User talk:TTN/Archive 16

proper AFD protocol
Please remember to inform the creator of an article when you have nominated it for deletion.  D r e a m Focus  03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority of the people who created the articles I'm nominating have been gone for years, so it seems pointless to auto-spam dead talk pages. TTN (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not redirect a merge
You redirected without merging as stated in the AFD, this is not a valid response in my eyes and its been so long that a proper merge be done or it rebrought to AFD. Gundam is now within my focus and my desire to bring a lot of A&M articles to GA and FA, but losing content wholesale strikes me as a bit wrong, especially when it was "merge". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TTN's right however. An AFD that closes as merge + redirect means that the the article that was at AFD can be redirected w/o impunity. The pre-redirect content is still available to any editor (via the page history), so nothing is lost, and it is up to editors that want to retain info to make the merge work. If it was merge + delete, the content would have to be moved into place before deletion. --M ASEM  (t) 02:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not visible and I have just recently starting the mess at the Gundam articles - merge is not redirect. The complexity and size of Gundam is far more than a languishing A&M project can handle and given the spat there, I doubt much cooperation or unity or focus can be given to it. The page is not stand alone worthy it seems, but the content should still be up until the merge is completed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is visible. That's what the history tag is for. And it's a bit hard to have any sympathy for having 5 years to "fix it". Fortunately, none of the contributions on that article are being lost due to the redirect, so if there's anything to merge, it is still there. --M ASEM (t) 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was already merged, but the merge target was also deleted. There is no mandate that the information must exist somewhere, especially if it is shown that the information is not wanted like that. Merge results on a fiction AfD generally just end up being a paragraph or a straight redirect if the target article already has a suitable summary anyway. TTN (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Invalid deletion rationales
I believe that some of your recent deletion rationales are using invalid reasoning. The articles themselves should be deleted, on that we agree, however the reason you state doesn't fit the deletion policy. For example, at Articles for deletion/Twin Tail you gave the deletion rationale "This is a collection of fictional details without any real world importance.". The issue is that 'collection of fictional details' describes most of our coverage of fiction topics, and 'without any real world importance' is entirely subjective. The real issue is one of notability - that there simply isn't coverage of the topic in reliable third party sources - and while I get the feeling that that's what you meant by 'without any real world importance', it would be much better to just directly say that there's a notability issue. Saying 'without any real world importance', to many readers, is saying 'this should be deleted because I think it's unimportant', which is the wrong message.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, also from what happened at Articles_for_deletion/Hanali_Celanil, you should try to stick as much as possible to the GNG wording (ie "lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject or its creator/or those with a strong connection to them") otherwise you open yourself to the nitpicking of hardcore D&D fans ready to use any excuse they can think of. Besides that, well done for tackling the D&D mess (you'll probably make yourself a few enemies along the way, but just don't let them harass you, ignore them and know what you're doing is for the good of WP).Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just commenting that I beleive these are fair assessments on the deletion rationale and do agree that TNN should try to start off that they fail the GNG because they don't show any real world significance. (They otherwise appear to be otherwise valid deletion targets). --M ASEM  (t) 17:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Drago merge discussion
Talk:Rocky_IV An AFD you participated in that just got closed today, is now at a merge discussion.  D r e a m Focus  19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back!
An editor returns after four years of inactivity and all they receive is criticism? Figures... Welcome back, TTN!  Good raise  21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's quite the resurrection. I think the most I went was a year of hibernation.  It's always good to see editors come back to the project.  Plus, I approve of his campaign against cruft.  It's inspired me to get more involved in the AfD process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/IFF (software)
Hi. I randomly selected your talk page from WikiProject Computing. Articles for deletion/IFF (software) requires additional input and I thought perhaps you might be willing to provide one, if it isn't much trouble. Thank you. 91.98.79.60 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ultraman cleanup
Not sure if you'll notice this on a random AfD discussion, so I figured I'd mention this here, too. I just realized that most (if not all?) of the Ultraman articles you've nominated for deletion were created by sockpuppets. The sockmaster himself was banned in part for his disruptive editing, which included the creation of esoteric categories and articles, such as the Ultraman cruft that you've been cleaning up. While I haven't bothered to check if the articles qualify for speedy deletion (seems doubtful, as it requires a few stringent criteria), this is probably relevant to any deletion discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the articles need to have been created while they were blocked. I didn't look at all of them, but the ones I looked at seem to have been created before he was banned. TTN (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Because the sockpuppet investigation used these articles as evidence, I figured it was probably a waste of time to check them.  Even though they may not qualify for speedy deletion, this may help get them cleaned up with less debate.  It's hard to believe that they sat here for this long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominations
Hey, TTN. I saw the brouhaha about your slate of AfDs recently and thought I'd chime in here. You and I tend to be of a similar mind around in-universe content, and I've similarly invested time in culling content about non-notable subjects from Wikipedia. I took a look at a handful of the articles you nominated, and I agree that they don't warrant stand-alone coverage Wikipedia.

I've found more recently that a worthwhile first step -- successful in culling some of the material in the Star Wars and Star Trek domains -- is a talk-page nudge for article improvement and planting the notion of redirect. When swinging by a couple of weeks later, a follow-up note along with the redirect itself (usually to a specific episode/work, sometimes just the franchise as a whole or appropriate List of... entry) takes care of things. The occasional time it's in dispute, it's easy to revisit the talk-page nudge and see what happens. Although the process of doing this, from nudge to redirect, often takes a bit longer than the AfD process, it consumes much less time in terms of discussion-watching and comment-responding.

I suspect none of this is a new thought, and I admit I haven't delved into your edit-history enough to see whether this is something you otherwise regularly do -- it wasn't on the handful of pages I checked, but those were more recent and maybe I missed the first wave. I dunno. You're no stranger here, so you know all the reasons the nudge/redirect path sometimes doesn't work: obstinance, "I didn't hear that," different interpretations, and then going to AfD anyhow. Even with those, though, I've found this route a lot less frustrating and far less prone to argument.

Hopefully, all this clears up/settles down with Wikipedia in a better place. If ever you're interested in collaborating on some article improvement in the realm of fiction, I'm game; just drop me a line. --EEMIV (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying this is improper advice, but at least with TTN's focus on fiction articles, two situations often happen with such attempts:
 * The redirect option on talk pages is refuted with claims of the topic being notable, or the like ("merging is deletion!"), making it impossible to gain consensus to do so.
 * Even if the topic is successfully redirected, an IP or unaware editor comes along and undoes, and then edit wars to retain it.
 * These issues are not so much problems with fiction, but with our system that segregates AFDs as 'special cases' that need admin attention and then have weight of that decision to enforce the action, compared to merge/redirects which typically have little to no weight after they are completed, even though often both have the same issues about notability in play. (And specifically for fiction, this then becomes what is appropriate coverage to meet the GNG for these topics). Unfortunately, by doing this work, TTN places himself as the target for editors, when really it is a process problem that needs fixing. Until we can get that fixed, yes, nudging for merging/redirects is reasonable, but at the same time, these are the same articles from 2008 that TTN had tried to get the D&D to fix up before the arbcom cases. Arguably, as BEFORE points out, TTN could outright redirect (not delete) the articles boldly, but I know that will bring out reverts within a few hours. --M ASEM  (t) 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem pretty much summed up what I was going to say. Such a process is fine if it is a limited scope of articles and you don't have a known history that people will target. I've only boldly redirected around ten articles at this point, and I've already had one user try to revert them for inclusionistic reasons. Had he not been banned previously, I would have had no luck in trying to keep them redirected like that. Even a slow and steady process would have problems, as I remember one user going back months upon months into my history to undo redirects for numerous articles. AfD is really the only process available that allows for that to be avoided, and works best with the occasional merge discussion/bold redirect. TTN (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think one of the things we'd all probably agree on here is the difficulties of having separate processes for merging, deleting, redirecting etc. It might be a perennial request but a good time to suggest merging AfD and Merge discussions again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Cas Liber given the fact that there are a large number of people who would likely disapprove of any suggestion made by TNN simply because he made it, you could be the one who initiates the discussion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My idea to get past the issue of being a PEREN is a two-pronged approach : first to make the merge/redirect process equal (but separately run) from the AFD process, importantly using subarticle space to create new discussions for a merge request; the only major difference is that any non-involved editor can close it after appropriate discussion time though such determinations are subject to DRV (to avoid drive by "no merge" when 99% of the consensus is for it). Second is to get the deletion sorting project involved so that these merges would appear alongside deletions on such lists. AFD remains AFD, merge discussions remain such, but we've expanded the audience that will get involved in these discussions, and there's now an established conclusion that can be used to re-revert reverts that go against that. --M ASEM (t) 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @TRPOD -ha, happy to - funny thing is, there'd be people who'd oppose it if it came from me too given that I'd love to Include everything but the Kitchen Sink, but yeah -
 * @Masem - I do understand where you're coming from as Merge/Move pages are often accompanied by tumbleweeds, crickets chirping and little else, but that sounds unnecessarily complicated ...still...I am maybe too much of an optimist. Maybe we should all take a look at the past discussions (wherever they are) first and think of ways forward to acheive consensus. would be good to ask as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Update - looking at Perennial_proposals, it looks like it nearly came about at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_discussion/Proposal_1 but floundered because...well, not sure exactly why but I can say that the best thing is to absolutely structure these debates so numbers can be easily quantified and discussion kept in separate place so the page doesn't drown in a wall of text. Need to read and digest properly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay - I have begun by tweaking the old proposal and beginning Articles for discussion/Proposal 2 - the idea is that it is a platform to discuss changes likely to be contested to any article - i.e. contested PRODs etc. all feed into it (not sure about contested moves - I reckon this would be ideal but not sure if this would lessen the chances of community consensus. Anyway feel free to fine tune the proposal to make it easier to read and/or discuss on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Up-update - am travelling at present so not inclined to get stuck into the AfD reworking until I get home in a few days, but looking at the past I think we can get this reworked so there is less fussing all round. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Jolt (Transformers)
Hello TTN. Fyi, I have declined your speedy deletion request. The previous AFD for this article was based on the lack of reliable secondary sources, but several of these have now been added. Please feel free to AFD again if you think the article is still not worth to be kept. Regards, De728631 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Shiallia AfD
Hello! I see you have nominated today Shiallia for deletion. Actually, the article had already been merged and redirected back in 2010 following a consensus discussion, and it was restored against consensus by a vandal IP in 2011. Since your nomination is very recent, may I ask you to consider withdrawing it and just redirecting the article instead ? We already have a consensus supporting the move, and we can just report anyone trying to undo it at WP:ANI. What do you think ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw it on the 6th if those happen to make it through the day without trouble like the D&D project members arguing over the validity of the consensus or any such scenarios. TTN (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs
Hey, I know you have every right to nominate articles for deletion, but if you could, please consider the alternative of WP:Before C4, which advises you to consider merging articles before nominating them for deletion. For instance you have nominated several characters from Japanese Transformers animes which have character list pages. An article should probably be merged to those pages before deletion is considered. If a character like Tackle (Transformers) appeared in Transformers: Victory, and appears on the page List of Transformers: Victory characters, then it should probably be merged there, not deleted, right? I just added a couple sentences of character description about Tackle to the list page, so now it can be merged properly. Mathewignash (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind merging articles, but my overall goal is to get the Transformers characters down to a core 5-20 articles depending on how many can establish notability without relying on trivial mentions like being called the "seventh weirdest robot of fifteen" one time without anything else to back it up. The core articles would then be restructured from the current "list all the versions" format to something more akin to describing the overall character archetype like Superman to allow for a more encyclopedic overview. I would imagine you'd probably disagree with such a large-scale reduction, but I'm always open to alternate means assuming that there won't be rampant edit warring and whatnot. TTN (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true I'm not one tending to delete articles. I would try to help with merging where I can. I believe it would be the duty of any person who favors deletion though, to consider the alternative of merger if there is already a list article on Wikipedia. Don't you agree? If you merge 30 characters into one list page of the characters from a show, I'd say you have done more to help straighten up Wikipedia than be simply deleting 30 articles. Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I'll give some bold merging a try tomorrow, and we'll see how that works out. TTN (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been targeted by personal attacks
FYI, Colonel Warden has posted a bunch of personal attacks at Articles_for_deletion/Vecna, in which he strongly implies me, you and Claritas could be sockpuppets of each other. I took it upon myself to remove the comment per WP:RPA and to give CW a final warning before escalating the matter to ANI, but since I'm not the only one involved, I'm notifying you of the comment so that you can act on your own if you deem it necessary (given CW's track record in the matter), in which case I would of course support you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge not deletion
I've taken the initiative and have been merging and cleaning up the D&D articles to larger character lists. Deletion removes the edit history and I cannot access it because I am not an admin, resulting in great difficulty in completing proper mergers. I've begun doing a very transparent and open set of merges including one that closed as merge from AFD. I have many more to do, but could you let me know which ones you have problems with and let me merge them before having the entire mess go to AFD? As it stands, I'll probably have to merge them anyways or request undeletion to merge already removed or close to deleted ones. It is just rather taxing and useless to go through the entire process and risk more work for no real benefit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If stuff is actually being merged at a decent rate, I'm fine with laying off them for a while. The reduction and refocusing of overly detailed content is the most important thing rather than the exact method. TTN (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_%26_Dragons in that case. I've also done a preemptive merge of Laduguer which is at AFD. Laduguer is now two paragraphs with the latter being the publication history. Just bug me from time to time if I miss a beat or two. I want the same thing done for transformers, but that is a giant mess because of the naming system. D&D is much easier to clean up in comparison. Actually doing these merges and working on it makes the content more accessible and reader friendly; instead of a dozen sparse pages on the gods, any reader can see all the dwarven deities on one page with their important reference information and be directed to the relevant source books and materials. Sounds win-win. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've entered the second phase of the merging, which results in the core reorganizing and format of the pages. This will deal with pages like List of Greyhawk deities to make a better reference format that doesn't result in duplicate content and hundreds of individual pages. I am busy for a few days, but I request that you drop a notice about the deletions going to "merge" rather than "delete" in order to preserve the content for its upcoming merge to large character lists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine ignoring the deities for now. I'll either focus on the locations and monsters, or just skip D&D entirely for a while. TTN (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring it would be for the best, as locations and monsters are likely going to end up merged as well. My work load is going down so more of a focus on merging will be occurring in the next few days. I'm just going to draft a few things for BOZ to see prior to reworking them. I have about 300 articles that meet merge criteria, several seem to be acceptable for their own pages, but not many. Almost none of the locations do, the campaign setting pages will remain though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Another 30 pages merged yesterday. More merging today. It will take a lot of time, but I started on the creatures and threw them into one large article. Do you like the progress being made? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no complaints. Even if it takes months upon months, I see no problems with it so long as progress is being made. TTN (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Breeze Barton merge
As you participated in Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Miclas
This item needs its own separate AfD discussion, not one appended to another discussion as an afterthought. If you are going to revert me then explain where I go to object or how I get it separated out, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way is for me to withdraw it or for the participants in the discussion to form a consensus for it to be kept. I don't see the need to remove it seeing as nothing to establish notability has been added, so only arguments in the AfD can affect it. TTN (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Savage Land
So much for that idea. As soon as I added a reception section to Savage Land, it got reverted out as "non-notable". Bizarre. Got any ideas? I left a message on the guy's talk page, but it looks like I was right about people fighting any changes to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My-HiME characters
I am in the process of merging the character info for My-Hime inro the character list HOWEVER because the character articles contain info about their roles in the My-Otome series I am holding off the merge and redirects until I can merge out the My-Otome info into the My-Otome character list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll leave those alone. TTN (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning?
I'd like to ask you what is behind your recent spate of AFDs. From here, it looks like a heavy handed use of WP:BELONG (that or you are the champion of Extreme article deletion). Correct me if I'm wrong, please. -- Auric    talk  23:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-notable fictional topics sat unattended for years, and they need to be removed to help topics become less unweildly and more focused. AfD is the best tool for that. TTN (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't merges or redirects be better?-- Auric    talk  00:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is merging and redirecting thousands of articles that have little to no chance of receiving proper discussion or are "protected" by overzealous fans is asking for a heap of annoyances. AfD allows for neutral ground where someone will actually comment, and it's unlikely to be overly influenced by small groups of editors keeping their personal fan content. The content is also generally worthless to merge, so nothing is really lost should they be deleted. They can easily be replaced by a new redirect in that case. TTN (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this also include your recent merge of the Microverse (the main setting of the Micronauts) and most of the prisons in Marvel Comics (some of them I had to redirect to the List of correctional facilities in comics) where I had to leave a list of known inmates. If you plan on merging some other government organizations (like the plans to merge the Commission on Superhuman Activities) to the List of government agencies in Marvel Comics, you should at least have any section for them mentioning the known members of them. That's just a suggestion there. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:40, November 25 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Comics monsters-related
Hi. I would like to let you know that before any superheroes came into view, some issues of Marvel Comics under the titles of Tales to Astonish and Journey into Mystery have featured different monsters there (some of the most notable being Fin Fang Foom and Gorgilla). Some of the monsters included an Alien Sandman and two different giant alien mummies. I was wondering if you can help in establishing this info to help create the List of Marvel Comics monsters, but leave template:Main for some of the popular monsters that still have their pages not redirected to each of the List of Marvel Comics characters pages like what someone did to Yetrigar. I can't say if Krakoa fits the category though. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:15, December 30 2013 (UTC)

Marvel characters
Hello! I've noticed that you, like myself, have been merging some of the smaller Marvel Comics character articles into the various lists of Marvel characters. However, after the material has been merged, and the link is made into a redirect to that section, the corresponding talk page should be changed to redirect-class. If an article is merged, please consider updating the talk page as well, instead of leaving it at Stub-Class or Start-Class. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AFDs
It would be of great assistance in the future if you were to actually notify WikiProjects tagged on the talk pages when you send things to AFD. One of them from a couple months back (which the article was probably crap and you were right in requesting deletion) was closed as redirect, but the administrator deleted the page wholesale anyway and I've got no way to track these things. I'm seeing a lot of debates you opened in a fairly short period of time in the topic area I edit, but you only seem to use twinkle and expect that no one watches the article and will never be able to state their opinion because for the most part the original editors are long gone.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Allanon
Hi, I reverted your merging of this article, as the fictional character is notable in non-universe contexts. See Cathi Dunn MacRae's Presenting Young Adult Fantasy Fiction and Tom Shippey's J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, among others (I can't give more specifics, as I've lost many of the sources—they were sent via email to an account I no longer have access to). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there is anything significant about the character? Author of the Century only mentions it once in a name drop while describing Shannara, and from the brief excerpts available, Young Adult Fantasy Fiction seems to simply be using the character in the context of a summary of the series without providing anything specifically relevant to the character. Neither is bad as far as being sources goes, but they don't really add anything to count for "significant coverage" per WP:N. TTN (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials by setting
Hi, I've noticed your recent AfDs on articles with in-universe perspectives and minimal real-world coverage. I was wondering, given your perspective, if you had any thoughts/input on List of Doctor Who serials by setting? Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say that is a good AfD candidate. It seems to be a lot of original research like "X is historical fact" "references", and there doesn't look to be much room for improvement. Depending on the state of the Doctor Who project, you may just want to suggest a transwiki and redirect on their project page. I've never nominated any of those articles, so I don't know if they're the kind of group to get all fanatical about everything or appropriately deal with their own cruft. Given the number of sourced articles, I would think they're the latter. TTN (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Prydain characters and fictional elements
TTN, Articles replaced by redirects should retain substantial categories such as. Just now I restored Gwystyl there (with the comment "really?" for substantial reasons).code: Gwystyl

WP:Categorizing redirects. Also every redirect should be placed in at least one redirect category, which is usually implemented by a redirect template such as R list. Just now I used that to place the redirect Dyrnwyn which is not one of yours.code: Dyrnwyn

The particular substantial category, which recently contained many pages that you have recently edited, should not be retained because I created the new redirect category. That one is implemented by template, which is now in use for Gwystyl (above) and Doli (below).

is another substantial category that should be retained, i suppose, rather than emptied. So I included that in my restored version of Doli. And made him simply a fairy or sprite, rather than dwarf, to match Gwystyl.code: Doli (fictional character)

See Category:Fiction-based redirects to list entries and look around. CharR to list entry and FictR to list entry are two templates generally used to classify redirects that are created from fictional character and fictional element articles respectively --but only when the target is a list of characters or elements, I understand.
 * interjection. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages. --P64 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

At the moment Prydain elements such as Dyrnwyn and The Black Crochan do not target lists so I didn't create any Prydain subcategory of fictional elements redirects as I did for characters. Nor did I find any appropriate fictional redirect category. Hence I didn't classify The Black Crochan as a redirect (no template), only restored its {DEFAULTSORT} and its substantial category.code: The Black Crochan

Gwystyl, Dyrnwyn, The Black Crochan, and Doli (fictional character) are the only Prydain pages/redirects that I edited today --and created only the new that is now the cornerstone of the operation.

If you return to every one of your recent Prydain character redirects and simply classify it with template that will be a big help to you or anyone else who will restore some substantial categories. --even if the redirect target is section Characters rather than a literally a particular list entry. Thanks.

--P64 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I have been monitoring your contributions since you returned last fall. Your communication with other editors has improved greatly and you are more sensitive to early concerns that you were overloading AfD.  Pretty much all of your recent nominations have been spot on, yet you still often amicably engage with those who disagree with you. AfD can be a brutal, strenuous place; but I hope that you don't let the environment get to you and keep on fighting for strong, quality content!  Them  From  Space  19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You're still here?
I remember you from when I used to edit WP all the time, years ago. Still an anal-retentive fuckwad, I see. At least I know I'll never see you in the real world. - 24.181.226.38 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yolanda the Rat redirect
You may want to fix the syntactical error on Yolanda the Rat, by adding another ']' to the end of the page. I am unwilling to do the change myself, since I have no opinion of whether the article should stay or be a redirect. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Twilight Zone
Hello, why are you deleting Twilight Zone episode articles? I am watching the series and found this information useful. Is there some policy reason for this? DancesWithGrues (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have undone those changes - I also disagree with them and I think this is a gross overstepping of the normal process. Clearly WP:BEFORE is not being done and TTN is more concerned about purging incomplete and partially developed articles instead of carefully evaluating them. TTN - you were warned about this type of behavior, please be more careful in your blank and redirects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass blank and redirect
If you continue to mass blank and redirect entire series without so much as even looking at what you are blanking and redirecting I will call for immediate sanctions. You have expressed a combative and hostile atmosphere to fictional topics and have blindly and methodically blanked and redirected a large number of TV episodes, characters, books and you do not even take the time to do a minimal amount of research or even take care of what you are doing. Your edits are causing a lot of damage and show a lot of disregard for other editors. You blanked and redirected Ronald Reagan in fiction with the edit summary: Redirect to the main article. This contains only a single character that doesn't need such extensive coverage. Like Reagan is some fictional nobody, couldn't even spare a reason! You blank and redirected Carly Witwicky despite numerous sources and plenty still not added. Even Lemuria in popular culture should have been worked on before merging and its not even that difficult to source, but you couldn't even bother to spare more then a tiny blip before you removed it. Your edits are highly controversial and I suggest you stop and discuss and follow WP:BEFORE you do these contentious actions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * TTNs edits are fine here and does show some reasonable care per BOLD: per WP:TRIVIA, "in popular culture" sections should have third-party sourcing to make a note that the reference made in pop culture is significant, otherwise we are doing no better than TVTropes in parsed the potentially vast array of indiscriminate information of pop culture; the two above do not have that type of sourcing (they rely on the primary work that contains the pop culture reference). TTN is also correct that the Carly Witwicky article's only secondary sourcing is the reception about the film character which is already contained in the list of characters for the film series, and the amount of detail about the film character pales compared to the rest of primary/unsourced fictional summaries. As such, the article fails NOT#PLOT. --M ASEM  (t) 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will also add the fact that you, Chris, undoing the changes unconditionally without addressing the valid reasons to redirect is a problem. There are some of these that clearly have been issues for years (based on top of page tagging) and have shown no sign of improvement since, so redirecting is completely acceptable practice. --M ASEM (t) 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the ArbCom case against TTN and the communities expectation that WP:BEFORE be done - how is mass blank and redirects without contributing anything to any page an improvement? Just wondering, because the problems do exist, but since when have we advocated wholesale purging because some problem existed? Isn't WP:SOFIXIT supposed to be the spirit? One can be bold, but the purging of content was likened repeatedly to WP:FAIT and disruptive enough that some editors made claims that it was borderline vandalism. While I do not agree it is vandalism, the removals themselves of entire series and a distinct intent to reduce Transformers to 5-10 core articles is disruptive. TTN is not here to BUILD an encyclopedia, he is here to prune and chop the hedges of its bushy fiction-related outgrowths. As someone who has spent more time cleaning up what he mass removes with bot-like action. He even redirected Drench on the belief it was a Decepticon. He didn't even read the article before be blanked and redirected it. It is not even an old edit, its from July 14th! He's sporadic in his edits, but they are causing great damage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Drench looks like an honest accident, given that someone had previously linked to Drench from the Deceptions Stormtroopers article and he was trying to clean up that article. Yes, that requires being a bit more careful reading, but at the same time, these are redirects and easily fixed. I don't see any other "accidents" here, with most of these articles being WP:NOT failures. --M ASEM  (t) 01:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And a couple points: BEFORE doesn't apply to redirects (in fact that's a preferred outcome of BEFORE before AFD). Also the act of building the encyclopedia can including culling out age-old articles that fail the principles of the encyclopedia today, which many of these articles are. We aren't here to be a Transformers fan guide, that's what wikias are for. --M ASEM  (t) 01:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem strongly here. TTN's edits are just fine and are in line with policy. Your blanket undoing of his edits is disruptive and an inappropriate use of rollback. The ArbCom case you quote from is practically ancient history and TTN has since greatly improved his communication and understanding of policy . Mass edits such as this are highly problematic and they are borderingharrassment. That article was tagged for content issues for 3 years and not a finger was lifted to work at those problems. Redirecting articles like that has been the consensus for quite some time now. I have half a mind to restore a couple hundred edits that you've undone and I probably will do so, pending further discussion here. From now on, please don't do this again.  Them  From  Space  01:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert hundreds, that's a gross mis-statement and I JUST got a key ability to fix these articles exactly 24 hours ago. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reverting a blank and redirect and asking that WP:BEFORE be done. Especially since the work has numerous books published about its production. I spend dozens of hours cleaning up and combining and working on TTN's last purge and quite frankly - I don't see any discussion on WT:TV about consensus to mass remove episodes. Every aspect of mass removal is negative and editors have repeatedly stated that "only contains PLOT information" is not a valid deletion rationale - trying to slip it past as a Blank And Redirect is essentially no different then deletion for the average reader. Now instead of attacking me for a lack of good faith - could someone perhaps address why anyone including TTN hasn't attempted to even fix the problem by means other than outright blanking? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is a completely valid reason to remove/delete. BEFORE is not required to redirect articles, and yet again redirection is not deletion as inclusionists want to paint the term. Why should TTN fix problems that have lingered for 3+ years that no one else that actually cares about the franchise or series get the books that are claimed to exist and source them? If they want to do that later, the redirect can be undone without admin help. So no, there's zero problems here save for the reverting without addressing the problems TTN pointed out. --M ASEM (t) 04:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If there was any series that should have standalone episodes, twilight zone would be one of them I would have thought. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I get overwhelmed with the amount of Wiki-work that gets thrown on me for simply having standards and expecting community consensus be followed in good-faith. We do not mass remove stubs because they are flawed. Flaws exist, and having at least a plot summary or gameplay coverage is a huge help to someone who just has to grab the other half of it. I do not see why people complain so much and instead are apt to be lazy and just sweep problems under the rug. Like it would kill anyone to simply say - hey, let's work on this - or respond to it in some other fashion more sensitive to the fact that Wikipedia is a non-traditional encyclopedia and should be the sum of human knowledge. Neither macro nor micro - the attitude that fiction is somehow less-worthy of being on Wikipedia is just nonsense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirection is not removal. If someone can come back and improve the article, let them - they can revert the redirect without having to seek an admin, making the change easy. The attitude that TTN's actions are "removal" are completely false. And yes, the community has decided that fiction covered only at the level of the primary source is not appropriate for WP per WP:NOT and several attempts to generate notability guidelines for fictional elements. --M ASEM  (t) 05:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to TZ episodes, there are probably a few that will be clearly botable, but when you start digging, you'll find that TZ serves as a reference point for other works, but that's merely it. There's not a lot of backwards-looking critical analysis of the show save for some of the more memorable episodes, and because at the time there's not a lot of print media to cover every single episode as there is today, that makes it hard to judge. I am not saying that every episode can't be notable, but I also can't say with any assurance that every episode is notable either, and given this have sat, for the most part, stale of any attempt to show notability for years, redirecting to an episode list is very much reasonable per all policies and guidelines. --M ASEM (t) 05:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While they should all contain references and links, it is also explicitly "Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." It does not mention that they should be redirected, deleted or removed because that stops expansion and it prevents or hinders growth. I've done a lot of work to save and improve articles that would otherwise have been carelessly deleted. Do I really need to cross full into American productions instead to fix some issues to simply stem TTN's actions when two lengthy books cover the entirety of the Hercules show and the Twilight Zone has the same in-depth coverage in a book decades after its airing? There was reason I decided to revert those and not the Transformers characters. I'd expect Blank and Redirect to carry the same WP:BEFORE aspect because it represents a minimum that should be done prior. Its not even difficult! Digging up actual reviews from a magazine from 1979 and original documentation was hard - I almost gave up on finding an internet-verifiable copy for the NAD 3020. I just think what I know and can prove as notable and verifiable should be given more credit then be labeled as "harassment", especially when a Google Books search pulls it up as the first results. Gosh, I dunno - maybe I'm just getting good at finding sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, redirection is a non destructive action (since no history is lost) and thus BEFORE is not required at all. Continuing to think that what TTN's actions are equates to deletion is completely wrong and disruptive to the normal process of editing. And there is no onus for TTN to fix articles that have been stale for 3+ years or have been edited by others without caring for the problems with the articles. If he was AFDing them all, yes, that's FAIT and a problem to be addressed, but redirection does zero harm to the encyclopedia as long as he cleans up on the redirect (which he does appear to be doing). --M ASEM  (t) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hurray for drama! First thing, I really think it is a bit of a stretch to call it "mass redirecting." Over time, there will certainly be a large number, but the speed at which I could feasibly redirect them could be much greater. I've been attempting to do them a bit at a time to avoid any massive blowbacks like this, but this stems more from a "clash of ideals" than any truly legitimate complaints. I have no clue what happened with the Drench article, but I assume it was probably me meaning to reopen another closed tab and not noticing it was that one. Either way, harping on a few mistakes out of thousands of redirects doesn't really mean much. I reflect the opinion that I am not required to extensively study the ability to fix each and every problem article. With the immediate discussion of the Twilight Zone, pretty much every article is in a horrible state (besides a few that seem to have legitimate production info in the first series), and I'm sure some may certainly have the potential to flourish. But why does that necessitate having a few hundred plot summaries?
 * And what is with the mindset that I'm somehow causing so much trouble? Do you see any mass edit warring over this content? You're acting as if the reduction of this content in its current state is somehow a bane to the the site. Just from a basic editing standpoint, doesn't it make more sense for the content to be culled down and then brought back when there is an interest in improving it? As Masem stated, the content still exists, still can be viewed, still can be edited, and still can be used. Letting them sit for years and continuing to let them sit for many more years just because there may or may not be relevant information to add to them seems rather backwards in the first place. If we create a new episode list, most would agree to waiting for proper information before deciding to split out articles, so what is the exact issue with reigning in the plot summaries and bringing the series back to that initial state for future expansion?
 * With other miscellaneous stuff, Carly Witwicky's issue was explained in the summary. There is no need for that reception information to even be in the article in the first place when it acts more like a disambiguation page for the ten versions of the character on the fifty character lists. "Ronald Reagan in fiction" is a single character erroneously named as a "popular culture" article for no particular reason. Lemuria in popular culture had a merge tag that went unanswered for over a week, so restoring it for no reason seems more improper. I feel no need to respond to anything about my editing activities. I edit as I find enjoyable, as do you. Maybe you see a future where all Transformers characters have fully flushed out articles, but I see five, ten at most being truly noted in popular culture while the rest receive silly, unnoteworthy attributions like "eighth weirdest character in a series with hundreds of weird characters." TTN (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Its because I've had to deal with problems related to keeping perfectly notable, sourcable and easily researched articles - time and time again. When something just disappears, readers are none-the-wiser, by definition - only a Wikipedia editor restores it. The fact that editors to viewers are 1/100 and that editors who fix and deal with issues are few in number mean that I find it annoying that our policy of keeping stubs and other incomplete articles because of their WP:POTENTIAL is not mirrored by you and that you have a clear agenda which goes unchecked by silent removal. Carly Witwicky needs clean up and a bit of expansion, not redirecting. Ronald Reagan is not a fictional character and you screwed that one up - you removed an article that needs development, but is clearly notable. For Lemuria you couldn't be bothered to actually fix the article in the least. I don't edit where I find "enjoyable" when your "joy" causes distress - its just lighting a fire under someone's ass to fix NOW something that I would eventually get to anyways. The result is that I can either do a poor job or a good job. I still do not see why you cannot possibly contribute in an additive way or begin a process to get other editors to work on them in a structured fashion. Its not much to ask and it works for one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a balance to keeping stubs that have potential to grow, and simply having entries that don't. Being aware of WP's history, in which we started with articles on every Pokemon and every episode of televisions series, and we have trimmed way back from that, shows that we don't accept the idea of stubs of articles involving fictional works anymore, unless they are shown to be more capable than just plot summary. We want to get rid of the stigma that we've had of having more information on obscure anime series than on some major world conflicts, for example. Just as there are people that generate content, we need editors that know how the cull down content for the purposes of an encyclopedia, and as long as TTN is not edit warring or mass-AFD/PRODing things, there's zero harm in the actions here, and his actions are helpful. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Obscure anime series" is normally just a coverage bias because what you consider obscure is foreign, in another language and usually pre-internet. And its a lot harder to cover some content in a sensitive way for many reasons. Comparing any war vs any anime is going to be no contest, the conflict is always more difficult. Using that criticism as a reason to chop back the hedge, so to speak, is to artificially limit our coverage and reduce our knowledge because what someone else's inherent bias and response to criticism is. Instead of working on that content its easier to remove it. That's what your arguments boil down to. I set out to prove that Wikipedia could get the best coverage in the world on an obscure civil topic - much less something I am well-versed in - and I am correcting historical errors and such all the time. It just pains me that rather then making it better - the option to conceal (as you put it) is instead done. If TTN cared about that page returning, invisible tags or updating the talk pages for redirects and tracking the removals on the Wikiproject would be done. I don't disagree that problems exist, its the manner in which they are dealt with that I have issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So? That sounds more like you taking an overly personal stake in this rather than an actual issue with my editing as according to policies and guidelines. I think removing junk to allow for the improvement of non-junk is a good pursuit. It's not "fix it now", but "after over ten years of sitting around, how about we do something productive with it?" These articles are just plot summaries being redirected to their parent articles. If, and I mean if, they are cases where improvement is possible, nothing of value is lost. Plot summaries have no inherent value aside from providing context for encyclopedic content, and I disagree that most of these have such potential in the first place. Throwing out a random number, let's say as many as 154 of the 308 Twilight Zone articles can be improved to a reasonable degree. What good is keeping the other half just because of that potential? Yes, I understand the basic principals of "before", "fixit", and the like, but putting it into practice leaves more stale content than good content in the area of fiction.
 * The Transformers characters each have multiple versions of each character generally dealt with on separate character lists, so trying to shove everything about one rendition of the character when a separate list already deals with it is pointless. What don't you understand about the Reagan article? It is an article about the Ronald Reagan of Transformers that has been pointlessly named as a general overview of the real person in fiction. Maybe there is some sort use for such a topic, but not every single person ever depicted in fiction is going to need a popular culture article. Just because it exists does not mean it needs to be kept. TTN (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oi, its irritating because its not an article about Ronald Reagan in Transformers - its just what exists right now. That's the problem. You try to flip this as some "overly personal stake", but there is no guideline or policy which says it is perfectly acceptable to blank and revert articles - much less one that a user disagrees with. In fact, WP:BLAR suggests otherwise. WP:NOTPLOT also suggests that it be expanded. Not to be difficult of all things - but quite clearly plot-only pages exist, but they are much easier to improve when they exist instead of recreating them unknowingly. Its not like anyone is being hurt by its existence. Prove to me that its removal contributes positively to Wikipedia, that's what I ask. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretenders
Do you even look at the articles you redirect to the "main article"? Redirecting Pretenders (Transformers) to List of Decepticons? Did you completely miss the fact that there are Autobot Pretenders too, which the article very clearly shows? J I P &#124; Talk 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Don Kanonji listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Don Kanonji. Since you had some involvement with the Don Kanonji redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi TTN! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians
I've added you to the page above since you went AWOL but were evidently a great contributor to the encyclopedia. If/when you come back, please remember to remove your name from the list. God bless, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FakeGroudon.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FakeGroudon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)