Talk:Alternative versions of Storm

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2020. The result of the discussion was merge.

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimatestorm.jpg[edit]

Image:Ultimatestorm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I see a clear consensus to merge within the discussion below, which as particpants have pointed out is within the scope of editing policy and guidance. In line with guidance and reflecting policy I close the debate as merge.

Proposal to merge Bloodstorm[edit]

I proposed this merge because all other Mutant X characters have had their articles merged into the main article of their respective character. There is little chance of these characters getting an ongoing series again, so there is no need to have a full article for them. Furthermore, the article is not very long, so it would be fine to merge it into the article that is designed to contain information about all alternate versions of Storm. Freak104 04:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes. Do it.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the discussion on the WikiProject page anymore, but the consensus was to merge them, and no one has voiced any dissent about it. So I am going to merge them now. Freak104 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Its the only Mutant X character not located on a main or sub-page. For consistancy's sake it should be merged. -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. Doczilla (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this not to be merged, somebody would have to present some evidence that Bloodstorm has a meaningful cultural existence separate from Storm - that is, that there is substantial out-of-universe information about Bloodstorm that is not about Storm in general. Barring that, the objections to merging seem spurious at best. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge - Bloodstorm has been featured as a character in separate series, including Mutant X and then Paradise X series. That is a distinction that would separate her from the other mutant X characters, and offer reasonable notariaty, at least for a marvel character. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion closed. Result was: MERGE -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion should not closed as this discussion is not a vote, but on that rest on consensus. In the case of the discussion above, I have made points that do satisfy some if not all guidelines of Wikipedia:Fiction notabilty, which have not been addressed above. As such we are at a juncture of no consensus at best, but rather a still open debate. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge "discussion"[edit]

66.109.248.114 was the only person to disagree with the merge, and that was the second time it had to be merged. Concensus was reached. They should be merged. -Freak104 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please merge them, and use WP:ANI to report the IP editor for disruption, namely edit warring and continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors if they continue, pointing to the debate above to indicate the consensus reached. Hiding T 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not that of edit warring; however, I feel that valid points were made, that were never addressed in the discussion. In addition, this page has been hastily merged in the past evidenced my a previous merge discussion that last less that 4 days prior to the merge. Consensus rests on dialogue, which I feel was not concluded. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The merge was open for one month, and a consensus was made. In my view, since you disagree with the consensus, you are being difficult about the matter. I've seen this happen plenty of times: a person disagrees with the majority, then makes a claim of "it's not concluded" just to prevent the consensus from happening. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my coments below. Yes, this merge was open for one month, but there was no mention of this merge on the main article so one would actually have to go into the alternate versions of Storm article to even know that a merge that concerns both articles is going on. That likely contributes a lot to the lack of participation.--RossF18 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.109.248.114 has posted on my own talk page and he is just trying to help out. I don't think he plans on undoing the merge again, so let's all calm down and chalk this up as a learning experience for all involved. Let's move on and maybe be slower to merge articles in the future. -Freak104 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. The Storm article is long enough and it is becoming fairly standard to have alternate characters in a separate page. I think the first merge was about merging BloodStorm into this artile, while this second merge is dealing with whether to merge this entire article with the main Article, which I'm opposed to.--RossF18 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's kind of interesting that there was nothing in the Storm's main article about the merge. Kind of limits the amount of editors who even know this article merge proposal is going on. --RossF18 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Merge - Before the failed FA of the Storm Article, it was mentioned to seperate the various alternates into a seperate page. I DO, however, think it is neccessary to update this article to meet wikipedia's standards. 74.220.74.40 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge there is no need to merge the article. Storm is a highly notable character with more than enough alternate versions to warrant a separate article.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed rersult no merge Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bloodstorm1.jpg[edit]

Image:Bloodstorm1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template has been updated.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Hiding T 09:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]