Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 2 February 2008

Please keep all discussions on their original talk page. If I start a discussion on your talk page, please respond there, and if you start one here, I will respond here.

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

ANI Thread

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

Hello again.

No need to run and hide, Mr. TTN. I'm not going to go crazy and make irrational demands or childish questions, or plaster your page with cookie templates again. This is solely for business reasons. I brought up, some time ago, the question of "would you redirect the South Park episodes", and you said you'd get around to it. There are a lot of them, and many of them are notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages. Well, I've thought about it since then, and it might be better to cut to the chase, I decided. Could you look at these five articles, then: Probably (South Park), Trapper Keeper, Helen Keller! The Musical Pip (South Park episode), The Wacky Molestation Adventure. You don't have to do anything except read through them and tell me if you think any of them should be redirected. I have no idea how to tell if something should, and you're an expert on it, after all. If you decide some of them should be redirected, I'll do it myself. Please and thank you, TTN. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are we at this point?

In answer to you question posed in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction), my view is that the current guidelines are too vague, are not prescriptive enough and need to have teeth to ensure that they are adhered to. At the moment, there are too many arguements about what/what isn't notable, and the guidelines are not being enforeced by closing admins in AfD's who too often follow the majority view. The guidelines need to be firmed up and I hope you will assist with this process by continuing to contribute to the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wade Load

I nominated the articles together as I felt that the arguements for deletion applied to all of the articles. I do not think I should withdraw the nomination now as there has been a good amount of discussion between users with differing opinions, I do not own the page and I'm not sure if it would be right to negate the ongoing discussion. It might also look as if I was trying to close the debate becasue I didn't like what the (probable) result was going to be. I agree that at this stage a no consensus close looks most likely, however I think in the end the most likely final outcome will be that most of the pages involved will be merged into one article with the articles for a couple of the characters deemed most important to the series (even though his is not an inclusion criteria) kept. This would probably have been the case whichever route was taken. Regards, ]

The animals page

Generally, for characters that belong in the mass pages, we go by their specialty first. So animals would go on the animals page, even if they are recurring or one time characters, celebrities go on the celebrities page, etc, etc. -- Scorpion 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilmore Girls

I noticed you started to redirect a whole string of articles about Gilmore Girls episodes to Episode Lists somewhere around 2 AM om 7 January 2008.

In less than three quarters of an hour, you seem to have gone trough dozens of articles, asserting that they are beyond improving.

I don't see how removing information from Misplaced Pages can make this a better encyclopedia. Tightening up the writing, sure, trimming duplicate information, no problem, but this?

I really fail to see who is helped by this. Your boilerplate "reason" for the redirects is

Redirect per WP:N. This should only be brought back if information like director commentary and reviews can be found.

As far as I understand it, the articles are now effectively gone for any but the most experienced and/or tenacious wikipedians, making it difficult for people to add sources or make the articles better.

I've gone and reverted those edits you did on Gilmore Girls. I'm sure we can get to a consensus as to how to best tackle this, without doing rash stuff. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles need a certain kind of information in order to exist. These episodes do not have that information available. While it may be your own view that it is fine to leave them, there are various policies and guidelines available to explain why we cannot cover them. You are free to use tv.com and wikia.com in order to read and write about that information. Unless you can pull some sources out of a hat, expect them to return to redirects sometime tomorrow. TTN (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally understand WP:V. Do you know of any information in any of those episodes that is either challenged or likely to be challenged? This is fairly uncontroversial information, and while it may be your own personal view Misplaced Pages should not cover this, I don't see why we shouldn't.

What you did there was essentially "soft-deleting" the articles, and I feel, as in the deletion of articles, that the burden is on the person removing the information. We're not talking BLP stuff here, after all.

I realise I could get some of the information on IMDB.com or any number of other sites. That is not the point: I really like having it on Misplaced Pages. That way I know it's not going to remain stale but that it will steadily improve over the years. To make an analogy: say I felt like making an article about every single stop along a given railway line, would that then not be okay with you either? Or should there not be an article about Mos Eisley here because there's such a thing as Wookieepedia?

As for the sourcing: what sort of sources did you have in mind? Just like the existence of railway stops or Mos Eisley can easily be documented, Gilmore Girls episodes can easily be documented. Would a reference to a TV Guide or an internet site be sufficient? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot just take WP:V alone. V is right along with WP:N, which requires verifiable information to assert notability. This information must come from reliable sources, which are third party sources (not the episode). The information to establish notability is information placed in the real world. For television episodes, it includes director commentary and information taken from published reviews, among others (see WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE). The information does not exist for these episodes (maybe the pilot and the finale are exceptions, but they'll go until sources are provided), so they cannot exist. TTN (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. First, about WP:EPISODE: that comes with a header that says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed" (and even that is disputed :) -- so it's pretty safe to say, I think, that it's certainly not set in stone.

Second: I don't happen to agree that it is a good thing to take a deletionist stance here. That's only this editor's view, of course. WP:N and to an even greater extent WP:WAF are common sense guidelines, open for interpretation, and should be interpreted, I think, so as to minimise the amount of lost information already provided. The most important point I feel is that as far I understand it, on Misplaced Pages most not-immediately-blindingly-obvious things happen by consensus. That redirecting was pretty unilateral. Why not leave a message on those episodes' talk pages? And perhaps on the main episode list too, for good measure? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: "maybe the pilot and the finale are exceptions, but they'll go until sources are provided", you say. Do you have any suggestions on how people are to find out they need to provide sources if those articles don't for all intents and purposes exist anymore for the overwhelming majority of visitors? Better to leave them as is, with warning, probably. That way they're much more likely to get improved sooner, adding information to the 'pedia, and making us all and the world happier bunnies. :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore the tag. The only thing going on is that people want a switch to a style guideline rather than a notability guideline, which would just change the way that it is formatted. Your opinion on content is irrelevant, so I'm not going to respond to that. As for leaving messages, there is little to no traffic on the articles (there is only one with over fifty edits that I can find). It won't do a thing either way (a regular case would have had merge tags). If you can find a good amount of interested parties, we can waste some time on it. For sources to be added to the articles, a "expert", for the lack of a better word, will have to work on the episode, so they will be capable of bringing it back. TTN (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Just ignore the tag"? And what if I choose to ignore (your apparent interpretation of) WP:EPISODE instead? Ah well, in any case: if the articles do no harm, why remove them? Just as it's perfectly OK to have, say, one-line stub articles for all the disused Scottish railway stations there ever were -- unsourced, even -- I don't see what harm these articles are doing anyone. WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that WP:EPISODE is a guideline, (as well as WP:NOTE), not a Policy (disputed, no less). Also, the main Policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPV are all met by the removed articles. There is no reason to make Misplaced Pages worse by removing information that meets Misplaced Pages's policies, other than to piss off a lot of people and perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 69.121.136.217 (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, just to recap. TTN, you unilaterally went through a large number of articles that violate no Misplaced Pages Policies and redirected them, effectively removing them from Misplaced Pages for the vast majority of users. I reverted those redirects, and came here to look for a way to resolve this between adults.

Do I understand you correctly that you stand by your "expect them to return to redirects sometime tomorrow"?

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

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

Delete-by-redirect

• I have made a start at reverting the more recent of your undiscussed bulk deleting-by-redirecting. I recommend a full AfD-style discussion for each TV show / whatever whose episodes you have been deleting, before you make any more such deletions. See complaints in sections above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

restore redirects by undo

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

a happy little note from a frustrated editor

TTN,

So many people are sick of what you're doing to articles: somebody has even described your "editing" of articles as "soft deleting". You redirect articles, which know absolutely nothing about, quoting various Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. You maintain that you are "improving" Misplaced Pages but very few other people see it that way; just look at your talk page! Many of the articles which you redirect and soft-delete to have issues but why don't you act like other editors and tag it? I even wonder if you read the articles. In minutes you can redirect dozens of articles, that doesn't leave a lot of time for reading, does it?

If you have concerns about an article, place a note on its talk page or place a note on its main contributors' talk pages. Don't make rash decisions without consulting people; you are not the only editor on Misplaced Pages. A bit more common sense and courtesy and a little less "policy-bashing". A little consideration towards other editors wouldn't go astray either.

Why don't you stop deleting information and redirecting pages and be like everyone else, CONTRIBUTE to an article. Everybody on Misplaced Pages wants to make a good, quality online encyclopedia; everybody besides you, that is.

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

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

• I am sorry, but no one is "sick" about what TTN is doing; that is just your opinion, which in my opinion is misguided. Your complaint to the admin's notice board is unjustified and will not result in action being taken. TNT is perfectly correct to merge unnotable topics into large more coherent ones; this is good editing, which improves Misplaced Pages and is extremely valuable and TNT is to be comended for his efforts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Anthony that TTN's actions with regard to episode articles are misguided and harmful to the encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't speak for all of TTN's edits, but I have watched many of them, and they typically seem to be in line with Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability and verifiability. I can understand the original poster's frustration, but I am confused by this: "You redirect articles, which know absolutely nothing about, quoting various Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines." Why shouldn't every Misplaced Pages editor back his or her edits with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? This demonstrates to me that your problem doesn't lie with TTN, but with Misplaced Pages itself. I would request that the anonymous editor either seek to change the system by addressing Misplaced Pages's core values, or direct his attention to a project that is compatible with his values. Many, including myself, would argue that the redirection of an article about a non-notable subject is, in fact, a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, and a cornerstone of creating a "good, quality online encyclopedia." Pagrashtak 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the extraordinary accumulation of non-encyclopedic material. This is disruptive editing, even if done in all innocence - defending it in the clear violation of our policies is rather worse. TTN's efforts have been routinely endorsed by editors familiar with our policies and he deserves gratitude for undertaking this cleanup. Eusebeus (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN's efforts have also been routinely admonished by editors familiar with our policies. It's all well and good that the guy wants to improve the encyclopedia, but let's not kid ourselves and say that his methods aren't controversial, regardless of their effects. Fair's fair.

More importantly, can you point at me at a definition of "encyclopedic" or discussion on the same? The way I see it, we have no clear idea of what we should have, an environment that heavily favors solving disputes than force rather than reason. No offense to present company. --Kizor 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If you were a janitor and you spent all your time sweeping all the dust in the building under every rug, you would be fired. It's not cleaning up, it's hoping the place looks clean and nobody will notice. Maybe you can't fire volunteers, but you can certainly change the locks on the building. --Pixelface (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of Wiki-Project Template

Is there any reasonwhy you removed these templates from a bunch of Avatar: The Last Airbender episode talk pages? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be redirecting them fairly soon, seeing as the project has a fairly good grasp on it. I also hope that it'll draw more help for the season articles. TTN (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you it didnt look like theri was a reason, but im sure this will help get people to notice it. THank you for the explantion and good idea! But couldn't you ahve just done that in one edit for each episode? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had originally expected the removal of the tags to only take a few minutes with AWB, but the wide variety of tags and the multiple level ones sort of killed that. 71.101.157.7 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Are you going to redirect the talk pages to the season pages that are in progress? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, we leave talk pages as they are to just keep an archive of them. I do see that people sometimes redirect them afterwards, but the general stance is to leave them. TTN (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of The Fairly OddParents characters

An editor has nominated List of The Fairly OddParents characters, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of The Fairly OddParents characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yessir

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

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

Sonic the Hedgehog articles

Before you even try to edit the Sonic the Hedgehog article you must answer one question. Are you a Sonic fan? Because if you aren't you have NO right to edit them espicialy the really important characters, they might be one timers there still important.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

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

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

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

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

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

Theres still no reason for you to delete important characters like Black Doom it's practically vandalism, people come on to wikipedia for info and they need all the facts and your deleting those facts.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

This site is not a place for people to learn every minute detail of their favorite series. It is an encyclopedia, which provides the basic details of a general topic. Wikia is the place for that info. TTN (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing articles without any warning? And the articles that you are stating as the reason, are awful or just list (which are discouraged on wikipedia) and as such are more likely to be deleated!  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the specific removals involved, but the assertion that only a fan is allowed to edit the article is patently absurd. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a fanboy club. If anyone wants to build an exhaustive list of all characters in some video game, a wiki specifically for that videogame is the right place for it, not Misplaced Pages. Friday (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), you will be blocked from editing.  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you are editing the articles, would be more suited to something like a Wikia! But that isn't my main problem, it's your lack of warning &/or discusion before removing/redirecting the articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If your going to delete a character or merge a character at least make a good discussion of it before doing so. Its getting very frusturating. Fwooshlewooshle (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Your usual edit warring and disrputive afd nominations continue unabated I see, so I hereby present you with a trout. Tim! (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit it.

Why do you keep removing the images? They'll die if they don't stay. We'll reduce the stuff down to what you've got it at, but the images stay. That's final. End of story. Good day. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a message to you from YouTube

Please take a look, and if possible could you leave a video comment? Keep up the good work, if you don't have time to watch it, I can understand perfectly. But don't worry it's completely relevant to Misplaced Pages. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting message, I just saw it here. Anyway, TTN, don't listen to these "threatening" posts. They're just trying to scare you into quitting. I say, keep up the good work. {^_^} And just letting you know, I reverted an edit by this guy you know on the list of Saiyans article. You might wanna keep an eye on the article, if you're not too busy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I see they're still at it... the trolls... Nice seeing you again TTN! I'll be looking forward to working with you again really soon. -- bulletproof 01:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's really funny. Why do any of the rest of us bother with Misplaced Pages channels of communication when there's YouTube? Pairadox (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning about character images

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

Stringency

I would like to make you aware that the stringency you display in debates () could easily be interpreted as wiki-lawyering. Catchpole (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it can only be interpreted as trying to keep a certain standard. In that case, it's actually stopping him from wikilawyering by saying "I can name a book about the series, so this episode is notable." TTN (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of City of Bones

An editor has nominated City of Bones, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/City of Bones and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

seaQuest DSV

Thanks for deleting all those episode articles. It's not like I didn't work very hard on them to have them unceremoniously deleted. What a positive contribution. Kyle C Haight (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you also responsible for the deletion of the various character articles, such as Nathan Bridger, Lucas Wolenczak, and Kristin Westphalen, as well as the recurring characters? If so, what gives you the right to delete them and redirect without any discussion? As I said, if you're going to delete those, you should delete every similar page for every television show in Misplaced Pages. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Give him about a week, he should have it handled by then. Coreycubed (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat on an/i

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

Categories

I am reverting your multiple removal of correct categories on various articles. I may not bother giving edit summaries as you have not explained why you are removing them. Tim! (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious that the categories are empty besides a few articles, so they have no practical use. TTN (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Garth Marenghi

Yes, I'm willing to change the result of the AfD to "no consensus". Regardless, I think the majority of the current sources are strong and very WP:RS. Winning the Perrier award doesn't seem an insignificant achievement as far as I can see. And he (the character in a different show) was a runner-up for the award the previous year. Given what appears to be a very deliberate decision by the creators to maintain the in-universe persona in media interviews, it's difficult to completely discount some of the WP:V stories written with an "in-universe" perspective; that's obviously entwined with the presentation to the point of being part of the humour. I think that's markedly different than, say, WP articles about computer games or TV show episode plots written from an in-universe perspective, usually with no WP:V or WP:RS citations or references. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, how wishy-washy can I be? Apparently very in this instance. I'm changing it back to "keep". My original weighing of the opinions and arguments was correct. The merge to Darkplace were not compatible with the content and the deletes were actually only two, yourself and one other. I discounted the IP opinion because it 1) expressed a weak argument without adequate reference to policy and 2) it was a single purpose account (SPA) with the !vote/opinion being its only edit. The improvement to the article was substantial as compared to the beginning of the AfD process. When I closed the AfD, the article content and sources made it in no way a legitimate candidate for AfD. So I'm reversing myself again. Cheers, Pigman☿ 00:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain category

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

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

TTN, help!

Seriously, this is not a joke! I tried sorting through the South Park articles and redirected the non-notable ones I came across - four from season four, and four from season six, - and now a bunch of other users keep trying to restore them! Please go and tell them they're wrong! They won't listen to me! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Bad...

You taught her that? -- bulletproof 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

SeaQuest

The category would have no use if there weren't subcategories. Now that the category does has it its use it's pointless to remove the main seaquest article from it. See also all the examples in Category:Categories named after television series. There is not a single subcategory there without the main article in it. Garion96 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll be deleted in four days using the empty category tag. That's because the articles in the subcategories didn't need to exist, so those are also empty. That and another one were the only articles in it. TTN (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A clearer edit summary would have been helpful then. All this only works of course if your redirects will stick. I am not so sure about that. Garion96 (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed a thread

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

Open All Hours episodes

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

Scrubs Episodes

A quick review @AN/I will bring you up to speed. I have to head offline; care to look at the rest? To thee with failing hands we pass the torch and all that. Eusebeus (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Request for Arbitration

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

Re: My Own Worst Enemy

If we're going by the general guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", a review is generally accepted as a significant coverage, IGN is a well known all-purpose review site and TWP is a notable review site, and are both reliable, and both have no affiliation with the network. Will 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the guideline wording. By that, significant coverage means that the sources address the subject directly. I also don't think they're just ratings, either; it can help to see why the episode was given 8.4. And while two sources is a bit small, we shouldn't throw the baby out now we know it's in - that's what the {{sect-stub}} is there for - for people to expand it with the sources they can find. There's nothing wrong with taking it piece-by-piece. Will 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

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

Recent edit to Putt-Putt (game character) article

Your recent edit to the Putt-Putt article claimed that there was not enough valid information for the article to exist, ignoring the two valid references on the page. Without any explanation on the discussion page, this edit could be perceived as vandalism and has been reverted. If you have valid reason for complete deletion of this article, please mention it on the discussion page.

Thanks!

Hampshire2004 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Hi. I'm not sure who redirected it in the first place, but would you mind if I asked why it was redirected? If I remember, the article used to be much longer than any of the IP reversions, and currently I think another anon changed the redirect to a short sentence. How come it was redirected? Did it not meet the requirements? Maybe I'll find out if I check the edit history. Were any of the other episodes redirected? Thanks. ~AH1 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They were removed per a project discussion. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants for the discussion, and use Misplaced Pages:WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants/Episode Improvement to attempt to improve the episodes, so they can be included, if you would like. TTN (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

List of recurring characters on seaQuest DSV

I tried to give you a hand but someone else reverted. I'm thinking, would a merge tag be beneficial or is that a moot point? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we have Scouter (instrument) deleted? Appears to be a recreation of Scouter (Dragon Ball). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting a response from you so I'd know what to do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I already redirected it. TTN (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping track of the redirects

Hi there. Regarding the ongoing TV episode merging and redirections, do you think you could use {{R from merge}} when you carry out redirects and merges? Possibly even a new template designed specifically to keep track of episode redirects? This would help keep track of the redirects and their page histories. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: {{ER to list entry}} has been created and is starting to be used. Could you please use it when you carry out your merges, s-merges and redirections? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. R from merge really wouldn't have been appropriate with just redirects. TTN (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

X-men episodes

why did redirect all the episode pages for List of X-Men episodes. I'm still working on all of them to get them good artcle status then maybe also featured article. so stop redirecting the episode pages. Gman124 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that along with that first episode that there are possibly a couple more good ones, but there is very little chance that you'll be able to do anything with the rest. Resurrect any that have sources available. TTN (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut templates

Please do me a favour and when you cut templates give an explanation why yo do it. For example "This article is an episode of a TV series and not a film" when you cut a film template. I can understand some cuts you did recently but not all of them. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is redirected, I remove any project templates. There shouldn't be any confusion over that. TTN (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can always mention that in the summary if this is not a trouble. At least one user, me, didn't get it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not create malicious redirects, as you did with List of Jade Empire characters. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. Users who continue to create such redirects may be blocked. Next time please at least make a discussion post and give sufficient time for people to respond --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, a malicious redirect. Would those be the ones that sit there and tease you with their redirectness, or does their maliciousness go further than than? Pairadox (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)])

It is malicious in the fact that TTN hasn't notified anyone of the redirect by all means redirect but open it up to discussion, I for one would have supported the redirect in the form of a merge. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now at AFD.Kww (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not a Pokemon Page Lawyer

Why did you merge all of the Pokemon pages. You have no authority to say so.

You act as if it wasn't discussed for a long time and agreed upon by the Project to merge the pages.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

HEY! LOOK AT MY HAND

Hey there! STOP! Look at this nifty icon I found of a hand. Everyone was doing it, so I thought I would join in. Now that you've seen it, please resume whatever it is you were doing. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And another! -- Ned Scott 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has two thumbs and enjoys an encyclopedic focus on out-of-universe content? Pagrashtak 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that be a Dr. Kelso from Scubs quote? ;) <quote Dr. Kelso> What has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap? Bob Kelso!<quote Dr. Kelso/> Seraphim 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

HEY! I GOT SOMETHING FOR YA

Ey, I don't usually don't do this, but since I'm a nice bastard and all, I thought I would present THIS to you, friend.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For getting rid of all of these useless and uneeded episode guides and fancruft from this cite. Keep up the good work! :3

Now how about getting to those Fatal Fury and Street Fighting articles, cuz I'll probably delete 'em myself due to lack of notability and funcruft soon. Peace! ^__^ ZeroGiga 09:13, January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah barnstar of vandalism diligence!Fairfieldfencer (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer

Serenity Now

I am going to stop contributing actively for a bit, but if you need help or assistance in the RD efforts, while the usual suspects blow hot air vacuously demanding their precious fan pages, let me know. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Genki Dama

Um, you wanna afd it? I don't really want to go through the trouble of setting it up. Initially, I thought of redirecting it but reconciled because it may just start a senseless war. I attempted to have it speedied (didn't work). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Capsule Corporation: is that targeting the right place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. There is also the Earth page if that's still around. TTN (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, someone beat us to it. {^_^} Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not surprising that you guys find destroying information, ahem, fun. Perhaps I should join in. I proposed Eggman's Vehicles and Eggman's Robots for deletion incase you're interested. ZeroGiga (Contact) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Heroes episodes

Hi there! I'm probably not as familiar with the merging guide lines as you probably are but I was just wondering, are each of these notable enough to have their own article? --Is this fact...? 03:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The members of the Heroes project are planning on working on them, so if you want to help try to figure it out, head over there. TTN (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here for another topic, the Pee Wee's thing, but saw this, and wanted to say thanks. As to Pee Wee's, I'm gonna hit the talk and ask for solid citations about the Emmy's. maybe they can bring enough to talk to actually improve rather than edit war. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

I recommend you add the link to debates concerning your redirection in the edit summary. Redirecting hundreds of articles with the insufficient summary "merge per discussion" is bewildering to other editors who try to follow your edits to tell what you have redirected and why. Thanks for considering, - PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So, how about pointing some relevant links related to that "long, drawn out process" out to me? Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Look through some of the recent archives, and you'll see some talk of it. It was spread all throughout different talk pages, and there is no specific discussion that provides a list style number consensus, if that's what you're looking for. TTN (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find one specific debate, and having several discussions on separate talk pages could be a good thing. Would you mind giving me the links to exact talk pages, archives, sections, whatever there are? Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly waited until everything was all set and ready to go before dealing with the articles, so I'm pretty much as unfamiliar with the discussions as you are. Look through the archives here or just ask the editors there if you want to find them. TTN (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Response To My Talk Page

Hello there, friend. ^__^ Incase you're interested, I made a response to what you said to me on my talk page. In sort, I'm not making a point by wiping out pages for the hell of it (which I'M NOT), but if you want to see the full reponse, then go to my Contact page. ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, this is WIKI-PEDIA. It's our choice to edit articles to follow the rules. At this point, like you (which I am assuming from your "malicious actions," as a mod calls it), I don't give a damn about the information here if it ain't suitable for an encyclopedia. Do you think I would get piss off about my favorite articles being deleted and wipe out others out of spite if I PROPOSE the deletion of 2 articles of a series which I, like that annoying 12-yr-old British kid who accuses us of being "vandals", am a fan of? To tell you the truth, I like the fact that I know all the badniks and all the vehicles Eggman rides in the series, but if that's not suitable for an encyclopedia, then it had no business being in wikipedia. It's all unnecessary gamecruft and all in-universe information with no sources, outer-universe information, and the like. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Merging of Pokemon Pages

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thnx. What's the point of keeping pages seperate when all it does is take up alot of space? This is sincere now. Good luck, and happy editting. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unredirect

Hello TTN,

I'd like to propose an unredirect of an article you redirected some months ago, Lucy Does a TV Commercial. See Talk:Lucy Does a TV Commercial for my rationale; I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks, JavaTenor (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Darkly Dawns the Duck

I'm the main contributor to the Darkly Dawns the Duck article you decided to get rid of. You justify the redirect to the list of episodes in the article's history by asking people to check out Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 where you were involved. Let me make something clear now, this article is not about an episode per se, it's about the TV movie that served as Darkwing Duck's pilot. Please notice that the article is under Category:Disney animated films, Category:Television specials and Category:Television pilots. Also, do all the movies under those categories have to be notable according to YOU for them to have a page on Misplaced Pages? There are movies/TV specials/pilots under those categories that may not be notable to me, but they may be notable to other people. Think about it. --Nat91 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected it per WP:N, which requires topics to be given a real world perspective through the inclusion of reliable sources. The person reverting was the one linking to it. Anyways, you need to add sources in order for it to be notable. I suggest that you read through WP:V and WP:RS also. TTN (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous

It is outrageous that you are repeatedly redirecting that article on the highest rated episode in cable TV history, which provides solid, non-plot based information and references, while ignoring the talk page entirely. Use the talk page. I don't want to keep reverting, but if you won't even engage in a discussion, what am I supposed to do? Just let you unilaterally impose your will on the article? Everyking (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed with you before, and you do not actually like to discuss, only wikilawyer. If you want the article to stand, add sources. Otherwise, place the citation elsewhere, as it does not hold an article. TTN (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you might just have a similar name to someone else, but either way, just do what I said. TTN (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already there! Have you even looked at it? Everyking (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You have one source that asserts notability. The other one should not even be in the article. That is not enough for an article. TTN (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The information itself obviously demonstrates notability. I'm sure other sources can be found, however—will you back off if other sources are added? Everyking (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It asserts notability, but it does not establish that the topic needs an article. I will happily leave it alone if more sources are found (not trivial ones like "It premiered with X and y, though). You need to state that in the first place instead of stating that the current version is fine on its own. That's how you show that you're willing to productively discuss. TTN (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think multiple sources are needed; one might be simply enough. The source in question does address that HSM2/HM night directly, and "most watched cable episode ever" is verifiable. Will 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like a specific award(s), things like this help notability, but they do not warrant a large plot summary. The citation can either be placed on the episode list, the main article, a season article, or somewhere else that would be relevant. TTN (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the revert war for now. Episode existing for a short time does not hurt anything. There is a discussion about this at talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#Dispute over episode article --NrDg 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon categories

Please take these categories to WP:CFD if you wish for them to be emptied and deleted. --- RockMFR 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, we are talking about two remaining articles here. The categories serve absolutely no categorization purpose, so why are you being stubborn about it? TTN (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say ... in terms of battle-picking, this seems like a poor choice. Let's get the articles killed, and then we can speedy the categories.Kww (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those will being going for a while (Bulbasuar will, but Pikachu is actually staying as an article), so there's no way to wait for those to be empty. TTN (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection of Pokemon articles

I'd like you to show me where you got consensus for redirecting all those Pokemon articles. Everyking (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no one single discussion; they were all over the place. The Pokemon wikiproject started discussing a while ago, and came to the conclusion to have both lists and articles for each evolutionary line. I joined the discussions at that point to just have the twenty five lists instead. You'll have to either look around the projects archives or ask them about it. TTN (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. 17

Can you use your "merge magic" on No. 17? The afd was a no go, so we may as well get the job done ourselves. I hope that's alright with you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello, TTN. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#TTN. . GDonato (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update tags and page

After you have redirected please remember to remove/update the tags where you have merged to. For example you forgot to remove the Meta Knight merge tags from List of Kirby characters and update the No.17 tag from List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. I'm not complaining just reminding. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs

It's been a couple of weeks and of course nothing has been added to establish notability *shock*. I have rv'd Season 1 & will start the others. If you could look in on the rest, that'd be great. Eusebeus (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the love of.. please, I beg of you two to just wait on those articles. The Scrubs episodes in particular have really rubbed people the wrong way, and regardless of who's right or wrong, just give it a little more time to cool off. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you guys hold off on those articles; there is currently a proposed injuction regarding this up for votes at the current ArbCom case regarding this that would prohibit removal OR restoration of episode/character articles for the duration of the case, and attempting to redirect these articles now, shortly after the proposed injunction went up for votes, could easily be seen as an attempt to "beat ArbCom to the punch" and get the redirects in place before the injunction could go into effect. While I always assume good faith, I suspect that anything that could be seen as an attempt to "end run" the arbitration would do nothing to help your case when the ArbCom makes its final decision. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will end up doing anything productive. Even if the fans don't rever,t there are still plenty of other people willing to do it. TTN (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur at list entry

Can I just remove the sentences with the {{citation needed}}? It isn't necessary, the main article probably already has the sources. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It'd be best to leave them and add proper sources. Even if the article manages to stay in the end, that should be a decent summary. TTN (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but aren't they covered and sourced in the main page? I tried looking, not very well I might add. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably are covered, but having a strong list entry better helps the argument to merge. TTN (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'll keep searching. This dude seems to have something against you, have you noticed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He is one of these strange people that cannot understand that fiction can be summed up and described in main articles. He just happens to vote in a lot of deletion discussions and provide extremely irrelevant arguments and sources. TTN (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. We could report him as a wiki-stalker. Then again, how many others are on your tail? It's no use getting one and missing others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he is really as much of a stalker as he is an "Afd patroller." He generally doesn't accomplish that much anyways. TTN (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to deal with this nonsense. Good night, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir indeed. I'll be keeping an eye on the two of you. I must say TTN, I am disappointed by your recent actions of taking matters into your own hands and making these numerous controversial edits without initiating a discussion with the parties involved. You are a good editor TTN and we've been through a lot here, but the recent string of ANI reports against you have really hurt your image in my opinion. While I agree with most of the edits you do, it doesn't hurt to talk things out if someone else disagrees with you. -- bulletproof 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In My Opinion...

Someone needs to give you a hug. Laynethebangs (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Landmaster (Star Fox)

TTN,

I am the editor who switched the Landmaster (Star Fox) page back from a redirect. I believe that its inclusion in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl makes the subject more notable than it once was. Also the tanks use in more than one series of games makes a separate article more appropriate. Having said that I understand the article needs improvement, although I do not know much more then I added, as I do not play the games. (I noted the above on Talk:Landmaster (Star Fox). I actually came across this after finding content about the Star Fox tank being added to the Landmaster article. —MJBurrage 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the newest game just came out, I would submit that it is too early to simply dismiss the articles notability. While the article does need work, I do not think it should be deleted. As for redirecting, to where? The existing redirect went to an article that barely went past mentioning that the tank existed in the Star Fox games. Almost all of the material in the article is from a real world POV (I cannot comment on the tank's in game capabilities beyond what is in the references.)

If we do not have—at least—a detailed section on this fictional vehicle (which article would this go in?) then details will keep being added hodge-podge in a variety of places. (Like the material I will clean from Landmaster sometime tomorrow as I about to depart for the night class I am teaching). —MJBurrage 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I restored the previous contents again. While I agree that the page needs work, and possibly should be merged as a section in some other article, neither of those things is going to happen if the existing version is simply removed in favour of a redirect. Note, I posted this here as a courtesy, but any further discussion we have about the article itself should probably be on its talk page for the benefit of other editors. —MJBurrage 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marth and Roy

I agree about the merges. Both are dead-in-the-water articles in which they can't really develop because neither has any out-of-universe info really available. Roy has a FE6 list as a destination; the only plausible one for Marth is in the "characters" section of Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. I'm not comfortable with straight merges, though; if it's alright with you, I want to propose a merge discussion on the two relevant talk pages. A two-day wait for a response should suffice, although I doubt that anyone will respond. Do you want to go ahead with the actual process yourself, or do you want me to do it? Either way, I don't mind. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's hope some misguided users doesn't feel really indignant about the merge because "they're important; they were in SSBM". I'll chip in to the discussions if anyone objects. Oh, another thing, when Marth is merged, please maintain the few petinent references to the info that will be merged please. I know that you'd probably already do this; I'm just making sure. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Rejects

Some of the characters I will agree with you should be redirected. (Such as Charlie Altamont, Banjo & Sullivan, George Wydell, etc.) However, the main characters (Captain Spaulding being the most obvious example) ARE fairly iconic in the horror genre and have appeared on t-shirts, halloween costumes, action figures, etc. If you'll give me some time I'll try to sort them out. In the mean time, please leave them alone.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put the redirects on five of the articles, being the minor characters who only appeared for one film. However, the main family that appeared in both films are fairly significant and have a cult following. I'm very busy, but when I get the time I should be able to add interviews, critical reception, etc to establish their notability.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If we were to delete every character article that isn't as iconic as Superman, there'd be barely anyone left. The characters I left up have all appeared in two or three films, are all fairly popular and it shouldn't be too hard to find a number of external sources about them, which I will try to do once I have the time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you'll give me some time, I'll try to add to the articles when my schedule clears up. I'm only keeping about half of the original articles. Am I going to find individual essays about each character? No, but I should be able to find interviews and reviews which discuss the characters outside of the films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How are these? --CyberGhostface (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How can an actor talk about their character without talking about the film they appear in? Again, if we're using these restrictions, they'll be nothing left. The characters have appeared in two films. They've been discussed in various interviews, articles and reviews. There's merchandise based off of them. If they had appeared in one little-known film that'd be another thing entirely, but its not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This interview is with Sid Haig about a different film and Spaulding is brought up. This is another link by Darren Lynn Bousman that mentions Spaulding.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This Halloween review also makes reference to Spaulding.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you looking for then? Interviews don't count apparently. Reviews don't count. And then you want an unrelated article to mention Spaulding, and then that's too brief.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a rule that states a character must be 'iconic' for it to have an article? WP:FICTION states that "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" which I could easily do with the characters, which I could easily do. And anyway, I found an interview with Gunnar Hansen in which he goes into detail on Haig's performance.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Iconic within the horror genre, yes, but not necessarily the same level as Superman, which is what you seem to be expecting with this. And the interview I supplied you with Gunnar Hansen mentions the Spaulding character in detail independent of the film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you said "There is a difference between interviews about the characters to hype up or expand upon the films and those that truly get away from them. I've seen a few so far where the characters are talked about, but they do not actually separate themselves from the film. If you could just go and fetch one real quick, I'll shut up..." Which I just did. If you set your standards this high there's going to be nothing left but the 'biggies'.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles in other languages

Links to articles in other languages are lost when you decide to write a redirect to a list over an existing article like here There are eleven other language articles on this topic, the links to them just vanish. Is there a way of displaying them in the page that the redirect points to, or a way of making some inclusion, or do you think it's just not important enough to preserve what you don't find useful?Barnyard animals (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If articles don't exist, we don't keep them. TTN (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

pokemon merge

stop it, dawn wont be merged--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC) and i didnt "randomly remove" the merge tag. it would be like merging ash into pokemon--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)