Talk:Elaine Marley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleElaine Marley has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2009Articles for deletionKept
February 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 23, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

New Picture[edit]

A new picture from Tales Of Monkey Island would be nice to have. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.254.102 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to say the same thing. I have the demo, I'll grab a pic and upload it right now. Smurfy 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not the perfect pic, but it'll do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurfy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elaine Marley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the article and checking the sources, I'm not finding any issues with the article. As a result I'm passing it as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! -- Sabre (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction and Other Issues[edit]

Depiction states that Elaine is "a beautiful woman with long red hair and with green eyes", but in the first two games she clearly has brown hair, her eyes are only green in the remakes. Likewise, her hair is brown, as are her eyes to the best of my knowledge, in Escape From Monkey Island.

Then there is the notion that Ron Gilbert dislikes how Elaine's character was handled, along with a transcript reference. That was from 2003, if I'm reading the date's right, one would think that we would have more information on how Gilbert felt with the Monkey Island 2 Special Edition commentary. It's never come across that Ron disliked the sequels, nor that Elaine wasn't supposed to be the love interest. Monkey Island 1 clearly gave the impression that Elaine was meant to be the love interest. If you take the treasure from the Governor's Mansion before finishing the Pirate Trials, there is a lengthy romantic exchange. It is never implied that Elaine thought of him like a brother.

If anything, one might say Elaine's behaviour in Monkey Island 2 was the least in character, but we may never really know what Ron had intended for her, unless there's more articles out there we've not had referenced here.--68.6.182.39 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Married name[edit]

Do the games really refer to her as Marley-Threepwood and not just Marley? If so, which ones? MathHisSci (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elaine Marley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elaine Marley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikipage for the musician PLEASE![edit]

there is also a musician using that name! see here, stoney moe aka babba moe made an album with her in 2016! Bitgeflüster, which means "bits-whispering"! http://www.musicgourmetz.de/ --2A02:8070:A1AC:2900:1C9D:BA83:4812:98FA (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming GAR[edit]

Pinging authors @S@S@bre @Al83tito. Article needs to be updated a bit. Some statements at Concept and design section were unsourced and should be expanded a bit. The reception section also needs to be expanded from scholarly books/sources and clean up all the trivial listicles that doesn't have valuable commentary to the character. Thank you. GAR will be up soon. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you only do one GAR at any one time, and wait until the current GAR is finished before you do another one. You need to be able to ensure that you are able to adequately participate in the process. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did only once like Kadabra article for ex. I just let authors know in advance that the GAR will be starting soon. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra infobox parameters[edit]

@Kung Fu Man: Yeah... I added them back on purpose. But since you reverted the edit of both me and the user who originally added them, I will follow WP:BRD and start a discussion. I don't agree that adding in-universe information to the infobox is cruft if it is something meaningful to the character. The fact that Elaine is/was a governor is of tremendous importance to her character. Marrying Guybrush and having a kid, maybe less so, but a major change to her character going forward. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the overall viewpoint, while I will admit it's not a hard MOS matter, there is at least some consensus that such details are often seen as unnecessary. Plus while I do agree her role as a governor is an important part of her character, it's mentioned in the lead twice: is a third time in the infobox going to inform readers of the importance at a glance more than (or even better than) the lead does? (Also an aside I really did miss which edit in particular added it back over the massive restoration of content you did, which I do agree with)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of stuff in infoboxes is also mentioned in the lede. It's meant as a sort of quick reference for information, so it's not uncommon for literally everything there to be said somewhere else. I don't think that's a disqualifier for putting the information in. But the particular edit was "Disagree that this basic in-universe info is "cruft"." in the edit summary.
Anyway, I will invite others to also state their view, but I don't think it's possible for something in the infobox to be duplicative because that's the entire point, it's a summary of what the article says about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to you here in re the comment on my personal talk page.
Everything I did was justified under WP:WAF, particularly WP:INUNIVERSE. The present article is nothing more than a fictography combined w/ a retelling of the entire plot of the game. It's a fanpage for the character and this is not the place for that. I know I have a reputation for triggering the fanboys, but somebody has to take out the garbage. Unless sufficient secondary sources can be found, the page is ripe for merge/redirect/AfD in its present state. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Insinuating editors are "fanboys" and articles are "garbage" is unacceptably WP:NOTHERE, specially under "little to no interest in working collaboratively". Consensus and collaboration is a requirement for editing, not an option, no matter what your ideas may be about whether the contributions are worthwhile. If you are making major modifications that may unbalance an article, it is only proper to get consensus to make the removal. Alternatively, if you really believe it's non-notable, start a merge discussion before trying to mess with the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry, nobody needs permission to edit. What I did and, by extension, what we're doing now is perfectly acceptable and long established practice. It even has a name: the BRD cycle.
As has been discussed in several other AfD's (see below), a fictional character needs real-world context to qualify for their own standalone article. Otherwise, WP becomes, as someone wrote on Reddit, "just a bunch of fanboys reciting lore."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G.One_(character)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Captain_Willard
As editors, we need to take off our fan goggles and work from the perspective of someone who's never played this game and doesn't particularly care to. Otherwise, it's just another fan wiki. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your default response is "you can't tell me what to do" rather than "I'll take others concerns into account", that only reconfirms my earlier point about having zero interest in working collaboratively, and deriding anyone who disagrees with you on story content as a blind fanboy. BRD is not an excuse to place an undue burden on editors to revert your disruptive content removals.
I also believe that totally non-notable characters should be merged, but patrolling Wikipedia for cruft does not involve wholesale deleting legitimate plot content from articles simply because it's there. Having some form of plot summary is an accepted practice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here, but if I may JACU, the better route would have probably been to tag it for cleanup and suggest that section was overly detailed in your opinion instead of nuking the whole thing (or instead suggesting a discussion here even). Or hell even just try to simplify paragraphs more directly. Gutting the whole article in that manner though when some of it is properly and well sourced is the wrong way to go about things and makes it harder for other editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was a bit heavy-handed, but my fellow editor's comments upthread suggest to me that anything beyond a light CE would not have been well-received. This attitude seems pretty prevalent in fiction-related articles. I've seen it before while cruft-hunting on here. People have a hard time thinking objectively when it comes to their pet fandom. They clutch articles to their hearts and can't bear to see a keystroke deleted.
Just look at the article on Krakoa. The whole thing is a bloated, in-universe fanwank, yet it has survived four AfD's w/ no effort on anyone's part to deal w/ the problems and I have no reason to believe my contributions would survive the "revert and run" crowd. This is a big problem on WP. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you despise fancruft so greatly, your current tactics are not going to work - bold edits are easily reverted by another editor who disagrees, and just end up causing hassle and wasted time. The best thing you could do is make an AfD or merge discussion with such an eloquent argument that no one can possibly disagree. The Krakoa AfD was flawed as it failed to acknowledge the previous AfDs or why they were closed as keep, which is why it failed. If it was truly non-notable, it should have disproven the existing sources presented. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, believe me, if I thought I could get away w/ AfD'ing this article, I'd do it in a second. However, the Reception section contains enough material that notability requirements have likely been met. My concern is the rest of this mess. It's overstuffed, wanky, and even (dare I say) a little simpy. I'd be happy to have another go at it, but as you yourself admit, I have a feeling it would get reverted as soon as I turned my back. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance section you totally deleted seems like a relatively straightforward plot summary without the negative aspects you seem to be describing. If you think there is a part of the article that is poorly written, then state what the problem is instead of just calling it names and the issue can probably be worked through.
However, saying she is iconic for her self-sufficient behavior is not undue or biased if that's what she is primarily known for in reliable sources. The entire reason she is so well known is she upstages Guybrush, which published sources talk about - your personal views on the game's story may vary, but deleting or adjusting content in articles solely based on personal opinions isn't allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Appearances section, at over 1,000 words, is about twice as long as a plot section should be. And what's it doing there in the first place? I cut it because it's just regurgitating the plots of the different games, which adds nothing of value. If it must be there, a couple sentences for each game would be sufficient.
The section on Character Design needs trimming. It's full of what the WP maintenance tags call "excessive detail which may only interest a particular audience." And the Attributes section sounds like it was written by a lovestruck fanboy.
When a casual reader sees long, wordy articles that read like fawning tributes, it undermines the credibility of the project. Case in point: the Reddit comment I quoted above went on to say that "They [WP editors] just can't take the perspective of someone who isn't into superhero comics." I don't like hearing people say that about WP. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to open a second nomination (GAR) Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Elaine Marley/2 if you feel that the article has still tons of issues. 2001:4455:6D8:100:303B:25E7:70D5:D5F0 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather fix the issues themselves. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several good faith edits to tighten the article. Per MS:PLOT, I have greatly shortened the Appearances section to concentrate specifically on the significance of this specific character in each game. Previously, this section simply reiterated the plots of each individual game, which is not useful in a character-specific article.
Second, I trimmed some material from the Attributes section, as the source cited did not support the statements made. Finally, I generally "tightened up" all over for brevity and encyclopedic language. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got some sources from her at scholarly source or books for her reception? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 07:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't do a whole lot in that section as it seemed to be well-sourced. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elaine_Marley&oldid=1218441375"