Talk:Top 50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merger

"No it's not" is not a response of any value, give me a reason instead of baiting me into an edit war. If you feel that there is content on the page that is not included in the Top 40 page, feel free to point out what it is. I certainly don't see any. If you and I can't resolve this (because you refuse to be reasonable most likely) I'll move for a vfd of the top 50 article and a possible (but not nessecary) redirect to Top 40. That would allow the community to decide. At the moment the Top 50 article is nothing more than a sub-stub, fill it with more content and I would be happy to change my mind about a merging - but at the moment the page provides no content not included in Top 40. As far as merging for the sake of merging, thats not the case here, this is a merge because the content of this stub is covered in more detail and with more value elsewhere. Usrnme h8er 11:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If no response comes in this discussion in the next couple of days I will go ahead and merge. After that any reverts without discussion or motivation will be considered vandalism. Usrnme h8er 13:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting back again not because of "vandalism" but for the reason that if someone clicks on a link saying something made the top 50 and is directed to the top 40 page they may reedit the original article to read top 40, which will result in false information. 195.93.21.67 12:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that's not a good cause because:
a) Why? Would they think it was a typo that sent them magically to the right page even though it was mistyped? Or are they stupid enough not to understand the difference and similarity of the two topics even though it is explicitly discussed in the Top 50 article?
b) Right at the top of the page they were sent to is a notice that says "redirected from", so they wont misunderstand what happend.
Generally, editors who backtrack and correct this type of "redirect link" (like myself occasionally) would in that case replace it with the link [[Aritcle 1|Article 2]] link so that the link changed without the text changing. Only an idiot would change the content of an article to reflect inaccuracy just because of a generalization redirect that was created to prevent a tiny micro-stub from annoying users. The problem with an article like this one is that if the user actually wants to know anything about the subject, they have to follow the "see also" link. This article adds no content of value to wikipedia. Usrnme h8er 14:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

whys, buts, what ifs, no solid statement..... you might not think this adds value to the site but thats merely your POV, nothing more. 195.93.21.67 18:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Whether something adds value is always going to have a sense of POV, thats absolutely obvious! If you are going to accuse me of POV in this case, feel free to go vent your spleen at WP:VFD which is all so POV they should all be banned, especially the admins... My "Why"s, "but"s and "if"s (interestingly, I only used one "if", one "why", and not a single "but" in my latest entry - and the if should rather be read as a "since" since if the users are not looking for information on the topic they probably just clicked the "Random article" button and are about to click it again...) are just a way of ripping your arguement to tiny little pieces of cloth... The problem with this page is I could copy the entire Top 40 page into the Top 50 page, change the 40's for 50's, and the page would be completely accurate. The two terms are mutually exclusive in meaning! During my youth I watched a show on swedish tv called Top 22, should that have its own page? You could make the arguement that there should be a page for GW Bush (rather than George W Bush) that said "This is an alternate spelling for a president of the united states of america, see also, George W. Bush". But that would be equally unnessecary, and users arriving at the page would be equally uninformed. It would be a stupid little microstub that added nothing of value to wikipedia while wasting the users time and making the encyclopaedia more cumbersome to navigate - much like this page. This is not merging for the sake of merging, this is why redirects exist. Usrnme h8er 07:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I find you so called debate baffling and bemusing that someone would care so passionatley about this to talk down to me about it. You need to chill, really. There is a difference between a top 50 and a top 40 page and a GW Bush and and George W Bush page. If you want to make a page about the show Top 22 then fine, infact if you don't do it today, i'll do it for you if you like, hope that helps you sleep more easy. This is wasting noones time, the only person wasting their time is you ranting on and saying that "only an idiot needs this page". Firstly, what is your definition of an idiot? Secondly, why wouldn't those people be allowed to use Wikipedia? Also "if, but's and maybes" is a FIGURE OF SPEECH, so let's not try and act the tough guy here. Also a "See also" column is no more "inconvenient" to a reader than moving Elton John's discography to a seprate link from his own page! 195.93.21.67 12:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much free time you can find while doing a full time job... :) Anyway, while I disagree with you, I'm happy to conclude that there is no consensus in this case and therefore the less intrusive option (letting the page stand) is chosen. Oh, and I dont act the tough guy... I AM the tough guy... :P Usrnme h8er 07:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine as it stands :)

If top 50 is basically the same as top 40, just with the changed number of entries, then there's no reason to have a different article. It will never be more than a sub-stub. bogdan 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It it is "basically the same" then top 40 should redirect here (with all the information added) to the larger list as the top 40 is included in the top 50, however the top 50 is not included in the top 40. 74.65.39.59 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)