Talk:Viserys Targaryen

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Retarget and disambiguate, 22 October 2022, see discussion.
keep, 22 May 2019, see discussion.

Novels: Fantasy Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

A Song of Ice and Fire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viserys Targaryen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307150640/http://grrm.livejournal.com/164794.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/164794.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore original article

I recently discovered that before being a redirect, it used to be an article. The article showed to be available to be independent and have the enough information to keep being an article. First of all, I'm sorry for the recent undoing, and you need to know that I don’t want to begin an edit war, but please let me restore the page undo the redirect, because this character maybe has a recurring role but is an important character that obey all the rules to be independent. Can you give the article another chance?? Ulises1126 (talk) 1:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ulises1126: I think you are a bit confused about the timeline. The page was a redirect first, and remained so for many years. The sockpuppeteer AffeL (talk · contribs) turned it into an article in 2016, he was repeatedly asked to justify its existence (it consisted of nothing but in-universe plot summary), refused to do so (aggressively), and was eventually blocked. Not only does policy clearly prohibit standalone articles on fictional characters about whom no real-world information can be written, but in 2019 there was also a consensus to redirect these AffeL-created articles at AFD (the AFD was subject to a WP:BADNAC wherein the closer counted all the !votes for redirecting as being opposed to "deletion"). The default state is redirect, and the burden is on you to fix the article if you want to undo the redirect, but you seem to have moved it to the draftspace and immediately submitted it for movement to the mainspace with minimal edits).

On a loosely related note, I would like to ask you again to refrain from logging out in order to edit-war, in addition to asking you not to lie about "forgetting to log in".[1]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea of this. I apologize for my actions, I promise that none of this is never happening ever again. If you don’t want this article to exist then I will forget about it. Ulises1126 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the kind of thing that Wikia was invented for. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get it. The AfD was closed as keep and if you disagree it should be AfD again or WP:Deletion review. If I recreate an article after its deleted with the reason "The closer did it wrong" - I will be blocked... Christian75 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was closed with a super-vote by someone who has repeatedly stated that he doesn't agree with the community consensus regard what AFDs are for. He counted all the "redirect" comments (including mine) as being opposed to the mass deletion of all the listed articles, and closed as "keep" rather than "redirect" accordingly. Therefore, by definition, the close cannot be used as a reason not to subsequently redirect individual articles: your analogy is flawed and, yes, if you tried to do what you are comparing to this, you would likely be blocked. Moreover, new issues regarding this particular article emerged after the AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we have WP:Deletion review. You are just ignoring the outcome of the AfD. Christian75 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. If that were what I was doing, I would have immediately started redirecting all of the affected articles. What happened here was that I saw a BADNAC, realized that if I ignored it or took it to DRV policy and community consensus would likely be on my side but (i) I didn't want the hassle and (ii) since Andy believes AFD is not the place to discuss redirecting, and believes that normal editorial processes should be used to handle such issues, he himself would not be opposed to my interpreting his "keep" close as meaning "don't delete the page history" but taking it to DRV would just open a can of worms that could be avoided by handling the articles on a case-by-case basis, unilaterally redirecting the weakest of the "articles" and ultimately opening new AFDs or merge proposals for the more "borderline" cases. Moreover (as I have now said three or four times and you seem to be willfully ignoring), this particular article has an issue when it comes to conflating the books, the earlier version of the first book published under a different title several months before the first book, and the TV show, that the other articles do not have and that I at least was not even aware of at the time of the AFD (hence why I decided to redirect more than a year after the AFD). DRV would be the place to go within a few weeks or months of the AFD being closed in order to get the whole AFD overturned, but there were at least three reasons why that would not be applicable in this case. Please either create a draft of an acceptable version of this article or move on with your life. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]