Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
The Ted Mosby page provides information about his romantic interests which is left out in the HIMYM characters page. The romantic interests characters are surely relevant to Ted Mosby in the show. Instead of merging/deleting/redirecting or whatever jargon wiki uses, wouldn't cleaning up the articles be a better solution to the clutter of information on fictional character pages? The original Ted Mosby article is wordy, but I believe it should be reverted back to the way it was so that another person has the opportunity to tidy up the article rather than losing relevant info because of being poorly written. [[Special:Contributions/75.24.81.225|75.24.81.225]] ([[User talk:75.24.81.225|talk]]) 19:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
The Ted Mosby page provides information about his romantic interests which is left out in the HIMYM characters page. The romantic interests characters are surely relevant to Ted Mosby in the show. Instead of merging/deleting/redirecting or whatever jargon wiki uses, wouldn't cleaning up the articles be a better solution to the clutter of information on fictional character pages? The original Ted Mosby article is wordy, but I believe it should be reverted back to the way it was so that another person has the opportunity to tidy up the article rather than losing relevant info because of being poorly written. [[Special:Contributions/75.24.81.225|75.24.81.225]] ([[User talk:75.24.81.225|talk]]) 19:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: Please read [[WP:GNG]]. Ted Mosby has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The "romantic interests" of the character can be added to the summary in the list if you or any other editor feels that they should be there. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
::: Please read [[WP:GNG]]. Ted Mosby has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The "romantic interests" of the character can be added to the summary in the list if you or any other editor feels that they should be there. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen University (3rd nomination)]] == |
|||
My apologies for closing this as "keep". None of the "keep" !voters really addressed your concerns but there were no delete !votes so it couldn't have been closed any other way. |
|||
As a side note I started a [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_should_AFDs_be_closed_when_the_consensus_is_counter_to_policy.3F|thread]] at [[WP:VPP]] about the issue of the consensus in AFDs running counter to policy. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:47, 26 June 2010
|
|
WitneyTV
This article is about a non profit local tv station that has started in West Oxfordshire where I live. They provide video news to the community about what's going on in and around Witney, West Oxfordshire and are recognised by the local council and people of West Oxfordshire as providing a valuable service to the community. I'm new to actually putting articles on wikipedia and not sure what all these messages about deletion etc are all about. I just thought as lots of my friends and family have been asking what WitneyTV was I thought I'd make a page on here and then tell them to wiki it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Babonde (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry if I'm returning messages to you the wrong way...when you say reliable sources, WitneyTV was recently covered by the BBC. BBC Oxford TV did and expose on them. They have good relations with the local council WODC too if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B Babonde (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Ghulam Hussain
Why did you revert the page in what way was the box I made unnhelpful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.139.142 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- The edit wasn't necessarily "unhelpful", but you removed content without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Regards. Claritas § 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Living Dead in Dallas
Hi - I am curious as to why you decided my changes to "Living Dead in Dallas" were a "joke". I was attempting to improve the page, by tightening up the character links (there is no need for duplication when character descriptions already exist at the link), by putting the characters in order, by correctly entering their names (Maryann, not "Maryanne"), and by making sure that the descriptions referred to the novel and not the television series (which has its own section at the end of the article). I really don't appreciate your presumption that I was being mischievous or superficial in my changes, nor do I appreciate you casually flagging my work, putting a black mark on my name. If you had a problem with my edits, you could have at least made the effort to discuss them with me, rather than just reverting all my work. Your approach strikes me as dismissive and highly disrespectful. Amos True (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Please Do not Chastise Me for Someone Else's Text!!!
Hi there - so your problem was that you believed I used inappropriate text? Could you please be a little more vigilant? I did not add that text, I simply rearranged what was there previously. Blaming me for someone else's choice of quotation is unfair, as is undoing all of my edits rather than changing the one thing that bothered you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amos True (talk • contribs) 07:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the article now, having seen that your edits weren't vandalism, I've simply removed the objectionable content. Claritas § 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
Thanks very much for your welcome note. I will be looking for advice in the future. Aspatrian (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Lists
I'm coming here so as not to clutter the AfD more. A list contains only those elements which ARE the item listed. Categories however, contain pages which are topical but not necessarily among the "items" that the list would contain. I'm certain I'm explaining this poorly, but I'll provide a hypothetical example. You have Province A, Province B and Economy of Province A and Economy of Province B. A List of provinces of Exampland would include only the "items" of the list, whereas it would be completely sensible to tag the Economy articles with Category: Provinces of Exampland. Even if you created an Economy category, that category would likely be added as a subcat of Provinces, cluttering up the list of provinces with (presumably multiple) subcats. Additionally, a list has better options for dividing things subjectively. A category does allow a header (if it didn't I would toss categories out the window as methods of informing readers), but sorts alphabetically, whereas List of provinces of Exampland could chose to sort the provinces differently, perhaps by major, culturally meaningful, geographic groups. Lists are versatile, while categories are at best a sorting tool. I would ask that you take for granted that some people prefer lists, and that they benefit from them, even if you do not agree that they are best. - BalthCat (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have a real issue with lists which function well, but there are plenty of lists which indiscriminate to the extent that they serve no useful purpose or function, and thus deletion may be a good option. In the case of List of fictional worms, as it's been kept, I'm going to do some work splitting and sorting it out, but I'll remind you that some of the lists I've been bringing to AFD have been deleted with a fairly strong consensus: see WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional schools (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (3rd nomination). I appreciate that there are advantages of lists in some cases, but I regard lists only to be advantageous when the subject matter is fixed in some way. List of provinces of Exampland is fine, List of fictional people from Exampland may be contentious. Regards. Claritas § 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Ethel&Bobby
You left a note at this user's page concerning the removal of material from the David Rakoff article. I believe most of the material had been added by this user, who was then criticised for the huge length of the text. It was, and probably still is now, one of the 10 largest articles on WP, and did contain trivia. I haven't looked yet, but please take into consideration that the article should be rationalised. Tony (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
WitneyTV
I just wanted to thank you for being so helpful to the creator of this article. I do a lot of work in deletion and whenever I see a response to a new editor like this, I have to say "Well done". This is exactly the kind of help that I wish we could provide to every user (and it's unlikely that this particular editor knows how lucky he's been). He may not appreciate it, but I certainly did. If I can ever be of any administrative assistance to you, feel free to call on me. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
For one of the most helpful responses to a new user I've seen in quite some time; thank you for being so helpful! Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
- That's very kind of you. I always make an effort when users try to contribute in good faith - I feel that being bombarded with templates is generally not a great experience, and can put off new users - personal comments tend to be much more effective. Claritas § 06:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautyshop Music, as a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Given your extensive participation in and initiation of fiction-related AfDs, where merging minor elements into other articles is a routine outcome, I'd encourage you to read this. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
deletion of several articles
I read through several articles related to "How I Met Your Mother" just a few days ago; there was a page for each main character on the show. There was information about the characters that no longer exists after your deletions in the article. Doesn't deletion of an article require discussion before any action is taken? 75.24.81.225 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- No articles were "deleted", they were redirected. There's a Wikipedia policy called WP:PLOT which limits the amount of coverage of fictional coverage on Wikipedia. If you want to read them, tell me which ones - you can find old revision online still (Ted Mosby, for example, is at [1]). There's no discussion needed for uncontroversial redirects, although if other users challenged it, a discussion could take place. Many thanks. Claritas § 08:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have read through the wiki policy that you linked and there isn't anything about "redirecting" articles. The "Ted Mosby" article that you linked [2] is unaccessible from any link on the HIMYM article page. From my understanding, one of the purposes of redirects are supposed to get you from a main article page to a subtopic article page if there is one. If I'm reading about HIMYM and I decided to click on "Ted Mosby," it should redirect me to the subtopic "Ted Mosby" page that was formerly accessible before your changes to the pages. Other TV shows (for example, The Office) have separate character article pages like [3] which seems to be no different from the old Ted Mosby article, however like Ted Mosby, all main characters are "redirected" to [4] which is the same page. I don't know if I'm getting my point across, but either you correctly edited HIMYM-related character pages or numerous other TV shows are improperly formatted. 75.24.81.225 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, the point is that the content of the Ted Mosby page was not appropriate for Wikipedia, and therefore is not directly accessible. The guideline is WP:PLOT. All relevant information about the character is on List of How I Met Your Mother characters. It's not necessarily good that there are article on every single character in the Office, and I'll get round to merging/nominating for deletion if I can't see any independent notability later. Regards. Claritas § 19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The Ted Mosby page provides information about his romantic interests which is left out in the HIMYM characters page. The romantic interests characters are surely relevant to Ted Mosby in the show. Instead of merging/deleting/redirecting or whatever jargon wiki uses, wouldn't cleaning up the articles be a better solution to the clutter of information on fictional character pages? The original Ted Mosby article is wordy, but I believe it should be reverted back to the way it was so that another person has the opportunity to tidy up the article rather than losing relevant info because of being poorly written. 75.24.81.225 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for closing this as "keep". None of the "keep" !voters really addressed your concerns but there were no delete !votes so it couldn't have been closed any other way.
As a side note I started a thread at WP:VPP about the issue of the consensus in AFDs running counter to policy. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)