User talk:TTN/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposed deletion of SNES emulator pages

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is in regards to your recent four requests for deletion, stating that these articles represent non-notable software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSNES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNES9x
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsnes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SNES_emulators

While I will agree with you that articles on specific emulators are not encyclopedic in and of themselves (excepting of course for those researching emulation or its history for a given platform), as well that these articles are sparse on content, I cannot understand your reasoning for targeting only the SNES platform, when there are well over 30 different platforms with over 200 articles regarding specific emulators on Wikipedia. Virtually all of which are far less notable than, for example, ZSNES -- which according to SourceForge project statistics has been downloaded over 20 million times, indexed by Google nearly 400,000 times, and referenced in several published video gaming magazines. ZSNES and SNES9x specifically represent very notable, pioneering software in the field of emulation, dating back with over a decade worth of development. They are the Model T's of emulation. bsnes pioneered new emulation techniques never before used anywhere else, and has achieved record 100% compatibility. All of these represent thousands of hours of effort, with userbases all exceeding 50,000+ people. Therefore, I must ask, do you have a personal issue with this console specifically?

If, dare I ask, you'd be willing to compromise -- perhaps it would be best to restructure emulator entries to one page per system, ala http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNES-Emulator, rather than outright deletion of all related content?

Or, if you insist on upholding an iron fist to the rules of Wikipedia, then by definition all of the below articles I will list should be deleted as well, for the same reasons. Nevermind the will of the hundreds of Wikipedia citizens who contributed to the below articles ... the software listed clearly cannot meet your personal definition of notable software. Let's rule out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a counterpoint: if you do not have time to do it personally, and continue to press for the deletion of the above articles, then I will assist you by nominating all of these below articles for deletion for you on your behalf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_system_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_console_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NES_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PC_Engine_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PC-FX_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SNES_emulators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MSX_emulators

... and this is just a quick cursory glance. I'm sure I can locate many dozens more, if you would like.

I'm simply seeking fairness in the articles you target here, and I'm forced to question your motives for selecting only one system as you have. If you choose not to respond within 24 hours, due to your fast-track deletion requests, I will be forced to object to their deletion for the time being. Perhaps it would be more prudent to open an AfD on one specific emulator page (I recommend ZSNES or MAME as they are the most notable), to set a precedent either for or against the deletion of the above ~200 articles. Do you concur?

I apologize, for I realize the above list is very lengthy, feel free to truncate this list upon responding, if you like. But I felt it important to demonstrate to you just how notable emulation software is to the Wikipedia community as a whole. 12.20.127.229 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Castlevania Merges

The two pages for the Castlevania III characters are necessary, seeing as they will soon not only be from the famous game, but in a movie as well. As such, there are details such as retconned information that I wish to document. Even moreso for Trevor Belmont, seeing as his exploits extend beyond the mere synopsis of the Castlevania III page, in addition to the upcoming role in the animated feature. I feel these details would overextend the CVIII page, so I isolated them in individual pages, though the Trevor Belmont and Sypha Belnades pages was not my creation. I have undone your redirects. Please stop with your unnecessary merges. Samuraiprose 13:35, 14 August 2007

That seems to be your rationale towards every mass merge you have done in the past, much to the disdain of every other user here. I'm new here, so I'm not so familiar with the rules, but where does it say 'it cannot happen for a few minor characters'? Is that Wiki's preference, or yours? If your complaint is that no sources are present, I will be happy to add some.

Besides that point, I wouldn't be too hasty to proclaim that these characters are 'minor'. They are the main characters of the CVIII storyline, and of the upcoming feature. Samuraiprose 13:47, 14 August 2007

On the contrary. What sets these characters apart from the rest of the Castlevania series characters is that they appeared in more than just one game, and (again) are featured now in a movie, seen here: www.castlevaniadraculascurse.com

If anything, I see your justification to delete the articles for Grant DaNasty and Sypha Belnades. They are uncited; ok, I will remedy that. However, Trevor's page is full of sources and multiple appearances that go beyond just one game, not unlike the article of Simon Belmont. I don't see why you delete that, seeing as the material inside directly contradicts your reasoning.

I know what sources are. I'll find some. As for how available they are, that's not really for anyone to say until they've looked for themselves.

And again, is the redirection of articles for 'minor' characters Wiki's preference, or yours? Samuraiprose 14:10, 14 August 2007

Ok. Rules. Fair enough, I see your operating process now. Strange, since I thought this was a reference site for everything, not only what is deemed 'from the real world'. Oh, well. I give up. Samuraiprose 14:32, 14 August 2007

Full House Redirects

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I disagree with your completely unnecessary redirects (and so does everyone else). Upon reviewing your edit logs, it is clearly apparent that the majority of your edits are redirects. Please discontinue, as your edits are approaching vandalism. --ProteinTotal 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario series enemies

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, you might want to have a look at Goomba and Koopa Troopa (and Lakitu and all). Someone waking up after the end of the discussion and is trying to unilaterally decides stuff. Thanks. Kariteh 18:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

M&L characters

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It was AfDed for having no content.
The article does not adequately cover the plot.
As they are in a series of games, it could be an idea to merge the two M&L lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tingle

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments1 person in discussion

I'm looking at the discussion, no one seems to EVER discuss Tingle. The fact of the matter is that Tingle has more notability than many characters. He has his own ever-growing series of games (two games released, one rumored by EGM for Wii), has appeared in many Zelda games, and Nintendo often promotes the character. That's definitely more than Impa or the Great Fairy, meaning that a single discussion for all Zelda characters is NOT adequate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Buh? Most merge tags do NOT have a merge discussion associated with them. I'm not going to be blamed for not participating in a discussion which you never told anyone about which did not even discuss Tingle AT ALL. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree that treating Tingle, who has significantly more notability and Out of Universe info than most Zelda characters, shouldn't even be acknowledged in the merge discussion. And like I ALREADY said, merge tags rarely have merge discussions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I say that the "discussion" had nothing to do with Tingle and didn't acknowledge the character at all. I'm calling for a different discussion, and I'd appreciate if you started one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, is there some logical reason why you absolutely despise discussing merges? It seems that in any case, you fight tooth and nail to avoid discussing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Like with Ness, you clearly hated the idea of discussing the merger. I doubt anyone wouldn't notice that you simply wanted to have it done with ASAP. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

With most of your recent merges, you up and merged them in a day or so. That's very sudden and abrupt and annoying to many. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You knew that I opposed any merge of the character of Tingle, and yet didn't acknowledge that opposition when making your decision. Did you decide that because my opposition was not declared in the discussion, that it was worth less than the people who participated in it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You knew I opposed the merge. Just because you have this idea that you any opinion not expressed in the discussion you created doesn't exist doesn't change reality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The PROBLEM is that you grouped Tingle in the discussion and just ignored the FACTS I showed which clearly prove Tingle to be by far more notable than every single character involved in that merge which involved only four people even participating it. That was a pretty pathetic discussion - it was only you giving your opinion, and three others saying "I agree". You DO seem to be the kind of guy who ignores arguments - first you ignored undeniable fact that Tingle is more notable than Impa, Great Fairy, Vaati, etc., and then you ignored the fact that merge templates are rarely accompanied by an actual discusssion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On top of all this, you never announce your proposals on WT:CVG - I've seen a single post on the current page from you, and it had nothing to do with merging. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for assuming that because no one ever adds discussions along with merge tags that you'd be the one who does. You have to be responsible to make sure that the discussion is known to all those interested. Are you implying that those three people involved wouldn't change their mind on Tingle if you didn't include him with characters of lesser importance? You knew my opposition you knew why my opposition existed, but you ignored it, plain and simple. You ignored absolute facts - Tingle is a main character in two games, two games which exist outside of the Zelda universe (like how Wario Land does). That is more than most characters in the series have. Is there any [good] reason why you ignored that fact? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to note, I also see that you have a general problem with alerting people to your actions - such as when you merge, add an AfD, or tag images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mario characters

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

I'm looking at the discussion, I see several people saying that they do not want articles such as Koopa Troopa and Goomba merged. I have no idea what you're talking about. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - were they AWARE of the new discussion sections? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you decided that their opposition doesn't count? I'm pretty sure it clarifies that just because someone doesn't participate in a new discussion doesn't mean that they no longer hold their opinions and that their opinions don't matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're using an assumption to achieve what you want? The discussion over Link's lead image just screeched to a halt, but people clearly still had opinions on the matter. You are not in a position to assume what someone is thinking. Just because they bowed out does NOT mean that their opinion has changed or that it no longer matters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are some kind of mystical deity with the ability and/or right to make such an assumption, that doesn't matter. It's stated that there opinion STILL stands. You can't just throw them away for such a stupid reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Their opinion hasn't changed as far as you know. It is your responsibility to not try to dig up reasons to ignore people who disagree with you. There opinion still exists - they don't have to constantly announce their stance on the issue every quarter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't assume that something they once felt is something they still feel, but you can assume that something they never felt is what they now feel?

Hi, how about you spend five minutes asking them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

I read the conversation at WP:POKE and while I partly agree with your edits there, shouldn't you clarify the merger consensus? Or am I reading it wrong? Lord Sesshomaru

You should wait until WP:CONSENSUS is completely reached. Please don't merge the Bulbasaur article (and remove those tags) again without having a complete resolution. Lord Sesshomaru

Dead Rising

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey dude what was the point of deleting the Psychopaths article and main character articles. You must have a good reason. DeadWood 11:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They're covered in the main article. TTN 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Honorverse

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please check my reply to your observation, and note that the dialog should be moved to an appropriate location. --Tbmorgan74 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ike

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

He's been confirmed as a character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Does this notability warrant his own article like Marth's and Roy's? It can easily be renewed from the redirect. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a conversation on Talk: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, if you want to respond there. This way would allow anyone to participate. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Hello there, TTN! Damn, hasn't it been stifling hot the past few weeks? Well, my reason to be here is simple. The articles were long and informative, and were not one liner stubs. Plus, you never talked this over on the talk page, you are just redirecting on compulsion, and judging by some notes on your talk page, not everybody is happy with it. I really wish that you will stop. I don't want to be tough, but if you continue, this will be going to RfC. It doesn't matter if you don't think that they should exist, but what the general consensus is. Doing what you are doing would be like just out of nowhere merging Mercury Sable with Ford Taurus. Anyways, I wish you will stop, because I will either start a RfC or bring administer intervention. Plus, remember to sign you posts, please. Karrmann 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be rude, but you are just being a jerk now. Sorry that I had to say that, but I did. I think when they invented WP:BOLD, they didn't mean to take information away from the encyclopedia without any reason or discussion. Karrmann 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, one of the first things they states on that article was that if the information on a main or major character becomes long, then it warrants its own article. So, if that the case, then why did you merge Doug Heffernan, since his article is long and he is the main character on The King of Queens? Karrmann 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"OK, here's the deal." You left a snarky comment on my talk page, so here I am. I'm going to revert all your deletions to characters from [{Daria]]. In general, it is considered at the very least polite to discuss and reach a consensus for large scale content removal. It was certainly "bold" of you to delete so much information, but now that you've been bold, I'm going to go ahead and undo your edits, which were essentially merges and deletions without building a consensus. There's a reason we have procedures for merge and deletion discussions, and you may want to consider why those exist rather than simply say, "Hey, I was being bold, leave me alone." You may also want to consider that others worked hard on these articles, even if you personally would not include them in an encyclopedia that you published. Croctotheface 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AfD and WP:MM are established procedures for deleting and merging articles. WP:BRD refers to content within articles, not essentially removing them. I do believe that at least some of those articles should stay. I very strenuously object to your methods. Croctotheface 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BRD exists as a way to generate a response from editors. You seem to view it as an end run around having to gain consensus in the first place. You've said several times that "if you don't disagree with me, leave it alone", which I have trouble seeing as anything but an intention to avoid discussion. In other words, "BRD" stands for bold, revert, discussion. You had made your "bold" changes, they were reverted, and then rather than discuss, you have sought to avoid discussion. Croctotheface 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that, first and foremost, you should take the advice offered at WP:BRD and try to be a bit less abrasive. Again, it seems to me that you are trying to avoid a discussion by virtue of some of your comments. I am not surprised that other editors may not have wanted to have a discussion with you based on the way you've discussed your changes with me. Croctotheface 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I really feel like I'm not getting through to you. BRD is described on WP:BRD as "a proactive method for reaching consensus". When someone reverts you, you are supposed to take that as a sign to begin discussion about the content dispute. Instead, you have tried to avoid or cut off discussion by telling them that they should not have reverted you in the first place. Then you cite a process called "bold, REVERT, discussion" as the reason you made your intial edits. If you were really interested in using this process to engage in discussion and figure out what the consensus is for content, you would take the revert as an invitation to begin discussion. Instead, you took it as a reason to be snarky and generally off-putting. Croctotheface 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit annoyed that you merged alll the My Family characters articles onto one page without any form of discussion or reason. I have reverted all pending a discussion. --UpDown 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there was a discussion, a long time ago, and it resulted in WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which says major characters should get their own page if the main article would be too long. This is the case here, the articles are all of good length, although of course there is room for expansion. And even if the articles should have been merged, which they shouldn't, TTN should have merged some of this information. This was not done so information was lost. While I agree minor characters like Alfie Butts, should not have pages (indeed his was rightly deleted), the main characters should. --UpDown 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the first point concerning main characters in WP:FICT? It actually allows main characters to have separate pages if it prevents the list page from becoming too long? WAVY 10 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

" If an encyclopedic treatment (a real world perspective backed sources independent of the work) of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article." No, it does not allow the articles that you are talking about to have their own articles. Raw size alone does not justify an independent article. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Wiki is not paper. Even Jimbo Wales has said that:

"there is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia"

...or do you think he meant that only for The Simpsons? Ospinad 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is based upon real world information. The Simpsons has that for a lot of its topics. A random children's show will not. TTN 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you saying that there shouldn't be any information on Wikipedia about the character's of a show that isn't as popular as The Simpsons? Or that they just shouldn't have their own page? If there is enough information to fill good sized page then what's the problem? And if not then we could also add more to it. Besides, do you think that EVERY character in The Simpons is going to have a lot of "real world" information about them? Ospinad 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Real world information (see WP:WAF and User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)) is what defines notability on this site. The Simpsons has more of it for some of its topics. The rest are covered on lists. If other topics only have in-universe information, they are merged or deleted. TTN 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you don't think that there should be a page for EVERY Simpsons character? If so, then that contradicts what it says here: WP:PAPER Ospinad 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Paper assumes that the topic meets our policies and guidelines. It doesn't override them. TTN 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, bold does not equal reckless. WAVY 10 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Biff Tannen et al

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm trying to get the folk over there to put this all in a Characters in Back to the Future but maybe you should do it. PMA 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Untouched Pages

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi again. Just noticed on some of your previous merges it doesn't look like you've changed the Pokemon articles into redirects, such as Celebi and Ho-oh. Are you going to change all of them at once, or would it help if I did for ya? :) -WarthogDemon 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirect them all afterwards due to some people complaining about it. TTN 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. Just checking. Though feel free to ask me for help if ever you need it. I've been checking the articles for reverted redirects anyways. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 23:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alerting people to discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just because someone's involved in an article does not mean that they are aware of the discussion. You could have sent a courtesy message to a few people about the FMA episode list discusssion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dark Link

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

...because only in OoT does he appear "with no origin" (which is shaky, since all the evil in the Temple's is claimed to be of Ganon's design). Plus, the OoT part, which is one of his biggest appearances, is not mentioned at all. I guess the OoA section is unneeded, but other than that, all I'm changing is the OoT and "no origin" bits, which are wrong.KrytenKoro 11:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to trim down the OoT section as much as possible, and find a useful picture, but the OoT section does need to be there.

Also - I can't find a good pic online, but I do have scans of the FSA manga. Would we be allowed to use, as a picture for Dark Link, a cropped image from the manga? If so, I'll crop one and try to upload it, though I'm not sure what the fair-use would have to be.KrytenKoro 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The OoT mention is not a defining appearance, and there is certainly some unneeded information in it. Why should it be included? FSA is only included due to its large role in it. TTN 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that works, though I still think that most of his notability comes from OoT, even if he didn't have a big role in it. (I mean, I like him best in FSA, but the OoT appearance is what seems to be how the fandom and game newssites remember him)KrytenKoro 13:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Hi, I noticed you removed the cvgproj template from Talk:Torchic. Please do not remove such templates, as they are being used for assessment purposes. Thanks, JACO PLANE • 2007-08-5 14:13

Hmm, I didn't notice that the page had been redirected. Nevermind. JACO PLANE • 2007-08-5 14:14

WP:FICT

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Since everyone seems to approve except Nydas (who is complaining about the prose when we are still trying to iron out the content), I'm going to start polishing it up. Feel free to give me a hand; I would enlist Tony on this matter, but he knows very little on how fiction is handled (it's not his field of editing). I might ask him to proofread the final draft later. — Deckill er 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your opinion on the list format? Nydas is the first user to address a problem with it, and I personally think it should stay because I find it easier to understand in list format. I can understand the markup issue, though, and have adjusted it accordingly. — Deckill er 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I can't see anyone going "Oh, these lists are so cluttered. I wish they were just grouped into common paragraphs." TTN 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Besides, one of the hallmarks of business and technical writing is the list style. — Deckill er 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

E.T. article edits

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nice compromise on our conflicting versions of the E.T. Gameplay section. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends season 1 is up for review

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:List of Friends episodes#Episode article review (Season 1)

I think we're going to need all voices! -- Jack Merridew 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DBZ

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have to go back to my coursework but seriously, give me more than 5 minutes to improve the things. I can't help that I go away for a while and people fill it with "Goku was uber powerful and the first in 1000 years making him the legendary super saiyan". But your way isn't any better. CRUFT aside, it doesn't appeal to just an area of fandom, its an essential part of the series, hell, 90% of it is about transforming into something to beat someone who transformed into something else because you just transformed because he just transformed. New readers should be able to see this as much as old. Darkwarriorblake 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Zelda enemies

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

That's fine, but a lot of them that you removed have been in four or five games, while you left the ones that were only in one or two rooms in Ocarina of Time (Anubis, for example). I would prefer you let us split the articles so we can work on compressing and filling up sections, as part of the reason that the ones you deleted were so short is that they're hard to find in the giant list.

Also, you deleted several of the mainstay ones down to their first appearance - even though they have been quite dynamic over the course of the series.KrytenKoro 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...When your changes demand that other editors go back and either finish or repair what you've done, it's best to just discuss it on the talk page.KrytenKoro 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, about the merging of Bleach characters, can you please wait until a precise decision is made at the Talk:List of Bleach characters? I have made a shinigami test page from my user space here, so we can see the best result first.--Hanaichi 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having an edit conflict over something irrelevant, however I'll just let you know that there is not any entry for Goomba in the List of Mario series enemies, you should realize that this will make users like a Link to the past to revert this several times. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was apparently removed by an anon and never readded. TTN 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Philosophy of Time Travel

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fine, I'll leave this one alone. For the record, were it to have gone to AfD I'd have suggested deleting it. I simply do not like blanket redirects of established articles, even if the content is "junk" as you put it. —Xezbeth 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

From the VG merge discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

TTN, I'd like to take a moment to offer my opinion on the state of the VG merge discussion. Aside from my comments about the proposed merge itself, I think you're pushing a lot harder on this than you really should be or need to be. It seems like at least once a day, you leave a message in the form of "Are we good with merging now?", and after a while it starts to become old. I know you mean well, and I completely believe your edits and discussion are in good faith, but the way you're going about this makes you look really impatient, to the point of possibly having a deeper agenda in the situation. I realize you believe that RFC won't help, and that it's important to keep people involved in the discussion, but pestering people in the way I've seen you do actually tends to drive people away from the discussion, rather than bring them into it.

I'd really recommend that you back off a bit and exercise more patience in this discussion. I can't say for sure why this particular discussion is taking so long, but I'd guess that it has partly to do with the pestering. What might help at this point would be to start a new thread with a summary of what's been discussed so far - at this point, we have a HUGE discussion that editors are likely to skim over, and that might cause opinions to be unfairly skewed either direction.

I don't mean any offense with this criticism. I just want to help prevent any misunderstandings. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did that twice, both after it looked like we had a very clear consensus and discussion was at a low point. I wanted to make sure that something like the ordeal with ALTTP wouldn't happen (though it did). I may be a little pushy in my tone, but this is after what must be at least three months of discussing this in various places, dealing with the same "Oh, there are sources" arguments and wikilawyering over and over. There certainly has been nothing new in this discussion either. Other than that, I believe I have been cordial enough to the people that deserve it, and patient enough to the needs of others. TTN 23:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, if you thought you had consensus but then your actions were overturned and nobody else stepped up to enforce the consensus, it seems like that wasn't really a consensus. It seems like the discussion history here points more toward keeping the Goomba article as a separate article rather than merging it - not a clear consensus to do this, but also not a clear consensus to merge. In situations like this, perhaps the best course of action is to let things be - all I can see right now is that you keep pushing and pushing to get things to go your way, and it's apparently not working. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a much clearer to merge than to keep (if you're not just going only with people that directly state their opinion), and we also have the general content guidelines in favor of merging also. As long as I am right, and I don't have an overwhelming consensus against me, I'm going to keep pushing and pushing, even if it causes people to get fed up with me. TTN 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Then just keep in mind that it's likely going to get people mad at you. I'd really rather not have to deal with a Wikiquette Alert against you, much less have to refer it to a stronger form of dispute resolution. That sort of headstrong attitude is one of the things that causes many disputes here on Wikipedia. And personally, I think there are far more important things to focus such attention on, than whether or not the Goomba species has its own article.

That said, I'm going to bow out of the discussion, as I don't think I can state my opinions any more clearly than I already have. Good luck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the history here, it looks like you have generated a LOT of controversy with your merges. There are quite a few editors who have expressed a desire for you to either stop merging or to allow for more discussion of those merges. I'm going to formally request that you tone it down at this point, as it appears that your efforts to merge such a large number of articles is disrupting Wikipedia. If necessary, I will open an RFC/U to discuss this in a more formal environment. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They need to be merged or redirected. There is no way around that. The people that disagree are those that have a loose understanding of our fiction guidelines and our policies and guidelines in general. Again, there is no way around the merging, so there is also no way around people getting upset. I like to go with WP:BRD for actually redirecting, as it allows for actual discussion to go on instead of twenty blank merge discussions. If you don't like the idea of that method, that is fine, but there is nothing wrong with it. And, I make sure to place merge tags on ones that will likely need discussion anyways. TTN 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it's apparently causing enough of a disruption that you no longer appear to have full consensus behind your actions. From my point of view, you appear to be working unilaterally on these merges, and in some cases (such as the Pokemon articles), your merges do go against previously established consensus (I remember several discussions about whether or not each Pokemon should have its own separate article, and it had been widely decided that such articles WERE appropriate). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot really gather a consensus of what is correct on this site as a whole from my random encounters with less than fifty people. Most of those people are either ignorant towards our policies and guidelines or choose to ignore them completely and supplement their own opinions into their editing. Currently, WP:FICT is the consensus. Only when that is changed to "Everything gets an article" will my actions be against consensus. There is no way to have agreement listed on the articles unless there is a task force or something set up, but as with another one that I am part of (TV episodes), it gets really screwy. The Pokemon articles have been under discussion for a long time, by the way. TTN 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this edit summary.

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your edit summary is merged, what exactly are you talking about? I already merged this a week ago. TheBlazikenMaster 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I probably wasn't thinking about it. TTN 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop the vigilante merges

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

TTN, I am warning you. Cease your vigilante merging. Wikipedia is not paper, just because you personally don't like a subject or think it's notable doesn't mean you may enforce your will on wikipedia. If you don't like individual articles for characters, tough luck, people have worked on them and consider the subject notable. Your opinion is not worth more than theirs (in fact, it's worth LESS here, since you are not backed by any real consensus in most cases). I'll be watching you... Ghost of starman 20:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Starman, please be careful in your wording. I happen to agree that the merge efforts TTN has been making lately are not necessarily helping WP as a whole right now, but your "warning" is borderline uncivil, and at least in cases that I've seen, TTN has at least made a good faith effort to discuss the merges before simply performing them. The case may be different in the merges you've seen, and I'm not discounting that possibility. I'm just saying that there may be better ways to approach this issue than telling a user how much his opinion counts. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

see ANB DGG (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for not notifying you immediately of the Admin Noticeboard posting. In this case, I am seeking advice on how to proceed, not necessarily any arbitration or admin action at this time. But after having gotten an outside opinion on the matter, it seemed necessary to go there since we agreed (as you yourself have said before) that WP:RFC/U would not be effective or helpful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I used to think the same as you, that TTN was not helping wikipedia, but I realise now that he is quite right in what he is doing, and that all the fancruft is really not helping wikipedia stay a general encyclopedia. Jackaranga 11:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Two matters

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear TTN/Archive 8, you are invited to join the move request for Goku since it's been much slower than expected. I also asked something at WP:WPDB and thought you could help in seeking the answer. Much thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed your recent removal of the Stickers from the Smash Bros. Brawl page but I will agree to support this time only because of minor details and lack of sufficent info on the Dojo website at the moment. I posted a message reflecting my opinions on the talk page, if you want to post one of your own go right ahead but I wanted you to know my position on this. -Adv193 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this Barnstar to TTN for his efforts removing non-notable fancruft, even in the face of much unwarranted criticism.

Barnstar for your efforts, and to compensate for all the people reporting you on WP:AN every other week, because they hadn't read the policies. :) Jackaranga 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

is there any specific reason you decided to make all of the pages for Phantasy Star Characters redirect to their respective pages, which don't give all too much information themselves??? People have a right to look up information they want to. Lord GaleVII 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no way for those to pass WP:FICT. Another wiki would be a better place for that info. TTN 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I Think You Need Another One

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 00:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Two's Company

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your courageous removal of repetitive articles on Wikipedia pertaining to Pokémon, I hereby award you The Editor's Barnstar. Alt iris Exeunt 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		We're not quite sure how you did it, but you're hereby awarded The Barnstar of Humor. Alt iris Exeunt 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alt iris Exeunt 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.

Uh, please don't think that two Barnstars and a Smile all at once is a bribe; I just thought that you deserved it since your removal and merger of Pokémon articles (which I am finally accepting as unsuitable encyclopedic content on Wikipedia) has drawn you into the line of fire of almost every Pokémon fan here. Your clarification on my talk page belonged to someone who was quite calm. I admit that had I visited the WikiProject Pokémon page more often, you would never get a Test4 warning from me. That fault is mine. In retrospect, I am quite glad that you would go as far as to leave a friendly message on my talk page. Most people — me included — would have probably started swearing by then. -- Alt iris Exeunt 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing!

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Amazing! Eleven edits in a single minute, that's simply brilliant. Congratulations, and all the best. jj137^Talk 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm just making use of Firefox's tabs. TTN 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh...that would make sense. Where do you find it (I can't remember exactly where)? jj137^Talk 15:30, 18 August 2007

I remember almost getting blocked for running an "illegal bot" when it was just tabs :) — Deckill er 19:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Don't Repeat That Exercise.

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Please do not redirect Jimmy Valmer's page again, Mr./Mrs./Miss TTN (whichever it may be). That is not very contributary to the development and prosperity of this encyclopedia. (Besides, if you do it again, I may need to take some serious action. And you may trust me: you wouldn't want that.)

Wilhelmina Will 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It was merged per a discussion. TTN 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you may want to avoid death threats. It can get you blocked for a while. TTN 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstood. I did not mean to threaten you with death when I said "fatal". I use harsh words in the English language to describe a wide range of things. My apologies. But whatever was said in that discussion, please understand that they were all wrong. Very wrong, I'm afraid.

Wilhelmina Will 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel like trying to explain this right now, so please just trust me on the fact that there are a thousand reasons that article doesn't belong. TTN 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've been amazingly productive...

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Take a look at this issue: Category:Soul series characters. — Deckill er 02:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think those would be able to function on a list or would just redirecting to a "Characters" section be better? I know little of the series, but fighting games besides Street Fighter never seem to have any real chance of real world info. TTN 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And I doubt they'd have much of a plot. I'm not sure, personally; a list would be fine for now, methinks. — Deckill er 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably do that tomorrow. If you're familiar with Street Fighter, which characters would you say have a chance of staying? TTN 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar, unfortunately. But a few google searches for the main protagonists will determine if there is significant real-world content. A list could be established if there is at least some real-world content out there... — Deckill er 03:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you redirecting these major character articles to a list? The articles are notable and informative. I think a major changes like that should be discussed first. —TigerK 69 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect

Hi, I am concerned about the articles you appear to be deleting without discussion, and also the self links you are introducing. If you believe these articles are not capable of standing on their own, then "redirect and merge" may be appropriate, generally with some discussion. But deleting the content and replacing it with a redirect is generally not, especially when you are leaving a lot of self-links in the redirectee. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 20:23 19 August 2007 (GMT). —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:23:34, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Dark Force

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please quit messing with Dark Force. It is good to have all that information integrated in a single article. -- Stormwatch 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

re:Mischief Makers

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it's at least possible to reach GA status. You might want to aim for that first, and then reanalyze the scenerio and see if a FA push is realistic. — Deckill er 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

before just deleting away like that, why don't we just discuss this before this turns into a edit war? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of just calling it that explain why it is. and if someone rewrites your summary then just explain it to them and revert it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but Wikipedia is all about improvement and sometimes some information is better than nothing. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But some of us can't track down the information, if its bothering you so much, why not rewrite it yourself? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bumping up old discussion.

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I still need the answer, will you join or not? TheBlazikenMaster 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't bother joining projects. I just use them as venues of discussion. I guess if you need filler or something, I can list myself. TTN 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I support your hard work! Keep it up! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dark Force (Phantasy Star)

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You might want to handle this: Dark Force (Phantasy Star), just to give you a heads up. -WarthogDemon 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll come back to it later. It is either going to take a long, winding discussion on why the article cannot meet WP:FICT and WP:WAF or it'll be the same old wikilawyering over consensus that I ever so love. TTN 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I decided to slap a merge tag on it. Hope that was okay. -WarthogDemon 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirection of Kim Possible character articles

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop the mass redirection/deletion of these articles without discussion. Articles such as these need to have any such decision made by consensus on either the article talkpage or WP:AFD, not by unilateral action of one editor. Continuing to redirect and delete articles without proper discussion will be considered vandalism and reported as needed. Rdfox 76 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, mass would be twenty or thirty, not three. Discussion does not need to take place, nor will it ever need to take place to redirect pointless articles. It comes when there is a need for an actual discussion. It will also never be vandalism. At most, it would result in a 3RR block if I were to keep redirecting them over and over. Now that those are cleared up, I'm not going to bother pursuing those articles anyways, but please do not revert on the discussion principal again unless you also state "I believe this article should stay." TTN 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite to me the WP policy or guideline that permits instant deletion and redirection without consensus or any effort to merge the information on the page being deleted and redirected. You didn't even cite a reason for the redirect in the edit summary; all that was there was the word "redirect." You can't expect people to see that and think anything but "vandalism." As I mentioned in the initial comment, it's not any one editor's place to unilaterally determine an article to be "pointless" and delete it without warning; that's what the AFD process is for. Rdfox 76 18:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite the policy or guideline that states that there must be discussion on every single action. I go with the WP:BRD method, which makes dealing with repetitive actions very easy. There are way too many character articles and too few editors to make discussion feasible. It ends up being a bunch of empty discussions with a "silent consensus verdict." So by redirecting, we get a view on which ones need discussions. Also, AfD is for deleting, not redirecting. TTN 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT isn't working

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As I expected, the new WP:FICT is just being ignored by franchise fans, except for the few who really care about the encyclopedia. Those who disagree with WP:FICT but agree with an encyclopedic goal have been rather quiet lately; if they speak up, I'd be willing to discuss a WikiProject-specific Notability guideline compromise.

Then again, it's a slow process. We'll see. — Deckill er 18:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It definitely seems to be working better. You'll never really get rid of those kind of people, so you just have to make it easy to ignore them. Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones. TTN 18:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I just wish I had more time to invest in properly maturing my ideas/contributions to fruition....like it used to be when I was performing 200-300 edits per day. — Deckill er 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I want to register strong objection to your removing even one episode summary of any of the series listed on your user page. Episode summaries are information, and what isn't notable to you might be extremely notable to someone else. The very things you claim are not notable, such as summaries and production notes, are one of the primary reasons I and a lot of people use Wikipedia. If you are attempting this action solely because you believe some policy compels you to, then I respectfully say that it is the so-called policy that needs attention, not these articles. $wgUser 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per your prod Eusebeus 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain....

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Explain why the VR Troopers article "must" be deleted. I posted about it on the talk page. Please respond. You have a reputation for erasing good articles and turning them into redirects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.216.93 (talk) 23:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If you can find substantial real-world content to show notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, then the article can be kept. Until then, the redirect allows people to access edit history and work on the article in their userspace or in the edit box, but notability has to be established. After all, notability is the logical, objective extension to the WP:NOT policy. — Deckill er 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Casey "Cici" Cooper

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's one for you. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have a question about these new Fiction guidelines, Will every Simpsons episode and character article that isn't a GA eventually be targeted for deletion or merging, or are we immune because we have so many GAs? Because aside from our GAs, there are maybe 10 episode pages that meet the real-world info guideline (at the moment) and 3 or 4 characters. Even the Marge Simpson page currently has pretty much no relevant real world information. And, how much time do we have to get as many articles as we can up to code? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? The fiction guidelines are the same as they have always been. WP:FICT has been updated to make everything clearer, but its still the same. Anyways, I'm sure you're fine for now; there is a definite assertion of possible improvement for most of the articles. Eventually, I want to sort out which characters need to be merged or not, but there aren't going to be any witch hunts or anything. Though, you may get the occasional person trying to make a point due to "their" article(s) being killed. TTN 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said, I have no problem with some character pages being merged. There are still a few from our list left. The rest of the characters have been discussed on the DVDs and a "Creation" section could easily be created - it just takes time because there is a small manpower shortage in WP:SIMPSONS.

I'm also surprised that you haven't paid any attention to the pages for Simpsons locations. I think Capitol City and Shelbyville could easily be merged. Springfield's state is a different story because it is the source of a lot of speculation and real world context exists for it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Samsho

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My boy, you fucked up Samurai Shodown. Now go and split all of the character pages. It will be good if you discuss such changes on the talk page. Really, don't to such changes without discussing. In the first time for months I've been browsing and what to see - there are none. So, be a good boy and revert all of the damage you've done. It is not cool. You understand that. It is not cool doing that. You do something big - you go and discuss it if it is cool. You didn't and it is not cool. gosh, I hate my life.

regards: Painbearer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Painbearer (talk • contribs) 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)