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. --Ezeu 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes[edit]


Start off[edit]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user who created this page decided that another page, already a featured list, was too long. They then cut down the articles greatly, and put them in three seperate articles. He also decided that they should be featured, as the original one was. Couldn't think of any speedy deletion criteria that fit, but I think that it should be speedied anyway. This is the first of them, I am also nominating-


Comments[edit]

J Milburn 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first objection is untrue, the person does have an account. User:Zach111493 is a user, with an account, even if a recently established one. This may mean many things, but I remind you to Assume Good Faith, and that you recognize that as a new user, they may not know the best protocols to follow. That you and other users have worked hard on these pages is also not a good objection, since none of your content has been removed or deleted. That this was done on a holiday doesn't matter much, is there any hurry to act on this decision? Nope, taking a few days, weeks, even months on this wouldn't hurt. There's no false information on the pages that I could see, or anything remotely libelous. It's not a problem in need of hasty action. Now as to the question of whether or not lists like the original episode guide should be split, I don't know, but I can imagine many series where it might well be helpful to break things into articles for each of the seasons. OTOH, I can understand the desire to have it in one comprehensive page. However, there is no need to be possessive about this page. That it is a featured list doesn't mean we can't decide that it might well be improved by splitting it. It does mean that anyone who wished to do so would be well-advised to seek consensus before doing so, but that they didn't so no reason to get upset. A little patience on your part, and following "Don't bite the Newbies" might help a good bit. As it stands, you should avoid calling things BS and saying they contribute nothing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is with all these happy smily people on Wikipedia? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you may know, it's often a more effective method to use honey over vinegar. Not all the time, but in this case, I think practicing a little moderation might be helpful to some folks. FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using honey attracts bees. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are actually wrong in saying that no content was moved. Content was moved, and a lot of it- almost all of the information on the original list was cut out and used as content for the three new pages, I simply reverted it all back. That's virtually vandalism. My reverting the information back does thus make the three new pages obsolete- they are not valuable to Wikipedia because they contribute no new information.
The fact that he didn't have an account really doesn't matter- he edited a very large portion of the original article without consensus from other users, which was met with disapproval. Thus, I called for a consensus to revert this change. I have thus far not attacked the user- I have said nothing directly to him at all, and only passively addressed him as "some user with no account." I am instead attacking his actions, and I feel there is a great difference between taking action against the two targets. Finally, the fact that it is a major holiday does matter, because the change was enacted upon this date when very few users were online to speak against the action- I believe I was the only online member of the Wikiproject when it transpired. Obviously, these things do not matter at the present moment, but I believe you should hold my rather aggressive approach to resolving this incident against me. I understand that Zach made the edit with good intentions, however we all know what the path of good intentions may lead to. I am willing with all my heart to forgive him- so long as he learns his lesson. Now, Manticore, please stop arguing for the page's survival using an ad hominum argument- it should not matter at all how I act in arguing so long as my points are valid. I view this action as a mistake that should be corrected quickly and efficiently, so that we can all move on. Y BCZ 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any removed content. Moved? Sure, but that's the closest you'll get to removed, and that's not a real problem. It's still there in the history. More importantly, it's not vandalism, virtual or otherwise. If you want vandalism, wait till you see somebody replace an article with some random pejoratives. That's vandalism. This isn't even close, and you shouldn't act like it was. At most, it's a mistake, and to be honest, you could have dealt with it much more effectively than you did. A kind, considerate word would probably have worked just as well, and you could have made the pages into redirects without even bothering with a call for deletion. There is no hurry here, so what if it's a holiday. It's a television show, I like it myself, but I'm not going to claim there's any pressing hurry. I think you need to take a step back and realize that there was no harm done. The page you have contributed to is still there, it was easily fixed, and at most Wikipedia's servers are using up a few more kilobytes of space than they would. That's not a big deal. Yet to me, you've gotten all riled up, as if this was something that needed to be taken care of now. It's not. The fact is, there is no need for an aggressive approach. No major revert wars occurred, no trolling, no vandalism, in other words, no big deal. And yes, how you act is very important. If you don't believe me, try WP:Civil where you can read for yourself the thoughts of others on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 05:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's you that got riled up, Y was simply doing the same job we all do DAILY. DAILY we get large amounts of things done to pages without concensus. DAILY we revert repeated vandalism. DAILY we explain to users why their edits were changed and have to hear the shouting from them. But today, when Y was simply doing the same job he's done day in and day out (normally those deletions happen right away as with the recent page created for Avatar Characters), you decided to step in and start dismissing our actions, the very same actions that got this article into FA status to begin with. It's true that redirection could have worked, but redirection does not always get the editor to stop (and if you don't believe that, i've got a few history pages to show you, (how many times have we deleted Kataang or Zutara?)). 06:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't feel I'm riled up, nor do I feel that would even appear to be so from my words. If I have given that appearance, let me assure you that is not the case. I'm troubled, sure, but not upset. Your concerns about vandalism are certainly valid, but you needn't worry about expressing them, I've dealt with my share of it too, so I'm quite aware of it. It's not a problem limited to the Avatar pages, but one unfortunately endemic to Wikipedia. There are many reasons why it happens, but that it does happen so pervasively is a reason to keep a cool head. However, unlike actual vandalism, or articles like Kataang or Zutara, this was a potentially reasonable decision. At the least, it didn't violate any explicit principles of Wikipedia, aside from seeking Consensus first. But since boldness is encouraged, it's not a great problem. Nothing was vandalized, no bad content was introduced. Since it was objected to, it would have been better to assume good faith, inform the editor of the objections to that bold action(which was not done until after this began, aside from some inappropriate talk page comments), revert the moved content(which was done anyway, so not a problem), and so the only problem would be the existence of these pages. Which is not actually a great problem. It's a few extra kilobytes of disk space, and if quick action was really wanted, a couple of redirects would have put the pages out of action immediately. Or you could have spoken to the creating editor, and asked them to request the pages be deleted. A gently worded request might have accomplished that very easily. Instead, we get a person calling the action BS on the talk pages and this nomination which has problems with folks being a bit overzealous. I'm sorry if I am saying it in a way that offends you, but I do find that to be a matter of concern, and so I have politely tried to express it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say, the reason these articles annoyed me personally was that they were brand new, and claimed to be featured status despite the fact that they had not been through the usual featured system. Whenever I have seen this before, they have been spoof articles, that needed to be deleted. J Milburn 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case I'd say it was a result of a new user copying and pasting the information without realizing that certain parts weren't appropriate for a split. Ignorance, maybe, but certainly not any kind of spoof or vandalism. As things go, there are a lot worse things to worry about. FrozenPurpleCube 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to try User:Zach111493 instead, as that person created the articles. May indeed by the same editor, may not, but it is better to try to find a user than an IP address. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, one person simply saying "it's better" doesn't mean it's true. I see a lot of people supporting the delete, and backing up their opinions logically. I cannot say the same for the other side of the decision, though. Sorry, but we can't just make everyone happy. Y BCZ 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been less than 24 hours since the nomination was made, and you yourself have argued that it's a holiday. I think you may wish to wait and see if people come up with anything.

Delete[edit]


Why was this made[edit]

Well...[edit]

I thought that it would be better but, I was proven otherwise. Zach111493 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it falls under Speedy Deletion due to author's request... J Milburn 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Yell at me for what I've done) Zach111493 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for help[edit]

References[edit]

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.
More