Talk:Baten Kaitos

Redundant

Can we just delete this article? The entry for Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean is much more detailed and complete.

Who/what is your favorite

Hey, everybody! What is: 1. You're favorite character? 2. you're favorite card? 3. you're favorite music?

Anyone think of anything else?

My favourite music track is Brave Way and my favourite character is Kalas.

Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a message board. --Slowking Man 21:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think that if ever results were to come, you would find them to be nearly all the same : Kalas as a favorite character (his stats are simply WAY better than any other character) and a Tarot Blade card for the favourite Magnus, or one of the three Sacred Items. As for music, well that's a point that might give out interesting results, but, as it says above, Wikipedia is not a message board...

SmegEd 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus claim by User:Sergecross73

Despite User:Sergecross73's claim of consensus, the truth is that he arbitrarily made this a redirect from a dab. Here's the history:

Up until March 18, 2006, this was a poor duplicate of Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean. Then:

• 2006-03-18: merged and redirected
• 2015-01-25: redirected to the star by User:Ian.thomson
• 2015-04-15: reverted by Sergecross73
• 2015-04-15: dab page created by User:Ian.thomson

It remained a dab page for nearly three years, then:

• 2018-03-01: reverted by Sergecross73
• 2018-10-22: dab page is restored by second editor
• 2018-10-22: and immediately reverted by Sergecross73
• 2019-07-06: dab page recreated by User:Zxcvbnm
• 2018-07-13: and again reverted by Sergecross73
• 2019-10-28: new dab page created by User:Shhhnotsoloud

It remained a dab page for nearly ten months, then:

• 2020-08-23: again reverted by Sergecross73

Then, User:Shhhnotsoloud opened a discussion at Talk:Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean. User:Sergecross73 was the only user to respond and he opposed creation of the dab page. He was the only user to do so.

• 2021-07-01: Unaware of the history, I created a new dab page
• 2021-07-01: immediately reverted by Sergecross73, claiming consensus where none existed

I checked Talk:Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean, found that there was in actuality no consensus, and added my support, tipping the non-consensus to dab.

The only editor to oppose the dab page was User:Sergecross73. His claims of consensus were baldly false. By my count we have:

• For dab: Ian.thomson, Zxcvbnm, Shhhnotsoloud, and myself (4 editors), plus an IP editor.
• Against: Sergecross73.

Basically, User:Sergecross73 has been waging a slow-motion edit-war against consensus, and if he continues to misrepresent the situation, I will apply to have him de-admined. Skyerise (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not referring to the editors who have disagreed with me with a revert and then immediately dropped it over the course of 6 years. I was referring to the only actual discussion on it, and most recent discussion on it, which at the time of my comment fizzled out at one hard oppose and no other hard stances, and went unopposed for 10 months until today when you decided to unilaterally participate and close the discussion, which is of course a no no. If you're unhappy with it, start a new discussion. You need to look at the consensus at the most recent discussion though, not handcount the yearly passerby reverts over the last half decade. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirect Baten Kaitos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Baten Kaitos currently redirects to Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean. I changed it to a disambiguation page here but the move was reverted by @Sergecross73:. Please support or oppose changing Baten Kaitos to a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - it doesn’t make sense to have a dab page when none of the 3 entries are actually the word itself. Everything naturally disambiguates itself with the current titles. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that Baten Kaitos is the proper name of the star, and so the redirect Baten Kaitos doesn't naturally disambiguate. However, the video game may well be the primary topic - the proper name for the star was highly obscure until adopted by the IAU recently and is still not in widespread use. The star receives far fewer page hits and the video game dominates web search results and even book results, although I'd never heard of it until today. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s why I made the change years back - the page views for the game is a lot higher, and Baten Kaitos isn’t even the common name for the star. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the star is more significant than the game. If anything, the official star name should redirect to the star. Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note: the assertion made by non-neutral User:Sergecross73 that Baten Kaitos isn't even the common name for the star is false. "Baten Kaitos"+star gets 415,000 hits compared to "Zeta Ceti", which gets just under 9,500 hits. Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. That was not the point I was making. My point was that was that the star was better known as Zeta Ceti than it was known as Baten Kaitos. As in the article about the star is located at the Zeta name. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But the star isn't better known as Zeta Ceti. It is better known as Baten Kaitos. The article is where it is not because it is the COMMONNAME, but because of a decision to name star articles consistently. Skyerise (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I made the comment based my knowledge on article titles. I do not know the intricacies of WP Astronomy's guidelines. If such a guideline exists, so be it then. No one has brought that up historically. Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well I brought it up now because you were clearly making false assumptions based solely on your opinion that all articles must obviously already be at their COMMONNAME, which is simply not true. Skyerise (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Note - I've reopened the discussion. You can't come in to a discussion and then immediately close it in your favor. It's both a conflict of interest and a terrible close, there being just one of each hard stance given. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As is your repeated reverting of other editors with a false claim of consensus when the best you had (by ignoring the multiple long-term editors who made a needed dab page) was no consensus. Skyerise (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, what I said was that there wasn't a consensus to make it a dab. So it stayed a redirect since it had been since 2019. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That's simply not accurate. It was a dab for nearly three years, from 2015 to 2018 before you arbitrarily made it a redirect again. And the only reason that wasn't maintained is your multiple reverts. What there wasn't was a consensus to make it a redirect again after three years as a dab. Skyerise (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
        • And after that, it uncontentiously sat as a redirect for almost a year. Just like it sat as a redirect uncontentiously for the last year. These one off scenarios of a single editor getting single reverted by me, and then not challenging it further ever again does not add up to some sort massive consensus. It represents editors occasionally questioning and then dropping it ever once in a while. Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• keep DAB This should be discussed at Baten Kaitos, not on the talk page of one of its meanings. Discussing it here will bias the discussion (the WikiProject Astronomy linked here now). There are two video games, I would prefer a disambiguation page even without the star. The star just makes the case even clearer. If the name of the star finds larger use in the future, we can redirect there. --mfb (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Skyerise, this is not a good look. I personally can't see how the video game would be the primary topic, given that it's clearly named after the star. At most there is no primary topic, which is why I added the disambiguation. I also fail to see how an unbiased admin would dismiss actual editors as "passers-by" in an effort to enforce their own opinion. So count me as supporting the DAB page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• When I say "passerby", I simply mean editors, like yourself, who participated in a single edit/revert cycle and then never made another edit or discussion about it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support (for a dab page, just to be clear): the game seems a little jarring as the primary topic. Maybe it has a massive following that I've missed out on, but for average person not very likely. I'm equally unsure about the star. The IAU has picked the name out of the ether and heavily promoted it, but until the proper name is considered sufficiently standardised to become the name of the article, I'm not sure it merits being the redirect target. Maybe one day, maybe even quite soon, or maybe the consensus will come down that way. For me, a dab page seems the least worst thing for now, and I'm saying that as a a believer that dab pages at the base name should be the last resort. Lithopsian (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is do doubt that it's the official name "In 2016, the International Astronomical Union organized a Working Group on Star Names (WGSN)[14] to catalogue and standardize proper names for stars. The WGSN decided to attribute proper names to individual stars rather than entire multiple systems.[15] It approved the name Baten Kaitos for the component WDS J01515-1020 Aa on 12 September 2016 and it is now so included in the List of IAU-approved Star Names." And as I've documented above, this was a dab page much longer than it was a redirect, with only one user taking it up himself to revert multiple editors who independently created dab pages. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

And it wasn't "picked out of the ether", it was the traditional name for the multiple star system which contains Zeta Ceti for centuries (when they didn't know it was a multiple star system) before it was decided to apply it only to the main star of the system. (added) It's been called that in astronomical works since at least the 9th century, possibly the 2nd century. (Ptolemy has been translated into Arabic and back to Greek multiple times. I don't believe an original manuscript exists). Skyerise (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Context matters - each individual editor, usually years apart from each other, dropped it immediately instead of following WP:BRD. It often stayed as a dab or as a redirect for years at a time because no one - myself included - has ever felt that strongly about it. (It sat as a dab for 3 years before I changed it back one time - does that sound like someone who cares much? I had completely forgotten about it and just happened to think about it when I was fully rewriting the Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean back in 2018.) Let's not lose focus on the situation here: It's a redirect between a game and a star, not a BLP or a touchy modern political/social issue. It's really not that serious. As such, I won't comment further - whether it's a dab or redirect, is largely inconsequential. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Please stop responding to me in threads you didn't start. It's argumentative and unwanted, and clutters up the discussion unnecessarily. Make your own note entries or better yet, put your unwanted responses in the section below. You've posted that half-assed self-defense multiple times already. Your personal history with the article and redirect isn't relevant to this discussion, and doesn't bear repeating multiple times in it. Nobody mentioned you by name in this thread. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep DAB Since there is no clear primary topic, dab is the obvious solution. MB 05:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. Three title matches, two of them effectively exact. A derivative meaning should not be WP:PTOPIC or WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; compare Talk:Jethro Tull (band)#Requested move 15 January 2018. Note also that PTOPICs and PRIMARYREDIRECTs collect bad bluelinks, with very few exceptions. Narky Blert (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further irrelevant discussion goes here

(Note: duplicated from above so that the following thread makes sense) I agree with Skyerise, this is not a good look. I personally can't see how the video game would be the primary topic, given that it's clearly named after the star. At most there is no primary topic, which is why I added the disambiguation. I also fail to see how an unbiased admin would dismiss actual editors as "passers-by" in an effort to enforce their own opinion. So count me as supporting the DAB page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

When I say "passerby", I just mean most interactions were just like the one between you and me: an edit, a revert, and the editor never challenging it again any further. I mean it in the same way that I'd call myself passerby to the Coldplay article if I made one edit to it back in 2017 and never returned again. Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe they just thought better of crossing an admin with an agenda. Skyerise (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No need to make such assumptions. People are decide for themselves what discussions they want to participate in. It is not reasonable to go over edits and act as though they have participated in a talk page discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. You do things your way, I'll do things my way. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your accusation is baffling. I have never even mentioned being an admin at any point of this dispute, let alone threaten admin action on anyone, so I have no idea why you bring up a concern or "crossing an admin". I am acting as a regular editor, not an admin. And I have no "agenda", merely a stance on a dispute, sane as anyone else here. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. You can't just kinda make vague unfounded accusations like that. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should take your personal, defensive responses to user talk pages rather than clutter the dab discussion with irrelevant defensive stances. Skyerise (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I can stop responding with defensive comments when you stop accusing me of all these bogus things. Before today, the first six years of this dispute consisted of about 6 reverts and a talk page discussion with about 5 comments about it. Today, you joined in, and the discussions got heated and expanded ten-fold. It's not hard to see who changed the tone of these discussions. I've been here all along and it was never heated. It's also weird for you to complain that I dont use your talk page when I've left multiple messages on your talk page that you removed without addressing. Sergecross73 msg me 05:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Because your last post to my talk page was aggressive, accusatory, and threatening, falsely accusing me of WP:CANVASS when I had notified both sides in the discussion. It just so happens that you are the only one opposed. And I did address them in the edit comment when reverting them, "read", which is more than I am required to do. Skyerise (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a neutral talk page notification. That's canvassing when you literally and directly notify someone and tell them how !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 06:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

And as I told you before, User:Zxcvbnm had already expressed their opinion today, here, at the time in the wrong place, before I left that message. It's at the top of this thread. Check the time stamps and go figure. I wasn't telling them how to vote, only where to do so such that their opinion would be registered in the discussion. Fixed now that the discussion is on the correct talk page. You seem to be trying to discredit my position by making false accusations. Apparently you care way too much about this dab page. Can't you just let the discussion proceed without repeatedly trying to discredit me? Skyerise (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Skyerise you seem to be personalizing this. This is just a dry discussion about the best way for a title to be used. No need to make it about the editors involved in the discussion. Lets stick to the argument at hand and try not to make assumptions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

And you're acting as if you can convince me to change my position if you just reply to everything I say, You both have admin tags on your user pages. Do you really think other editors don't check that? I do, because many admins play exactly these sorts of dominance games. I'd personally prefer that you allow me to state my case without replying to my every comment. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 16 years and I won't be browbeaten by continual argumentative replies. You can stop now, okay? Go be productive and write an article. I've written one today, have you? Skyerise (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion about me or Sergecross73 should take place on our respective talk pages. It is not relevant here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

LoL. Now you get it. Foot, shoe... Skyerise (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Other types of closing requests. Thank you, in advance, to the reviewer. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)