User talk:TTN/Archive 17

An article that you have been involved in editing—Doombot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that page could have just deleted from the start. I mean, if only I know what actually happened...

Zero stylinx (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As you probably know, I have a lot of sympathy with your desire to see Transformers content on Wikipedia cut back/consolidated. However, I have a friendly suggestion: I'd avoid mass nominations like this. They can lead to bad feeling among those involved and a failure to consider the merits of individual articles. Perhaps you could withdraw this particular nomination and renominate them one at a time; there's no deadline, after all. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on the nature of the articles and the people willing to !vote at the time. For the toy list articles and character stubs, I really don't think there's going to be anyone voting to keep them, and I really don't think there's anyone who actually cares about them. That kind of consideration is better saved for the five or ten articles that may actually have some potential in the pile of garbage that is the current state of those articles. TTN (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So, naturally, I'm going to say the same thing about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windbreaker (Transformers). These discussions are controversial; I think it's in everyone's best interest that they are taken one at a time. Just some advice: take it or leave it, your call. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi TTN, all of the D&D articles you've nominated for deletion probably ought to be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games. If you wouldn't mind adding them, I would appreciate it. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Sorry somehow you flagged an article I did for D&D years ago for deletion? I do not know how to respond as it's been a long time since I have been on wikipedia. I hope this isn't having to do with the new fad of getting into d&d now and trying to change the past. Hope our past stands. Article was Plane of Shadow.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TTN. On September 5, 2016 you nominated the article Laogzed for deletion. Since the result of the AfD was merge, you might want to carry this out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi TTN, I've pinged you on some AFD - Ignore it, I hadn't realized some of the AFDS were a mixture of Keeps and Merges so just carrying on nominating them :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a question. Why are you redirecting all the monster pages back to the main page? Those pages are useful to those who want to research to do their own thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.198.150.183 (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I see that you restored the redirect of Leader-1 to the List of Gobot characters. There seems to be a small problem in that the only section on the List of Gobot characters is a "Main Article Leader-1" which in turn redirects back to the same page. Hopefully you can see how this is problemtaic. As such, I am going to revert your redirect restoration and in stead slap the merge to on it so that we can have a proper merge of content. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I have difficulty conceiving of you as being anything even close to "merry", and I tend to imagine you as having a permanent scowl and finding pleasure only in disapproving of something, I am going to wish you a Merry Christmas anyway in the hopes that I am wrong and only see a very one-sided picture of you, and hope that you actually do find some joys in life. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We need more great minds like you to clean up junk. I respect your dedication these past ten years. Longevitydude (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we have enough AfDs for now. If there's another Flanaess sub-political entity you missed, please nominate it; otherwise I'd recommend avoiding any additional nominations on this topic for at least a week, if not two weeks. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just going to keep going at a pace of at least two per day. Those locations are about tapped out, so I'll eventually move on to deities again or something else. I usually stop once the AfDs have so little interest they end up relisted two or three times. There's no real difference if I only do some at a time, or do some each day. People eventually tire out and stop responding either way, so there is no particular reason to throttle the nominations. TTN (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? If stuff is not notable it should get deleted. It is as simple as that. Through I find it best to spread stuff over time indeed to avoid getting people tired out about same stuff. Anyway, thanks for prodding our geek-dom topics, TTN. A lot of people get irked when we threaten our fond memories, etc., but notability has no excuse for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Does that IP that's been following you around to make fatuous keep votes seem familiar? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_Nobody. Reyk _YO! 00:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it would be interest you that we had a redirect deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_22#Emulators. While closing that discussion and bulk-deleting redirects, I found that you redirected ProSystem (Emulator) to a different target from that proposed in the AfD back in 2009. Since Atari 7800 still mentions this emulator, I have retargeted this particular title to Atari 7800 rather than delete it alongside the batch. Deryck C. 12:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello TTN, I'm working on some routine cleanup and see you have not made use of the ip block exemption flag on your account for over a year. This will be removed in about a week, unless you reply below that you still have a need for this flag. This will have no impact on your ability to read Wikipedia. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. As your account has been inactive for a year and there was no reply above, this flag has been removed. This will have no impact on general editing, however if you are trying to edit from certain blocked IP addresses you may need to move to another address or request a new exemption. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ernestine (Sesame Street). Since you had some involvement with the Ernestine (Sesame Street) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Instead of making many small AfDs, which are clogging up the deletion sorting for fictional elements and are often closed similarly, you should create bulk AfDs covering groups of related articles. See also Zxcvbnm's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middenheim. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Multi-AfDs have their benefits and downsides. The downsides really outweigh the benefits. They seem to get less attention sometimes, possibly due to some not feeling good giving an opinion en-masse. They can be more easily clogged up by arguments about "destruction of content" and whatnot. If one of them ends up having obscure sources that make it notable, then that hurts the rest of the discussion. It's really only good for something completely non-contentious that will be instantly deleted. That's not the case with a lot of fiction recently. TTN (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The result of an AFD to merge does not mean redirect. Im reverting your inappropriate redirects to give time for merges to occur, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging is an editorial decision. It is not mandated that the content be maintained or transferred. That is just pointless bureaucracy. TTN (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A decision at AFD overrides one editor, thats policy not bureaucracy Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense backed by absolutely nothing. The consensus is that people think the information can be merged, but it is not mandated to be merged. You have no basis for reverting those other than being pointlessly difficult. The edit history is there. There is a tag on the talk page. If someone wants to merge them later, then they can do so. TTN (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So youre overriding AFD, and are not neutral, ill have to go to the editwarring board Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm fulfilling the goal of the AfD, which is the removal of content. I, in my editorial capacity, think that the content is useless to even add to any of these pages. If someone disagrees, the history is there for them to merge content at their leisure. There is nowhere on this site that would back your idea that merger is mandated just because it has been discussed in AfD. You're pointlessly reverting content that pretty much nobody cares about (some having been sitting for a literal month) or content that is already summarized in sufficient capacity as the one I reverted. TTN (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, am acting on precedent, other editors have been warned by admins for blanket redirects on merge results Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Then those admins were either wrong, or the redirects were a means to an end for another action for which they were being warned. There is no metric to determine a proper merge. I will now go and add one sentence from each of those, if not already mentioned in sufficient detail, and that will technically be a merge and thus fulfill the pointless bureaucratic task. TTN (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

TTN is absolutely correct here. A merge does not require any material to be brought over from the original article if the editor doing it feels there's nothing to bring over (in contrast, a close as redirect is an assurance that none of the material is appropriate to being over by consensus). Because the merge is "soft" (no admin action) any editor wishing to add more from the original article can do so (though there should be various templates added to indicate any contribution history). --Masem (t) 23:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: but TTN is not a neutral editor as he wanted these articles deleted, and a number of the adticles redirected after AFD closed as merge were only closed today Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in any "close as merge" policy says who may or may not do the merge, and does allow for a merge as soon as it closes. --Masem (t) 23:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: It does not seem right that the nominator of the AFD determines the merge, the closer would be a better person to determine it or at least a post-AFD discussion with the participants of the AFD who voted for merge should take place otherwise ithe nominator is taking over the whole process imv Atlantic306 (talk)

If someone disagrees with a redirect, then they may later perform whatever merge they'd like. There is a nice big tag on all the talk pages that informs people of the page and its history. From there, the editors interested in the page can discuss if they merge is sufficient or insufficient and go from there. The issue here is that you seem to think there is any proper way to merge things. Some people copy the page wholesale, some merge relevant information, and some merge nothing because nothing in the article is worth placing on the target page. TTN (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, TTN. On several of your recent D&D AFDs, I feel I've proposed fairly high level article restructurings as long-term solutions to the mess that is this topic space. There are, unquestionably, some real articles with real sources that respect WAF which can be written in this topic space. But equally unquestionably, this category is a giant mess of fancruft right now, largely dating back to before current WAF policy was established.

I've been away from the project for a few months, but (hopefully!) have some more time to dedicate to article work again. I'd certainly benefit from hitting a reasonably soft target like this D&D stuff, rather than jumping immediately back into researching FAC-level silent film topics or untangling pre-colonial African governance articles! Would you be willing to hold off further D&D deletions for a little bit while I can take stock of what exists, what sources could be used for higher-level articles, and what a properly written topic structure might look like? If successful, I would absolutely be willing to then run that proposed structure past you as a sanity check, then start in on the actual rewriting, redirecting overly-detailed node articles as I go.

Thoughts? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If someone actually wants to try to do something positive, that's fine. The only real issue is that I tried to work with the D&D project more than once, but it seems there are some very stubborn members. The number of redirected pages that were undone over months and years by anonymous IPs was pretty staggering, even when I was taking time to at least try to merge topics. That's why I've been gung-ho with AfDs. It's the only way to make sure the results stick. There are certainly plenty of notable topics under the D&D umbrella, but it feel like nobody really wants it to change. It's just a holdover from 2008. But I'd be fine holding off on additional nominations for now regardless. It's not like there aren't some 2000+ comic book character articles to nominate in the meantime. TTN (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there even was a D&D Wikiproject; I'm certainly not a member. In general, I don't have a great opinion of the Wikiproject system. I find that they tend to reward preserving the status quo for their topics, which is fine when the article space is in good shape, and ... really bad, when it isn't. In any case, let me see what I can do. There's a colossal number of articles in this topic space, and some core-level reorganization is going to be necessary to be compliant with policies. Still, it's nice to be back editing, and I could use a project that doesn't require I track down surviving copies of 1920s film periodicals or obscure foreign-language publications for once! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you WP:REFACTOR your comment at [1]. I share your sentiment, and I think that user is disruptive, but WP:NPA is a thing too. Instead I recommend we draft a list of examples of faulty votes / deprods and discuss this at AN(I?) with a proposal for a community topic ban from deletions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been more than open with my venom towards that user recently, so I don't think removing that one comment would go towards much of anything. The issue with trying to sanction him is that I don't think it's possible to prove he's acting in bad faith outside of the couple times recently where it seems he's run out of patience as well and simply !voted in a snarky manner like in the above. On a general basis, he's still providing sources, even if I value them as completely disingenuous. He may or may not genuinely believe Wikipedia's sourcing standards should be that low, but I'd find it hard to absolutely prove it to others. On PRODs, he's completely in his right, unfortunately. The fact that he preaches BEFORE out the ass but fails to do the recommended steps with PRODs is more hypocrisy than faulty. TTN (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the PROD behavior may fall under WP:POINT... But I think you are right, in the past this has not led to much action unless the problem is much more serious. Few deprods are not an issue, but if he deprods few dozens of articles with the same generic summary and makes no effort to improve them, plus if they all get deleted, it may be a cause for action. As in, if someone has a ratio of "90% of his deprods lead to deletion through AfD" or such, it can be argued that he is just wasting community time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I really think that List of Autobots and List of Decepticons duplicate already existing lists, as I pointed out on their talk-pages it is unencyclopedic to have a list of characters "by affiliation" as we are not a fan site. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87:I tried bold redirecting them in 2016, I think. I can't remember if I tried a merge discussion or not, but it was ultimately a failure. I do think that there are two major problems with the lists. A. Most of these characters have 2-5 incarnations of differing status, so you'd need to actually list out every version for the list to be worthwhile. B. As you stated, there are some twenty character lists available that already handle the characters on a per series basis. They'd probably fail at AfD, but another "merge" discussion would likely be helpful. One project would be to take the various redirects and actually target them towards the most prominent series in which the characters appear. TTN (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your efforts to keep me updated, but I don't need to know about every single nomination you are doing, so please give me a condensed version. :-) --Koveras (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That's just the automatic function to notify the article creator. I'll try to remember to uncheck it on nominating other articles or sending those to AfD should the PRODs be challenged. TTN (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Koveras (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokémon Green, Red, Blue, and Yellow. Since you had some involvement with the Pokémon Green, Red, Blue, and Yellow redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that most of Noon Universe content should go, but I'd suggest that for content that is not duplicated in a wikia or such we should transwiki it. Since I noticed NU has no good English pages outside Wikipedia I created https://noon-universe.fandom.com/ and just spend an hour copying some articles there. Can I ask you to help with this idea? I.e. if you prod or AfD an article that is not on wiki, can you copy an article there? It's not that much work, ideally one just needs to fix links (usually Wikipedia articles are too overlinked for wikia), but if you are pressed for time, well, someone else can fix stuff there eventually. The point is, such fancruft may not belong here, but it is still useful to preserve on the web. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I did PROD most of those articles, and will AfD them should the PRODs be challenged. I wouldn't mind helping, but I'd prefer not to associate my Wikia username with my Wikipedia name. I'd rather keep the Wikipedia drama on Wikipedia. For pages to send over from Category:Noon Universe, you'd want the five other planets in the planets category, the five characters, and the Foundlings and Progressor articles. There's also the minor character article, split on nominating it for deletion or just merging it. TTN (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Duke of Denver, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

• Deserves a full discussion, if only to decide whether the Scott-Giles book can be considered an independent source. Much of the content is so far unsourced, but that's not enough to determine that the subject-matter as a whole is intrinsically non-notable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Based on what Scott-Giles says in his introduction, he researched the material not only from the actual novels but from other published and unpublished materials, including letters he exchanged with Sayers. There are one or two places where he has introduced his own conjectures, but they are clearly marked as such. I think he can fairly be called a secondary source, in the same sense that he would be a secondary source for the histories of the Emanuel School and Sidney Sussex that he also wrote. In addition, a quick look at Google Scholar suggests about 70 works (not counting Sayers or Scott-Giles) that at least mention the Duke of Denver, though probably most of them refer specifically to the 16th Duke. --John Cowan (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from High Guard, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I deprodded Jo Gerner as he is maybe the best known daily soap characters on German TV. I wouldn't even be surprised if a Featured Article could be written about him. But I realize FANCRUFT, so a merger or redirection may be in order. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If they exist, you'd definitely need someone dedicated enough to shift through German soap opera fluff pieces to find them. I did glance at German Wikipedia before prodding them, but it appeared there'd be little potential seeing as no characters have articles there. TTN (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)