Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal
WikiProject Animation
Information
Archives
1, 2, 3, Index
Threads older than 30 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Departments
Project organization
Task forces
Related projects
Descendant projects
Animation Portal • Changes
Shortcuts

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list

[edit]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles

[edit]
Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles

[edit]
New articles by topic — New articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-04-05 19:33 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


Article alerts

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(6 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(10 more...)

Articles for creation

(6 more...)

Deletion discussions

[edit]
To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

How It Should Have Ended

[edit]
How It Should Have Ended (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of these sources are either from unreliable websites like youtube, twitter and facebook, or from the source itself, fails GNG. TzarN64 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion here may hinge on the content of the first three sources in the article which are books that I cannot access at the moment. There is occasional coverage in national newspapers for some videos [1] that could be included in the article. There is persistent coverage on websites like Screen Rant which is considered somewhat reliable excluding info of living persons per WP:RSP. In-depth has been hard to find with relatively quick search, but it may be buried among routine coverage of individual videos. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About coverage on Screen Rant as it relates to notablity for our purposes here, I will say this: Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Unicorn Gundam

[edit]
Statue of Unicorn Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boldly merged and BLARed this to Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn but was reverted. I do not think this statue warrants a standalone article. There is barely any meaningful content here; the article more closely resembles an entry in a travel guide for prospective tourists than an encyclopedia article, and the topic can be amply covered within the article about the series (edit: as I discussed later in the AfD following additional edits to the article, I think it would fit best as a section of DiverCity Tokyo Plaza) or on the Cultural impact of Gundam page (or both). silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: The article has certainly improved, but I still think that the content in its current state would be better served as a subsection of another article where the topic can be given more thorough context.) silviaASH (inquire within) 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Travel and tourism, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and HEY. Re: "There is barely any meaningful content here" -- WP:SOFIXIT! This nomination is a statement about the current state of the article, not the amount of coverage the subject has received. I'm not convinced WP:BEFORE was completed and this should probably have started with an article talk page discussion. I've added quite a few sources to the article, which should be expanded and improved, not deleted. I also see there are quite a few non-English sources, if any multilingual editors are able to review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look up the subject before nominating- I didn't see an extraordinary amount of coverage. While the subject does clearly satisfy GNG, I still don't think it meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, even after the improvements that have been made. I just don't think there's that much to say about the topic that can't slot neatly into a section on Cultural impact of Gundam or DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, both articles which themselves could use some improvement. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the subject does clearly satisfy GNG" is a reason to keep the article. Instead of worrying about how to update multiple articles about the topic, I think it makes more sense to focus on updating this article, so I'll keep workin' on it! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I went and looked at the sources that have been added more closely, and while it's evident that there's more to talk about in regards to the statue than I may have initially thought, I still think that all of this information would be better off merged into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article. Many of the currently cited sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) only mention the statue trivially, in a long list of other recommended tourist spots. They say it's cool and everything (don't get me wrong, the statue is very cool and I'd personally love to go see it), but don't really address it in detail, so I don't think all of these qualify as WP:SIGCOV. The sources which do address the topic significantly ([15], [16], [17], [18]) do shed more light on the creation and establishment of the statue as an attraction and the motives for its construction, but I think all of this information could be summed up in about a paragraph within the DiverCity article. Two of the sources are just mirrors of one another ([19], [20]).
    Finally, the last couple of citations ([21], [22]) don't really talk about the statue itself so much as they talk about the place where the statue happens to be. The SoraNews source, in particular, primarily uses the Unicorn Gundam as the lead to talk about the DiverCity Plaza as a whole, and its many Gundam attractions. This is also the case with several of the 13 citations that mention the statue trivially- they do it within sentences (sometimes even within the same sentence) of bringing it up as the main attraction at the DiverCity Plaza. The headline of the paragraph in this source, just to name one of them, says as the heading of the paragraph in which the statue is acknowledged, Gundam-themed mall opened in Tokyo. This is a clear and consistent pattern even in the sources which acknowledge the statue non-trivially- they primarily discuss it as the centerpiece of DiverCity, and its numerous other Gundam-related attractions.
    This is why I think the statue isn't independently notable. It isn't ever discussed independently of the mall. For this reason, I think it would be best (again, per WP:PAGEDECIDE), to merge the contents of the article into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article, and discuss it as the primary attraction of that area. Being discussed in a standalone article means that readers are missing the context of the statue's ultimate purpose, which is to attract people to the mall and hopefully get them to purchase a Gunpla. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree, but for now I've added several additional news sources specifically focused on the statue and I'll continue to tinker at the article as I have time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, which already has a paragraph on this. This is a statue at a shopping mall with no sign that this is a significant monument. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not sure if we have a notability guideline for statues or art installations or attractions (though, if we do, I'd definitely like to know about it), but this likewise seems to me to not be independently notable of the DiverCity Plaza. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd say since WP:ARTIST has standards like "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or "The person's work has become a significant monument," then notability for an individual work of art would have similar standards. This statue is not a significant new concept, doesn't display significant new techniques, isn't a significant monument, etc. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily meets notability requirements with lots of coverage in RS. APK hi :-) (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article seems quite underdeveloped. Is there any reason these articles couldn't be merged? I think this needs someone to check through Japanese sources to establish the notability of both subjects. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per APK, easily meets GNG and HEY. Lots of adequate sourcing on the page. Seems the fact that it is exhibited at a shopping mall is being used as a negative of some kind. Many statues are in malls, airports, etc., public places where people gather are fine venues for artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Been thinking I may have made a mistake in opening an AfD (I jumped to that thinking it was necessary because of the reversed BLAR) and I should have opened a merge proposal discussion instead. I still don't think the article meets PAGEDECIDE, but I ought to have given more consideration to if AfD was the appropriate venue for that concern. Anyway, at this point I think I don't support deletion in any case, with the clear improvements the article has received, this should be either kept or merged. If this AfD closes as keep I'll wait a bit for development to happen and perhaps consider discussing a merge down the line if I feel that my criticisms remain relevant. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a full and improved page shouldn't be merged, as the only reason for a merge would be its location and not judging the artwork on its own merits. Commendable comment, not every nominator (far from it) will reconsider their nom during a useful discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)a[reply]
  • Weak keep. Right now it's not very big, but there is enough coverage for this to merit stand-alone article. I expect more sources could be found in Japanese. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza per Asparagusstar if no sources are found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the nominator no longer thinks the article should be deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources added is good enough. This is even excluding any JP lang sources. ITmedia, Famitsu, Nikkei Another ITMedia. This way way enough for a seperate article, I was only in page 5 on Google News in JP name search and I can confidently say this is enough. We should not merge start-class article with a full pledge sections. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the Japanese name so you can search it the JPN name. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with DiverCity Tokyo Plaza. Maybe like 2-4 paragraphs. Can't seem to find any reliable sources to show notability as a standalone article, but the shown references probably allow a section. I have read WP:NOPAGE before making my opinion. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 03:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doorman (character)

[edit]
Doorman (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor superhero in Marvel comics and a member of the Great Lakes Avengers. Doorman has very little in the way of coverage; a search only turns up WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, which do not indicate notability, or brief mentions as part of the Great Lakes Avengers when that group receives separate discussion. He is not individually notable from the Great Lakes Avengers, and I feel as though a redirect there should more than suffice given what little coverage of him exists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have opinions for a Keep, Redirect or Merge so more arguments are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

[edit]
List of Flashpoint (comics) characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

[edit]
Lance Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [24][25] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorus Rex

[edit]
Phosphorus Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An incredibly minor character with basically zero reliable, significant coverage I can find. Complete failure of WP:GNG. I do not mind a redirect, but he seems like such a minor character that I'm not sure if he needs to stick around or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested Merge/Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all as WP:ATD. I don't see enough sources to pass WP:SIGCOV, but the nom supports a redirect, which helps us reach WP:CONSENSUS. The amount of content to include at the target can be worked out through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

[edit]
Marv (Sin City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all, as WP:ATD. I see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and listicles that don't support a separate article, but could improve the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder, please. To quote the essay you are citing: "Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -Mushy Yank. 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns

[edit]
List of Sin City yarns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry@Anonrfjwhuikdzz but.... ”if the invidual books are notable’?????? just inform yourself please (or simply read the page). They do have a page! And they are EXTREMELY notable.... -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't say Sin City series was not GNG as a whole, but individual books may not be notable enough to warrant their own page. For the books that can pass GNG on their own, write pages for them and make this page into an actual list pointing to those pages. As it stands, this "list" is a catalogue of plot summaries and not a list at all. Information about the less notable books in the series can be merged into the main Sin City article rather than being placed here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but individual books are very notable. And, again, they DO already have a page. For the rest, I am bit confused, yes it's a list of the yarns/episodes in chronological order of publication, which gives a good outline of how the series took shape, and it includes plot and publication details. Can be improved. Will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have strong arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but no consensus so far. And a note at the bottom of this AFD asserts that the article has changed since its nomination so editors who weighed in here two weeks ago are encouraged to re-review the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning merge/delete I am still leaning toward merge/delete or merge/redirect. The four "yarns" with their own pages are notable on their own. I am still questioning the notability of the remaining books. In my opinion, the added citations on the page largely point to notability of the series rather than individual books. Some, like the reference to | dark horse comics or EBSCO really only establish existence, not notability. @Mushy Yank, it would be good to include pages or chapters for the book references you've added to make it quicker for other editors to judge notability. Yarns like "Just Another Saturday Night" that were adapted for the sin city films probably deserve their own page as adaptation into major films suggests notability of the original material.
  • Overall my thoughts remain largely the same as they did previously: create articles for the books that meet notability guidelines, merge short summaries of remaining books to the main Sin City page, and delete this page. The table of yarns on the Sin city page should be enough for navigation to the various pages for individual yarns and this article can be deleted or redirected as appropriate.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anonrfjwhuikdzz, you have cast two separate votes which is not permitted. You can only cast one Bolded vote. Please strike the "vote" that you no longer stand by. Do this by placing this code around the vote: <s>Vote</s> looks like Vote. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just open the 4 first sources, for example. They have a link to the page of the book with significant coverage about the topic, as a set. Which is what NLIST requires. More sources exist. Feel free to create pages for other individual yarns, that would not make this list-page less useful. (I might add the page number to the ref template when I have more time but already spent a lot of time on this). -Mushy Yank. 11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my delete !vote, I would also accept a merge as a compromise and an effort to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At first blush I thought, "It's just a list? Then why not merge with the article about the series?" Then I read it. I found it educative and convenient. This is listed as "comment" and not "keep" because I don't have something more closely related to WP guidelines and policies than that I think the readers can make good use of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you@Darkfrog24:. Actually WP:NLIST is probably the guideline you are looking for; apologies for quoting it again, adding emphasis (mine), though:"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Best. -Mushy Yank. 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sin City: the yarns for the more notable ones - The Hard Goodbye, A Dame to Kill For, The Big Fat Kill and That Yellow Bastard - are already included in their respective story articles, making this a redundant fork. If we ever get articles on the remaining stories, this list's history will be here to help start the Plot section for those. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call "a redundant fork" is a WP:SPLIT that allows a clear overview of the series. It can be edited but it is useful. And merging back all the content (even without of the plots of the yarns that do have a page) of the books/films in the article will only contribute to make navigation uneasy. WP:Content Fork states:

    Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork

    And the same guideline indicate that for size reason and

    Content forks that are different page types covering the same subject are acceptable. Articles are not the only type of page on Wikipedia that cover subjects. Other subject-based page types include outlines, navigation footer templates, navigation sidebar templates, categories, portals, glossaries, indexes, lists, etc. Each type is designed to provide particular benefits. However, they, including corresponding articles, should not contradict each other, and any contradictory statements should be corrected or removed.

    Please bear that in mind and THEN try to explain in detail how and why this page could therefore be considered "redundant" and please also review all the sources added and other existing sources, individually and thoroughly, and check the content of every book. Yes, it will probably take you a few hours or days. It's what it took me. A simple redirect without a merge would be detrimental to the reader but a merge back would clutter up the page and induce unnecessary loss of information and navigation help. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sin City. Per OwenX above, where the individual stories are notable, they already contain (or should contain) plot summary - where they do not, a shorter version belongs at the parent article. In no case is the existence of this list justified. It's also a genuinely odd structure - one would expect such a list to be formatted as a list and contain a lot of metadata, but this is just plot summaries cobbled together and titled "list". It serves no organizational or navigational purpose - the table in the parent article does that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; this is a list in name only. This is information that should either be in the main Sin City page (or the story's own page). Splitting it off just made it less useful. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sin City, like others have proposed. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sin City. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"