Talk:Howling Halls/Archive 1

	This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

Prop delete

Disagree with the rationale for deletion. Sometimes a sentence is all that can be written about a topic. Far as I'm concerned, if it's mentioned in a DW story, it deserves a page here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:29, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree. There's often only a small amount of information on a topic. The information is still worthy of a page though. --Tangerineduel 14:06, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

That's rediculous. If only a sentence can be written, then it obviously doesn't need a page in the first place, as the information can be placed elsewhere without any loss. --Bold Clone 16:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

The information is definatly worth a page, it is pointless diverging the topic on another page to accomadate for the information from this one. Besides don't the Eternals coem from the Howling Halls? im sure the 2006 annual said so. Revanvolatrelundar 20:21, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

We have one sentence. Do you really expect me to believe that one single sentence is worth a page? We can put the info on the Elemental Shade page, delete this one, and nobody would ever know the difference. What makes this page so important? --Bold Clone 20:25, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

You haven't thought this through. Are you going to propose deletion of all small articles?--Skittles the hog--Talk 20:32, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on this wikia that are small, one liners. All these pages offer enough information to warrant a page and why should this be any different. As Skittles suggests, are you going to propose to delete all small articles? It just seems a bit daft to me, where do you tow the line? Should there even be a line to tow? I'm definatly behind the latter. Revanvolatrelundar 21:06, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose deletion of all small pages. That's a case-by-case situation, and I don't have time to do that. Simply put, if a page is small enough that all its info can easily be placed on another page, then the info can be moved and the page deleted with nothing lost. That's not even the case here. All we really have is a name. Do we even know for sure that Elemental Shades come from the Howling Halls? What if that one Shade had been imprisioned there, or had been stranded there? Then this page's one piece of info would be wrong. We could delete this page right now, and not lose any information; that should be your criteria. What about this page makes you want to keep it? --Bold Clone 16:43, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

WHAT!? So you want this specific article to be deleted? Why?--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, if a page is small enough that all its info can easily be placed on another page, then the info can be moved and the page deleted with nothing lost. That's not even the case here. All we really have is a name. Do we even know for sure that Elemental Shades come from the Howling Halls? What if that one Shade had been imprisioned there, or had been stranded there? Then this page's one piece of info would be wrong. We could delete this page right now, and not lose any information; that should be your criteria. What about this page makes you want to keep it? --Bold Clone 16:57, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Special:ShortPages. There's a few hundred for you. Good luck!--Skittles the hog--Talk 17:03, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose deletion of all small pages. That's a case-by-case situation, and I don't have time to do that. AHEM. In the future, could you actually read what I say? Thank you. --Bold Clone 17:05, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Stop re-adding the template. I posted a warning and then a vandalism notice on your page and you deleted them. Just back down.--Skittles the hog--Talk 17:11, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

You back down. This page is completely worthless and a total waste. The info here can easily be mentioned on the Elemental Shade page ("an Elemental Shade escaped from the Howling Halls") without any loss of info. As a matter of fact, there is no real info regarding this location, because all we have is the name. --Bold Clone 18:28, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

This wikia is for EVERYTHING related to Doctor Who and this page should be here, even if we do not know much about it, it still belongs here. Revanvolatrelundar 18:34, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

As I said, all we really have is a name. Are you saying that a single name should have an entire page, even if all we know about the topic is its name? --Bold Clone 18:45, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

All the same it is still something that exists in the Doctor Who universe and it should have a page allocated to it. Revanvolatrelundar 18:57, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

...So that's a yes? You are saying that anything that was ever mentioned in the world of Doctor Who should get a page? --Bold Clone 18:59, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, if it exists it should have a page. Revanvolatrelundar 19:02, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

As other users and an admin have previously said:

"Disagree with the rationale for deletion. Sometimes a sentence is all that can be written about a topic. Far as I'm concerned, if it's mentioned in a DW story, it deserves a page here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:29, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree. There's often only a small amount of information on a topic. The information is still worthy of a page though. --Tangerineduel 14:06, December 31, 2010 (UTC)"

There we are. Revanvolatrelundar 19:05, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stuff in the Doctor Who universe gets pages. This wiki is "about everything related to the Doctor Who universe" (from Tardis:About).

We don't just have a name, it's a name referencing something and it has context within the story. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:18, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

It should not have to come to this but this will stop a meaningless edit war.

Keep page

1. --Mini-mitch 17:01, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
2. --Skittles the hog--Talk 17:03, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
3. --Revanvolatrelundar 17:06, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
4. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:18, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
5. --CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:46, January 5, 2011 (UTC) Article simply fails to meet the standards laid out in Tardis:Deletion policy. Brevity is not a valid reason for deletion. Moreover, Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles#short article obviously gives instruction on how to write short articles, thus implying "permission" (if any be needed) to write short articles. Since, however, there has been some confusion, and quite a lot of wasted time arguing the point with respect to this article, it might be wise to take this time, and this overwhelmingly positive vote, to make the position more concrete. To prevent this huge waste of time in future, we should add a new line to the deletion policy, the blocking policy, and/or the Manual of Style which clearly states: Not all topics are of the same importance. Compare, for instance, Martin Chuzzlewit to Varga plant to Dalek. All three articles add something to our knowledge of the Doctor Who universe, but clearly to different degrees. It may not be important to you that Martin Chuzzlewit was mentioned by the ninth Doctor, but there might be a user out there who's a big Charles Dickens fan looking for even the most incidental of Dickens references. Or there just might be a person for whom this article settles a bet at a bar. Or the topic might be furthered referenced, several years hence, as happened with Great Expectations. The point is that the length of an article can never be a reason to propose or allow the deletion of an article. Edit warring over the deletion of an article, due primarily to the article's size, is thus a frivolous activity. Indeed, if the primary deletion rationale given pertains only to the size of the article, the delete tag may be immediately removed by any editor, as if no reason at all had been given. Edit warring over the deletion of an article, based solely on the size of the article, is so unproductive that it may be grounds for temporarily blocking all parties in dispute, until tempers cool.

Delete page

1. No reason for it. --Bold Clone 17:04, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Removed semantically unsupported spectulation

When I encountered it, article asserted in its behind-the-scenes section:

It may be of note that the Eternals resided in "hallowed halls" and called the Void the "Howling". (DWAN: Doctor Who Annual 2006, TV: Doomsday)

Well, it's actually not of note. "Hallowed" and "howling" are words from two completely different roots. They have no commonality of meaning. Thus it can't even be reasonably asserted they're the same. Might be able to make a case for including "the Howling", but that's from Army of Ghosts, anyway. And it begs the question, if he identifies "the Howling" as a word used by the Eternals, but "the Void" as the Time Lord term, why would he use the Eternal's phrase when talking to Elton? Thus, I've removed these assertions from the article for being extremely tenuous. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:24, January 5, 2011 (UTC)