User talk:Mvuijlst/Archives/2008/January

Gilmore Girls episodes
Is there a reason for you to restore non-notable Gilmore Girls episodes? I see that you have a dispute with TTN, but you can carry this on while leaving the episodes as redirects. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully think you have it the wrong way around. TTN took it upon him/herself to indiscriminately redirect a whole bunch of articles that did not violate any Wikipedia policies, thus effectively removing them from view for the vast majority of users. I feel that if anyone really wishes to make such a sweeping change, it would be better to first seek some sort of consensus before doing so. I do not see any pressing need for these articles need to stay hidden while a discussion goes on.


 * As I've asked elsewhere: if you do not agree, what venue do you suggest to escalate this? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TTN's redirects were not indiscriminate. The policies this was based on were noted in TTN's edit summaries, and articles which met these policy requirements were not redirected.


 * There is some discussion on this issue on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Although I wouldn't recommend using the term "soft delete" for redirect.) Hopefully you are familiar with Notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure I am. It is a guideline, nothing more. It doesn't somehow "trump" common sense or consensus. It certainly doesn't abrogate Policies, and I don't see where the soft deleted (I do like the term :) articles violated policy. What is notable to me isn't necessarily to you, and if it does no harm, why not let it quietly be, sitting stub-like and waiting for eventual possible improval? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summaries (which you quoted back to me), these articles did, and do still, violate Wikipedia guidelines. They are copyright violations. How to escalate this? Simple: Next time I see you reinstating copyright violations en masse, you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. Wouldn't the recommended way to handle a suspected copyright violation be to first bring up your issue with the article on the discussion page instead of effectively removing it by redirecting? I'm not sure I feel comfortable with what you just did, by the way. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Even without copyright violations, the violation of WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT is enough. These are not encyclopedic articles; they will almost certainly never be encyclopedic articles.  TTN is following policy as well as guideline here.  Note that this doesn't mean that every episode article is non-notable; that obviously isn't true.  BLACK KITE  15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree that notability (and possible copyright violation, for that matter), should be judged on an article by article basis. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) 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. --User: (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)