Talk:Ninja Warrior UK

Damn edit wars

There has been recent edit warring in which a large section of the article was deleted, then reverted, then deleted and so on. Please can this issue be discussed here in a civil and obedient manner. Until our discussions are complete, the consensus shall be to retain the information repeatedly being deleted. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. All replies and supplicants below this text ---->

These edit wars are getting way too out of hang. The same type of edit warring has been occurring at American Ninja Warrior. Anyway, we definitely need to remove these trivial lists of obstacles. A list of all the specific obstacles used in each season is complete fancruft and is an indiscriminate collection of information that is far too detailed for a general reader. List Of Obstacles On American Ninja Warrior has recently been listed for deletion, and many delete arguments are there that follow the same train of thought. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Obstacle listing

There have recently been several reversions over whether or not lists of the obstacles should be included in the article. I have removed the content for now; please do not add the content back until consensus has been established. I maintain the content is an indiscriminate, non-notable collection of information (see WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT) and burden of proof rests with those arguing for inclusion. I've yet to here any reasons why the content should be included.

The following users have been involved in reverting in this content, and they might want to contribute to this discussion: @Drmies and Pablothepenguin. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Bilorv, have we not the greatest collection of online information ever to be created by us? Was it not Jimmy Wales's dream to create an online catalogue of all information? Have we gone completely mad, that we shall point blank deny the inclusion of yet more knowledge, and thrust upon ourselves a burden of unimaginable torture in pruning the very edges of this dear fine beloved wiki? It is the mission of this wiki to collect and share information for all to see, for to see what 50 years ago was unthinkable is the crux of human achievement and is simply irreplaceable. But to send to damnation a good quantity of high quality information due to some arbitrary "notability" scam is simply not my motivation for presence on this dear wiki. I am gutted at the loss of such data and will pay tribute to its creators and hope that this discussion will be a "keep" consensus. If you don't know already, my decision is Keep. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Inspiring stuff, but no policy-based reason for inclusion. Copy this stuff to the Sasuke Wikia if you want, but Wikipedia is not aiming to "catalogue ... all information". I've no idea what Jimmy Wales was thinking when he co-founded Wikipedia, but this site never has been the place for excessive listing of trivial detail. This content does not belong here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And there, you mention my problem with this dear wiki. As we will briefly discuss (and I could write hundreds of pages on this subject), the scam of "notability" which plagues this very website has indeed caused many potential "delete" decisions for this issue. Also, the very definition of "notability" herein is rather unspecific and perhaps, also, a little vague. It is not my intention to damn those who abide by this wiki's rules and policies, but to instead question the very morals which affect this article. As insignificant as it seems, being one of more than 4 million articles and all, this article is a perfect example of why the "notability" scam has dwindled on too far. Are we to suffer the inconsistencies of this "policy" any longer, or shall we make a stand and put things right. I strongly recommend that a "Keep" decision is still best. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You'll need a lot of much, much wider input to decide that notability, one of the most basic guidelines of Wikipedia, should be overturned. You won't be "[making] a stand" by reverting the content back into the article; you'll be violating policy without acknowledgement of consensus and you'll just be reverted back again and again until we need to take this to WP:ANI or take further action. If you want to go somewhere where there's no threshold for inclusion, I've linked Sasuke Wikia to you already or you could create a website of your own. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have an important page here: User:Pablothepenguin/notability Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's "up" for "discussion". As long as Jimbo hisself doesn't drop by with a mandate from ANI, VPP, ArbCom, or any other permutation from a bowl of alphabet soup there's nothing here to discuss. See Wikia. Or get a blog on WordPress--it's free, and it comes with a kind of Visual Editor. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e), that whole section is just trivia and is completely irrelevant to the article itself. The article should be only be used for info that apply to all shows, e.g. show background, production companies, crew, reception, episode list, ratings. Not all shows have obstacle courses each show has different features which is trivia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia version, keep it factual rather than trivia. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've got a pretty clear consensus. Three of us (perhaps four) do not want the obstacles to be kept, with the policy WP:IINFO being cited by me. Meanwhile, one user disagrees with the concept of notability — which is a much wider issue and not something we can overturn here (not that we want to) — and two IPs haven't contributed to the discussion, but have been unhelpfully reverting removals. So the obstacle lists are not staying. If anyone wants to expand the Gameplay section a bit more with detailed description of a couple of obstacles, that's fine by me, but please don't edit war now we've got a consensus. I've removed the section and I will quickly revert you if you add it back. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Finalist lists

An IP has just added a list of finalists from the first series. I think the list has the same problems as the obstacle lists did (see above); the list is "of importance only to a small population of fans" and is not notable. Should this list be kept in the article? I will remove the list from the article in about 24 hours if no-one gives a policy-based or otherwise reasonable objection. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's more than 24 hours (WP:SILENCE). Removed. If you want to add it back, give your reasons here instead of reverting me. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Leave This Page Alone

Seriously Leave Ninja Warrior UK alone if you haven't watched the show or heard of it. I'm sick of these edit wars and whoever keeps on removing the Finalists and Obstacles stop, it's important to leave them there so that people know what the obstacles are. Also, the Finalists are important because that's who made it the furthest. So far, I have 8 votes to keep both of them on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4100:FAFD:7902:1EBF:E016:88C7 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not that it needs to be left alone. This does not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. That needs to be followed. This is not a fan site for Ninja Warrior it is a wikipedia article, an encyclopedia. But I do understand where you are coming from. But unfortunately the guidelines need to be followed. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See above — no-one provided a policy-based objection for the Obstacles being removed and the Finalists section received no response at all. You don't own the article and what's important in your eyes is different from what Wikipedia can include (see WP:IINFO)z. WP:ALTERNATIVE provides some examples of where else the content could be included online. I don't understand what you mean by "I have 8 votes" (if anything, I would say more people have !voted in favour of removing the content), but Wikipedia does not decide things like this by counting votes anyway. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)