@*Treker, Favre1fan93, and TriiipleThreat: I feel that it may be worth it to change this article to one about all of the Team Thor shorts, rather than just the initial one. Unless we can get a decent article out of this one as well as for all the shorts together without lots of duplication, I just feel that we should be covering all of the shorts released rather than a single one. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I was thinking the same thing. The increased scope could also help increase the notability of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I was thinking of definitely expanding the sequel section to also be more in depth for the other two. But if that means ultimately the formatting happens similarly to that of the One-Shots article, I'm all for that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- No, hard fucking no. I'm already working on an article for the second one.★Trekker (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, but at least as this article currently stands, it would be more beneficial to make a single article about all three shorts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- No it wouldn't, it never would. Wikipedia editors needs to get over it's fetish for having as few articles as humanly possible. It's seriously starting to piss me off. Forcing three independently produced products into the same article just because they might end up a little short is some insanity. They also recoved independent coverage each time.★Trekker (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Umm, okay. That reaction seems a little over the top. What we are saying is if we can't get three decent articles out of these, it may be better to do an article on the whole series, just like we can have articles for TV shows rather than split the information over multiple TV episode articles. Also remember that you do not WP:OWN these articles or get to decide what happens here. It needs to be a decision made by all concerned parties. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I never claimed ownership or even thought I had a shot at getting it my way. I know very well that you'll just overrule whatever I feel anyway if you decide to do it. I'm just frustrated and expressing my feelings about it. I don't care for what seems to be the general idea of what a "decent article" is, good articles don't have to be long. Constant craming of mildy related topics into the same article space for the sake of having less short articles is a big problem that plagues this site. Just because you can make two articles one doesn't mean it's a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Articles have to pass notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. So yes, if you have a short article on one thing, that might benefit being together with another article, that might be best, because that original single article probably doesn't have the significant coverage for a stand alone article. I haven't looked yet, but my guess is each individual short made doesn't have much notability by itself, but together, in one article, they'd be pretty notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Having tons of articles by reliable sources isn't notable by Wikipedia standards in you head? This would be something worth laughing at if it wasn't so disgusting and I was so tired already.★Trekker (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Having a ton of articles with a substantial amount of reliable sources establishes notability. So if the third party sources are there, and can each comment on an aspect of a topic, yes it is notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Which a anyone with eyes could clearly tell this has.★Trekker (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
