Talk:Lathander
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Strength
Wikipedia guidelines discourage linking to disambiguation pages. It's not clear from the article's context if "strength" should be linked to virtue, fortitude, or physical strength. Would someone with more knowledge about the subject please update the link? Thank you. Sanguinity 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC: Creating a redirect
Is a redirect appropriate without prior to consensus? Wisdom89 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I support the redirect; this article has issues with WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF which makes it a prime candidate for deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You cannot delete an article based on WP:WAF. The other guidelines tell you how to improve that article. Web Warlock (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, everything you've linked are guidelines explaining how - problematic articles require improvement, expansion, cleanup etc..etc.., never WP:AfD. You can't delete an article because of style. Wisdom89 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on the reason why I redirected Lathander. Actually, User:Craw-daddy redirected Lathander, and I merely made a further edit to his redirect. I have no particular opinion on whether or not it should have been redirected in the first place; Craw-Daddy's stated reasons for redirecting are, or "else some editor will send it to AFD" - that much I do agree with although he may have been thinking prematurely. The article having been restored is fine by me, but if there really is a serious threat of deletion, I'd prefer to see it redirected again. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Editors are supposed to be bold in their editing, then if someone disagrees, they can revert the edit. Then the issue can be discussed on the talk page. "Prior consensus" isn't needed to redirect an article, but whether or not the article stays redirected is a matter of consensus. Rray (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- <shrug> There's been some general conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Redirect suggestions about this, and at many other places having to do with now hundreds (or so it seems) of D&D pages. (Check the history of this article, and other such articles and you can see various editors involved with all of this hoo-hah.) I'm really starting to not care about all of this as the whole situation has been turning into a giant pissing contest, with loads of ill-will on all "sides", sock puppets reverting edits, etc, etc. <shrug> Do as you will, as I can not a jot one way or the other. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would have to support Craw-daddy's approach as the article has no evidence of notability, and there are many more like it. Until reliable secondary sources can be found, I think the redirect should be allowed to proceed. That way, if sources are found, the article can easily be reactivated. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- <shrug> There's been some general conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Redirect suggestions about this, and at many other places having to do with now hundreds (or so it seems) of D&D pages. (Check the history of this article, and other such articles and you can see various editors involved with all of this hoo-hah.) I'm really starting to not care about all of this as the whole situation has been turning into a giant pissing contest, with loads of ill-will on all "sides", sock puppets reverting edits, etc, etc. <shrug> Do as you will, as I can not a jot one way or the other. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Editors are supposed to be bold in their editing, then if someone disagrees, they can revert the edit. Then the issue can be discussed on the talk page. "Prior consensus" isn't needed to redirect an article, but whether or not the article stays redirected is a matter of consensus. Rray (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on the reason why I redirected Lathander. Actually, User:Craw-daddy redirected Lathander, and I merely made a further edit to his redirect. I have no particular opinion on whether or not it should have been redirected in the first place; Craw-Daddy's stated reasons for redirecting are, or "else some editor will send it to AFD" - that much I do agree with although he may have been thinking prematurely. The article having been restored is fine by me, but if there really is a serious threat of deletion, I'd prefer to see it redirected again. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, everything you've linked are guidelines explaining how - problematic articles require improvement, expansion, cleanup etc..etc.., never WP:AfD. You can't delete an article because of style. Wisdom89 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You cannot delete an article based on WP:WAF. The other guidelines tell you how to improve that article. Web Warlock (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- RFC comment: I see nothing wrong with the current sources. ISBNs might helped them a bit. - LA @ 07:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
