Thread:Monolith616/@comment-10473115-20170303000811/@comment-112155-20170307095457

Well, what happened with that article. It was 4:00 a.m. in my country, and before going to bed I saw the creation of an article without no history or image named "Bucky's mother". I went to check Bucky's article, thinking that it talked about James Buchanan Barnes, and saw that "Bucky's mother" actually had a name, so I added a deletion tag.

Seeing what happened on the talk page, then I did my homework as I should have done from the very beginning, and realized that I was mistake, so I totally admit that the deletion tag was rushed and unfair on my part, and for that I apologize.

But, in order to avoid everyone else to committ that same mistake, I honestly think that the name for the article is misleading. I had to leave the wiki on hiatus because of RL for a while, and, as explained in the first post of the policy thread I created, it wasn't until I saw the Talk:Altman-Kaplan Child (Earth-13729) that I remembered about this page, so instead of reopening the talk page for that particular article, I wanted to create a wider discussion not just for the article, but for the whole case of unnamed characters-

Most, if not all, of the discussions I'm involved into or that have been sparked by my edits, have to do because this wiki lacks an oficial guideline on how to deal with unnamed or partially named characters, either these unnamed characters, the "Mister vs. Mr." one, the "Agents" one that fell in limbo weeks ago... I think that it is a problem that has to be dealt urgently as a whole, instead of putting a few "band-aids" here and there to heal a broken leg, so to speak

And now, my explanation for both disputes, that have a few common elements:

First, it is my understanding that adding a Move tag, as Mrkermit has already said in a few talk pages, is not against any rules, and it serves as a way to start a discussion over the name of an article, not to impose its move.

After all, the move tag literally says: "It has been suggested that this page be moved to..." and "Please do not move this page yet, as the correct name could still be in discussion" and "A robot will make the necessary page moves once any discussions are resolved".

That text itself implies that, while the discussion isn't solved, the move tag can stay in a page, as it merely signals an ongoing debate I've moved a lot of pages that I have considered wrongly named without the need for a tag, but when I feel that discussion must take place I add the move tag and see how things evolve. If that is not how move tags are supposed to work, I apologize, but I think it's the most logical way of using them.

For example, I've seen a merge in the Attilan and New Attilan pages for months, despite it may be obvious to some that they clearly have to be two different articles. And I saw a discussion, people exposing arguments, waiting on more sources to keep coming and a polite debate; and the tags remained in place (and they stil are there) until the discussion is/was solved.

It always makes me wonder, "then when I add tags are hastily removed based only on someone else's opinion? Do their opinion have more weight or value than mine?". I'm not saying it's an excuse for my behaviour, it is not, but I think it's totally unfair and unpolite to undo an edit based simply on opinion without any other guideline, because it makes feel the other contributor that his/her opinion is less valuable than the "undoer"'s own opinion.

Also, I'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything, I'm simply saying that, from an objective point of view, that fact is a conclusion that can be reached given the facts that there are.

Thank you to both Mrkermit and AnnabellRice for your honest and constructive opinions.