Talk:Cwej-636984540

100,000 / Deletion

Looks like this was the 100,000th page! (Might be slightly off, I'm not sure if user pages count towards the total. It was certainly one of the Cwej pages.) Good job everyone. Najawin ☎ 02:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Still, annoying that the 100,000th page was a Cwejen page rather than a page I tried to get into that spot. Also FYI, I believe only main namespace pages (including Doctor Who Wiki and Infobox test) count towards the total, so not user pages. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 16:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit, a copy-and-pasted Cwej page with absolutely no unique information on it, as one of hundreds of its ilk, really sours the milestone for me. We didn't create individual pages for all of the floors of the Colony ship (World Enough and Time), so how come this was allowed? These should all be up and merged into one article, unless if a given Cwejen has anything of note to write about. Furthermore, these hundreds of pages will now be clogging any category or WhatLinksHere section of the Wiki!

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

All we need is Cwej-636984209 - 636984645, which states...

'''Cwej-636984209''' to '''Cwej-636984645''' were all individual [[Cwejen]], duplicated from [[Chris Cwej]]. ([[PROSE]]: ''[[The Mushroom at the End of the Universe (short story)|The Mushroom at the End of the Universe]]'')

{{Individual Cwejen}}

[[Category:Individual Cwejen]]

These pages don't even tell us how the Cwejen are relevant to The Mushroom at the End of the Universe! They just tell us they existed, with zero useful information aside from that.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

17:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Or we could even call the page Cwejen (The Mushroom at the End of the Universe).

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

17:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the 100,000th page milestone, but I agree that per the precedent set by User:CzechOut's ruling at Talk:World Enough and Time (TV story)#Floor list, these pages should not exist. Neither Cwej-636984209 - 636984645 nor Cwejen (The Mushroom at the End of the Universe) are necessary, just as we do not have Floors (World Enough and Time); the existence of these Cwejen can simply be mentioned, unlinked, on Cwej (species). – n8 (☎) 18:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Way to sour a user's contributions to the site. I did notice Cookieboy's attempt to "steal" the 100k post, with them having not posted in a long time and suddenly posting at the exact second they expected to have the 100k post. Nobody had an issue with these Cwej pages until they got a milestone, then suddenly they are against the rules? I think pages about actual characters mentioned in text are far more warranted than a door number which was seen for a fleeting second. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 19:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No, people definitely had an issue with them already, even if they're not technically against the rules. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 19:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Where were these issues shared before the page got a milestone? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 19:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed the precedent violation since the start, but I didn't want to be the first to bring it up, since I didn't want to sour your contributions, and in the end it's no skin off my back. – n8 (☎) 19:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A ruling about one single topic doesn't suddenly create a strict precedent. Those rooms were literally seen for a split second each, whereas the time was taken to name these characters individually. Had the text said "Cwej-636984209 - 636984645 were duplicated" I would completely agree that they should be housed on a single page but because they were named individually, taking up multiple pages in the book, I think they deserve unique pages. This also seems to be the authorial intent as when the pages were made the Arcbeetle Twitter posted about "here they come" as if they expected the pages to be created at some point. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 19:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's my input. I do not care in the slightest that the milestone was taken by a massproduced page. I agree with Corrie that there's a difference between showing up on the screen for a frame or two and being in the book. With that said, there probably should be a discussion over the pages in the forums when they're up. But Corrie. Please stop reading everything everyone says as an affront to you. Perhaps nobody said anything before because they were being polite? Not everyone is out to get you on this wiki. Believe it or not, we actually like having your contributions here. Najawin ☎ 21:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I've had a problem with these pages for some time, as they are stubby articles that contain the smallest amount of information and taking up hundreds of pages unnecessarily, clogging categories and WLH in their wake. Yes, the policies may say that each character may get a page or whatever, but perhaps if a story presents hundreds of near-identical characters, a discussion of their coverage may be important? I doubt the policies were written with the "there are over 400 identical Cwejen in one story" in mind. Especially when coverage of said pages leads to lack of user-friendliness and technical issues.

And we don't create pages for every single Dalek in The Stolen Earth, even though they appear on screen, some in pivotal moments!

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Epsilon the Eternal and User:NateBumber but didn't want to say anything before for the obvious reasons. We now have dozens of pages that say the exact same thing; is that really necessary? Shambala108 ☎ 22:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Najawin, where did I read anything as being an affront to me? Please stop accusing me of this and take my responses at face value. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've been meaning to bring up this discussion about these pages too. I really don't think we need them. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A strict rule should be created then, because I see these as being no more frivolous than pages like Fiona (fictional character) and Donkey (fictional character). DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"Way to sour a user's contributions to the site", "Nobody had an issue with these Cwej pages until they got a milestone, then suddenly they are against the rules?". Again, I actually somewhat defended your position here, saying that there's a qualitative distinction between this and something appearing for a second on screen. But your first comment was unnecessarily hostile imo. Najawin ☎ 23:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I made those pages because of both in-universe and BTS information - we know their names and they're pivotal to their source material. Multiple of them are featured in Funko Pop! Blitz, and they have unique information (green dress and red hair for Fiona, and simply being a donkey for Donkey). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I was replying to Cookieboy's announced annoyance that they weren't able to swoop in and take the 100k milestones from me ("annoying that the 100,000th page was a Cwejen page rather than a page I tried to get into that spot"), and that they seemingly believed their page to be worthier of that milestone. Please stop reading further into my comments. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, you said that you viewed these pages as equally as frivolous as my Shrek pages. Although this is an entirely valid stance for you to take, I felt that I should point out that there is more information known about those characters (by the way, I don't care that much anymore about this being the 100,000th page, so don't worry about that). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That comment was replying to Najwain. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Time to stop worrying about hurt feelings and misinterpreting comments, and let's just get back to the issue of whether these pages are needed. Shambala108 ☎ 02:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What we've got are dozens and dozens of identical pages which don't really offer any information at all. They could all be boiled down to a single note on Cwej (species) saying something along the lines of, "There were at least 636,984,645 Cwejen. (PROSE: The Mushroom at the End of the Universe)". Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 11:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Dropping in here to say that I'm in support of a solution which cuts down these many identical pages. It may be a minor point, but I'd like to propose the alternative range of Cwej-636984211 to Cwej-636984645 (currently created up to Cwej-636984540) as concerns this issue. Cwej-636984209 and Cwej-636984210 do contain unique information so I would be against folding them in with the rest. Borisashton ☎ 00:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m also dropping in to add my support for deletion, I’ve been kept busy by life but these pages have really bothered me for being basically copy-paste of the same sentence with one digit changed, and I believe one page to cover those 400 cwej incarnations should be enough? After all they all share the exact same relevant information. I think if some of them have differences then cover them separately sure, and with at least a sentence with the unique information, but that would still be cutting into a lot of the duplicate pages that I find more confusing than anything. Liria10 ☎ 06:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I support deleting these pages as they do not offer unique information (all being practically identical), and clog up (I had to scroll for ages to get down to Eliza (this is not a thread for if she should be a cwej, remember)) and others). Additionally, I'd like to reassure Corrie that I don't particularly care about the 100k spot, and that I did want these deleted for a while but didn't want to start the discussion 1.because I didn't know which page to do so on and 2.didn't want to be rude I guess. But yeah, i support deletion Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 06:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know any of these pages had a discussion until this one was updated today, because there are so many of them… but I strongly agree with deletion. These pages exist separately solely because they can, but that doesn't mean they should. The problem here isn't that the pages are too small or not noteworthy, it's that there's no reason for them to exist separately. It's always nice to create new pages, but there is nothing gained from having hundreds of identical pages. And there is much lost, since they render Special:WhatLinksHere and categories related to the Cwejen unusable. Any clones that do have unique information would certainly merit their own page, but I think the rest can just go on Cwej (species). Chubby Potato ☎ 09:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Like Chubby, I only was aware of this discussion today. And it is very very clear to me that this was done because someone saw an opportunity, meaning they saw that there were multiple Cwejen and they absolutely saw that the wiki was reaching 100.000 articles. I see no other reason for why this. Danniesen ☎ 10:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a down-sizing in the number of these pages. Danniesen ☎ 10:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

And on that note, I think it's time to wrap this up. Thanks to everyone for joining in. This has been a passionate discussion, overall, but as many have pointed out, the precedent is clear.

So, following on from the floor list decision at Talk:World Enough and Time (TV story)#Floor list, we're going to delete these pages. As noted, having a large slew of pages with the exact same content, with almost no distinction in page title to boot, is not helpful to readers (and having this many clone pages honestly borders on spam, though it's all in good faith, I'm sure).

Ordinarily, we'd want to merge these pages, or find a single place for the list in neutral territory, as it were. In this case, the solution is obvious: redirects will be retained, leading to a new section on Cwej (species). Now, similar to Clara Oswald splinter, I think the best coverage would be a table in this section, with a column for notes, which will be most important for any known Cwejen who are not distinct or well-documented enough to merit splitting off into their own separate pages.

I hope the community shows an interest in building this section up well ("Known Cwejen", most likely), so these sorts of curious findings can be highlighted in the appropriate place. Thank you.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 10:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Having listened to the arguments against the pages, I completely understand and accept the conclusion. I do have to call out User:Danniesen though. It is completely inappropriate for you to assume anything but good faith in the creation of these articles. Your accusation that they were only created because "someone saw an opportunity" to get the 100k article is simply wrong. I started these pages months before 100k even came into question at the start of October, and the 100k article didn't get published until the start of December, so your accusations are completely unfounded. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 15:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring it up because the conversation had concluded, but I do agree that Danniesen's comments were unwarranted. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 15:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As an admin I outright state that User:Danniesen's comment was uncalled for and in violation of policy. Now there is no need for anyone else to air their complaints about it here. Shambala108 ☎ 16:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It is quite sad to see that @Danniesen's doubling down, and additional accusations, at https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:SOTO?threadId=4400000000003509156 was rewarded with a more lenient sentence. Facing these latest accusations that attempt to discredit mine and Jack BtR's contributions to the Wikia ("based on the word of two people, who have in the past made controversial actions on the wiki" - um what?) I just wanted to reiterate the facts.

These pages started being made in October, at that time I don't believe the 100k was even in question and certainly didn't occur to me. I created several of the pages, but took a break until I saw Arcbeetle had spoken out in support of the pages on Twitter at which point I began creating the pages again. This revival of creating the pages ended up taking the 100k spot in December and another user freely admitted that they were irritated because they had hoped their page would get the 100k, not that they believed the pages had only been created to get the 100k as Danniesen claims.

Anyway, this wasn't an attempt to start up this discussion again. Just sharing my disappointment that further accusations/belittling of contributions can get someone a more lenient sentence on here. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 17:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I had little to nothing to do with the conversation for which Danniesen was blocked and it doesn't really matter to me how long he's blocked for. However, I don't think it's fair for mine or DrWHOCorrieFan's opinions to be considered lesser because of what he terms "controversial actions". Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 11:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you still talking about this here when Shambala108 just told everyone to stop airing complaints about that in here ("Now there is no need for anyone else to air their complaints about it here.")? TheSpaghetOutcast ☎

I added another comment following the doubling down/additional accusations which have occurred since Shambala's post. Not that it is your place over an admin's to question that. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 16:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

But those comments are still part of this same topic - Danniesen's comment. Additionally, could that not be discussed on the page where his additional accusations were posted? I fail to see how questioning an action which seems pretty clearly in breach of instruction is overstepping, considering the entire wiki in general consists of debate amongst regular users on if other users and pages are following rules, which are a form of instruction. 103.89.82.11^{talk to me} 19:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)