Talk:Manticore in popular culture

Dates for entries
I think a good improvement on the article would be to list the dates of creation for the various media which mentions these creatures throughout the ages. Just to demonstrate that thousands of years later, people are still talking about them, thus they quite a notable work of fiction.  D r e a m Focus  22:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, and good luck. My worry is that this page is more vulnerable to being deleted as is (i.e. on its own) than combined into parent article. As well, there is no clear line between ancient and modern. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent deletion discussions seem to run contrary to that fear. Mintrick (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the subject, many have been deleted, others kept, and consensus may change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Before the procedural close of the AfD (which was the proper call), the majority of votes were for deletion or merge back into the main article. The closing admin agreed with that logic. That was on 15 May. I see no reason the merge should not be performed, given these facts. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There were also plenty of votes for deletion. I cannot see a consensus for merging. Mintrick (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be joking, right? There was not a single vote for keeping it, and there is no consensus for keeping it now.  I will just take it back to AfD, and we'll be fucking done with this nonsense. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it should be merged, rather deleted, which sounds fine to me. I think that maybe you misunderstand my purpose here. I just don't want this stuff back in the other article. Mintrick (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was only open one day, not enough people having time to contribute to the discussion. 3 said merge(not delete and redirect), 1 said delete, and 2 said close it.  That is not consensus.  Discuss it in a proper manner, and don't use a rapidly closed AFD that was started by a sock, as an excuse to do what you want.   D r e a m Focus  16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mintrick has been doing this crap for a while now. There has been NO consensus to move the pop culture information to a new article, but he somehow thinks being bold is the only way to go. The correct thing to do is trim the section, not just move the clutter somewhere else. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide to every appearance. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not. I happen to think that none of this stuff belongs. But unlike some, I don't generally force that opinion on everyone by obliterating the lists. A separate article keeps the scholarly article just that, but allows people who like this stuff a place to express themselves. Flase proclamations of "against consensus" do nothing, as it is clear that many people are happy with these separate articles. Mintrick (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * People can like whatever they want, but that doesn't always make it suitable for Wikipedia. This information is rarely suitable for Wikipedia. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a guide to everytime a manticore has appeared in a movie, television show, book or wherever else: it's trivial cruft/clutter at best. Moving clutter from the article to a new article isn't helping anything. I didn't make a false proclamation. You have made how many of these split off articles now? NONE have been made because people wanted them. You just chose to push the clutter into a new article, because you didn't like it in the original article. Article splits should be for useful information only. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One frustrating aspect of trying to gage consensus is the overall lack of activity at Proposed mergers‎ - many article discussions with very few comments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)