User talk:J Greb/Archive Feb 2011

• I am a
  bot
  , and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I speedily deleted this article in the mainspace you created about a suspected puppet of a blocked editor. Such concerns should go tp

Sorry: Please disregard. posted this on your talk page by mistake. Must have had open a screen with one of your edits on it at the same time as the article in question. Edison (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We have an article for this already, can you please redirect it there. The current redirect's redundant. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 08:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the merge was so obvious, the next admin who looked at it would say "Hey, let me be

And are you actually looking at the page contents within all of this? Especially in light of what you proposed?

• Aqualad is currently a "Set Index" - and fancy dab page - for the two characters.
• Tempest (DC Comics) functions in the same wat for DC comics characters that have used it as a codename. Hence 3 entries instead of five.
• Aqualad (Jackson Hyde), Garth (comics), and Joshua Clay (which likely should be re-titled "Tempest (Joshua Clay)") are the stand alone articles.

This structure currently works.

However, you shouting to merge Garth (comics) into Aqualad (Jackson Hyde) without explination wouldn't work. And it doesn't jibe with the explination you just proveded.

- J Greb (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your "Fancy dab page" is completely unnecessary. It results in multiple pages having the same information, or in other words,

WP:SIMILAR). This is the protocol on Wikipedia. The current organization is redundant. Feedback ^☎

01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things...

First is about the merge. Frankly, this isn't the place to make you case for the merge. If you feel it is warrnted, put up the taggs and make your case on the relavent article talk page.

Second is about the move you just made. Lat I checked "Aqualad" is the most common name used for that character. That means the dabbing is necessary. Before redoing it, please become familiar with

WP:NCC

.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm familiar with the guidelines. We only use the format "Codename (identity)" when both characters have the same common name and therefore the same article title and need to be distinguished. Seeing that Garth is under his own name, we must be consistent and keep Jackson Hyde under his own name as well, because unless there is another "Aqualad (identity)" article out there, Jackson's current format isn't justifiable. In other words, it should be "Aqualad (Garth)" and "Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" or "Garth" and "Jackson Hyde" respectively.

As for the merge, I did tag the articles. You removed the tags. To avoid a ridiculous revert war which I assumed would follow, I decided to write on your talk page instead, however, it seems you are unable to realize that the the excess of disambiguation and repeated information among those articles is a violation of content forking. So yes, I'll repost my tags and have the discussion elsewhere. No need to respond. Thank you, Feedback ^☎ 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't sigh. If the merge you want happens, then you are partially right - an article using "Aqualad" won't exsist for the new character to be dabbed from for the more common term for that character. There is still the redirect and the common term to keep in mind.

And my comment, reminder as it tuns out, was based on AGF that you were doing what you though best for th article but without all the information at hand. And not assume that you are editing to either force your wanted merge or assuming that it has already been done. - J Greb (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith by removing the merge tags that are obviously at the very least understandable? It seems as if you weren't paying attention when you removed the tags because at the top of this discussion you assumed I wanted to merge

Concerning this revision I feel that's not the right title of the article. It should be titled

Actually where it was fits common name - It's the common name used to describe the character and it is the more likely search target... - J Greb (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. As long as the alter ego wasn't the name. That's definitely not the common name. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Should film series articles be put in table format when there are 10+ films? This question relates to the DC Universe Animated Original Movies article. User:Ganthet2814 seems to think so. A ridiculous edit war (I know, that was wrong) has come to a halt and I'm awaiting dispute resolution at the moment, but if you can also offer your opinion that would be great. The discussion for this is here.-5- (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong! With respect do your research on this one Deathstroke is part of Green Arrow's rogues gallery even to the point of being considered archenemy. I am not sure of the Man-Ape declusion on the Black Panther template either. But this one's way out. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

L&S - The way we've been handling characters in the past, Deathstroke isn't a Green Arrow centric character when compiling a navbox. Has he fought GA? Yes. Is he primarily associated with or created for GA? No. - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is he primarily associated with GA? = Debatable. I was trying to explain that he is considered to be (and not just by me) but I can tell you are going to reject that notion. Maybe I will source it but not in this late night. Is that rivalry more well known as Deathstroke's s rivalry of the Teen Titans, no of course not.
• Is he created for GA? = Of course not that's a mute point. Kingpin was designed as a Spidey villain yet he's more of a Daredevil villain. Sometimes the author's take a new destination like with what they did with
  Shade (comics). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷
  00:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Second point first. Kingpin is a lead pipe example of the exception of a villain created for, and strongly associated with, one hero but also strongly associated with a second one through long use. That's a rarity, one that Deathstroke doesn't rise to.

Most of the "Dearthstroke is a GA-centric character" rests solely on the incident in Identity Crisis and the OLY arc in Green Arrow. That's well below the threshold we should be using here. - J Greb (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will suppose I will let this one slide. I suppose Deathstroke being considered a archenemy to Green Arrow just silly. I don't really think Green Arrow has a obvious choice of who that is. But seriously he being considered popularly to be part of his rogues gallery and one of his worst enemy to comic book buffs everywhere isn't reliable, the reason why I am letting that slide. I have only noticed forums and other Wiki's support that so far. But it's good debating over you, never a dull moment. JK Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You do bring something up that I'm generally leery of putting forward first: Including Deathstroke, and possibly other character through out the comics related navboxes in this way is fine at the specialized wikis like the DC Database where the tone is more fan oriented. Right now, Deathstroke in GA's rogues gallery, and possibly those of Batman and the JLA, is a fan level distinction/factiod. - J Greb (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Kind of what I meant. These can be debatable because there are in the same fictional universe where they can cross over. But sometimes it can be just as debatable to declude somebody than to include. And let's hope the opinion doesn't rest on one point of view. But since a valid point has been made that you have made...I will let it go. Unless there would have been a consensus about it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)