Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional battles (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete - indiscriminate list, no socking please. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional battles
Since List of fictional military operations and List of fictional wars are currently up for Afd1 with a majority of delete votes, I decided to put this one back up for Afd to be consistent. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous nomination, discussion and result is here: The other deletion discussions mentioned above are here and here. Carcharoth 15:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional battles.


 * Delete provided someone checks that all the linked articles are in Category:Fictional battles. Carcharoth 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I found this article to be especially useful and interesting. --164.107.92.120 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete having looked through it. The Blade Runner ones, for example, are essentially nonsense, chunks of the list is redlinks we really don't need filled, and at least some of it is original research, in that the sources do not appear to use the term Battle of foo.  Also, the bar for inclusion is too low - there are battles listed (thanksfully without links yet) which are contained in fiction which is barely known, rubbing shoulders with the Lord of the Rings. Oh, and lumping Blade Runner and Soldier together and saying they were written by David Peoples is also a stretch, since Blade Runner is from a book by Philip K Dick (as any fule kno) and the two are not truly a pair; to include Peoples' name looks like fandom. Guy 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per my reasoning on the List of fictional wars AfD: Original research, unmaintainable, and unencyclopedic. Most fictional works (especially those in the science fiction and fantasy genre) have some sort of war or conflict, thus listing all of them would be unreasonable.-- TBC Φ  talk?  17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how the battles exist independently of the books, movies, songs, video games, etc in which they are mentioned. How can they really be encyclopedic? Edison 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Eldarone 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fictional Military Battles is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series. And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. Also, this list is relavent due to the imporantce of the Military Battles to the plot of many stories.  Instead of creating many useless pages that just deals with the oneoperation, a single list will be able to maintian any and all plot relevant operations.  --Eldarone 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per TBC. Wickethewok 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably could be split up better, and more appropriately organized, and some decent criteria would be a nice thing, but it's not inherently a problem, any more than any other list. And it's organized by subject.  I do think there's too many silly red-links, but that's another matter.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Comprehensive list would be excessively long/unwieldy. Bwithh 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Comprehensive list would not be excessively long/unwieldy. --64.12.116.203 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Acceptable list providing legitimate information. -- Necrothesp 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are probably tens of thousands of fictional battles. Who decides which get in? We obviously can't have a list with ten thousand battles on it, but as the Wheel of Time entry shows, it's not being limited to battles which have their own article. So who decides? -Amarkov babble 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. There's nothing wrong with having such an article, but it really is redundant with the category referring to the same stuff.  bibliomaniac15  Review?  03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else will you find such a survey? (As always, this is not a rhetorical question.) &lt;KF&gt; 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the answer is "nowhere", as you are implying it to be, how are readers to verify this article? Uncle G 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of sources out there which can serve as references for this excellent article!--164.107.92.120 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An excellent article? It is an incomplete list that doesn't tell the reader why this sort of thing is needed. If anyone can come up with a reason for compiling such a list, fine. The normal reason is to enable comparisons to be made between items on a list, such as List of rivers by length. What comparisons can be made between the battles in different fictional worlds that can be separated from the more logical idea of overall comparisons of the fictional worlds and authors? Carcharoth 10:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I actually like the idea of this list, but it's simply not sufficiently defined in terminology and thus excessively broad.  A comprehensive list would probably include hundreds of thousands of entries from books, games, movies, songs etc. -Kubigula (ave) 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then all we need to do is define the list even more. If you wish, you can even suggest how the list should be limited more. For one thing, the battles must be significant to the main body of fiction could be a good start.  --Eldarone 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought about that before I voted. However, I couldn't think of a way to limit the list without making it too crufty.  A list of fictional battles in classic literature might be manageable, but I don't think that's what the keepers of this list find interesting.  Once you open up the list to all fiction, it becomes unmanageable.  It's an interesting concept for a list, but I don't see a way to make it encyclopedic. -Kubigula (ave) 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a *Keeparooni! the first time some goof nominated it for deletion, which by the way all of this deletion is really starting to diminish Wikipedia and needs to stop. . . :(--205.188.116.197 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That... entirely fails to give a reason to keep. -Amarkov babble 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep What the hell is the point in having articles to the battles themselves, but no simple way to access them. Leaving the list gives the articles more exposure anyway and makes it easier for readers. Just leave it in - 130.130.37.6 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can get to the articles about the battles from the general subject articles. Do you really think that people care about having a list of EVERY fictional battle? -Amarkov babble 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It dosn't have to every fictional battle, just ones that have signifcance to the main body of the work. Besides, many general articles don't have list of battles for their work.  --Eldarone 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find these kinds of lists helpful for categorizing information and I believe that fictional battles are prominent enough of a topic to warrant being *Kept on Wikipedia. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorizing. That is what categories are for. Categories are fine for organizing large amounts of information related only by one thing, such as being a fictional battle. Lists are not. -Amarkov babble 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, not every series is going to have a seperate article on each battle. Most are going to have a subsection of a larger article, and categories sometimes don't list every plot or background imporatant battle --Eldarone 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And remind us again what the non-trivial point is of a long list of lots of fictional battles? Carcharoth 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Convenience and attrativeness to fans of these works of fiction. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That really doesn't hold up as an argument at all. Why would a fan of Firefly want to know about the fictional battles in Animal Farm? Surely a fan of one work of fiction would want to read about the battles therein in an article on that work of fiction (or in the case of Tolkien fans, in works devoted to that kind of thing). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. I am a fan of both Firefly and Animal Farm and I like having a list like this for comparative purposes even. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. I said, "Why would a fan of X what to read about fictional battles in Y?", not "Why would a fan of X and Y want to read about fictional battles in both?" I also don't see what "comparative purposes" this list can serve - that there are more battles in Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 than in Animal Farm? Well, paint me blue and call me Charlie. I never would've guessed that. Further, just remember that you liking or disliking an article has very little bearing on matters. I wouldn't mind seeing an article on myself here, but that doesn't mean that one should exist. Likewise, there are lots of articles I'd prefer didn't exist, but unless there's a better reason than that, it doesn't count. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to disagree. It's because of articles that I and others "like" that we come to Wikipedia. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why you come here, I didn't say otherwise. What I did say, though, is that there are rules, guidelines and policies which govern what's actually included here, and "Someone likes it" isn't one of them. Like I said above, I'd like it very much if I had an article here, and one day I might, but that doesn't mean I need one now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with BigHaz. This seems to be part of the problem. To be blunt, you (and others) need to understand what Wikipedia is about, not turn Wikipedia into a free-hosting site for things "you like". Carcharoth 13:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Responding to Le Grand Roi: well, fine, make a copy of the list. But the community, backed by policies, seems to be deciding that Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. Please understand that Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything. A lot, yes, but not every conceivable trivial list. Again, I point you to List of rivers by length as an example of a well-designed list. Better to have a series of inter-connected lists, than one long, indiscriminate list. By all means, keep a copy of this list offline, and redesign it into a series of navboxes between different areas of Wikipedia (such as Template:Campaignbox_War_of_the_Ring), but in this format, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually looks like a consensus has not been reached. I have no qualms against improving this article, which I think is always a good idea, but the concept is sound and so if anything should be tagged with a please improve comment rather than just outright deleting it, especially as some took the time and effort to start with probably the right intentions in mind. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue has now been confused by sockpuppeting and needs further investigation. Carcharoth 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Fictional battles are significant and a list like this is convenient for web users who may be on a time schedule. --172.148.28.36 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of those reasons are grounds for a speedy keep. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote - "web users who may be on a time schedule"? Since when does Wikipedia cater for web users who may be on a time schedule? Carcharoth 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I think we should accomodate people who look for convenience, hence my Keep vote. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By being an online encyclopedia, we do precisely that. We don't need to do it by serving up a mishmash of things which are only related by being fictional and (in the broadest possible sense) a battle. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, not every anonymous user posting here is me and any that are are unintentional. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true, however the two anonymous users I have identified as you have both edited your Talk page in the same manner you do when you log in. One of them was also asked a question to which you responded when logged in, which rather cliches the deal in lieu of an IP check which I of course can't do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to worry about. I use many public computers, so who knows who uses the same IPs after me.  Take care, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If everyone claimed this, there would be no way to prevent abusive sockpuppetry. In this case, I would suggest discounting votes by IP addresses. These votes are now of questionable authenticity because of your statement: "I use many public computers, so who knows who uses the same IPs after me.". Carcharoth 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only that. If I were using a public computer, I'd be stunned if the person who used it after me edited my userpage in much the same way I did. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a sensible fictional subject to organize into a list, and it's sensibly divided by fictional source rather than indiscriminately merged. The original research problems mentioned above are corrected by editing, annotating, and sourcing the list, and as this list expands and becomes too unwieldy, subsections can be split off into other lists with this as the organizing parent.  The list (or sublists that it organizes) can also mention battles that aren't worthy of independent treatment, and redlink articles that should exist.  Postdlf 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - having battles in Tolkien and Turtledove rubbing shoulders with the "Battle(s) of Springfield" from the Simpsons is proof that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. At most, some of these universes might merit their own "List of battles in X" list, but aside from that it should go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That issue would be solved by removing any fictional depictions that don't correspond to the real-world subject as described in the battle article. Postdlf 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the particular cases I've cited. Per the definition at that article, all three wouldn't get removed. My point, though, is that even with a definition like that, we're looking at an indiscriminate collection of information - how many works of fiction are there (I note sardonically that even Scientological belief is included as a work of fiction, which Scientologists would have fits about)? How many works of fiction contain a battle? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. Do we want any list which can grow indefinitely? Duja► 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.