Talk:Victoria Snelgrove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge per VFD 2 Here's The Difference

This page was listed for the deletion in October 2004, with the result of the debate being merging and redirection; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Victoria Snelgrove.

I linked 'FN 303' (diff) the second time because that was the first paragraph to deal specifically with the weapon (rather than the casual mention in the first sentence). This was after consulting Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), which states that "links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere". The link was removed in the subsequent edit. Was I incorrect? I just want to clarify and/or not make the same mistake twice. -- Wisq 01:12, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Repeated links to the same page are unnecessary. Its generally considered in bad form to repeatedly link to the same page from an article.  ALKIVAR™ 01:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you can understand what i'm referring to from the Manual of Style:

On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

• 10% of the words are contained in links not in this case
• it has more links than lines also not the case
• a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps)
• more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist. not the case
• low added value links (e.g. such as year links 1995, 1980s) are duplicated not the case

Ah, I see, thanks. I overestimated what they meant by having to 'hunt' for the link; they meant e.g. several pages away. Certainly if it's on the same page, even in a densely-linked part like the first sentence, it shouldn't be hard to visually locate. Thanks for the very fast clarification. :) -- Wisq 02:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

[edit] Merge per VFD

I have redirected this as per the valid VFD result from some time ago. I took part in that VFD and then went my merry way after that result. This is the first time I have been back, and I am shocked to see that User:Alkivar undid the result. His reason makes no sense. This article appears virtually in its entirety on the 2004 American League Championship Series page, with only the photo and some information on the weapon that killed her, which really belongs on a page dedicated to the weapon and not on her page, removed with perhaps one or two other minor discrepencies. The only change I can see is that the original merge just plopped this article at the end, whereas, I then redid the merge in a way that integrated the information in the post-game riots section. If Alkivar had a problem with the way the redirect was carried out, it should have been brought up on one of the talk pages, which it clearly was not. Indrian 02:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The entire content was removed from the ALCS article on 4 occaisions, I have had to readd it numerous times, yet several days later it was gone again. If you want to argue this, lets put it back up on VfD and see what happens then.  ALKIVAR™ 04:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is the content is there now and you have not had to restore it since October 2004 if I read the article history correctly. Furthermore, you even stated at the time that the measure was temporary to stop the information from being lost, which it has not been. The matter was resolved. This was a valid VfD and your actions are subversie. I am sure you did this in good faith at the time you engaged in these actions, but to persist in violating a valid VfD now is not very becoming. The article has only received cosmetic changes since the last VfD vote and is essentially the same as the article that was merged. Therefore, that VfD still stands and your actions are inappropriate. If you want to take the time to make significant changes to the article (not just rewording or whatever, but actual and substantial changes), then bringing it back to VfD would be appropriate, but as it is now, the vote stands. Indrian 04:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale redirection of this article is objectionable. To prevent the loss of encyclopedic content here, the best solution would be to place a link from 2004 American League Championship Series to this article for further details. Which I will do right now... —RaD Man (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you find it objectionable, but you are directly violating community consensus as reflected in a VfD. Why is your view more important than community consensus? Indrian 16:28, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus from what I could tell. —RaD Man (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is not important. What is important is that the admin who closed the VfD did find a consensus to merge and redirect. Again, what about the VfD do you find not to accord to policy? Because unless you have a valid policy arguement you are interfering with a properly closed VfD, and therefore placing your opinion above the consensus of the community. Indrian 23:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not getting any response here. I do not claim to know all the ins and outs of wikipedia policy, which is why I am giving Radman or anyone else who feels like it this forum to point out any procedural reasons why the previous VfD should be discarded (not personal disagreement with the result). If I do not receive any such insights, I will redirect this article again and consider taking further judicial action against anyone who reverts said redirect in the form of an RFA or RFC. It is not my intent to be disruptive; I merely wish to see that the processes and policies upon which wikipedia is based are not blatantly disregarded. Indrian 01:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Here's The Difference

to see the difference between content at redirect and this article see THIS DIFF TONS... literally TONS of data is missing... nuff said  ALKIVAR™ 02:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes,but the intent of the VfD is that there is a consensus that that data OUGHT to be missing!Don't you know what "deletion" means?Do you understand the concepts of superfluity and excess?Of not being worth inclusion?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeing fully with ALKIVAR. There is no such thing as factual data 'not worth inclusion'. This article stands fine on it's own, and there is no need to merge this article with the intent to remove information namely the victim's name. I think more details of Victoria's tradgety are worth keeping. But as it is factual they are not worth deletion. The purpose of VfD is to discuss deletion of opinionated or biased data. This is not the case here, nor is it neccisarry. The prupose of Wikipedia is to amass a databank of all factual data as pertinent to a subject matter. I submit that the discussion around removal of this article is more useless and not worth having than anything else, as it is redundant and failed. 'Incitatus' 10.08.2006