Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Disney Infinity
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6 (Talk to my master) 18:00, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
So why don't we have an article on Disney Infinity 3.0? Star Wars is confirmed to be a big part of the game. Someone tried to create an article, but it got deleted saying it won't have an article whether there's Star Wars material or not. Why not? We have Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars. We've got Spaceballs. We got the Family Guy parodies. We've got Into the Great Unknown. I don't see why we can't have Disney Infinity. I wouldn't want us to cover the Marvel or Disney characters in the game. But the game at least needs an article. I believe if it's Star Wars-related, it should be mentioned somewhere around here. Marvel took up half of 2.0, so I'd imagine Star Wars will be half of 3.0. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:31, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that Disney Infinity 3.0 should have a page. We have pages for things that are far less notable (or even relevant) than this. The deletion seems arbitrary. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:40, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
- I think the fact that an article for it has been created twice now (and twice deleted) shows that there's an interest in an article being there. How is this any less notable than any of our other toy articles, such as Star Wars (toy line) or Order of the Jedi (which is barely even a stub of an article)? If may be so bold, the deletion doesn't seem arbitrary, it is arbitrary, in relation to existing material. It really should not have been removed under the criteria of speedy deletion, it deserved at least a discussion. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:38, May 12, 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed it does need a discussion. Maybe we should ask Cade about the deletion. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:03, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. And I see that you have. BTW, I certainly didn't mean to be unnecessarily harsh above. It's just that I feel this is something that happens too often around here. I'd really like to see this sort of thing hashed out in more detail. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:13, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion stands that articles like this are unnecessary and add nothing to our purpose, but as there has been public outcry/response to the deletion, I've restored it. I've been quite sick and irritable the last week, so that might have contributed to my state of mind at the deletion. Cade
Calrayn 17:46, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion stands that articles like this are unnecessary and add nothing to our purpose, but as there has been public outcry/response to the deletion, I've restored it. I've been quite sick and irritable the last week, so that might have contributed to my state of mind at the deletion. Cade
- Indeed. And I see that you have. BTW, I certainly didn't mean to be unnecessarily harsh above. It's just that I feel this is something that happens too often around here. I'd really like to see this sort of thing hashed out in more detail. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:13, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed it does need a discussion. Maybe we should ask Cade about the deletion. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:03, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
- I think the fact that an article for it has been created twice now (and twice deleted) shows that there's an interest in an article being there. How is this any less notable than any of our other toy articles, such as Star Wars (toy line) or Order of the Jedi (which is barely even a stub of an article)? If may be so bold, the deletion doesn't seem arbitrary, it is arbitrary, in relation to existing material. It really should not have been removed under the criteria of speedy deletion, it deserved at least a discussion. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:38, May 12, 2015 (UTC)
