KHWiki:Pages for deletion

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ This is the page for listing articles, templates, categories, or other pages to discuss deletion. Voice your opinion on the deletion of these items by adding a bulleted comment and signing your name at the end of your comment with ~. Once a discussion has concluded, an administrator will close the discussion. Discussions may be archived a week after being closed.

To add a new heading, click the "+" button at the top of the page or click here. You will be given a box to input a header or topic.
 * To list an article, type article title.
 * To list a category type : Category:Name of category. Remember the colon in the beginning or it won't link correctly.
 * To list a template, type to generate a link to the template.

For archived discussions, see /Archives.

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)

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, Xehanort's Heartless, 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)

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 Scott ch 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 Scott ch 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 Scott ch 06:42, 15 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. Scott ch 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect - as above. Scott ch 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to merge, Hecko X's idea is better.  Scott ch 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. Scott ch 18:52, 15 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. Scott ch 06:27, 15 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.  <font color=#00cccc>Scott <font color=#ff9900>ch 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)