KHWiki:Pages for deletion/Archives/Jan 2007

maleficent2

• I'm a little torn - several of these were cohorts of Maleficent's, although "council" is probably inaccurate. At the very least it should be moved, but a compendium of KH2 Disney bosses would be of benefit. Scottch 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Disney. Could use a better name. Interrobang 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To avoid cluttering, maybe both maleficent and maleficent2 should just be redirected to that. The template could always be moved... maybe {{disneyvillains}}? Scottch 14:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Bleh, works for me. I just overcategorize stuff. Council on the second one? That was my bad. Heh... I guess it pays to double check. I just played Kingdom Hearts over again, and Clayton doesn't work with the first template. The rest on the first template, though, are completely accurate.--Dreyfus 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was merge to disneyvillains. Scottch 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fantasia

• I say delete, not enough material for an article. Scottch 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed

The result was delete. Scottch 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pure Heartless

• Is there a source for this deletion? If so I'm cool with it. Scottch 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • [1] Interrobang 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed

The result was rename to Category:Pureblood Heartless. Scottch 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Artificial Heartless

• Same as above. Scottch 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia noted the Pure and Artificial Heartless.--Dreyfus 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The dispute is over the name I think, not the existence. Scottch 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was rename to Category:Emblem Heartless. Scottch 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie categories

This is a lump nomination of all categories of the name of a Disney movie. It seems like the world category (i.e. Atlantica instead of The Little Mermaid) is enough categorization, other wise it's redundant. Scottch 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nominator. Scottch 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nominator. Which is ironic, because I was the original creator of them, though eventually I stopped using 'em.--Dreyfus 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was delete. Scottch 06:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Places

This seems redundant to Category:Worlds, is there a difference? Scottch 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nominator. Scottch 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to keep Scottch 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - no nomination. This isn't redundant; there is a difference. "Worlds" works with worlds. But what about, say, "Castle that Never Was?" Worlds are places, but so are actual places within a world. But I can see what you are saying; it all depends on how general or specific you want to be.
  • At least they shouldn't have both categories. I'll post a thread at the portal about parent categories and such. Scottch 23:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How would it be to use just one category or another, and not both on any single article, to avoid redundancy? Scottch 07:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Other

This is only a parent category, doesn't seem real useful. Scottch 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nominator. Scottch 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - no nomination. For somethings it is unuseful, but others, such as Magic or Save Space. There really isn't anywhere else to put them.--Dreyfus 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Magic can go under abilities. Save points... I'm not sure, but there has to be somehting better than "other", or we wouldn't need categories ;-) Scottch 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What about a rename to "Game elements"? Scottch 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was rename to Category:Game elements (discussion elsewhere). Scottch 07:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Keyblade Masters

This seems a little overdone, there's only 3 unless you count Kairi. I don't think a category is needed, personally. Scottch 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nominator. Scottch 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nominator.--Dreyfus 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

Closed as delete. Scottch 07:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shan Yu and Hayabusa.jpg OR Image:Shan Yu.jpg

One of these has to go, we don't need both for fair use. Scottch 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete first - second one in color looks better. Scottch 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was delete the first Scottch 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Vault Disney

Not really relevant to the series in my opinion. Scottch 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to above. Scottch 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was delete Scottch 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Radiant Garden - merge into Category:Hollow Bastion

"Hollow Bastion" is what it is known by for almost all of the series, so why not associate the pages to that? Scottch 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as above. Scottch 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was merge Scottch 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Villains

This seems redundant to Category:Enemies, is there any difference? Scottch 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unless some difference is shown, I might just be overlooking the difference. Scottch 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The difference is that "Villains" is more specific; like Bosses. To be a villain, one must be both a character and an enemy, AND have a prominent role in the story (i.e. Zexion, Maleficent, Ansem, Seeker of Darkness, and Master Control Program).--Dreyfus 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that be covered in both parent and lesser categories though? That makes "villains" a combo of both the "enemies" and "characters" categories, but that can be further broken down into "Disney bosses", "Organization XIII" etc. Categories like that - that come from mixing two categories, but still branching off - are pretty awkward in my opinion. Scottch 10:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was no consensus - so, it stays. Scottch 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sitar, Chakrams and other weapon articles

All these pages say is that they are used by their respective owners, which is already mentioned in Demyx, Axel, et al. They should be redirected to those articles or they'll be completely redundant. Scottch 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - as above. Scottch 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Changed to merge, Hecko X's idea is better. Scottch 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into an article simply entitled "Weapons" or "List of Weapons". --Hecko X 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a better idea, actually. Scottch 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

The result was merge. Scottch 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ansem Report individual pages

This is Ansem Reports 1, Ansem Report 2 etc. All they are currently is copyvios, I don't think there's any need for seperate articles. Copying the text verbatim is a copyright violation, so I say redirect to Ansem Reports.

• Redirect as above. Scottch 06:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. WOAH! I never knew this was in the pages when I made the Ansem's Report article! What a coincidence! Uh... I'd say that either they are redirected to Ansem's Report, or otherwise (see the article's discussion page).--Dreyfus 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

CLosed as redirect Scottch 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts III

Everything is based on rumors and theories with absolutely nothing substancial. If someone wrote the almost exact opposite it could be just as true. It is misleading and until more information has been verified, serves absolutely no purpose (but to mislead).

• Delete - for above reasons. --Hecko X 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Unsure - the article really does suck, but so do several others. We don't necessarily have content guidelines set up, but I anticipate people will be okay with adding a lot of info about the gaming population's theories - it does target that audience after all - but that article is particularly heinous and treats it all as fact when it most certainly is not. It's an article we should have, but not anything close to its current state. If this does get "deleted", I'll move it to my userspace and leave it up for editing for that reason. What's it's presentable I'll move it back, and if people don't want a KHIII article up at all, it'll have to be re-nominated. Scottch 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite - This article should be here, but not in the state it is now. -Painocus
• Rewrite - This article should be given a conjecture template (I'm about to make it), and should be rewritten to include only the KNOWN or SUGGESTED facts from the media, etc. Not anything guessed.--Dreyfus 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then the article will be reduced to: "The main characters will not be Sora, Riku or Kairi, but original characters.", which is kind of a waste (which is why it might as well be deleted, in my oppinion). Other than that, nothing is confirmed. Noone even knows if it will be an actual game (it's Advent Children all over again).
    • O_O No Sora!? I think I'm going to cry...--Dreyfus 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As I know it has never bin said that Sora and the others is not the main characters, only that they are not the three characters in the KH2's secret ending.-Painocus
        • Even better, then we have absolutely nothing to go on, besides that. --Hecko X 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

I'm going to get this out of main namespace and put it in User:Scottch/KHIII. Anyone can edit it from there, and once it's ready, anyone can relist it here or go the community portal to see if there are any objections to moving it back. Scottch 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)