Talk:Timing (manhwa)

Timing (film) as a separate article?

A while back, I merged Timing (film) into this article as both were unusually short. The merge was partially undone by User:Kanghuitari, but I'm not sure why, as there is no reason to keep the film and the webtoon split based on the amount of content the two articles have. If the section for the film ever does become too long, it could always be spun off into its own article WP:Summary style, though seeing as how difficult it can be to find sources on this topic, I don't see that happening any time soon. @Kanghuitari: is it alright if I turn Timing (film) into a redirect again, or were you planning to expand the article more? ~Mable (chat) 12:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

First, Timing (film) won the Seoul International Cartoon and Animation Festival. So, the film is notable, and also the film is suitable for separate article. And I also have planning to expand the article, yes. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you can expand it to something decent, that's fine I guess. I'm rather annoyed at how short this article already is, so I figured two stubs could form one start-class article together. I assume the two works share the same plot? ~Mable (chat) 07:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as nine months later, both articles are still really short, and the film article was in pretty bad shape (its summary seemed to be copied directly from a translated version of a marketing pitch!), I went ahead and merged the two again. There just isn't much point in keeping them split as long as both of them are stubs... ~Mable (chat) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I support the merge. The film may be notable, but at this time there is no justification for a second article. More than a reasonable amount of time has passed without improvement. The film article can be split out again after it's improved. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not merge - The film is notable. -- Countles (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is it seperately notable from the source material? We need some arguments other than "it won this award". ~Mable (chat) 04:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not a problem for the 'notable' that it is article's short material. Countles (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Vegetarian (film) and The Vegetarian. If article have that notable, there is proper reason to keep. Countles (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue is, however, that that film also isn't notable enough to have an article besides the original, assuming there are few more sources to back it up with. I'd check right now, but I have to catch a train in a minute, so I'll do so tomorrow. Either way, this is an "other stuff exists" argument. Just because similar articles exist, doesn't mean this one should, or that one should. ~Mable (chat) 04:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not merge. Notable film. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kanghuitari: That's not a very good argument, it's a little like WP:VAGUEWAVE. The nominator has brought up points and if you want to voice your opinion, you need to bring evidence alongside it, even if it's something simple like "It's been covered here and here, and so I think it's notable". For the record, I'm neutral on the merge. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note Countles has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Kanghuitari. @Maplestrip, Argento Surfer, and Anarchyte: You may consider a fresh discussion in light of this information. ℯxplicit 00:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)