Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::::well, we have articles on ''[[The Lion King]]'', [[Britney Spears]] and sundry other small references. why don't I just whittle down the less relevant content and you can decide if this deserves deletion. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | ::::well, we have articles on ''[[The Lion King]]'', [[Britney Spears]] and sundry other small references. why don't I just whittle down the less relevant content and you can decide if this deserves deletion. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::I'm gonna say that the deletion proposal failed, since we've now firmly established in [[T:DEL]] that "brevity is not a reason for deletion". The Muppets are a part of the DWU, by virtue of ''Tooth and Claw'' alone. I suppose the difficulty of this article is like any of these franchise articles. Finding the line between discussing the information known ''in the DWU'', and that outside it, is very difficult. This is why we now have [[Star Trek]] and [[Star Trek (franchise)]], for instance. | |||
:::::I suppose, therefore, there's a question still of ''how much'' information this article requires. But the existence of a Muppet in the DWU is established by the line in ''Tooth and Claw'' and it should stay. | |||
:::::To at least partially assuage [[user:Tangerineduel]]'s concerns, the list of people connected to the Muppets that used to be on the bottom of the page has now been converted to a category and then reincluded through dpl. Thus, it can be removed '''from this article''' if necessary, but we still have the information in a convenient form on a category page. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">17:40: Thu 19 Jan 2012 </span> |
edits