Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 11

Please discuss candidates for deletion here

Archived discussions
Lists of archived discussions and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started.
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Minister for Magic individual infobox
 * Archive 5
 * Johnpaul Castrianni
 * Tsunami
 * Unidentified lethal curse
 * Magical familiar
 * Robert Ripley
 * Archive 6

Grey feather
Do we need this page? We don't (currently) have pages for some of the older collectible items that are rather generic, like the postcard from London or the hair pin, at least not to my knowledge. It doesn't have a (in-universe) use, so I see no reason it should have an article. Might be worth a redirect to Errol, though, since I'm fairly certain that's whose feather this is. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:12, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * If I can give my opinion, it seems evident that the grey feather is an owl's feather. We can only rename the page in "Owl feather", no ? And, after, we can merge this page with the Eagle owl feather's page. Like that, we can put all owl feathers on the same page. It can be more pratical for everyone ^^ --Lady Junky (talk) 18:34, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the merge option, and Feather used to practice the Levitation Charm could also be included if it's established it really is from a Snowy Owl. -- xensyria T 15:32, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Images by Alex789
This user has been adding to various character pages (invariably, that I've seen, either at the end of "Behind the scenes" or at the beginning of "Appearances"), images which are composites of various points in that character's career, despite such images being not the kind of image we want on this wiki (according to Rainbow Shifter, anyway), and in the latest case, adding such an image a third time despite it having already been deleted twice (it would seem that some people just can't take a hint). The fact that the latest addition was not only reverted but met with a one-month block is an indication that Rainbow Shifter's interpretation of the image policy is indeed correct.

In any case, many of these images are of inadequate quality (poor contrast, weird colour casts, excessive cropping, etc.) even if we want images of this type in articles — and some of them have falsely been labelled as Gnu GPL images, despite clearly being composed of screen grabs from the movies and thus subject to Warner Bros.' copyright.

I've thus gone through all images uploaded by this user, and tagged all the composite ones for deletion (and removed them from articles, if used); I think someone (or several people) should go through the rest of his images, with a view to possible quality or copyright issues. Even where absent such issues, I suspect that there are several of these images which were uploaded simply for the sake of uploading them, and which thus if not used and not likely to be used, could also be deleted. — RobertATfm (talk) 05:18, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, and any such images definitely should be deleted. I don't have much time right now, but I'll have an initial look and start purging some. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:24, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've deleted ~25 of them that RobAT has tagged. -- Cubs Fan (Talk to me)  05:32, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that what we have here is not cluelessness but deliberate and systematic vandalism. Take a look, for example, at the May 27, 2012 at 03:00 (I think that's UTC+1) revision of "Harry Potter"; scroll down so that the "Appearances" section is in the middle of your screen, and you will clearly see where two of these images were inserted into the article, close together, and both inserted by Alex789. Since the second one is literally only a few lines below the first, don't tell me that he didn't know perfectly well what he was doing. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:05, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Dark wizard individual infobox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lordvoldemort.jpg

 * Delete. This template was created by an anonymous user in order to replace the present infobox image of Tom Riddle with one from Wikipedia. This edit was of course reverted (since it was a unilateral action without the proper discussion), hence this template is unused and not likely to be used; two other reasons for deleting it are that it is misnamed (it's not an infobox template, it's just a template meant to be used inside an infobox) and that I doubt the intended image display works anyway. — RobertATfm (talk) 05:29, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Fred Weasley/George Weasley
Is this an April Fool's joke? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:49, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I do mean it. I mean, what's the purpose of having two nearly identical articles, when we could merge them into Fred and George Weasley, to have a bigger and more neat-looking article? It would mean less effort on the editors' part and would, on the whole, make research easier. I think it only logical, especially when one considers that even James and Oliver Phelps share an article. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:53, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still in shock... And besides, there's a lot of differences too. Their dates to the Yule Ball, Fred's ongoing relationship with Angelina, George's ear getting cut off, Fred's death, George marrying Angelina and running the joke shop alone... their personalities are so different... That's like if I said "Let's make a hub article for all three of Harry and Ginny's children, and delete the old pages". But I suppose we should do whatever's best for the community. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:55, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * If the two pages are really that similar, then I'm weakly in favour of the idea because I hate having articles that are essentially just duplicates of each other. Still, it would be a lot of work, and there are advantages to keeping them separate. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:02, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * When all is said and done, Fred and George are just supporting characters really (and, as far as supporting characters go, not as important as that); it's not as if we're trying to merge Harry, Ron and Hermione. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:05, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gotten over my surprise a bit and I can now see the reasonability of merging them. Does the person who nominated the article count for a vote? I seem to remember it not counting, but my memory has been lax in the past. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:06, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I can understand Seth's point, but I think there's just enough difference that I'm slightly more in favor of keeping them separate. On a somewhat related topic though, I would be in favor of a merge for Flora Carrow and Hestia Carrow, since there really is no difference other than being played by different actresses. - Nick O'Demus 06:39, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP THEM SEPERATE!! They are two seperate characters. If this is how you feel about secondary characters, then why don't we just go ahead and lump all rest of the Weasley family together. A combined page would be a waste of time and the character info box would be crowaded and twice as long. As for James and Oliver having the same page, they haven't done enought seperate projects by themselves yet. They're still together.  And whoes to say that someone won't come along and create seperate pages for Fred and George again? It would just lead us to right back here. Just redo the articles so they're different from one another if you feel strongly about this. Professor Ambrius (talk) 06:49, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as the articles being recreated, if this moves forward then the original singular names would redirect to the merged article, and the redirects would be locked from editing to prevent recreation. - Nick O'Demus 07:13, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's not a concern. As for other secondary characters, yeah, those have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This here is just about Gred and Forge... sorry, Fred and George. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:47, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Nick O'Demus. Ravenclawcrest.jpgThe Evening Prophet Ravenclawcrest.jpg (Owl Post ) 15:57, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * And while we're on the subject, I think we should start making plans to merge other such articles. I mean, the number of articles on virtually unknown House of Black members is just too big; couldn't we just merge them all into the House of Black article? (of course, we'd end up merging articles like Sirius Black too, as it would be weird to have a separate article for only a single member of that family, but I could go with that -- a separate section at the end of the "House of Black" article just for the information specific to him, and it would be ok, we'd lose no information).
 * And what's the point of having all those pages on spells (with many being unnamed in the series, and with conjectural titles such as Albus Dumbledore's forceful spell and the like), when we could merge them all into List of spells and then, a) we'd only have to tend to an article, making it easier to check for mistakes and to revert vandalism and b) it'd make reasearch by readers much easier, by having it all in one place. -- I think we should consider this, not only with spells but also with List of books and List of potions. (when you browse through the articles carefully, you see articles on books on which we know only the title; or endless unknown potions -- frankly what's the point on having those articles separately when they have little to no content?)
 * Really, the number of articles on this wiki is just too big, when you consider that most of them say really nothing new at all. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:07, April 1, 2013 (UTC)