Talk:Magma (Gorath)

Name

Isn't his name, Maguma? --JohnVMaster 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Can someone give me one, non-bullshit (that is, don't mention your favorite "guideline") reason why this shouldn't be a seperate article? I'm not aversed to it being merged anywhere (though I would prefer a list), however, there's clearly unique content here that is simply wallowing in the history.--SB | T 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WP:FICT not apply, now? I've merged the information into the film's article, as should be done; an article on the monster would be simply be redudnancy. The monster only appears for six minutes in an obscure film. It's essentially the equalivent of making an article for what happened in November 15, 1995 in Paris Hilton's life. Unless you somehow have the capacity to expand the article far beyond what it was before, which I earnestly doubt. Interrobamf 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the character were a major character in this film (per significance, not screen time), and per WP:FICT, he should have either his own section in the main article or his own article. The merge was poorly done, as it seems to have left out some key information, such as what Magma is. The first mention of him is: "The heat from the ignition had an unexpected consequence—releasing the character Magma from his icy prison." There is no reference to him even being a walrus until three paragraphs later, where he is referred to as "the walrus kaiju Magma".

This article was not a dicdef, it wasn't even a stub. It was properly referenced, thorough and complete, and as such, it didn't need to be merged into the main article. I find it to be far more confusing now (and giant walruses are fairly confusing to begin with), and if we hold "notability guidelines" above clearly providing information, we should be ashamed to call ourselves an encyclopedia. --Keitei (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't particularly see the point in being redundant. Walrus monster shows up for six minutes in some obscure film and gets killed. That's not quite enough for an article. That's sufficently covered by the plot summary; if you have problems with it, then edit the plot summary.

I don't quite understand your "dicdef" comment. What do dictionary definitions have to do with anything? If you'd like, I can simply revert it to the previous version and slap an AfD to get a quick consensus. Interrobamf 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to be redundant — the fact is that there's plenty of content here that you simply ignored when performing your "merge". AFD it if you want, though — I'm confident that, if people actually pay attention to what the article says rather than "OMG fancruft" stuff that you are pushing, the article will be kept.--SB | T 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the term "fancruft". Please stop being overly reactive to my arguments or disorting them so you can make me look like a fool. Please point to any content that wasn't actually merged or already on the film page. To clarify, I'm referring to CONTENT, not copy-and-paste. Interrobamf 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft article of a merge between the two articles. Please look at it at User:Tocharianne/Gorath and see if it makes everyone happy. Some notes:

Ignore the imdb link--it says Tocharianne/Gorath because the template uses the article title
There's a section called Problem English because I couldn't understand what the phrases in bold were trying to say.

Tocharianne 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]