Soft redirects were set up after a discussion at Thread:242332. I won't object to you adding descriptions to articles like Australia and Williamsburg Bridge, etc., since versions of them did directly appear by name in TMNT works. But New Zealand was the core justification for soft redirects' existence, as it it is where Hypno-Potamus is from, but has no verified direct TMNT appearances whatsoever.
The topic has no significant plot relevance beyond a mention.
The topic has no verified direct in-story appearances by name or recognizable features.
Its Turtlepedia article (apart from trivia noting its meager in-story significance) cannot describe the real world topic better than Wikipedia can.
...Then a soft redirect to Wikipedia is made, allowing something less than a placeholder to exist without entitling us to unnecessarily duplicate a Wikipedia-style article. Soft redirects can be promoted to placeholders or stubs if one of those four conditions no longer holds. Besides New Zealand, Australia and the Williamsburg Bridge:
Benny features at least by geography, mention and brief description in After the Bomb, but only as a city after the Big Death. Real world Albany, pre-Death, makes no direct appearances, so I made it a soft redirect.
Similarly, the M'hawk River is part of the unique geographical nomenclature of After the Bomb, so it at least has a brief article. The real world Mohawk River it is based on, has no pre-Death appearances, so I made it a soft redirect.
Broadway (the city street) can, at various times, be implied to be at or near a TMNT setting (such as subway station (4th and Broadway), or, in a less directly certain sense, Union Square Park but without any specifically recognizable features), and streets corresponding to Broadway's geography without name are marked as boundaries in the Zones of Control maps. Story details at most peripherally brush up against Broadway without directly unambiguously portraying it. So it's a soft redirect.
See the Wikipedia articles for lungfish and mudskippers, which are fish who can live out of water. And though they are generally the exception among modern non-tetrapod fish, bony fish do have an evolutionary history of breathing atmospheric oxygen: Interestingly enough, the swim bladders of most bony fish actually evolved from a previous lung that gained and then lost the ability to breathe air. (More divergent branches of fish like sharks and rays never had lungs, and do not have a swim bladder.) Double-checked—I had it backwards, as lungs evolved from swim bladders, not vice versa. But certain fish like lungfish do have true lungs.
Among other TMNT characters, there's also incarnations of Man Ray and Xever Montes as well as Bludgeon, who primarily live on land but can also swim. And if I recall correctly, it's never specifically said that the Othercannot swim. :)
Out of curiosity (and perhaps I've just forgotten), what's the source or plot deconstruction for him being a sociopath? Many if not most antagonists are not necessarily sociopaths; even IDW Krang was a mess of daddy issues, responsibilities and rationalizations. There are many different reasons for evil besides a pathological lack of empathy.
Yes, but that still doesn't satisfy the criteria of a sociopath. He has to be identified as one in-story, or his sociopathic disposition revealed or deconstructed.
Keep in mind that this Krang isn't the only antagonist who ruthlessly wipes out entire planets' populations in pursuit of a goal. Michelangelo (Mirage)—the original Mikey—becomes a willing participant in genocide in TMNT Volume 4 after undergoing heavy psychological trauma, and is even aware he is killing civilians and farmers in their fields. (He badly needs a splintervention, but the story stopped publication without a resolution, and only Peter Laird knows what'll happen next.)
Motives and personal values matter. Ordinary people can be capable of doing absolutely horrific things if they're convinced it's the lesser of two evils, or to protect home and family. And sometimes, as in Mikey's case, unresolved post-traumatic stress disorder is taking its toll. Archie's Krang may or may not be a sociopath, but it helps to know what drives him. He appears ruthless, but so many character backstories reveal a moral side suppressed by a mishmash of personal reasons, justifications and rationalizations for their actions.
Some sociopathy reveals have been relatively simple and straightforward. Zodi plain lacks any moral inhibitions whatsoever. Baxter Stockman (Mirage) does every depraved thing he does simply because it's fun. Jonathan Bishop finds "so-called ethics" completely useless and feels no compassion for anyone. Bebop (IDW) and Rocksteady (IDW) for a while toy with the idea of going legit and living honest lives, but only because they think it makes people look cool; when faced with a serious moral decision, it turns out they are complete monsters and they fully embrace and delight in that. Donatello (digital duplicate) (IDW)became a sociopath after systematically deleting all his emotions so he'd stop feeling so much psychological pain, but then no longer had any conscience whatsoever.
But other major antagonists, like Krang (IDW) and Oroku Saki (IDW), are not sociopaths at all, but instead are very complex characters with an entire luggage carousel of personal baggage. It doesn't matter how many billions IDW Krang has killed or that he tried to wipe out all life on Earth—he's driven by past traumas and a belief that he's justified in his actions. In fact, in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Utrom Empire miniseries, Zayton Honeycutt (IDW) is forced to work with both Krang and Baxter Stockman (IDW), and though it's clear Stockman is being coerced into cooperating just as much as Honeycutt is, and Honeycutt tries to forge an alliance with him, Honeycutt soon realizes that Stockman is "the purer evil" between him and Krang, as Stockman is completely unmoored by any concerns beyond self-interest, and at least Krang values certain things and people and virtues he considers greater than himself. Slash (Archie) was thought to be a sociopath, and he certainly suffers from violent mental illness, but his last act is out of selfless love for his friends in spite of a life of serial murder and bloodlust.
Understand what I'm saying? Horrifically bad acts are not enough. A sociopath is more about the brain than about just evil acts themselves. If you or anyone else can find a source for Archie's Krang being deemed a sociopath, that would help.
I was curious as to why you decided to make "Church buildings" a sub-category of Places of Worship, considering Places of Worship was at the time exclusively churches and now has no other content than the sub-category.
Interesting initiative you've been taking with the categories. Took me a few moments to realize that Category:Non-fiction locations in New York City is not a category I started, but considering how many famous non-fictional landmarks there are in the city, it seems a logical step.
Your recent step, renaming categories in the vein of "2012 TV series locations" to "Locations (2012 TV series)" is another interesting step. I'd thought of it before, as it does seem logical, but I didn't know if "2012 TV series locations" was a deliberate convention The S had preferred.
And kudos for intuiting the use of the category migration templates I designed. Just a note: Though Template:migrate category to supports one parameter, Template:migrate category from can support one or two parameters, in the few situations where two separate categories of similar names have been declared obsolete and are being funneled into a third.
Gilgameshkun wrote: Your recent step, renaming categories in the vein of "2012 TV series locations" to "Locations (2012 TV series)" is another interesting step. I'd thought of it before, as it does seem logical, but I didn't know if "2012 TV series locations" was a deliberate convention The S had preferred.
I guess it was a mistake because I first started "Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) locations". Locations (version) is more in line with out standard.
And, with all due respect, that is why Original TMNT Cartoon Fan's category renaming decision was understandable. While the two separate coexisting conventions ("version nouns" for certain categories and "nouns (version)" for others) may be what you prefer, it has the superficial appearance of being inconsistent and arbitrary, with no clear explanation why which convention is preferred for which topic. The decision is ultimately yours, but considering we now have at least three separate editors involved in recent large-scale category maintenance, this should probably be nipped in the bud.
I know you've also been under the weather lately, and can't be available as often or with as much involvement as you otherwise could be. And while this, too, is something that can wait, I think some more discussion might help, or lacking that, some clearer guidance and logical explanation of the preferred convention patterns, perhaps laid out in the manual of style. Without this process, we risk situations like these, where someone's bold good-faith edits break a convention which may be preferred but is not well-explained.
Hmm see I believe, when categories were first being built, it was like... the "subject" of the article was written "Version + noun" and supplemental categories were "noun (modifier)". So Mirage characters is because the character is the subject. Raphael is a character before everything else. Then there's the supplementals - he's secondarily a mutant, so it would be like "Mutants (Mirage)". Locations I figured should have been the same way. Maybe objects, weapons, vehicles, etc. should be too, so yeah, IDW vehicles would be in that same regard I guess now that I think of it.
That's...a little more cerebral an explanation than I was expecting. I think I understand. So that means "version noun" would logically apply to version-specific buildings, characters, comics, issues, locations, objects, planets, species, story arcs, vehicles, weapons...
I see an issue with this, though. Beyond its non-obviousness to a lay person, what makes a distinction primary? (Rhetorical question.) Topics are often several noteworthy things at once—that's intersectionality. But just as a weapon or vehicle is an object that is notable as a topic for being a weapon or vehicle, a human or mutant may also be seen as a character that is notable as a topic for being a human or mutant. When pointing out a character, do you first think "that character," or do you think "that woman" or "that mutant?" There seems necessarily to be a certain level of subjectivity involved in making this determination of which distinction is more important than the other, and this extends in determining which categories are topical vs. supplemental and how to deploy them on a wiki.
Ultimately, you can decide specifically which distinctions are topical and which are supplemental, and lay it out as a list and codify it as a policy. You're the administrator, you're allowed that. But to some editors, it will still appear arbitrary, and the explanation you provided won't necessarily satisfy if another editor's good faith topical sensibilities are different from your own. These things can be learnt, but the "when" and "why" of it all may remain unclear without asking more questions on a regular basis.
This actually makes me think of an analogy, of when I speak in English to friends whose first language is Japanese. They may accumulate a great deal of conversational skill and vocabulary, but there are still points of grammar they struggle with and almost never learn quickly even after years. A big example is the difference between the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a", "an"). While it's certainly true that mastering that difference helps improve one's English skills, it's surprisingly difficult to learn the difference as an adult if your native language does not use or distinguish definite or indefinite articles at all. Even in trying to explain the differences to my Japanese friends, I myself struggled to clearly describe which circumstances to use one or the other, because, honestly, I'd seldom ever given it a second thought.
Yes, I've been wondering that myself. Not that I necessarily object myself (I even edited to correct a few), but I thought that's what the disambiguation pages were already for. Even if they were categories, I might have gone with "versions of", or simply "[name]s," just like Category:Shredders. Though I might not use -s with the Italian names, so I'd do "Leonardi," "Donatelli" and "Michelangeli." Indeed, that's how many Italian surnames were coined.
OTCF, it can be good to be a bold editor. But it also helps to know what kind of leeway you can afford. The representations categories may or may not be a good idea, but for a subcategory project so massive, it may be better to talk with the admins first. (That's my opinion as a non-admin.)
Well, I'd make some suggestions and some edits, but I'm not yet prepared to "own" that particular subcategory project wholesale by steering it. Also, The S appears to be speaking in tongues, so let's wait for his further input in English, Spanish, Japanese, Hindi or some other Google-translatable language. :)
In further comment on the previous paragraph: Zanmoran from Zanramon takes the cake among examples, as he was obviously a rebooted Zanramon character and they absolutely had the rights to use the name "Zanramon" as it came from Mirage Volume 1 itself, but I can imagine a corporate legal department cautioning that it might provoke unwelcome legal action from the makers of Pokemon or Digimon, and "Zanramon" certainly does sound like it might be the name of a Digimon. It's the same kind of logic why the film The Secret of NIMH both declined to use the book's title Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH or even the name of Mrs. Frisby herself (whom they renamed Mrs. Brisby), because they wanted to avoid any remotely possible legal action from the makers of the Frisbee toy. Sigh.
The S: The "Representations of" articles are expanding rapidly even without my or OTCF's further direct involvement. What are your thoughts on the matter? "Representations of," "Versions of," simple plural, or just limit it to disambiguation pages except a few already existing categories like Category:Shredders, or some other decision?
Ahh, that would be Original TMNT Cartoon Fan's answer to give. I already said I don't know if it's a good idea or not. But that aside, my focus was on naming convention. I've been cleaning up a lot of category names, after all.
OTCF: We've been doing a lot of productive category maintenance recently, and I think that's excellent. But when The S makes an edit, it may be a good idea to stop and pay attention to what he's doing. You may want to look at this edit history. That category you just emptied, Category:Musicians (in-universe), was just set up by The S today. It may have been intentional. He also appears to have renamed or started the process of renaming other categories. I think maybe it might be a good idea for us to investigate and understand his most recent intentions.
This is not an article. This is two sentences that barely give the reader an idea of what they're looking at. There's no image, no information other than "this exists". It's not even a Stub. It's less than barebones.
This isn't even the only example of such an "article" that you've made as of recent; it's just one of the worst examples.
That screenshot is a good reminder of why I'm glad I edited my user stylesheet to use a different font than Helvetica/Arial. Though I kind of wish my new font Sen had true italics instead of default OS-rendered obliques.
On topic: I initially took interest in this thread because I've been guilty of the same thing in the past. It is all too easy to make an article as brief as possible, but the test of whether it's too brief is whether you could easily copy its text for a separate article without significantly changing it. Articles need at least a minimum of basic substance that distinguish them from their most closely related neighbors.
...But I'm still looking for that perfect sans-serif font with true italics.
What about Fleetway indicates that it's a seperate universe from Archie? I know it has original stories/characters but as far as I know none of it contradicts Archie's continuity. Plus like more than half of the stories are Archie reprints anyway, innit?
Well, in the past, perhaps Dean Clarrain might have been able to clarify that. Though now, as Peter Laird told me in his TMNT blog's Q&A, only Viacom has the authority to determine what is and is not canon in any particular official TMNT continuity. But there is precedent for material not specifically published by Archie Comics to still be in the Archie continuity—Ninjara: Seed of Destruction, which was still written by Dean Clarrain and Chris Allan but published in a 1990s fiction magazine for the furry community.