Talk:Nancy Zerg

This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nancy Zerg. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:05, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, the fact that she wore a bright red blouse is considered vandalism to add to the wikipedia page about her?! WTF?

She doesn't have a real estate page. -- user:zanimum

So if she loses tomorrow, what do we do then? Do we write an article about the person who toppled the person who toppled Ken Jennings? Adam Bishop 01:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You guessed it!: Katie Fitzgerald. -R. fiend 03:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

She is comparable visually to a mid-1970s Rita Moreno.

Oh, honestly now. Just put up a screenshot of her so we can get rid of that silly sentence. Mike H 02:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I had to look up who Rita Moreno is, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to wikify someone else's comments on talk pages. --Amoore 03:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wait, what? Mike H 06:54, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

This should be trimmed and merged and redirected to Ken Jennings. She is really just a footnote in the Jennings saga, and doesn't deserve an entry of her own; especailly since she's not going on a long streak (sorry to spoil it for you all). Having a table a la Ken was not supposed to be a precedent. The should be a section on "Ken's final episode" on his page, and some of this should be included there. -R. fiend 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just realized that she lost already. Certainly no streak there. -R. fiend 23:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this should be merged with Ken Jennings. Rhobite 01:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that this should be merged with Ken Jennings. Someone in the future might legitimately attempt to look up "Nancy Zerg," not knowing who she is, and would likely be confused by being served with an article entitled "Ken Jennings." However, the article as it is might be a little long. A somewhat shorter explanation and then a link to the Jennings article might be better. As for that table ... yeah, that probably is excessive. Aerion 03:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To address your point (which was a concern of mine as well) I propose that we change the first paragraph of the Ken to read something like "...was the record holder for most appearances until he was beat by Nancy Zerg on his 75th episode" or whatever. That way it will be clear right away why the redirect went there. Then somewhere near the bottom it can discuss in some detail (maybe not this much), his final episode. -R. fiend 16:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, that seems reasonable. I'll do the same with Vivienne Nearing (an article nobody ever made) and Charles Van Doren. Aerion 18:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nancy Zerg will one day be an answer to a trivia question, so I say let her have her proverbial 15 minutes of fame. I must say I'm amazed out how the little bit of personal data she revealed on the show managed to evolve into a substantial-looking bio for this entry! TOM 19:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Substantial looking indeed. What she wore and the exact details of how much money she had, bet, and won, are pretty trivial, as is her reaction, and that Alex called her a "giant killer" (i've heard him call anyone who beat a 4 or more time champ that). It really is a footnote in the Ken saga (which, in my mind, is overly covered anyway). Much of the article is really about Ken anyway, and probably repeats much of the info in his article (though I haven't actually checked yet). If she ever is the answer to a trivia question, my proposal will make the answer easier to find, since she'll be mentioned in the first paragraph of the Ken article, where one would look, presumably. -R. fiend 19:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At first, I thought this article should be merged, but now that I've seen some of the other articles there are on Wikipedia, I definately think this one should stay. There are articles on every single Pokémon and even more useless ones like Dad_(EarthBound). Nancy Zerg is a lot more important than a lot of other entries out there, and I think this should stay. ToadX 15:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus?

It honestly did not seem to me like consensus was reached to "Merge and redirect" -- especially considering most of the later votes in the discussion were "Keep" votes... --OntarioQuizzer 18:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I count 4 votes to delete, 13 to merge, and 9 to keep, not counting one anonymous user who signed as "markl222". If you accept "delete" votes as "merge", this appears to be consensus but if you don't accept them, "merge" doesn't even have a majority. I don't know what the proper action is. But didn't you vote that this should be merged eventually? Rhobite 18:39, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. I'm not sure there is any kind of consensus, and so I'm inclined to keep the page around, in order to be safe. (I voted to merge.) Aerion 23:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the chronology of votes is too important, but we clearly have a majority to merge (if not an overwhelming consensus), and I'm prepared to make the assertion that the 4 delete votes are more inclined to merge than to keep (giving merge and almost 2/3 majority). And since a merge and direct does not need a VfD vote, and can be done by anyone, I think that is the best bet here. I've prepared the Ken article to recieve what little information is here that is notworthy and not already included, but i'll wait for any strong objections before I do the redirect. -R. fiend 20:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have a strong objection. I have more stuff to add to the Zerg article (about her playing styles), a bit more facts gathered from random articles. Also, what do we do about the Wikiquote? We can't easily merge that. I'd say leave it for now; it might be useful someday later. Count my Markl222 vote in -- I always keep on getting logged out despite having cookies enabled and checking the autologin box. If you notice this is the same IP that Markl222 uses.

Markl222 20:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Was it ready for a redirect?

Was the article ready for a redirect quite yet? I didn't think enough of Zerg's info had been moved to Ken Jennings in order to warrant the redirect yet. Reverting the redirect until more discussion here on the Talk page has taken place. --OntarioQuizzer 01:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)