to keep them up. So even if the articles deserve to stay, you've caused everyone a big pain. Equazcion 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, he's forced everyone who worked on them to defend in order to keep them up? That's kind of how it's supposed to work. It's not other contributors job to fix hundreds of articles that clearly do not fit the guidelines. And who says he didn't review them individually? It's rather easy to look for a 'references' section, as lacking that warrants the tag. Alcemáe T • C 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He tagged episodes indiscriminately, even those that have a references section. He simply added tags to all episodes of a show. That's not how it's supposed to work. Equazcion 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there were a couple of references at most in all of those articles, and neither was of any quality, so they mean nothing. TTN 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Not all sources are allowed, such as IMDB or TV.com. Show me a tagged article with reliable sources, and I will concede. Alcemáe T • C 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the wonderful references on Monday (The X-Files). That's worth keeping... TTN 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those would be references that are not reliable, and as such, that article can and should be tagged. Alcemáe T • C 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And anyways, even if I made one or two mistakes out of over 100 articles, what is the big deal? They can be fixed accordingly. Picking at me isn't going to do you any good, so I suggest that you just actually work on them. TTN 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is exactly that. You're tagging hundreds of articles at a time rather than reviewing each one individually. You even tagged an episode that you just said is wonderfully referenced. If it's so wonderfully referenced then why'd you tag it? This is what "indiscriminately" means. Equazcion 23:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually, "..." is a indicator of sarcasm. I looked at all of them. It isn't very hard to go "References? No? Tag!" and "References? Yes? Good references? No? Tag!" TTN 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It was sarcasm. Again, it does not take long to check for useful references. Alcemáe T • C 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to sarcasm, and I didn't expect to come across it in what I thought was an adult conversation. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an IMDB message board. The tags are already there and can't be deleted anyway, so I guess it's lucky that I don't need to continue this discussion. Equazcion 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You dont respond to sarcasm? Well, then I'll say it without it. The article TTN mentions does not have acceptable sources. Therefore, it should be deleted or redirected. However, people get mad when that happens. So he tagged it, as he should have, so that it can be reviewed. And when it is, odds are good that it will be redirected then. There. No sarcasm. Alcemáe T • C 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiator Springs

On this edit, you stated that there was a discussion on the merge and no one was against it. That is false. See Talk:Radiator Springs#Merge. Please do not make false statements on edit summaries, please start discussing these sorts of major edits on the talk pages first. A•N•N•A hi! 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong discussion. You want the one on the film article. TTN 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GA delist

I have a favor to ask. Since you are an outside contributor, can you also delist the GAs on Cloud, Aerith, and Jenova? They're in terrible condition, but I don't want to appear like a traitor :-P — Deckiller 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. TTN 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Deckiller 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes vs films

The comment you made in this edit summary has no basis in fact. The use of 'inherently' is misguided and misguiding. To be honest, I'm undecided in this guideline as I'm sympathetic to some of your intentions, but I'm very uncomfortable with which the speed you are going about this. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. All major movies (ones that appear in more than a couple hundred theaters) will always have the possibility for development and reception from more sources than themselves? It's only been a few series a day so far, so I don't know what you want the pace to be. So, you would rather this never finish over your personal feelings. This isn't just my opinion. It is quite backed by WP:V and WP:N. TTN 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting other users to edit war on your behalf[1] is just as good as edit warring. Matthew 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes that are broadcast to millions simultaneously and sold to thousands on DVD are clearly notable. It's not just as if their broadcast is accidental (a tree is not notable just because of a fleeting glimpse in a pan shot during Neighbours). I suggest you rephrase 'inherently': meaning is not inherent, it is simply what one wishes to apply. As has been commented, this is not urgent: they aren't copyright violations, nor or they damaging BLP. It will do no harm to take things more slowly considering the enormity of this (this is going to effect over 1,000 articles). As I say, I am sympathetic to your intentions, and I could support you, but this is too sudden for me to be comfortable.
Oh, and I concur with Matthew's comments about getting other users to edit war on your behalf: Bignole could have potentially been blocked for 3RR there. No-one wants this to get that nasty, but perhaps another admin might have swooped upon the opportunity. It's not worth it.
Ah, and the school holidays haven't started yet: that's when the silly season really kicks in. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not concur with WP:N. Most episode don't have the sources to assert themselves, so they are not notable. Do you see how many episode articles there are (way over one thousand)? Doing this slowly means that it will never get done. These violate WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT (plot summaries only) (probably more), and they will never get better. They have to be dealt with or it will just go on and on.

On "inherently", all major movies can by typed about in great detail with sources backing them, and 95% of episodes cannot, so movies get that quality. TTN 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but many movies do not have the quality. x is an episode of y is an assertion of notability. Doing it slowly (at first, anyway) is essential until consensus builds properly and the controversy dies down. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All major films have the quality. Only direct to "x" ones and ones that are in a low number of theaters don't have that quality, but those are not major. Notability is not inherited from a parent topic; sources must be possible for them to exist without worry. Please read WP:N throughly if you really believe that. We already have a guideline to back this, and we're opening discussions and getting the word out with a merge/cleanup tag, which is the "correct" way to do things. A general consensus is already set. People are just taking the tags the wrong way or just want to protect "their" articles no matter what. TTN 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Angie appears to have forgotten to notify you of her request for arbitration on you. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'll do that now.

TTN, I am filing you for arbitration. Your countless deletions and redirects have gone on far enough. Angie Y. 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding myself to this arbitration filing... Better late than never... Undead Herle King 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability in Fiction

Hey TTN, since by your contributions you appear to be interested in reducing the quantity of non-notable articles in Wikipedia, I though you might be interested in this Guideline being discussed -凶 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

AWB

I have approved you for AWB use on a probational period due to the warnings of other users. I will be watching your contributions (not to scare you or anything :-) for a little while to make sure it's OK and no one complains. —METS501 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Good job on tagging articles. However, I am beginning to realize the vast amount of work that is about to be unleashed. I would request that you stop tagging articles. There are enough articles tagged, and if we have thousands of articles to be reviewed, it will probably not be manageable. We do not currently have an efficient, decided course of evaluation, and if we have a thousand page backlog, it won't help it. Also, moving articles from the cat to be reviewed is annoying. Again, I would ask that you stop using the template for now, until we have a workable system to edit. Thanks for the work though :) Alcemáe T • C 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DIME cabal! ZOMG!

Hey. Just so you know, if you need any support for your actions, count me in. People need to read WP:NOT :D Will ^(talk) 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario

Is it okay with you if I mediate your MedCab case? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can try it out. TTN 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone Is Special

You missed that one. I'll be glad to see them gone but you sure have clogged up my watch list. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Found two more for you. Hats Off to B.J.! and When I Grow Up... and that looks like all of them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The X-Files episodes

Could you please explain why you have seen fit to tag every single X-Files episode page with a "does not satisfy notability guidelines for television episodes" tag? And if they don't "satisfy notability" can you please explain to me how a television episode would? I hardly see how The X-Files episodes are any less "notable" than say, Stargate SG-1 episodes. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look over WP:EPISODE. TTN 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite argument hoping to be rekindled

I might rekindle the debate in a few days, depending on how IRL issues go. By the way, keep it up; we need more users who understand how Wikiepdia is supposed to run. — Deckiller 05:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability on Futurama episodes

Hi there. I just noticed you just added an episode notability template on all of the Futurama episodes. Could you please explain this more? What guidelines are there for the episodes? A simple "Notability not asserted" comment for each edit doesn't provide enough information for other people wondering why a lot of episodes are getting the template placed. Thanks. Douglasr007 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a specific episode notability tag, but it was redirected. It should be replaced fairly soon. TTN 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll G4 it if you do. -N 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What? TTN 21:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4. -N 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't me who will be doing it. See the discussion on the DR. It is just going to be a general notability template. TTN 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Zephiel Merge.

Hello TTN. I've noticed that you've merged the Zephiel page recently — probably becaues it wasn't notable enough to warrant its own article. I'm just asking you whether the same should/will be done to the Nergal (Fire Emblem) and Lyon (Fire Emblem) pages since they're of very similar nature. I've actually been merging a lot of the really minor Fire Emblem articles recently but I've avoided the Lords/antagonists pages. Please respond on my Talk page. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You should merge all the character articles, due to a lack of real-world sources covering each individual character. There is a greater chance for out-of-universe coverage with a broader fictional topic. — Deckiller 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've removed some more articles, thanks. I'm posting this to ask you about the Ayra page. This was strongly defended by Tedius and thus the nomination for delteion resulted in "no consensus". I really don't know why this decision was made. Now that he's effectively left Wikipedia, is it now safe to go straight into the merge/redirect? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the Fire Emblem articles. Just about every non-notable article has been merged or moved to a gaming wikia. I've been cleaning it up a lot lately. So...Thanks for the help. Bye. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry for attacking you, TTN. Forgive me. I'm not entirely a bad person.Angie Y. 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently persuing a RfC regarding Angie Y. (which I've been developing in my sandbox for now). I have listed you as one of the editors that has tried to resolve the dispute, is that alright with you? There's a diff for it too.

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring this person into this, Seraph. I'm under enough stress as it is. Angie Y. 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TTN has tried to resolve disputes with you Angie, therefore their name should be listed under the section which says to add evidence that the dispute has been unsuccessful at being resolved. This person has as much right as everyone else to be involved...and I hate to say this, but they have the right because you have insulted them continually.

Seraphim ^Whipp 10:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Barney episodes

I think it's best to wait until the snags are worked out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right but I would like to wait. No rush on them. I'm not sure that many people really look at them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dated episode notability

Please read the new wording of the template, it is now clearly inappropriate. Tim! 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No read the template. There are secondary sources on those articles. Tim! 18:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So? The template now says nothing about notability so it serves no purpose on these articles. Tim! 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the articles cite secondary sources so must not be added to these articles, they must be notable despite your protestations that they are not. Tim! 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to use a different template then because the statement on dated episode notability does not apply to these articles and dozens of other articles you've mistagged using AWB. Please do not re-add this template to these articles because it will be considered disruption Tim! 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So the part written in small supercedes that written in normal sized bold font? I don't think so. The main thrust of the template is no sources, not notability. Tim! 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Tim! 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This was rejected by TFD and DRV. Tim! 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it. If you read the guideline Wikipedia:Notability, you will see that the meaning of notability is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The problem is not the wording of the template, it is your application of the template to articles. There are other notability templates you can use if you still think notability is a problem. Tim! 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You should also note that the new name of the template is Unreferenced episode to reflect the change of meaning of the template. Tim! 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That wass the old purpose of the template. It has been repurposed through the TFD and DRV. Tim! 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:AWB

Hi, The quick decision to remove you (i'll happily re-add you) was till it was sorted out.

Looking at your contribs, my main concern, is that you are adding them at rate of 3-5 a minute. Which, granted, if all were checked before, would be a fine edit rate.

Give me a bit of time to just look over the contribs in a bit more detail, and your talk history. If i wrongly removed you, i'll gladly re-add you

Reedy Boy 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, have been a bit busy. I've taken the decision to re-add you [2], looking over your contribs, there hasnt been any mass reverts, or blocking, so therefore, i cant seen any reason why you cant have access back. Enjoy, Reedy Boy 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode guideline

Hi. I saw an an/i thread about redirecting the endless episode articles and it seemed rather heated... I'd like your view of how this has been settled and how I might proceed. I would rather avoid hassles but see the coverage of subjects on Wikipedia as very tilted towards such junk as plot summaries of everything ever shown on the boob-tube. If there is a consensus to redirect then it seems to me that many editors should be involved in the process. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 08:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your reply. I'll look over the guidelines again before getting in too deep (see The Enemy Within the Gates where I was double teamed). I looked at Category:Dad's Army episodes and there are 85 articles on this show and I expect that there's not a notable one in there. Have you done the math? - how many tv shows and how many episodes of each vs how many already have wiki-articles... --Jack Merridew 10:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Senang Hati Foundation

This is interesting; 15 minutes after I first posted on your talk page (my first edit in a few weeks), User:Matthew - who I later ran into on the The Enemy Within the Gates article resurrects an old issue with a page I created about a non-profit org in Indonesia. See: [3] and [4]. The notability question re Senang Hati went around 3 iterations and others added sources. It would seem to be an attempt to annoy a user (me) who had just expressed an interest in working on an issue he (Matthew) opposed. --Jack Merridew 11:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Command Decision

Another thing I've noticed is that all these tv show episode articles have titles and they sometimes usurp an article title that properly belongs to whatever they were naming the episode after. Command Decision was taken by what I've now moved to Command Decision (Dad's Army episode) - many other articles inadvertently linked to the episode article that had grabbed the unqualified title.

I have cleaned this up in this case but it illustrates an argument against the tolerance of so many non-notable articles underfoot: they create more work for other editors. The best solution would be to nail down a policy and then automate the deletion/redirection of thousands of articles. --Jack Merridew 13:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No

No, at least not until you stop thrusting your incorrect dependence on importance on everyone, disrupting wikipedia by mass tagging articles with AWB and being a complete WP:DICK. Tim! 12:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you should try to imrpove them rather than moaning. Your claims that these articles don't assert notability is false but you obviously don't understand the meaning of the word. It does not equate to importance whish is stressed in the very first line of Wikipedia:Notability. Tim! 12:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All of your arguments are irrelavent, there could be millions or billions of articles but Wikipedia is not paper. Importance is not a valid reason for deletion. You are completely wrong to state "it is up to the people that assert their importance to follow the guidelines" because no policy requires any editor to assert importance. Such a task would in any event be completely impossible because as you admit "importance" is vague. Tim! 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT is policy, WP:N is a guideline, so again you're wrong. Tim! 12:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could verify it per WP:V, you could, conflict of interest and vanity issues aside. Straw men will get you nowhere, sorry. Tim! 12:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You obvious straw man is saying that according to my argument you could create an article about yourself. Your other straw man is that I'm saying that WP:NOT somehow negates the need for verifibaility, but I only refer to NOT in the context of your assertions about numbers of articles. Tim! 12:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No my only reference to "not paper" was in relation to the numbers of articles, which you seem to think would be a problem. Tim! 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is notable, it's just you do not understand the meaning of the word. Tim! 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the difference between importance and notability, it may not be important, but it is notable as ascertained through the quoted sources. You have even contradicted earlier statements made by you in relation to different articles where you have asked for reception: receiving an award clearly falls into this area. Tim! 13:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's called a stub. Improve it. Tim! 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well leave it alone for other people to improve then. Tim! 13:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alice Elliot

What the hell gave you the right to 'merge' (erase) the Alice Elliot page from Wiki? It was big enough to no longer be considered a stub and you didn't even discuss merging it. Neither did you alternatively create a new 'List of Shadow Hearts Characters' page to replace it like a few of us had discussed on the page. The pathetic amount written about the character on the main Shadow Hearts page IS a stub and some of the other character pages were pretty small; the Alice Elliot page, on the other hand, was not and you had no right to just erase it and then leave it like it had never existed. Crafedog 21:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If a fictional topic is only a plot summary, it needs to be merged. That is already covered, so a redirect it fine. If I had left a discussion, you would just be getting to it, and it would have already been redirected anyways, so you can't really complain there. The characters of that series do not require a list of any sort. The general description and the plot of the two games is fine. TTN 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"If I had left a discussion, you would just be getting to it, and it would have already been redirected anyways, so you can't really complain there." --- oh right so you didn't want to discuss it with anyone or try to improve the article because it would have slowed down your edit. Who do you think you are? A discussion is there for users who give a damn about the page and its future. This one-man edit thing you did is ridiculous and is the equivalent of blanking a page due to your lack of discussion and your sole decision in the matter.

"The characters of that series do not require a list of any sort." --- what gave you the final say on this matter? did you contribute to the page? did you discuss it at all? no, you just chose to redirect it without changing anything about the main article effectively erasing the character's page. You didnt even edit the character links on the main article (which now stupidly redirects the user back to the article that it is already on) which seems to show your general level of knowledge of the page that you were redirecting it to. Given your lack of discussion of the matter and how you didn't do anything to improve the page or the main article (or even bothered adjusting it to your edits), I believe that you are the last person who should be deciding something like this. Crafedog 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is called WP:BRD. Starting a discussion that isn't going to be answered is useless because after a point "silence becomes consensus." Now we can discuss it after the fact.

I don't have to contribute to an article to do something with it (see WP:OWN). All of the information is just repeated elsewhere, so there is no need to merge anything. Oh, I forgot to remove the links, but that is hardly a big deal. Again, the discussion would have been posted, I would have waited five days, and nothing would be any different. TTN 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't.

That's why I think it should be merged similar way as Lunatone and Solrock were merged, not into a list, there hasn't been an agreement on that yet. TheBlazikenMaster 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but think of it, why else would your Magikarp redirect be reverted? TheBlazikenMaster 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon merges

What I'm thinking is: merge the former featured articles, but merge Pikachu into an anime article (for example, a subsection at Ash Ketchum called "Ash's Pikachu?" Maybe we could put a disambiguation on "Pikachu" directing people to the Ash article or the list. However, if that fails, we might have to leave Pikachu and only Pikachu as a main article.--Zxcvbnm 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I want to delete "Abra (Pokemon)" is because it is unnecessary. The disambiguation page can link straight to the list, so why keep a redirect that nobody would actually type into their search box? It might as well be deleted.--Zxcvbnm 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, withdrew the original but still deleting the mispelling one. That's what should be done for the rest of them in that situation as well.--Zxcvbnm 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Question!

Hello, I'm currently adding references to the Fire Emblem article. Is it valid to add a link to a website that shows video footage that verifies what has been stated, as opposed to text? Just wondering because there's no text that explains Goddess of Dawn's gameplay system. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be a bit premature, but I actually am looking to get this to GA status — I'm sick of seeing low-quality, unsourced FE articles. You may give some recommendations if you want, of course. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been a misunderstanding. I'm currently improving the Fire Emblem as a series — not a specific game. I need information on the GoD gameplay because one line states: "From Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu to the most recent game Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami, the weapon triangle has been lance beats sword, sword beats axe, and axe beats lance". Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

WarthogDemon 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We had a brief arguement a while back . . . it's old and forgotten news, but just felt like giving you a a smile. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Soap Opera characters

I'm trying to raise the standard a little on some of these in the hope someone will give a helping hand. I'm pretty much a one-man band on some of the Home and Away, Brookside and Family Affairs articles. I'm using whatever information I have at hand or whatever I can remember. Conquistadork26 23:20 10 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Characters

You claimed your were going Mischief Makers, but all you did was hack and slash the charcters section, not even triming down it even though you said you "plan on redoing them. In their current state, it is impossible to work off of them because they're too junky". Then you suddenly said "I don't really care about what has or hasn'tbeen done. There is no need for that information". So you went going to redo them, giving a vague reason. and NOW you give a reason? From someone who was givin vague reasons before, understand why I'm not agreeing. The article is an ovbious stub and will eventually have the characters listed. Just removing the whole section if illogical. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Partly ignoring, partly thinking if just a paragragh is ok, partly thinking a small list of main characters would be ok, and very busy on another article. As the article is a stub, imaging a paragraph or a small is list is hard for me. So, I guess you can do what you planned to do, and comment about it. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Mew to the ever-incomplete Pokemon list

Who told you to do this? HE IS A VANDAL! Do not redirect Mew because it is an important article, quite notable too. Vikrant Phadkay 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WHERE WERE YOU FOR SO LONG? It was decided long ago that event legendaries will be kept. Vikrant Phadkay 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not get close to violating WP:3RR. Vikrant Phadkay 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean VG, anime And TCG is trivia? Nonsense. Vikrant Phadkay 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please believe me: The project is teeming with vandalising attitudes. They just dont want Pokemon to survive. That this merger doesnt overcome any problems is proof enough

Its not my opinion! Look at the GA [Mewtwo]]. Mew too can be like that. The sourcing issue will be solved. Patience is all you need. Vikrant Phadkay 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just do not be pessimistic that every page will be merged. Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

I am going to be assisting in preventing the details of too many confirmed playable characters. I placed in a new invisible note and I put the page on my watchlist for monitering purposes. -Adv193 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "vandalism" of Mew (Pokémon)

Thanks for pointing that out, TTN. In future, please recommend me on a proper course of action; I never seem to get enough information. It is quite a pity, actually, but it also happened to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and its successor. Ignore my only warning, then...and thanks for clearing things out in a calm manner. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		In apology and recognising your good faith edit of Mew (Pokémon), 12000+ edits to the English Wikipedia as confirmed by Interiot's Tool1, and demonstrating civility under heavy fire, I hereby confer upon you the Barnstar of Kindness. -- Altiris Exeunt

RE: Bulbasaur

I must disagree. This is the information readers will be expecting from the encyclopedia on searching for Bulbasaur. And I would dispute that it is "Role fluff". Bulbasaur is the main character in 4 published books. He's one of the three main characters in a video game. He's He's one of the main characters in a television series. How is that fluff, and how is that a lack of verifiable content?

I also don't understand your point about the unimportance of it being a former FA. Surely if it's been voted by the community as one of the best on Wikipedia, that counts considerably?

As per the discussion here (Pokemon that have enough verifiable/encyclopedic content to be split off into their own articles will be, while retaining their location in the list), articles with ample encyclopedaic content may have their own articles. This does, so it gets its own article. Even a shorter entry would require an article, because the subject itself deserves an article. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the consensus that Pikachu, Mewtwo and Deoxys are the only Pokémon to receive their own articles.

Per WP:FICT that you quote, it says that major characters are to be given their own articles if encyclopedic treatment of the subject becomes too long for the main article (Pokémon). It never says about merging major characters into lists. Bulbasaur, as demonsrated above, is a major character, so it deserves its own article.

Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Barney

Before this turns into even a semblance of a revert war: I left a message. Sorry for the mis-category earlier, mind. Either way, your input would be appreciated. -pinkgothic 13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stupid

These lists are stupid. This also limits the amount of information about the pokemon. They should not be merged. The Pokemon pages should not be merged into lists... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colletyon (talk • contribs).

...and having hundreds of articles on every trivial detail of the Pokemon universe (meant for children, so of course it's not complex) in a general interest encyclopedia is smarter? — Deckiller 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

About Colleyton

He changed multiple pages back from the merged pokemon list, I undid all of it but I'm wondering were my messages on his talk page too harsh? A lot of people are disagreeing/will disagree with this and I don't want to look 3RR-trigger-happy when they try to change it back. Should I just revert back without using 3RR? -WarthogDemon 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And forgive me if I've somehow done 3RR myself. I've tried to avoid 3RR for the most part, but since this person kept reverting pages and making edits to prove a point, I may have went overboard. I think I may just avoid warning people of 3RR altogether. -WarthogDemon 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The messages seem fine to me. Thanks for doing that. TTN 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have You Seen This Snail changes

I've made some changes to that episode article. You can see what I've changed here and on the talk page. Pants^(T) 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a start, but a few newspaper reviews really aren't going to warrant an article, unfortunately. TTN 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not even this? I also have another question about WP:EPISODE#What_a_page_should_contain. Are those requirements or are they suggestions, especially the one about the production of an episode?

Again, it's a start, but it really doesn't define an article. You need something really definitive to be all set. An episode article should have the possibility of having all of those sections covered (though, arc significance is just a suggestion). If it can only have ratings or only have production notes, it is probably better off as a redirect. TTN 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Belzi and Paifu

From what I've been told, all that's needed to improve those articles is that the fiction information has to be put in present tense. This I am unsure of doing for any fictional character, as I honestly still don't know what that means. What is a good sample of a perfect in-universe / out-of-universe article on Wikipedia? Some plot information is fine so long as it is not entirely a plot summary page. Do you have any suggestions or can you provide me a sample page? Lord Sesshomaru

All fiction articles need to have information discussing real world relevance and information (See WP:FICT and its proposed rewrite and WP:WAF for specifics). Plot summaries are only there to give context to that information; that's why they're only supposed to be a small chunk of the article. Take a look at some of the character Featured articles (under media) for really good examples. TTN 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On GA and Pokemon...

Since the articles to be merged will just become redirects, there's no need for DelistedGA, because they won't be articles anymore. There's not much chance that their going to come back or anything, is there? Homestarmy 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Or were you just putting the template on there until the article actually became a redirect? I just wanted to see what was going on, since all the delistings are showing up in the log. Homestarmy 01:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll be removed once they're merged. It just seemed better to do that for now instead of messing around with some of those lists of "achievements." If you feel like it, I doubt anyone will care if they're removed. TTN 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess that you're probably referring to the ones from the tenth. I just assumed that we marked them just for "archival" purposes (for the lack of a better word). The ones delisted after that are just meant to be temporary. TTN 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My comment was directed to thewinchester and not to you. I thank you for trying to help correct it. I didn't know what number it would be until after I opened it up. NobutoraTakeda 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TTN

What wiki's was Princess Daisy the main article now? 68.162.116.46 20:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Lists

Shall I go ahead and try setting up the rest of the unmade lists the same way as List of Pokémon (121-140)? -WarthogDemon 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be helpful. TTN 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile from Ashnard

Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

...I just felt like it.

Response

If the article is only a few days old, then I would agree with your argument. But, why even though it's 3 months old is discussion not needed?? Georgia guy 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On your comment; that is for LuigiManiac, not me. He was the one who decided the article should exist. Georgia guy 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

What are you suggesting then? Lord Sesshomaru

Leave it. We probably have hundreds of thousands of useless redirects. Keeping a few more won't change much. TTN 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this GFDL. Where does it say what you're claiming? Lord Sesshomaru

We need to keep the history of merged articles to appease it. It requires that all authors are recorded basically. TTN 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that there is no rule enforcing this? Can't administrators have the deleted history viewable, if one requests it? Lord Sesshomaru

TTN, you haven't given a strong reason. GDFL seems unrelated in this case. There are a lot of needless redirects, especially for Dragon Ball (which I aim to fix). You yourself once claimed something regarding some redirects that are just pointless. How is Chi-Chi (Dragon Ball) different? Just because of a page history? Lord Sesshomaru

Uh, we follow the GFDL, the GFDL requires that all authors are attributed, we cannot merge histories of those articles without being very messy, so we have to keep the redirects to record the history. If you care that much, move the redirect. TTN

Talk:List of Zoey 101 episodes#Episode article review

Hi, I started a review of these not-exactly-impressive tv show episode articles. If I missed any steps that you think should occur, either let me know or fix things up. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter Griffin

You did hell of a job on the cleaning, maybe you should help WikiProject Family Guy to clean up and so on, on the Family Guy article? If you have friends that like Family Guy, please invite them, the project is too deserted, and it's impossible for me to find any Wikipedian that has interests. So if you are interested in joining please do. TheBlazikenMaster 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get around to the rest fairly soon. TTN 22:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't know if I can take this as a yes or no, will you join the WikiProject or not? TheBlazikenMaster 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Annoying tag.

Hey TTN. There's an irritating "tone" tag on the Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) article. I was just wondering if you could read the article and remove it if it's no longer accurate. I'm trying to get it to GA — I succeeded with Fire Emblem. I'd do it myself, but obviously because of bias and not wanting to delete tags on articles that I've contributed to, I won't. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help

User:Jangelt keeps creating pages for secondary Simpsons characters who don't need one, so I was wondering if you could help me discourage him. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

About Bleeding Gums Murphy, I was somewhat reluctant to lose the page because it had some creation info and I think it was one of the better character pages out there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If everything possible is already on the list, it seems best to leave it there. Even with real world information, if there isn't enough to type in general, it can be included on the list. If enough content may be possible, the page can always be brought back. TTN 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Castlevania characters

Simon, Dracula, Alucard, Soma, and Death. Everyone else is either only in one game, is a major in one and a minor in another, or is a repeated minor character. List of Castlevania characters needs to be cleaned up and split somehow however. How do so eludes me. It would either be via each game (or set of related games), factions, or another method. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. Methinks this is an incredibly indiscriminate list, no? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"wikilawyering"

Please refrain from accusing me of "wikilawyering". Tim! 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your denial is noted and ignored. Please also refrain from a rehash of a previous discussion. Tim! 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just stop now. Tim! 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merges

Given that several of your recent merges in EarthBound related matters have been reverted by several editors, including myself, I would like to recommend that if you wish to pursue the matter further you place {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}} tags where appropriate to start a dialogue. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth happened when I was away!?

I have just came back from a holiday and what have you done to the enemies' articles. Why have so many been merged and what are the actual reasons. (Provide actual word for word statements please), and what is with this "trimming" shite that you have done to the kept articles. This isn't trimming, this is blanking. The information was fine and notable and now they are empty shells. If you can, can you please get Wizardman to my talkpage as I want a really detailed, unbiased account of everything that's happened in the previous 3 weeks, something that you have shown that you are unable to give. Henchman 2000 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have actually done the right thing in merging to characters rather than enemies and keeping most information. Well done from that respect, but I still need to know why. Henchman 2000 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion ended with merge all but those four that I have trimmed. That's all. I have removed game guide information, trivia, and OR from the other articles. Please see our featured articles for what kind of info is important. TTN 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't said how, or if, you persuaded others to join you, and why they decided to do so. Henchman 2000 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion for that. Most left and the few that stayed decided that the compromise (see the discussion) was fine. I have now trimmed the left over ones in the hope that people will be fine with merging them. TTN 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand why they agreed, and it actually seems OK, except for Shy Guy. I really think more info should be on the others' pages, as they are very major and a lot of the info you "trimmed" was relevant and non trivial. Henchman 2000 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pianta wasn't included in the discussion so yes there is. Henchman 2000 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Shy Guy had nothing to merge, so that's all I could get from it. You are, and will always be, free to add to it. The information is boils down to "It does X in this game, X in this game, X in this game, X in this game, ect" Doing that for major characters is OK because plot information built around it is fine, but basic attacks don't cut it.

My god, why are people so literal? TTN 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say this is OK for major characters, then why have they been trimmed not to include this? Oh, and it doesn't have to be that way, I could very easily rewrite the section in a better format, but I have to go now. And you still haven't answered about Pianta. Henchman 2000 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I said characters, not generic enemies with no plot information. They play no actual role in the game and are easily interchangeable, so the appearances are trivial at best. Only the most major changes should be mentioned (complete overhauls). By using slightly abstract thinking, you should be able to see that if we have merged all of the secondary characters, a minor race with only one major appearance and slight cameos will also be axed. That doesn't require discussion. TTN 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Character categories.

I don't know if you just didn't notice this in the history, or if you simply ignored it, but the issue of the Suikoden characters category was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 15#108 Stars of Destiny and at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects. Yes, the characters are already in the lists. They can also be in the category as well with an alphabetical listing at no particular cost, and categorizing redirects is useful - uncategorized redirects can get lost (as noted about categories like Category:Middle-earth redirects).

I'd appreciate it if you reversed your action. SnowFire 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The CfD has nothing to do with keeping the category in the redirects. It was just to merge two categories. After that, it is just an interpretation of the proposed guideline. That doesn't fall under any of the reasons, so I'm certainly not reverting it. If you would like to open a discussion or something like that, I'll participate. TTN 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing it up at WP:CVG as doing it with these characters would mean doing it with all others. TTN 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

???? The entire debate at the CFD is about whether to keep or just delete the categorized redirects (There were maybe ~8 or so redirects previously categorized at Suikoden characters with the rest in the subcategory; the question was whether to bot-delete the redirects or bot-upmerge them thereby keeping them). This is a serious question and not rhetorical: did you read the CFD? Because saying that "it had nothing to do" with this issue is disingenuous. It was the whole point.

If you wish to discuss the issue, that's fine, but I'm really not sure what there is to say; my position remains the same as in the linked pages above. This is a minor housekeeping issue. If you wish to continue this, I'd recommend the Categorizing redirects talk page; this isn't a video-game specific issue. Also, not sure I agree that allowing categorized redirects in one field would mean "doing it with all the others." I agree with Carcaroth's view, for what it is worth: sometimes categorized redirects will make sense, and other times they will only clutter a category. A uniform policy would be unwise. However, if a topic finds some categorized redirects useful, that decision should be respected.

I will ask once more that you revert yourself, at least for now. Wikipedia works on consensus; XFDs are not overturned lightly. If others agree with you over at the categorizing redirects page (and feel free to mention it on the video game talk if you think it'd be helpful), you can always delete them again. SnowFire 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The CfD only binds keeping/deleting/renaming/merging a category. The redirects were part of a side discussion to help determine the worth of the category, which only counts towards that discussion. That is why it doesn't count towards anything, and going by a consensus standpoint, there wasn't one.

Placing it on the CR talk page will achieve no actual discussion (as it did with your post), and as this has to do with video game characters, the CVG is the next best place. Why would only one set of video game characters have categorized redirects? That is another reason. I have no reason to revert it as it is a editorial issue rather than an XFD issue. TTN 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Um. No. The category was obviously done for; there weren't any articles in it. The debate was 100% over this very issue of whether the categorized redirects were worth keeping. And as you yourself have proudly stated on some AFDs, XFD is not a vote count.

The reason I suggest the categorizing redirects talk page is because it's simply the proper place to discuss the issue. It's more than a CVG issue and is applicable to the general Wikipedia community. Also, that post I made there didn't go nowhere; the reply was helpful, and I'm certainly satisfied with it. If you have something to add, feel free, and if you think there won't be enough traffic then it can easily be advertised on CVG talk with a link.

Alternatively... perhaps I misunderstand your position. You say that this is "an editorial issue." I actually also say that the question of "should redirects be categorized?" is an editorial issue, decidable on a topic-by-topic basis. My impression, however, is that you think all or nearly all such categorized redirects are redundant, meaning that the proper place to discuss this is at the policy level (that is, "Harvard references are bad for this article" vs. "Harvard references should not be used at all"). If you only oppose such redirects specific to the Suikoden characters decision, then we can take this to the recently formed Suikoden taskforce talk page. However, as the one who bothered to categorize these redirects in the first place when I merged the articles, let me say that I for one believe that the category list is fine (obviously), so hopefully you'd respect that.

For a third time, I will ask you to revert yourself, at least temporarily. I'm not asking you to agree with having these categorized redirects around. I'm asking because if you think the result of that CFD should be changed, the ball is (or should be) in your court to establish that consensus. The current status quo established by community discussion is to keep the categories in the redirects. Maybe that will change. For now, though, simply because you are armed with AWB and thus would win an ensuing stupid edit war doesn't mean you get to change the default. SnowFire 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in since I caught a few of these redirects. Those few who actually voted in the XfD you cite don't seem to agree with you. The admin's closing notes only say that your arguments are valid. That doesn't equal endorsement, not against consensus. Furthermore, the "subtopic" clause cited deals with situations where it's actually a subtopic, not the main topic. Any character within an article listing said characters is inherently a main topic, and furthermore their location is made quite obvious by the name of the article, hence eliminating the need to categorize several dozen redirects all pointing to the same article when the articles themselves are quite clear on their content. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mm. "only that my arguments are valid?" I guess that's the reverse of damning with faint praise; I'll cheerfully take that criticism. Anyway, I'm not sure I understand your distinction between "subtopics" and "main topics." This is a character list; each individual character is a subtopic, often with their own section heading (as characters too minor for their own section heading generally shouldn't have a redirect). It seems a fairly clear cut case to me, exactly analogous to Prohibition in Finland.

Also, while it's fine if you personally wouldn't find it useful, others do, even if it's only a minor convenience issue. SnowFire 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I didn't word it too well. The content of a list article is obvious. Main/subtopics are spelled out clearly: list of x discusses x. There doesn't need to be a category because there's no specific detail to it, just another rank and file entry. When you have a person article for instance, subtopic x might not be so obvious, hence categorizing a redirect would be helpful. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:MKArcGP.jpg

Please notify users if you tag images uploaded by them. Also, it would help if you noticed that this image already had a rationale. If you have a concern with the rationale, I'll gladly address it, but the {{nrd}} tag was less than helpful in that regard. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot, Howcheng made a great script for semi-automated image tagging, it will save you a lot of time: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem Image Re:

Of course, but which images are you referring to? Everything on Fire Emblem (series), and Fire Emblem (video game) has already been tagged. I presume that you're talking about the images on the character lists and continents. Okay, I'll get to it now. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now added a rationale to every Fire Emblem related article. Tell me if I've missed any. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

merge

Which policy have you based that on? Some other main articles have had new sections put in to incorporate minor characters which I think would be appropriate in this case. Please consider this approach. Hezbolarki Fun Ship 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Charizard

I'm taking my time, getting as much evidence as I possibly can, as well as making sure all the facts are perfectly in order. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Fairy

...hmm. I don't know how the merge notice never appeared on my watchlist. Maybe I just didn't see it. Anyway...In at least TWW, FS, FSA, FS, OoA, and MM, Great Fairies have a meaningful presence in the plot, sooo...please actually merge character information if you put up a merge tag. I completely understand getting rid of or generalizing gameguide material down to what's there now, but there were still important aspects (such as the "Queen Fairy" role that is usually a good part of the story, or the Fat Fairy) that should have been kept. Thanks!KrytenKoro 21:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in expanding on a character that is different in every game when we have those character lists. It's just repeating information otherwise. If you can bulk it up with generic information, that's fine, but separate games are pointless in the instance. TTN 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaati

...wow. Not sure how I missed that one either. Again, I agree with the merge, though it seems a lot of clarification and relevant info failed to actually survive it. I tried fixing it up a little, as some of the sentences were misleading, so may I ask you to check it over and see if you can find anything else that needs to be salvaged from the merged article?KrytenKoro 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything wrong factually or grammatically, just fix it. There is no need to salvage that plot information or the trivial Nintendo Power bit. TTN 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Koopa

I fail to see why you are changing the Koopa article to a redirect to the disambiguation page, especially since the disambiguation page, refers to the Koopa article itself. -- VederJuda 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)