Talk:Cybershade 16: Difference between revisions
Bigredrabbit (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I believe it should stay, although the info exists elsewhere, its still an article that exists and has every right to exist, because it is obvoius this is its name and it is actually quite a major character. I believe the CleanUp's almost finnished, its a pretty standard article, so its should stay. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! [[User:Bigredrabbit|Bigredrabbit]] 06:58, November 26, 2009 (UTC) | I believe it should stay, although the info exists elsewhere, its still an article that exists and has every right to exist, because it is obvoius this is its name and it is actually quite a major character. I believe the CleanUp's almost finnished, its a pretty standard article, so its should stay. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! [[User:Bigredrabbit|Bigredrabbit]] 06:58, November 26, 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Gonna have to agree with [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] on this one. What the heck is "Cybershade 16" anyway? Did it actually get that name in dialogue? I don't recall it. And I'm really not buying that "because the article exists, it deserves to exist". That's fairly circular logic. If it can't be proved, through a primary source, that it's a unique character, it should be merged with [[cybershade]]. If there '''is''' dialogue which identified it uniquely, the article should nevertheless be drastically reduced in size. The whole history section is pretty much redundant with [[cybershade]]. The lead needs to be written in a less OOU way, if it is to remain, though. (The word "episode" — when it means, "the episode in which this thing appeared" — should NEVER appear in the in-universe part of an article.) '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 03:18, March 14, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:18, 14 March 2010
This page needs to be reviewed BIG TIME! --Ima Wiz Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
wel i've cleaned it up a bit but there's still work to do.---Si Iway amway Ichamousacoricothingmabobsay. http://images.wikia.com/tardis/images/e/e4/Si_HTL_Seal_Leader.PNG 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this page even need to exist? Surely the events it features in are chronicled in both the cybershade and next doctor pages anyway, and this shade was nothing different or remarkable to any other. It's information might as well be merge with cybershades in general. Taccer 07 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should be merged, most of the article's 'History' section seems to be just a retelling of the Next Doctor. --Tangerineduel 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it should stay, although the info exists elsewhere, its still an article that exists and has every right to exist, because it is obvoius this is its name and it is actually quite a major character. I believe the CleanUp's almost finnished, its a pretty standard article, so its should stay. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit 06:58, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Gonna have to agree with Tangerineduel on this one. What the heck is "Cybershade 16" anyway? Did it actually get that name in dialogue? I don't recall it. And I'm really not buying that "because the article exists, it deserves to exist". That's fairly circular logic. If it can't be proved, through a primary source, that it's a unique character, it should be merged with cybershade. If there is dialogue which identified it uniquely, the article should nevertheless be drastically reduced in size. The whole history section is pretty much redundant with cybershade. The lead needs to be written in a less OOU way, if it is to remain, though. (The word "episode" — when it means, "the episode in which this thing appeared" — should NEVER appear in the in-universe part of an article.) CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:18, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
