Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick


 * 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. If anyone strongly wants to merge or transwiki this content, it's available on request. Sandstein 10:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 10:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick

 * — (View AfD)

Unnecessary depth. Lines lack any context away from the relevant webcomic strip. Translations can be found at the subject site, so no need to come here for information. Tailkinker 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain what metric is used to determine when an article is "unnecessarily deep". Explain how hyperlinks to the translations do not contribute to context. Explain why duplication of knowledge is specious in this, or any other case. The burden of proof must be supported. --ttogreh 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment now: why is this list relevant? Alf photoman 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "this"? Order of the Stick? Haley's translation page? The deletion discussion page? Something else? Be more specific.--ttogreh 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that he says "this list", not "this", and the only list involved in this whole thing is the list of translations, it can be safely assumed the article under discussion is what he's referring to. Feel free to answer his question.  --Tailkinker 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn there was no "this" in his question. Sadly, I am not perfect, but I am capable of admitting when I am wrong. It is relevant because a significant number of people researching Haley '''Starshine might also research her cryptograms, which are an integral part of her character. If Haley Starshine is relevant, than a substantial part of her dialogue is relevant.--ttogreh 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that she's currently been afflicted with a temporary condition that causes her to speak in cryptograms has no bearing of any kind on the nature of her character. She's the same person with the malady as without it.   At most, once cured, the affliction will be a minor side-note to her character history.   And precise repetition of dialogue is rarely important when assessing character'''.    Have a look through articles on real people here; they all manage to describe their character without frequent reference to dialogue, so to suggest that a fictional character cannot be described properly without it is hardly reasonable.   --Tailkinker 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you can't understand half of her total dialogue, you are doomed to not understand her character very well. Moreover, comparing a fictional character to a real person is a strawman; they aren't the same thing.--ttogreh 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not a straw man, that's an analogy. You might like to look those concepts up.   Individuals have personality, abilities, traits and a personal history whether they're fictional or not, making the analogy entirely reasonable.   But feel free to consult the many biographical pages for fictional characters that can be found on Wikipedia.   You'll find that they all manage to give a perfectly good insight into the character in questionn without resorting to repeated quotes.  --Tailkinker 08:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An analogy is a similarity in some respects between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. As such, all analogies are strawmen. I have found, in my time on this earth, that analogies are only used when an argument is weak and easily dismissed with relevant facts.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ever decide to provide any relevant facts, rather than just bad-mouthing anyone who disagrees with you and throwing out accusations of unfair tactics that you can't support, then maybe we'll be able to judge.   --Tailkinker 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As defined by Dictionary.com
 * Strawmen: An arguement or opponent set up so to be easily refuted or deleted
 * Analogy: A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based --OneHappyHusky 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevant facts are this; you looked at the article, and unilaterally decided that it was not worthy of being wikified, before doing any number of milder and more constructive actions. While "huh" and "but" being translated are indeed, not very insightful into the character of Haley Starshine, this list of translations does serve as a reference for readers of OoTS. Deletion is a subtractive act; it diminishes rather than enhances our knowledge. You could have suggested it being merged, or moved to Wikiquote, or any other non-deltionary action. Instead, you chose to suggest that the effort of editors passionate about something was completely worthless... AS THE FIRST COURSE OF ACTION. Don't you get it? Deletion or suggestion of deletion before due diligence is to act like a philistine.--ttogreh 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or possibly just exercising the right of free speech. From Wikipedia "Freedom of speech is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations."  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you certainly have no problem expressing yours.  Don't you get it??? -- OneHappyHusky 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your retort? The UNUDHR? Yes, I fully acknowledge Tailkinker's right to act like an obstreperous jerk, and I take advantage of my right to call him as such.--ttogreh 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as fancruft. Fancruft for a webcomic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your superfluous second sentence betrays your prejudice against webcomics. Moreover, Explain and defend your decision to describe the page as fancruft.--ttogreh 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no such prejudice. But webcomics are almost always of thin notability. I have read Order of the Stick and enjoyed it. But this is fancruft -- the sort of thing that fans compile about whatever their otaku obsession is, to possibly nauseating detail. Wikipedia is not a compendium of insignificant facts. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that such polemics are more of an attempt by those responsible for Wikipedia's bandwidth and server costs to keep costs down than anything else. Really, how can any consensus be reached on what is, and is not, significant? MILLIONS of people, with MILLIONS of different reasons for it, view Wikipedia daily.--ttogreh 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am approximately as inclusionist an editor as it's possible to find who frequents AFD. I would agree in the sense that Wikipedia isn't paper, but that doesn't mean that we keep everything. The more things we keep the more maintenance is necessary, the more pages to vandalize, the more we look like "pop culture central", and so forth. There are many reasons apart from "server costs". --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why some editors seem to think that pop culture is less worthy of encyclopedic mention than other topics. Fancruft, listcruft, and whatever else you lot like to call minutiae and miscellany... it IS important.--ttogreh 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the definition of 'minutiae' is "a small, trifling detail". A trifle, pudding jokes aside, is defined as "an article or thing of very little value".  So, no, as it happens, not important.  --Tailkinker 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Every time you type, you betray your pedantic nature ever further.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And every time you type, you waste everyone's time. See, you're not the only one who can nitpick. Danny Lilithborne 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you commented; you said you did not want to discuss this issue any further. Is it perhaps I touched a nerve? Got a little closer to the truth about who you really are than you find comfortable? I am just text on a screen, and yet you felt compelled to tell me that I waste your time. Do you realize how incredibly paradoxical your comment is? You wasted your time... telling me that I waste your time.--ttogreh 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Be careful, if you follow that chain of logic too far the universe may explode. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Cruft" is not a reason for Deletion. (Justyn 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete - and I like this webcomic. But this is getting pretty deep into the realm of "indiscriminate knowledge," of which Wikipedia is not a repository. FreplySpang 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I must reiterate myself. How does one ever reach consensus on what knowledge is, or is not indiscriminate?--ttogreh 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How indeed? Perhaps using consensus. And a process of discussion which articles to delete in a transparent, open fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into the The Order of the Stick article.  SkierRMH, 08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  Do not just delete  for the simple fact that it's the kind of thing that someone might look up on wp. who cares how relevent it is in the grander scheme of things? all that matters is that it's likely that someone would come to wp to find the info out, so the info should be findable via wp.
 * having said that, i dont really see why this page can't just be linked to from the article on OotS or Haley, other than the fact that the info is more ordered on the article page than in that forum thread --Dak 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But threads from the forums are not the Wikipedia. They can't be update, corrected or maintained.  They're source material, not reference material.
 * changing to delete. actually, theres a nice, neat, maintained version here. include a link to it in hayley's article, definately, and if there wasn't that thread, then i'd still be saying we should keep this here, but i dont really see why we should mirror the info? --Dak 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete this is obvious listcruft and I refuse to discuss this matter any further. Danny Lilithborne 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that leaves very little to debate, and gives all of us an insight into your personality, doesn't it?--ttogreh 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "cruft" is not a reason for deletion (Justyn 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Strong Delete. This information is not "about" any particular subject.  Rather, it is a collection of quotes.  It belongs in WikiQuote, if it actually belongs anywhere, but not in its current indiscriminate form.  And it is indiscriminate -- it does not discriminate, as it (ostensibly) includes every single cryptographed line Haley has spoken.  There has been no effort to present only the relevant, encyclopedic information.  The Original Party Slurm 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for suggesting a more proper avenue for this article, rather than just saying "it's crap", and calling for its deletion.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge - Why not merge with Haley Starshine under spoiler tags? If not an external link on the Haley Starshine page should point to another source for the translations. -- Ari 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging would be possible, but I believe it works better as a separate page. It would dominate the Haley page, and it's a valuable reference that stands alone, without requiring support from the material on the Haley page.  It should probably be linked  from the general OOTS page as well.  -- I have no idea how to sign as a non-registered user.


 * Keep As an editor of the topic but not a person who normally argues deletion cases, I had to caefully re-read What Wikipedia is not. Unless you want to argue that OOTS is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion at all, I don't see anything that justifies the exclusion of this list. As a Web comic with a substantial fanbase, OOTS is an appropriate topic for the Wikipedia, as is a description of its major characters. A notable feature of the major character Haley is her ability to speak only in crytograms. A thorough description of her character would not be complete without this information. We spent substantial time gathering this information and linking to the appropriate comics.  Many other media-related topics include lists of similar standing within their topic.  It's not sufficient to link to a forum post with similar information.  A forum post is not the Wikipedia, it cannot be maintained, corrected or updated. -- Random non-registered user


 * The suggestion that one cannot describe Haley's character without providing translations for her speech is hard to justify. Take a look at any biographical article for a fictional character.   Most of them provide a more than adequate description of that character's personality without repeated use of quotes.   Haley's own article covers her personality in reasonable depth, despite no quotes being present at all.   A few links to specific strips from the webcomic provide a perfectly acceptable number of illustrations of her personality and how she tends to react to things.   If you wished to add a couple of illustrative quotes to her own article, I would consider that entirely reasonable.   However, the indiscriminate quoting on the translations page goes way over the top.   Very little of it gives any insight into her character that can not be gained far more easily by simply reading the appropriate section of her character page.   Her ability to speak only in cryptograms is a significant feature of her character at the moment, yes, and should be mentioned (and, indeed, is mentioned), but a translation of every word she says is utterly unnecessary.   --Tailkinker 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a list of just any quotes. This is a list of translations of dialogue spoken by the character of Haley as crytograms. In the context of the character and the comic, this list is appropriate in a way that a list of quotes from other characters in other media may not be.  Within its milieu, this list carries a similar significant to the List of guest stars on The Simpsons or the list of Magic: The Gathering characters.  Given the volume of material devoted to OOTS, the inclusion of this list is appropriate.  Translations for these cryptograms represent key background material that newcomers to the comic require and that regular readers frquently reference.  Acting as reference material is a central function of an encyclopedia.  OOTS is sufficiently notable to be included in the Wikipedia.  Once we've established that the topic satisfies that criteria, the decision to retain or delete a particular article must be guided by the topic itself. -- Same random non-registered user


 * Sorry, but I'm forced to disagree.  This is just a list of quotes, nothing more.  Whether they were originally in cryptogram form or not, they're just quotes by a character.   Readers of the comic, both new and old, can easily find translations simply by referencing the forums attached to the site itself, something that they would, in all probability, turn to before referring to Wikipedia.   The Order of the Stick, no matter how much we might personally appreciate it, is, when it comes down to it, a webcomic and is thus of relatively minor interest, comparatively speaking, to shows like The Simpsons, or games like Magic: The Gathering.  The two lists that you cite both have uses that are greater than their basic content - the list of Simpsons guest stars can provide links to the article for the actor or actress in question, for example.   Likewise, the list of Magic characters provides links to the relevant articles, where those characters are described.   This list of quotes has no such additional use.   In all seriousness, take a look around Wikipedia, look at films, TV shows and the suchlike.   You won't find very many lists of quotes for them.   Even something as popular as the Simpsons doesn't have a page of quotes on Wikipedia.   Nor do foreign language shows, where translation would undoubtedly be useful.    WikiQuotes does have things like that, but even they do not indiscriminately quote in the manner that's provided here.   If shows, films and items from other medias with far greater popularity than the Order of the Stick do not have lists of this nature, then there can be no possible justification for including one for the Order.   If you wished to contribute a selection of character quotes to WikiQuotes, or even include a couple on each character page to illustrate their attitude and personality, you would find me to be wholeheartedly in agreement - I can certainly think of some that would work well - but this degree of indiscriminate quoting is inappropriate.  --Tailkinker 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time you're taking to discuss this matter with me. I think the "minor interest" (i.e fancruft) aspect of the topic is really at the heart of the concerns that I'm reading from yourself and others. Right now, the Wikipedia has at least eleven articles devoted to OOTs.  Is this too many?  Are we debating whether OOTs is significant enough for the Wikipedia to include substantial material, or are we debating whether or not this article is of encyclopedic character with respect to OOTs?
 * however, with most charecters, you dont NEED a list of every single piece of their dialogue -- with one that speaks in cryptograms, you do. so, i dont think it's just a list of quotes, by dint of usefulness --Dak 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You don't need a list of every piece of any character's dialogue, whether it is originally presented in cryptogram or not. Slurms MacKenzie 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge: This should not be deleted, but it shouldn't have it's own page either, it's something that either belongs in a closeable box with the spoiler tag on Haley's page. But if it takes up too much room, then it's time for a breakaway page. (Justyn 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Merge with Haley Starshine: I agree that as of right now the list isn't large enough to include its own page, so I agree with what Justyn said just above-- let's merge it with Haley's article, put the closeable box and spoiler tag, and leave it at that. ekedolphin 08:31, 16 December 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.