Talk:FFR

What is the purpose of linking to articles that don't exist (Frequency Following Response and Fitted for radio)? Simply in case they're added at a later date? Afrobean 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is standard for a disambiguation page. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Redlinks. --SPUI (T - C) 20:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to articles that do not exist is done to encourage creation of those articles. Because Flash Flash Revolution's article was deleted, it should not be recreated (its deletion can be contested at deletion review), so we should not be encouraging people to create a new article. --Rory096 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So because the article on Flash Flash Revolution was deleted, there should be no mention on Wikipedia that it even exists? I think it makes sense to point people towards the most appropriate article on the topic (in this case, Dance Dance Revolution.) - Chardish 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page, it exists to point people to articles that could all be known by the name that is the title of the disambig page. If something's deleted, that article no longer exists, so there's no need to point to it. --Rory096 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My objection is the double-standard some people seem to have regarding Flash Flash Revolution. They demand encyclopedic verifiability that FFR exists, but seem to be turning a blind eye to the other stuff on this page. Also, the very specific edits to pages they make that seem to try to wipe FFR off the face of Wikipedia make me doubt their good faith, and makes me suspect a personal crusade against FFR, especially in the case of SPUI who has been banned from FFR in the past. Remember, just because something doesn't deserve its own page doesn't mean it doesn't deserve mention in Wikipedia. - Chardish 21:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding an external source saying that "FFR" can be "Flash Flash Revolution", how about Google? The number 1 search result for "ffr" is Flash Flash Revolution. Afrobean 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Make it so. - Chardish 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Flash Flash Revolution had a fairly good page but was deleted. If you google wiki and ffr u get the page. --Mrlego9 05:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a discussion about whether or not the online game/website Flash Flash Revolution should be included on this disambiguation page. - 04:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion, no. If the page was deleted under AfD or CSD, it shouldn't be listed on a dab page. AndyJones 22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because a wikipedia admin has something against FFR and deleted the article doesn't mean that it's not a possible meaning of "FFR". I already have proven the point via the google link above that Flash Flash Revolution is the first google result for "FFR". Obviously, Flash Flash Revolution is very prominent when it comes to "FFR" acronyms, whether the wikipedia admins like it or not. And unless I'm mistaken, a concensus was never reached on whether the Flash Flash Revolution article should be deleted, but it was deleted anyway, so any arguements of "well it was deleted so it doesn't count" are even more invalid than the people who deleted the article in the first place. Afrobean 15:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If an article is deleted off of Wikipedia, and it is disambiguated from something, it should not be linked to at the Disambiguation page. I have removed it from the page for this reason. It was kept as "no consensus" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Flash Revolution. This decision was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 15 and it was decided that the article was to be deleted. Just as was done at GNAA's disambiguation page concerning the deletion of an article listed there and for similar reasons towards deletion (lack of reliable sources).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with your logic is that there are four things that don't have articles, and there are three broken links. I'll save you the trouble of being a hugely biased hypocrite and remove them, mmkay? --Dabigkid 12:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That was completely unnecessary. Having red links like that encourages the creation of those pages when they have never existed before. And removing the ones which had no links at all was also unneeded; just because a certain thing isn't deserving of a full article doesn't mean that it shouldn't receive a single line in a disambibuation. Afrobean 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to find anything authoritative that indicates that FFR stands for ANYTHING besides the French Rugby one. Better go remove this disambiguation and make it a redirect, right? That's stupid. This site should include all information available. Filtering out certain information for no good reason is counter productive to the purpose of this site. Afrobean 17:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Everything listed on this page is abbreviated as "FFR". The first one was probably not FFR but FFL, but everything else is "FFR." Just because Flash Flash Revolution was deleted does not mean that all other references to anything being abbreviated as "FFR" should be removed. Disambiguation pages should not direct to pages that were deleted in the processes of Wikipedia, and if you were to do this, that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is expressly forbidden.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • People around here don't take well to sarcasm, do they? When I said the other ones should be removed, I was not being serious. I was pointing out the ludicrousness of removing an item from the list just because there isn't an authoritative source identifying it. Of course the other ones should stay, but so also should a line of text identifying Flash Flash Revolution as a possible meaning of FFR. I don't think anyone here is arguing to have a red dead link to the unjustly deleted article; we're arguing simply for the inclusion of the words "Flash Flash Revolution" to the list, and to not have some jerk who has a personal vendetta against FFR to remove it. Afrobean 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have noticed a dizzying number of edits the past few days by multiple registered users as well as anonymous IP addresses that appear to be specifically removing references to Flash Flash Revolution from Wikipedia. Apparently these people are under the mistaken impression that absolutely everything mentioned on Wikipedia must meet WP:N, even if it doesn't have a whole article devoted to it. Or maybe they are aware of what they're doing and they're simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Furthermore, if these people are motivated by personal vendettas against FFR, then they are engaging in vandalism and should be banned from the site. Given the intensely focused nature of the edits I'm guessing it's the latter. I'm sick of the edit wars, I'm sick of the stealth reversions, and I'm probably going to seek arbitration about this soon. - Chardish 02:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Flash Flash Revolution isn't notable and mentioning it everywhere seems to be blatant advertising for the website. 76.178.95.219 11:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • How is it that FFR is less notable than any other video game? Perhaps it is less notable than commercially successful games, but when it comes to video games that aren't made for profit, FFR is just as notable as they come. Afrobean 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I challenge you to find in WP:N or any other guideline on Wikipedia where it says that topics that don't deserve articles cannot be mentioned anywhere on the encyclopedia. If every topic worthy of mention must be worthy of its own article, then we'd have either a very small encyclopedia or millions of stubs.
        I also challenge you to log in before you edit. - Chardish 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • "Challenge". Whatever. What would be the point? 76.178.95.219 09:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The AfD process is limsted to just that. The mention of FFR anywhere else in Wikipedia should be evaluated per WP:EL and/or WP:SPAM. Rklawton 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• So according to you, an FFR article is acceptable as long as it doesn't externally link to the website? Oh and that article about spam... If you saw the article before it got deleted, you would probably agree with me that it would be hard to call it advertising. Also note: FFR is not out for a profit, so this statement doesn't even apply: "differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." FFR is not even a commercial entity. FFR is not for profit.

Flash Flash Revolution and Farther From Resolution

Is there some rule against topics being mentioned if they are not deemed worthy of an article? It's one thing to claim that it doesn't deserve an article, but to think that it's not even worthy of a single sentence? Google "FFR" and see what the top results are. The idea that it's not worthy of an article is debatable, I SUPPOSE, but it's quite clear that if a person uses the acronym "FFR" to mean something that there is a good chance that they're referring to FFR. And while I'm at it, why was Farther From Resolution removed? Did they also have their article removed? It is my understanding that red links are encouraged to try to get people to create articles on worthy topics. And again, even if they're not "worthy" of an article, are they not worth disambiguating? If I'm correct, then SoP is to discuss things like this rather than constantly reverting, so I'll leave this note here and revert later if no one has a reasonably justified explanation of the situation. 24.192.245.240 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)