Category talk:Candidates for deletion

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.

Bio Liger, Snipe Liger, Slash Liger

Please expand the mentioned pages and categorize or they will be deleted by the end of the month. thank you--Hollow ichigo 01:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering

Why I've just gone and marked a massive number of articles for deletion. These are all useless templates. I have no idea how they got there, or what they are doing but a large number of them are garbage (the syntax is wrong), the ones that work are totally irrelevant to Zoids (Buffy, dr who, family guy templates, just to name a few.) Normally leaving useless templates alone shouldn't make a problem, but the templates are making categories. There are hundreds of categories polluting the "special pages" section. I'd say a lot of these are remains from copy-pasting from wikipedia. I might have accidentally marked a relevant template for deletion. But I tried to use the utmost care when handling these. Besides, if we do find a useful template gets deleted, we can always add it back. Sylvanelite 05:06, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Liger Zero

Is liger another mistake, or is there a reason why one of the favorite zoids is being deleted? --DARK 15:31, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

um why is the liger up for delete-- Silverblade1 18:12, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Liger wasn't up for deletion... It was one of the templates used in the page. Its all fixed now--Azimuth727 20:41, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

i see....well now that thats over i think its a good idea to check the others...silver blade

I just went through the list of Zoids, all the releases, list of non-model zoids and the anime sections. I removed all delete tags I found in there. Hopefully, that should be all of them. Sylvanelite 00:18, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Nice...so u got the tag off the list of zoids page? good--Silverblade1 00:57, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Redirects

I took a quick scan through the List of redirects, and flagged all of the orphaned ones that were just taking up space. A lot of them are just leftover from the old wikipeida Zoids template, which has had the link for the zoid type removed due to confusion with zoids such as Griffin.--Azimuth727 18:53, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a lot more, a small number remain which I will remove once the changes cache into the search functionSylvanelite 12:09, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

List of Chaotic century characters

I've added the delete tag to this page. The reasoning is simple, every character on there has their own page, and the template does the job of the list. I'm open for discussion on the issue, but if nobody objects, I'll delete the page in a few days. Sylvanelite 12:09, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. There is really no point in having that article anymore.

However, do you think you can hold of the deletion for a bit, I want to save a copy of the article. (Zoids Fanatic 13:38, June 11, 2010 (UTC))

Alright, saved it as a blog post. You may delete it now. (Zoids Fanatic 20:34, June 16, 2010 (UTC))

Done.--Azimuth727 20:44, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saved the orginal as a blog. (Zoids Fanatic 20:53, June 16, 2010 (UTC))

R.A.T.S

So, what shall we do with this one?

(Zoids Fanatic 03:24, June 24, 2010 (UTC))

That should be obvious: It has been flagged for deletion. Unless someone can justify it's notability, it will be removed. As a note, please don't add superfluous comments like that, your not contributing to discussions. I notice you've been doing it in a lot of places. Sylvanelite 03:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we needed to start a disscussion about this, it be best to make sure that we agree that a article should be deleted. (Zoids Fanatic 03:50, June 24, 2010 (UTC))

"we" is not "you". The admins are the ones who end up doing deletion. Discussion should be between people who have quires or information to add to the article and admins. Making edits to say "we need to talk about this" is worse than useless. Unless there is something specific to say, then there is no reason to clutter up talk pages. This applies other places, in the da lizards, you added "not sure" as your comment. Useful. Not. Same with gun sniper LS, "will do". Don't add comments where they aren't needed. I say this because less than half of your overall edits are to actual wiki content. Talk pages should be for important discussion only, like resolving conflicting edits, not a place to comment on every edit like it's a journal. Sylvanelite 04:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I guess. And I am aware about my edits being half. I never said I was in this for the edits, I'm in it for the Zoids. (Zoids Fanatic 04:03, June 24, 2010 (UTC))

As no points were raised in opposition to the deletion, this article was deleted. Sylvanelite 08:59, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

wait! please readd it. it supposidly has connections to starriors.--Leon35 11:29, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, why did you manage to retrieve this page, but not the Sword Wolf page, and then leave it to me to fix your mistakes? Anyway, that R.A.T.S page really needs work, there are a ton of red links and wikipedia artefacts that need fixing. It also doesn't mention Zoids once in the whole article. I'm leaving the delete tags on the article for now. Sylvanelite 12:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

its not that simple. i am very busy right now. i am running back and forth from here to with what i am doing. i would rather readd the info myself but i just dont have the time. please understand--Leon35 12:21, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm the one who put the delete tags on it, I feel I should reply here. Let's review the content, shall we? 1- Starriors has this to do with Zoids:

"The Runabout toy was originally developed for the Zoids line, but was instead released as a Starrior. As a result, the toy has a number of stylistic links to the early Zoids, such as the Bigasaur, as well as sharing similar labels and even carrying Helic Republic insignias."

That's it. Two sentences. Then, we get to R.A.T.S:

"Many Starriors figures and vehicles were recolored and released by Tomy in Europe under the name R.A.T.S. (Robot Anti-Terror Squad). "

Put simply, RATS are a renamed, rebranded, recoloured version of the Starriors, with some differences in the rerelease. Bear any similiarities with the Sword Wolf and Whitz Wolf? Yeah, exactly. Furthermore, the Starriors AND RATS page(s) are both copy-pastes of wiki pages with NO information added (Leon is the only "contributor" on either page), so their role is NO different to a simple redirect.
Leon. Stop being a hypocrite. The Sword Wolf page was deleted because it wasn't significantly different from a recoloured Whitz Wolf, well RATS is just a recoloured Starriors.
Secondly, the Starriors page should be deleted as well, because it doesn't have anything to do with Zoids other than the two sentences listed above. I'm putting delete tags on it too. Slax01 22:48, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Whitz Tiger

This article has been flagged as it does not meet wiki standards. Considering the stub stats has been removed, but little or no new information has been added to the article. It will be deleted unless significant new content can be added to the page. Sylvanelite 08:56, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I can get a picture... but I don't know much about the battle story or other releases. With the exception of the Media Apperances section, it really doesn't have much more info than Decalto Dragon, which was agreed that it should be left as is.--Azimuth727 16:44, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the delete tag in light of combine edits to both this and the whitz wolf article. Sylvanelite 06:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Starriors and RATS and ZKnights

Please leave these pages alone. Starriors shares model kits with zoids, RATS is based off stariors, and Zknights not only shares a similar build to zoids like starriors, but it is suspected that they have background connections.--Leon35 01:12, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

None of those address the concerns I listed above, and no-one is talking about deleting Z-Knights. All I can say here is read my above comments and address them, or else I'm pretty much going to be forced into an edit war with you. Slax01 01:17, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

ok then. how bout a comprimise? RATS becomes a section on the starriors page. how does that sound?--Leon35 01:36, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Leon, but Starriors aren't Zoids... they don't belong here.--Azimuth727 01:49, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

not true. The starriors line has the same idea as zoids, they even share parts. some of the starriors kits were intended for the OJR zoids line, but never reached production. in addition, zoids and starriors share atleast 1model kit. however, it isnt well known. it can be seen on lionels site though underthe prototype section. i would not have added the page if i didnt think there were connections between the 2 lines.--Leon35 01:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

@The "compromise": To do that would be to completely ignore half of what I wrote above. The Starriors page is a copy-paste of the wikipedia page, it does nothing a wiki redirect doesn't. Take out the one or two useful bits of information, put them on a relevant page (like the "Zoids" page) and throw in a wiki redirect. That will make the information much more reliable and relevant. I mean, if taken to the extreme, your logic would justify the existence of a "godzilla" or a "tyrannosaurus" page, which is, of course, nonsensical. Give me some reasoning as to why my above statement was incorrect and then I can start to draw conclusions and compromises. I'm not going to abandon a logically drawn conclusion just because you want to keep the pages out of some kind of baseless favouritism. Slax01 01:55, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

oh thats what u ment. when i get back(as this will be my last edit until either friday or saturday) i will personaly change RATS and Starriors so that they are not just wikipedia copies. until then, leave them. bye guys.--Leon35 02:06, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

/* Zoids Weaponry */

I noticed this page was up for deletion. Is it simply because of the lack of information filled in or the lack of other weaponry? In other words, is there something to do it so it could remain? If it were touched up, it could include links to the weaponry that now have their own pages, such as the CPC and Laser Blade. --Levells 14:35, July 17, 2010 (UTC)