Talk:Robin (Earth-Two)

reverted

JGreb reverted my removal of the redirect, stating:

"And there was discussion long ago that resulted in the redirect. Now, Talk page?"

However, i see no discussion of the redirect here, which is pretty much where it, or at the very least, a link to where that discussion took place. The article, prior to being redirected, seemed a well-developed article on its own. Why the redirect? I won't cut the redirect again, in anticipation of discussion, but I find few compelling reasons to keep it in place. - Hexhand (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If I don't hear of some compelling arguments as to why it should be a redirected article, I'm removing the redirect. It's been days without a response to the discussion inception; I'll wait a little longer, but not forever. - Hexhand (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The nuts and bolts of why this is a redirect? It's a minor variation of the character that has little in-story material to work with and just about as much real world context.

Ideally the material should be covered with under Alternate versions of Robin#Dick Grayson (Earth Two). But then the bulk of what was left at Robin (comics)#Alternate versions, for this character and others, should have been moved there as well. - J Greb (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree with J Greb. The article didn't fit with policy and guidance, and there was a large debate about when to split off articles on alternate versions of a character at WT:COMICS where consensus was to do so when there was enough secondary sourcing to support the split. An article on Wikipedia can't really be built from primary sourcing, per WP:NOR. Hiding T 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that "It's a minor variation of the character that has little in-story material to work with and just about as much real world context", JGreb. The article itself has almost two dozen references, and speaks primarily of the divergent, Earth-Two Robin. If we are discounting Earth-Two heroes, or at least discounting their place as separate articles, let's do away with the Earth-Two's Atom, Flash, Green Lantern, and Superman. The list goes on, but I am trusting I've made my point. Unlike many Earth-Two heroes, Robin wasn't retconned out of existence. "Indeed, in Justice Society of America #20, (December 2008), Starman explains that during the re-expansion of the DC Multiverse, Earth-2 was reborn "... along with everyone on it", including Robin." Therefore, the redirect minimalizes a character that is remains distinctly relevant and viable as a self-standing article. - Hexhand (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Three of those are characters in their own right rather than being alternative versions of an existing character, so we are comparing apples and oranges a little. The superman article is already flagged for clean up, so likely isn't the best example either, and there are still concerns regarding policy, guidance and primary sourcing issues. Hiding T 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I will concede that - because the personas using the alias are different than their Earth-One counterparts - that the inclusion of those may not be fair. However, the fact that the Superman Earth-Two article needs clean-up doesn't neutralize my point, Hiding; especially when we also have the Batman (Earth-Two) and Wonder Woman (Earth-Two) articles.

And respectfully, I am a bit concerned that personal feelings are being utilized in this discussion. I mean, certain television shows, like Madmen and House seem utterly non-notable, but that's because I don't watch them, and don't care to. I think that the Earth-Two Robin is being given similar short shrift, because he isn't as popular (also, that costume puts a hurtin' on my eyes!). Just because the character isn't popular with you doesn't mean it isn't without notable value.

Because of this perception, I think that the somewhat obfuscatingly-linked issues of notability and PLOT should be deeply discounted as reasoning. The argument of primary sourcing is entirely valid, but it should be noted that many of the current comic book articles in the wiki use a great deal of primary sourcing (ie referring to a particular issue of note). Indeed, almost half of the ten references in the Robin (Earth One) article utilize the primary sourcing that you are taking issue with here.

Could the citations be improved? Sure, but that's a truth universal to the entirety of Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is:

1. We have other articles of Earth Two heroes with the same costumed name and secret identity.

2. The Robin of Earth-Two has not been retconned out of existence, and retains a notability.

3. While the citations present could be improved, this article has more than the article it is being redirected to.

I am still thinking that this article deserves to not be redirected. If we include a link to the Robin (Earth One) article, the purposes of linkage are accomplished. - Hexhand (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. As that seems to have settled the question, I'll be removing the redirect now. Thanks - Hexhand (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how people not replying to you within a set number of days seems to amount to a consensus when it was only you arguing for this. Equally the arguments against were based on previous consensus and guidelines while the bulk of yours is passed on other stuff exists (even if that stuff is of poor quality and/or open to the possibility of being redirected, even leaving aside the question of whether every episode of House needs its own article, which is outside our remit). Personally I can't see anything to justify this as an article and nothing that can't be dealt with in a section on Alternate versions of Robin and Robin (comics). (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Respectfully, Emperor, I am not interested in playing a waiting game. If I note precedent - incorrectly defined by using the old saw "other stuff exists" - and explain my arguments, I feel confident enough to consider the matter resolved if almost a week goes by without consent.

I have already addressed how a personal belief that an article is "of poor quality", etc. seems to be more a problem of lazy preference as opposed to actually rollingup one's sleeves to actually fix the articles in question. The fact of the matter is, the compared articles exist, have good sourcing (in almost every instance), and appear to be relevant. If you could, please address how the characters are not, or simply fix the articles that you feel to be of shoddy quality. - Hexhand (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How refreshing! Another voice of reason in the wilderness. And obviously, the wall has finally been torn down, Mr. Gorbachev!Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image issue

- J Greb (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robin (Earth-Two). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061230094631/http://www.titanstower.com:80/source/infohistory/dgraysonchron.html to http://www.titanstower.com/source/infohistory/dgraysonchron.html#crisis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)