Talk:List of Clow Cards
Latest comment: 15 years ago by AnmaFinotera in topic Fate of this Article
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Manga Volume Information
Can someone with access to the manga please fill out the Volume Captured and Volume Transformed for the relevant cards. zzymyn (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Request
The previous page Clow Cards was deleted for OR reasons. This article does not fall under rule CSD G4; it is substantially different from the deleted page and is explicitly addressing the issues raised in the previous deletion request.
The previous page was not concise, had bad form and contained original research. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's stance on lists and such. If it is better that this list be in the Cardcaptor Sakura article then please move it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzymyn (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The list has been deleted THREE TIMES for a multitude of reasons, not just it having original research, or just because of the format. Consensus as agreed that it doesn't belong, period. Lists of fictional elements of this nature are neither notable nor in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. You were told this no less than three times, but you still tried to get around it by recreating this list under a new name. Reformatting it does not change that either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't know why you assume that I was the author of the previous article. I just noticed that the Clow Cards article had been deleted because of OR, and since there is a list of Cardcaptor Sakura episodes, I thought that this list falls into the same category. zzymyn (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Fate of this Article
The old articles covering this topic contained OR and way too much unsourced information. Clearly, each individual Clow Card is not notable enough to have it's own page or even paragraph description (as these are already covered by the List of Episodes articles). There is a list of characters, episodes and albums already, conspicuously missing from these was a list of the Clow Cards.
So basically what I'm asking is, there are three options for this acticle:
- Delete it.
- Simply include the list of clow cards in one of the other articles (either Cardcaptor Sakura or List of Cardcaptor Sakura characters).
- Keep it as its own page and have a short section in Cardcaptor Sakura with a link to this page (as a "see also"-type link).
Obviously as I created the page I like the third option, but what do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzymyn (talk • contribs) 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- There really isn't anything to discuss, IMHO, and your attempting to get around TWO consensus based discussions by remaking this list, yet again, was beyond inappropriate. Consensus is clear, multiple times. Any iteration of a list of the cards is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, period. The bulk are single chapter/episode cards, no different from "monsters of the week" type creatures. They have no significant in the role on an individual basis beyond a few, and even those are minor. The concept as a whole is already appropriately covered in the main CCS article. The list has been redirected the same as the other versions, though personally I think it should just be deleted the same as the others. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with you there. The consensus for the previous AfD on this article was to redirect it to Clow Cards, not for it to be deleted. That article was subsequently deleted because it contained OR. Thus the original List of Clow Cards has been orphaned. However, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this as I can see your point and I realise that it isn't a clear-but issue. Would you care to discuss this issue further? I'd like to know what the issue is with having a list of clow cards. Is it a notability issue? Oh, and one last thing, I am NOT the original author of Clow Cards or the previous version of List of Clow Cards. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. zzymyn (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, the consensus of the last AfD was to redirect it to the Cardcaptors article as a likely search term. You are referring to the second AfD, which also clearly shows the content is netiher notable nor useful. Just because it contained OR would not have been a reason to redirect it. It was a duplicate, really, so the worse and younger was redirected to the older. Neither, however, has been shown to be valid. If Clow Cards had not existed at the time, the original would have been redirected here. Irregardless, name aside, it was the same topic, and consensus has repeatedly shown that a list of the cards is not notable, not an appropriate spin out, and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for appropriate articles. Wikipedia is not a fansite. This has also been repeatedly shown in the deletion and redirection of many other fictional element lists. A list of characters is acceptable, that is all. Nor does this list serve any valid purposes. When cards are captured and converted is already far better covered in the chapter and episode articles. And sorry, but I have a hard time believing that an IP would repeatedly try to restore Clow Cards to the point of getting ready to be blocked, then you show up and do the same under another name and in your user space. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can see your point about articles about fictional elements, which is why I agree that Clow Cards should have been deleted. However I was taking a cue from other lists (List of Pokemon for example) that seemed to imply that lists of such "monsters of the week" can be allowed. Also Clow Cards was on my watchlist, which is why I noticed the recent reverts. zzymyn (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That list of Pokemon is an exception as it is a different kind of list. It is a list of individual notable articles and a list form of the category, not just a list of fictional elements. That falls under a different guideline. (as an aside, it has also never been discussed for deletion). Some other similar type AfDs from recent times: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony technology, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball planets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fists in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Free Planets Alliance Fleets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items and artifacts in Negima, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Deaths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kururu's inventions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha spells, etc. Notice they were all deletes or redirects (redirects are generally used more because the term itself is a "likely" search term rather than trying to impart an idea that the content would be okay if "fixed". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see. For my future reference, what are the wikipedia policies that deal with these fictional elements? As an aside, AfD discussions and resolutions can be difficult to decode if one isn't familiar with the terminology. Is a redirect counted as a merge or a delete, or is it neither? ALso what is a "sock puppet" that was referenced in the first AfD? zzymyn (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:NOT, and, for anime/manga, WP:MOS-AM are good places to start with. If you are interested in anime/manga topics in general, the Anime and manga project is a good place to learn more about that specific area of articles. A redirect is basically a "delete" but with a link left behind to avoid broken links and to aid searchers. A merge has a similar result, except that usually content from the "deleted" article is included (in part or in whole, and usually rewritten) in the target article. Per the licensing of content on Wikipedia, when this occurs, the source article can not be physically deleted as it would delete the contribution history. A Sock puppet is when someone uses multiple accounts in an abusive fashion, such as violating a ban/block, falsify support for a position, try to influence the outcome of a discussion, etc. Hope that helps some.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see. For my future reference, what are the wikipedia policies that deal with these fictional elements? As an aside, AfD discussions and resolutions can be difficult to decode if one isn't familiar with the terminology. Is a redirect counted as a merge or a delete, or is it neither? ALso what is a "sock puppet" that was referenced in the first AfD? zzymyn (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That list of Pokemon is an exception as it is a different kind of list. It is a list of individual notable articles and a list form of the category, not just a list of fictional elements. That falls under a different guideline. (as an aside, it has also never been discussed for deletion). Some other similar type AfDs from recent times: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of After Colony technology, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball planets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fists in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gantz equipment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Free Planets Alliance Fleets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items and artifacts in Negima, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Deaths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kururu's inventions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha spells, etc. Notice they were all deletes or redirects (redirects are generally used more because the term itself is a "likely" search term rather than trying to impart an idea that the content would be okay if "fixed". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can see your point about articles about fictional elements, which is why I agree that Clow Cards should have been deleted. However I was taking a cue from other lists (List of Pokemon for example) that seemed to imply that lists of such "monsters of the week" can be allowed. Also Clow Cards was on my watchlist, which is why I noticed the recent reverts. zzymyn (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, the consensus of the last AfD was to redirect it to the Cardcaptors article as a likely search term. You are referring to the second AfD, which also clearly shows the content is netiher notable nor useful. Just because it contained OR would not have been a reason to redirect it. It was a duplicate, really, so the worse and younger was redirected to the older. Neither, however, has been shown to be valid. If Clow Cards had not existed at the time, the original would have been redirected here. Irregardless, name aside, it was the same topic, and consensus has repeatedly shown that a list of the cards is not notable, not an appropriate spin out, and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for appropriate articles. Wikipedia is not a fansite. This has also been repeatedly shown in the deletion and redirection of many other fictional element lists. A list of characters is acceptable, that is all. Nor does this list serve any valid purposes. When cards are captured and converted is already far better covered in the chapter and episode articles. And sorry, but I have a hard time believing that an IP would repeatedly try to restore Clow Cards to the point of getting ready to be blocked, then you show up and do the same under another name and in your user space. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with you there. The consensus for the previous AfD on this article was to redirect it to Clow Cards, not for it to be deleted. That article was subsequently deleted because it contained OR. Thus the original List of Clow Cards has been orphaned. However, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this as I can see your point and I realise that it isn't a clear-but issue. Would you care to discuss this issue further? I'd like to know what the issue is with having a list of clow cards. Is it a notability issue? Oh, and one last thing, I am NOT the original author of Clow Cards or the previous version of List of Clow Cards. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. zzymyn (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)