Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Happy Tree Friends

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of other Happy Tree Friends characters, consensus was arrived at to reverse an October 2007 split of List of Happy Tree Friends characters by merging the main characters' articles back into the "characters" article (and renaming it to eliminate the qualifier "other"). The main characters' articles were almost entirely plot summary, and none of them had sources, third-party or otherwise. The plot summary was removed when I merged them back in, leaving just voice actor and episode appearance information. Currently, the consensus arrived at in the AfD is tenuous, with a few editors who did not participate in the discussion attempting to restore the removed and merged content. Powers ^T 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the shorts, none of the characters are notable on their own, and thus a list makes sense here. I'd argue further that, because going into too much character detail here is inappropriate (eg death/kill values), it would make better sense to possibly present the characters in a table; columns for name, animal species, a brief character descriptions, and then voice actors in a final column, and splitting the table between the sections you have. This is a case that likely no single character can demonstrate notability, though there's a possibility that the characters as a whole could have it, but without it, a list of characters is fine. --MASEM 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly I'd just like another set of eyes on this, at least for now; having to revert about 20 articles back to redirects when someone re-splits them is tedious. =) Powers ^T 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Byakko Seishi Merging

I'd like to propose the merge of some individual character articles, Tatara, Tokaki, Subaru (Byakko Seishi), Kokie, Amefuri, Karasuki and Toroki into a team article, Byakko Seishi (or possibly Celestial warriors of Byakko per WP:ENGLISH) - they seem to be treated as a team in Fushigi Yuugi, and the article for the series as a whole is getting very long. Merging to a team article seems like a good summary style. -Malkinann (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As none of the characters seem to assert any notability, it would be best to either merge all of them to one list, or redirect them all to the main article and write up concise plot and character sections to cover them fully. TTN (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are proposing merging the group of characters linked to here into a single list for the group, something I feel is a fairly uncontroversial move. Although it certainly is not up to your high standard of heavy merge/redirecing, I think you would generally agree with the proposal for now (albeit a desire to go further - I don't see that as mutually exclusive here). However, given the ongoing ArbCom case, simply create the merged list and note on the talk pages the availability of it. LinaMishima (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The main Fushigi Yuugi article is really really big and really really messy. TTN, if you want to take a lash at Fushigi Yuugi to summarise the plot and the characters and the media, feel free to have a go. I just felt it would be a good first step to merge seven stubby articles into one. -Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The characters can also just be placed on a list. There is no need to go directly to the main article unless you feel comfortable about being able to summarize the proper section (not knowing of the series, I certainly couldn't). Seeing as none of them are excessively long, you could probably just do a straight merge for now. Just split the current character section, add the generic "This is a list of characters...", and merge as necessary. If you want help in doing it or cleaning up the main article, I'm sure the anime and manga project would be very willing to aid you. TTN (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anime and manga project it already working on cleaning up that article, including moving all the characters off to a single character list that will have the individual characters merged into the list. Overhauling that article is actually is on my personal to do list, but thanks to a certain stupid injunction I can't do the character merges right now, so it will have to sit as a mess for awhile longer. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created List of Fushigi Yūgi characters (which I think is allowed). If someone else wants to do the merge, please merge there. There aren't quite "teams" in Fushigi Yuugi, and there is no need to have separate articles for each of the four priestesses at this time. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's this "ArbCom" and "stupid injunction" business? I wasn't sure about merging all FY characters to a list because it would just get very long - lists of characters are exempt from WP:SIZE, I hear? -Malkinann (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was dragging into it and so I'm subject to the injunction as well. *sigh* For the list, I think it would be best to first merge into a single list, after each character article is cleaned up, then if the final version does end up being too long, we can break the new, clean list up into different chunks as needed. Genbu's characters may end up being a separate list, since only two appear in the original series, and the rest are all from the second FY manga series. So creating a single List of Fushigi Yūgi Genbu Kaiden characters would also work. Since it is set before FY, there is little cross over and they could easily be kept separate just like the main articles are separate. What do you think?

Note that the wording of the injunction seems to be clear that it applies to all editors, not just parties to the case [1] (typically the wording "no party" would be used when they mean the parties to the case). I agree that the separate two lists are a good idea. LinaMishima (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be ridiculous to expect people who don't know about the arbcom to follow such an injunction, and the notice was only left on party places, not distributed across all of Wikipedia. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See this clarification by an Arbitrator, which makes it clear that this does indeed apply to all editors. The notice was left upon the Administrator noticeboard and AN/I, the appropriate location for such notices (as they are not policy, hence do not belong on the pump or other policy pages. LinaMishima (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have done it along "team" lines, creating four -- Seishi articles out of the 28 characters in them, cleaning those up and then seeing about the other characters in the category. If one or two list articles are created, they might just end up looking as bad as the main FY page does... :( Are you really sure they're not treated as "teams" in the source text? It seems to be like a quest for the priestesses to find their seishi - you must go out and find your destined Fellowship of the Ring, or whatever. -Malkinann (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Team" lines wouldn't be appropriate, or even necessary. As I already mentioned, yes, the main FY page needs work, but that's no reason to not create a new list properly. A single list for FY, and one for FY Genbu would be fine. The main FY character list is in bad shape in part because it has a lot of crud in it. They aren't teams, in the context used here. FY is a complex series, to be sure, but there really isn't that much that needs to be said about the characters that can't be fit into a list. Part of the problem is the existing character articles are full of fancruft, OR stuff, etc. If the 50 episode Blood+ can comfortably fit its characters into a single list, so can FY, it will just take time to get the list into shape. Meanwhile, I've started the massive work on FY that I am allowed to do. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom injunction

Would anyone like to help in drafting a letter to the other 11 members of arbcom, so that they can hopefully refocus this injunction on the parties of the case, instead of the incredibly stupid idea of applying it to any and all editors? I understand limiting parties, even if it means myself as well, but the arbs have lost their minds if they think demanding this from the community at large is a good idea. Seriously, though, we need to appeal to those other 11 arbs. Even if the case isn't going to last a long time, this just incredibly stupid, and an overstepping of arbcom's authority (in some perspectives). -- Ned Scott 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP! Take some time to think about this. The other arbs will certainly be made aware of this by and by. You seem to be heading into uncivil territory. Ursasapien (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it might be hard to believe, but the Committee is made of mortal humans, and they've done far worse in the past. ArbCom is subject to evaluation from the community just as much as any other element of Wikipedia. Excuse me if I seem a little angry about it, and I'm sorry you are unable to see just how stupid this injunction really is. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand that the ArbCom are not demi-gods. The last non-decision decision they mad on this subject showed me that. I have no problem with holding them accountable either. However, using words like "incredibly stupid," "freaking insane," and "need to get their freaking heads checked" is probably not the most civil way you can engage in this debate. This is truly no big deal in the long run. I think we are all prone to getting caught up in the wiki-drama from time to time. Ursasapien (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the deletion, redirection and merging out from articles really so utterly urgent and needed that it cannot wait for the duration of the case? This injunction is clearly needed, not all people causing problems are parties to the arbcom case, and to allow those who are not parties to the case would allow for the problems to simply continue regardless of the ongoing discussions. LinaMishima (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LinaMishima. I, too, am disappointed at being made party to this injunction, as I had some episode articles on my plate for AfDing that I now regret putting off. (A test case article was successfully deleted previously and I intended to get to the rest but we're talking over 100 articles.) However, such disappointment is secondary to the clear prudence exhibited by the injunction. What worries me more is navigating the new policy that is sure to result once the case is concluded... Powers ^T 15:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate being dragging into this ArbCom case, but I can understand an injunction on the parties. However, I agree with Ned that a blanket ban on every editor in Wikipedia is asinine. And yes, Lina, there is "urgent" work going that shouldn't have to stop just because of this mess. Projects that took the initiative to clean up their articles independent of this whole mess are now supposed to stop their planned work for the next weeks, months, or however long this gets dragged out to? Some of us actually do good work, and thanks to this mess many potential featured lists and articles will have to just sit, and knowing how this kinda thing usually goes, by the time the ArbCom is over, people will have moved on and the energy lost. No one likes sitting around twiddling their thumbs for weeks, especially for no reason. ArbCom wants to injunction the parties, fine, make us do other stuff, but as Ned said, I don't think they can or should try to dictate the actions of every editor and project on Wikipedia unless they are first going to add ALL of them as parties. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is progress on a featured list or article at all impacted by the injunction? The injunction is against redirecting, deleting, and tagging articles, none of which are components of bringing a list or article up to featured status. Powers ^T 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we can't merge or tag, the articles have to sit there with links to the bad articles, and in all honesty, no one is going to bother doing a ton of work if ArbCom may turn around if it will all get undone afterwards because "well we don't need good lists, because we have the separate articles." A featured list without separate articles are very different than one using separate character articles in terms of content. It would also be very confusing for readers, because some links will take to one place that has stuff, while the list has the properly sourced info, but may not be seen at all. And I suspect that with whole "don't merge" includes not removing links to the crap articles. Hell, I've got stuff ready for merging that has been tagged for weeks, if not months, and that has unanimous consensus, but now I can't do the merges, so I can't finish getting the article ready for peer review. If this injunction is applied to all editors, no one else can take care of it either. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So do the merge and leave the merged articles intact until the injunction expires. Maybe an example would help illustrate your concern, because I just don't see it. Powers ^T 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

However, from my understanding of the injunction, removing the merge tags after doing merging is also blocked. So, for an example, I'd planned to do the merges listed at The Vision of Escaflowne for the soundtracks for awhile. If I do them now, however, I can't remove the big merge tag and it will cause confusion as to why its still tagged for merging if the merge is done. I can easily see someone else thinking I forgot to redirect the articles, coming in an finishing up, then getting smacked for it for no good reason. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags are generally expected to have a discussion on a talk page regarding them, so you can simply leave status updates there. It may be worth creating a "This article has been affected by the ArbCom injunction against all editors X" and associated category - adding such a maintainance tag surely would be allowed, I guess. LinaMishima (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, as an outsider, I have one question to ask: what exactly are you all talking about? You all seem to know, but you're not making it clear to anyone else. John Carter (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As part of an on-going arb com case, they decided to issue a complete injunction on any merging, redirecting, tagging, or deleting of fictional articles. See temporary injunction and Halt to activities. Rather than just applying it to the people shoved into the case, though, its apparently supposed to be for ALL editors, even though only the people made participants have really been notified. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone for becoming a bit of a madman after hearing about the injunction applying to all editors. I have a great deal of respect for the four arbs that supported it, I just.. really question this specific action. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal and WP:FICT

What happens if a mediator in an (informal) mediation case practically calls the application of policies and guidelines "misguided" because local consensus has very strong opinions? I am specifically referring to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters, which I found yesterday by accident. (Note that I am unfamiliar with 24 for everything after the first season.) Something has gone terribly wrong in 24 editing circles some time ago, and both parties have taken very strong positions, with local consensus outvoting policies by a significant majority (as happens often in popular culture). I offered my opinion there, but as I am already feeling the first ripples of bad faith, I'll probably stop. I am however worried about a bad precedent. How long is (what I perceive as) wiki-stalling accepted - one month, two months, significantly more - before more stringent actions are allowed? Should any merge proposals go to the next instance (the formal Mediation Committee) if they are not successful in more informal discussions? How does this fare for the old (Dec. 2007) and the updated WP:FICT? (Because of the current arbcom halt-all-activities ruling, and since WP:FICT is still officially disputed, I ask more as a matter to gather opinions instead of pouring gasoline in the fire.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT to both old and new FICT, a few of the characters may have notability, but not all listed in the Cabal case. A single page for merging of the characters would be appropriate, even for those that have individual notability as to make IMO a better overall character article; however, there's nothing wrong with having the ones that have notability have their own page (its just that there's not a lot of information that likely would not affect size issues of the larger list, and thus would make a better read for the reader).

As to more of the behavioral issues (eg how much time to give editors to make good faith attempts to correct notability issues, etc.) a lot of those are being addressed by the ArbCom, so we'll have to see. I would say (or hope) that if this noticeboard was in place before that case went to the Cabal that we would have been the next step to address the issue. --MASEM 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have only perused the case peripherally, but it seems like the mediator thinks the behavior is misguided, not necessarily the "application of policies and guidelines." What sgeureka, TTN, and a group of other editors do not seem to get is there is no need for a Wiki-guideline-police force. There is no need to enforce notability with an immediacy and zeal of Judge Dredd. We can find ways through consensus and Wiki-projects to encourage improvement in articles (and we can take our time). Ursasapien (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: There is no need to enforce notability. There is however the need to enforce wiki policy (e.g. WP:NOT and WP:OR) one way or another. Once a fiction-related article passes WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR, it generally passes WP:FICT. I would hardly call urging editors to cleanup their "mess" (no personal attack intended) after two plus months of doing little to nothing, "zeal" in "immediacy". – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Donkey Kong characters

I have no idea if anyone is still planning on using this, but I figure this can be used as a test case to see if this will actually be useful. I have proposed that four of the characters from the Donkey Kong video game series be merged into List of Donkey Kong characters. The only notable character is Donkey Kong himself, while the rest belong on the list. For some reason, anons and obsessed fans like to bring video game articles back and wikilawyer over the consensus. The discussion brought about nothing useful, and the video game project is anything but helpful in this kind of case. Comments would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess this board will get busier once the injunction is lifted or if the extend of it gets explained. I am getting more and more confused because some editors have successfully begun to blanket-speedy-keep every fiction-related XfD (i.e. not just TV episode and character articles) for "violating the spirit" of the injunction, so video-game-character mergers will be even harder to perform. I'd agree with your take otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. There's some good material in Diddy Kong, the 1994-1997 section reads well although there may be some issues with WP:NOR. The other three articles certainly need editing for style and encyclopedic tone, and I think probably a merge would be useful, but I'm unsure what to do with Diddy Knong. I think probably we have to weight up what improves the encyclopedia more there. Is it better to have a reasonably well written article on a minor video game character or a section in a list? Hiding T 12:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably possible that the article could be improved, but someone needs to show it before we speculate. Lots of game characters seem like they should have info, but never end up having any. Nice, condense sections are always better than bloated articles. If real world information does not exist, only plot summaries and personality details taken from the plot can be placed in the article. Those can always be condensed to a reasonable point. There will never be a need for an article to contain them. TTN (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that a well written article cannot be crafted from primary sources. I'm not opposing all the mergers, but I think Diddy Kong should probably be cleaned up rather than merged. Hiding T 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that we cannot make well written articles from primary sources. It's that an article on a single character with nothing but plot summaries and personality information is not suitable for this site, no matter how well written. If the article is cleaned up, it'd probably only five paragraphs with fluff included. That's easily near a list entry anyways. TTN (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree that an article on a single character with nothing but plot summaries and personality information is not suitable for this site, no matter how well written. Hiding T 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC Arbcom's Temporary Injunction Against the Deletion of Television Episode and Character Articles

For those who don't have the current arbcom case on their watchlist: Redfarmer has initiated a Request For Comment about arbcom's injunction against the (un)deletion, (un)redirection and notability-tagging of TV episode and character articles. This RFC came to be after several editors have expressed that the injunction is too vague, and arbcom hasn't clarified it since it passed. The RFC is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{redirectto}}

I am asking here because I think this is the best forum for input. What is the opinion about a new template called {{redirectto}} similar to {{mergeto}}? What has happened to me quite often is that I found a subarticle on a fictional element (usually neither a character nor an episode) where the main article already summarized the element in a superb way that left nothing to be merged. At other times, I merged some stuff from the subarticle to the mainarticle, only to realize later on that the subarticles wasn't really needed. My solutions so far were to bold-redirect as the subarticle was a duplicate, or to tag for a merge while risking the accusations that I "merged nothing(!)" in the official merge. (I haven't run into major trouble with either behaviour yet, but I see from the arbcom case that this behaviour can be very controversial.) {{redirectto}} would/could also be useful in the episode review that is currently proposed at WT:EPISODE. But since this new template has the potential to be widely used, I rather ask before its purpose is questioned in hindsight. (Edit: AfD sounds like a solution but doesn't work when GDFL is concerned, as is usually the case with merging.) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this template might be helpful, as not every merge results in a redirect and not every redirect requires information to be merged. However, when it comes to episode review, it seems like we are going the direction of merging in as much content (into a list) as possible, even if that means an excessive amount of plot. Ursasapien (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name

Myself and several other editors have been trying to re-name this page but can't seem to come up with anything that really works. There is a discussion underway on the article's talk page (way at the bottom) and I thought I'd bring it here to get some more brains on the case. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs episodes

There has been a great deal of debate regarding what to do with the episode articles from the television show "Scrubs". A proposal has been made to give a few weeks for editors to come up with citations that episodes have "real-world" impact and after that time, that the articles be merged into the List of Scrubs episodes (with nearly intact plot summaries). If this is still an issue by that time, the case will be taken to mediation. I felt this issue should be brought here so that a broader swath of the community could participate in the discussion. Ursasapien (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

given the length of the series over multiple seasons, dividing it by season might be a better approach. DGG (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tribe characters

Webos (talk · contribs), who registered yesterday, is creating a lot of articles about characters of The Tribe (TV series). See Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:The Tribe. Could someone that knows the policy's better than me on this take a look at this and nominate the for deletion or merging if they don't qualify for their own article? Rettetast (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The character pages seem non-notable, but I've dropped a message on Webos' talk page to make him aware of the issues with these types of articles. --MASEM 07:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode and character articles

Some anonymous IPs have reverted the previously-merged episode and character articles related to Aqua Teen Hunger Force. It seems they want to use the recent ArbCom injunction against TTN as encouragement to bring back these articles.

In particular, 68.161.206.86 brought back dozens of ATHF episode articles, while 24.131.17.250 resurrected the two character list articles (List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force minor characters and List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force villains).

I stopped short of reverting everything, and just brought up the concerns on the talk pages. What do you guys think would be appropriate? Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 18:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TTN's bold editing has been biting his contributions in the butt for some time because he didn't create/leave any discussions that we could point to now for consensus. Technically (per WP:BRD), the IPs aren't in the wrong and TTN would need to defend his actions. However, no-one missed the article for four months, so it can be argued that the current consensus is to not have the articles. Hoping that the IPs are not determined to get the articles back by longtime edit-warring, I strongly suggest to undo their un-redirects of the episodes, leaving an edit summary like "Revert. Take it to the talkpage (link) to gain consensus for article recreation." There is currently no consensus about the appropriateness of lists of fictional elements (e.g. character lists), so a merge discussion should take place there, or you can take them to AfD to gain consensus. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this where we are discussing reversions of TTN's redirects? I only watch the Scrubs LOE and a couple others but I imagine this is happening periodically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what to do about TTN's mergers/redirects. Most are in-line with policy and guidelines, but he was often boldy editing against strong local fan consensus, which I see as the real problem here. The undoing of his redirects is currently not as significant to make it a problem (and TTN was wrong to bold-merge on occation), but this can be addressed locally for now I guess. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say for now, leave them. If someone who isn't an anon-editor just randomly reverting without a reason, opposes, let them bring it up as a discussion, especially if its been more than 2 months since it was done. TTN's method was controversial and annoyed folks, but I'd say its also a pretty big indication that they weren't completely wrong with those that have gone unnoticed for months now. So I'd say that at this point, those should require consensus AND evidence that those that are being asked to be restored can be brought into compliance with WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE regarding notability via discussion in the main article page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE are totally disputed and a complete mess right now. My advice would be to not point any new editors toward these battlefields. Let's just make sure that any recreated articles meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Then we can worry about notability and manual of style issues, understanding that articles can grow from stubs. I think a little communication and education could go a long way at this point. Has anyone approached the editors or left comments on the talk page encouraging them to consider expanding the list of character article, particularly with cited development information? I think some editors, TTN being a prime example, have a decidedly antagonistic approach. Ursasapien (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave them for now, and see about trying to improve them if I get a chance, although real-world secondary information will be difficult to find on pretty much any episode (save for the pilot, Rabbot). If an edit war should somehow occur (I doubt it, nobody's reverted the articles back to redirects yet) then I'll consider taking them to AfD for consensus. Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A thought about how to better deal with some fictional articles

Please see here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs, arbcom and edit-warring

We all know what the recent arbcom case thought about TTN and edit-warring (i.e. don't do it and be nice to each other). Unfortunately, it doesn't account for the cases where IPs are the ones ignoring policies, guideline and above all discussion. King Dedede and Meta Knight are two such article cases from the Kirby universe, and although a discussion has been set up to keep TTN's redirects up (because the articles didn't have any substancial reliable sources and were full of plot and original research), IPs (or one dynamic IP, who knows) keep edit-warring with established editors[2] [3] [4] [5] (these are just for King Dedele) although they have been told not to do so. AN/I doesn't seem to care, page protection will likely be denied because the edit warring is only real slow, and the IPs are different each time and can't be blocked for disruption (which is where TTN took matters into his own hands, which got him into deep trouble). If User:Seresin, User:Jack Merridew and me keep reverting, I so know that this will be held against us. So what should be done? Ignore the arbcom ruling or ignore the disruption? (For the record, User:Colonel Warden also wants the articles to be revived, but he joined the discussion and isn't edit warring to achieve the goal.) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, it is almost certainly the same editor; see this. seresin | wasn't he just...? 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would almost encourage you to take it to AfD. I think the article's pass my low-bar approach to notability and I would vote "Keep", but I think this needs a broader community consensus and I would accept a "Delete" consensus. I think the only way to ensure that there is no more warring is to get community consensus and accept whatever decision is made. Ursasapien (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles were merged, so they can't be AfDed. But the IP seems to have stopped at least. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If they stay merged/redirected, there is no problem. If an IP brings it back, then take it to AfD and let the community decide. Ursasapien (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They would just say, it can't be deleted because of GDFL issues, therefore no admins are required, therefore what are you doing at AfD? (At least that's what happening with other merged articles at AfD.) And the vicious circle continues. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a way to request protection of articles that are merged/redirected as a result of AfD and cannot be deleted. I have experienced a similar problem with the article Planet Express (history) which was merged/redirected per AfD and had the same issue you describe. The page was eventually briefly protected but the issue persists occasionally. Is there a reason admins are unwilling to fully protect pages that are only kept due to GFDL compliance? Any editor wishing to restore it needs to go through Deletion Review anyway so why not protect it until such an event occurs? Stardust8212 14:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

GFDL should be our servant not our master. I have seen admins move page histories to the redirect target. I have seen multiple other solutions. If GFDL means we can never delete an article that had some content merged into another, then why has it been done so often? Can we never delete articles? Ursasapien (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as long as the contribution history is kept (which can literally be just a list of editors who edited the page, and when), the GFDL is technically satisfied. One could even use the page import feature at a different wiki and then site that wiki for the full page history (it could even be a non-wiki site). Or, sometimes the content was primarily written by one editor, who could perform the merge, and thus would be attributed to the material (or another editor could do it and mention the author in the edit summary).

Although there likely are a lot of situations where admins are deleting things that contain important page history, but just don't know it. It can get pretty messy sometimes, and there normally isn't a practical way to check for GFDL compliance. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 closed on March 10, 2008 so Seresin, Jack Merridew, and Sgeureka shouldn't be edit warring on King Dedede or Meta Knight anyway. What is the matter with you people? --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. How dare someone revert a trolling IP who on purpose continues to ignore edit summaries? – sgeureka ^t•c 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "trolling IP" was not instructed to "cease engaging in editorial conflict" by the arbitration committee. However, Seresin, Jack Merridew (who has been blocked indefinitely), and you, Sgeureka were instructed to "cease engaging in editorial conflict" by the arbitration committee. --Pixelface (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"The parties" either means everyone (including the IP), or just the listed parties. I don't see Seresin, Jack, or me listed as a party anywhere though. – sgeureka ^t•c

Notability of soap character articles

Hi guys,

I was just recently looking through pages of Wikipedia and I came across List of All My Children characters and List of General Hospital characters. I was just curious as to what these lists were, so I had a quick look at each and found it listed every character (I'd estimate there being hundreds of them). I was shocked when I found that almost all of them had a link to their own article. When I looked at a few of these articles, I found they did not have much information in them at all, and definately no "real-world information".

Being from Australia, I do not know of these two programmes or if they are popular or not; I actually don't particularly think much of soap operas at all. I was just curious as to whether all these articles are notable enough to justify there being an article for them all. I have also heard people claim that characters from television shows are automatically notable; perhaps because they are seen and known of by millions of people?

This is funny because I notice that soap operas seem to have articles for their hundreds of characters, while other popular programmes have trouble to keep articles for their short list of current characters (with the same amount or more content in their articles).

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

The individual character articles should likely be merged to the list articles. Even then, I'm wary of the number "major" characters these lists suggest. There is likely some major pruning that needs to be done for these. --MASEM 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's notable, and then there's proved notable. In American supermarkets there are magazines that discuss the happenings of all the soap operas on a monthly/weekly basis. I've never seen a ref to one of these mags in WP, so it looks like the people who read them and the people who edit WP are different groups of people. Basically, every current soap opera character could be gaining multiple refs each month. The mags aren't google searchable as far as I know and the character articles mostly end up totally unreferenced. You can either attempt to force cleanup with an AfD (deleting characters mentioned in hundreds of issues), or let them sit until the magical day that someone reads/refs the thousands of issues of soap opera guides. Welcome to WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. And feel free to point me to the "real-world information" policy. If the articles say which "real-world" person plays the character, that's "real-world information" by the way. --Pixelface (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's real-world information, but it's not "real-world context and sourced analysis", which fiction articles are required by policy to contain. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a long discussion going on at WT:NOT, but I've found no consensus for that section to be a part of policy. The "real-world context" addition by Kyorosuke certainly didn't appear to have any discussion beforehand on WT:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible theatre guidelines

Saw this on {{RFCmedia list}} and though I would mention it here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre Whether a guideline or policy should be made encouraging editors to include character lists in all articles about plays.

-- Ned Scott 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Character Lists in Play articles

Copied this request over from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Dorftrottel (canvass) 02:47, May 5, 2008

Can someone provide some guidance regarding the make-up of Character lists in Play articles? There is some dispute on this and no clear guidelines. (Unfortunately, we have very clear guidelnes for Film, books, even toys and games, but not for plays.) I see that in your "exemplary articles" list you have several tv series and one film, but no plays. Should character lists be in list form (like in a theatre program or playbook) or in prose (like in the exemplary tv series articles that are listed)? And in complex plays (like Shakespeare) should the character lists be fairly complete, or just the main characters? Or should character sections be placed in a separate article completely and deleted from the main play article? Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

for shakespeare, at any rate, the consensus is (or at least should be) that every named character is notable. Usually multiple articles have been written about even the most minor of them. DGG (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really the consensus? Might anyone else chime in on this question? Thanks Smatprt (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the most ardent deletionists kind of accepted what DGG said, so I guess there is your (current) consensus. Character lists of plays aren't really a problem on wikipedia, so no guidelines have focused on them yet. If as you say there is a dispute, maybe it's time for someone to create a guideline. But I can't help there... – sgeureka ^t•c 09:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to classic works, such as those from Shakespeare plays, the amount of real world impact tends to be pretty big. Very few characters have been played, replayed, re-created, interpreted, inspired, etc, as much as the ones he created.

Though, in general, I wouldn't be surprised to see character articles and lists of characters being just as common as the ones we see for other media. These kinds of characters very often will have a lot more real world information simply because the plays have been done in different productions. A TV character normally gets played once, maybe twice, but a character from a play could be played dozens of times, each could have their own impact and critical reception, as well as the thoughts and insight by the actors. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Full House characters

So, I am certainly not arguing that the main characters of Full House are independently notable -- especially the lead six. And a List of Full House characters is also useful. But the current state of these articles is atrocious. Pretty much every character article (the actor articles are fine) in the following navbox is rife with original research on the characters' motivations, personalities, and even, in one case, conception, and none of them have any third-party sources whatsoever.

{{Full House}}

Any thoughts on where to start with fixing this situation? Powers ^T 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Propose a trim & merge and state your concerns there. Provide interested editors (who would like keeping the articles separate) a link to a character article that you think reasonably passes WP:FICT and WP:WAF (WP:GA has many decent examples, such as Boone Carlyle) so that they know what the articles should strive for. If no one has volunteered after one or two months, or if there is no progress in encyclopedic expanding, start the trim&merge the articles yourself. If there is significant progress from other editors, however, allow for more time. State that merged character articles can always be resurrected as soon as they meet WP:FICT; you can also bribe editors with the outlook of a Good Article (e.g. Characters of Carnivàle) or Featured List (e.g. List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow). As a rule of thumb, I usually withdraw a trim&merge proposal as soon as there are at least three solid paragraphs of non-trivial real-world information (there are more lower fruit to pick elsewhere). Be aware though that WP:FICT is not "official" again yet. If this causes opposition, either back up your concerns with other policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:V), or wait until FICT is up and running. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an even better idea: look for sourced material that does discuss their motivations. That will meet any possible version of WP:FICTION and other WP guidelines. DGG (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Or an even better-better idea: Work on sourcing the merged-character list and only spin-out characters that can support their own article. That way, you have one decent article with potential for more, instead of ten terrible ones that may be unfixable. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So you all think I should merge, or at least consider merging the articles? I think most of the ones with separate articles deserve one, so proposing a merge seems a bit disingenuous. What if I cleared them to stubs? Powers ^T 02:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A potential difficulty with that course of action is that another editor will want to AfD the stub because they lack notability. Basically, you (or we) need to establish notability for the articles as soon as possible or consider merging them until we can. There is a decided shift toward immediatism in the WP community, especially those that work on articles about fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering how long it's been since this show's been out (and finished), I think there's a fairly good chance of finding enough real-world context to justify at least some of the major characters. I did a little bit of research for Bob Saget a while back, so I'll see if I can find anything related in that. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is an interesting case. I am pondering how, exactly, the character of Danny Tanner can be said to have real world significance. At any event, to respond to Ursasapien's remark, I am not convinced that if these are stubified they would necessarily be deleted. 1) Mergeism is not deletion and (2) if the stub includes some kind of nod to real-world impact that should suffice. Indeed, these are less likely to be deleted if they are something more than mere plot summary vehicles. Personally, I think Sgeureka's merge idea is the best idea here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To answer your ponderance, the character is referred to often in Saget's standup routines. Just one example off the top of my head; there's probably more. Powers ^T 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There needs to be a lot more than that in order to hold an article. And that's more relevant to Bob Saget than the character. Even if it's included, it'd be better to strengthen the list with it anyways. If you want any of these articles to stand, you'll need at least three solid paragraphs of real world information to start off with. TTN (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Three solid paragraphs is a good goal, but as long as the potential is there we should not require those three paragraphs right off the bat. I'm not saying there should be a separate article or not, but just that we do give way to reasonable potential, if it exists. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Gilmore Girls characters (see characters in the template at the bottom)

More trouble with merged articles: Some of the/my Gilmore Girls character mergers are getting reverted (and reverted), although the proposal discussion lasted over three months (no-one but one person even cared to comment, and this one was a WP:ILIKEIT vote) and the actual merge happened several weeks ago as well (before and after the injunction). All articles violated WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR really really badly. User:Phil Sandifer is not fine with the mergers as of yesterday, didn't seek discussion before reverting the mergers, and has basically resorted to edit-warring despite my encouragement to have him report this incident here (the noticeboard). I'd like to avoid an edit-war at all costs, but my explanations and justifications based on policy and guideline don't seem to be enough. It also seems like another long wikilawyer session is about to begin, which I'd like to cut short by bringing this up here. I have already notified Phil so that he can explain the situation from his point of view. But if this is the kind of counter-behavior that is to be expected and accepted for completed mergers where proper procedure was followed (unlike some of the often-cited TTN situations), I'd rather abandon merge proposals for fiction articles in favor of AfD again so that they can't be resurrected without going through the troubles of deletion review first. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the strongest inclusionist on Wikipedia, but I can see where you are coming from. The "References" section is simply a collection of quotes from the show. We can surely do better than that. I would prefer for someone to find proper references that would speak to the real world impact of the characters and leave the articles, but they should not remain stand-alone articles in their current shape. All the same information is in the list article. I am not sure what can be done as far as "enforcement" of merges, but perhaps I can try my powers of persuasion. Perhaps Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles can come up with some decent reference material in the meantime. Ursasapien (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These merges should never have been done - the "consensus" for them consisted of a single commenter who opposed the merges. Several were reverted at the time. To say that any sort of wide consensus ever existed is simply untrue. The character articles are, generally, fairly poor. However to say that this was proper does not seem to me true, and to suggest that the articles cannot be fixed is ludicrous - all seven seasons of the show are out on DVD with numerous directors commentaries offering real-world information on characters, and the show was a critical darling with lots of commentary available. These articles easily can be expanded, it is transparently clear that they can be, and nothing in them violates existing content policies except inasmuch as there's not enough other stuff. Mergism does not fix these. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus, and one person cannot annul that on a talkpage. Neither can two people. I have edited according to policies and guidelines (even gave the articles the benefit of a doubt for several weeks and months) and can thus claim to have consensus. I am not suggesting the articles cannot be fixed – I'm suggesting that no one is fixing them (counter evidence anyone?), so I'm fixing them. To my knowledge, only Paris Gellar was reverted once for a good reason, and that was because stupid-me had forgotten to place the merge tag; everything else falls under the previous sentences. And FWIW, I have the DVDs, and AFAIK there is only one (pretty disappointing) director's commentary for the 100th episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see evidence that the articles in their current form require edits and improvement. I do not see which policy or guideline mandates their merging in an incontrovertible way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT#Demonstrating notability for fictional topics for a start. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I said "which policy or guideline," not "which proposed policy or guideline." Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording and the fineprint is proposed, the rest isn't as you can see from browsing the page history. Even July 2007 (maybe even much earlier) said "Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work. If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article." No articles show any kind of encyclopedic treatment, rather the exact opposite per WP:NOT#PLOT. Premise is wrong, conclusion doesn't follow. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with sgeureka that the demerger is unwarranted. Effectively, the demerger by Phil Sandifer has created a number of articles which do not demonstrate notability. The merger was a method of cleanup for these characters, demerger is not an improvement. If the articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:SYNTH and WP:WAF, then surely is down to Phil either to improve the articles so these cleanup issues are addressed, or allow the mergers to be reinstated. Its not good enough just to say that there is no consensus for the merger when there is clear evidence that the articles do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia guidelines in the first place.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The only one of those that is an inclusion guideline as opposed to a stylistic guideline is NOR. The other two do not mandate removal, they call for improvement. It is OK to have poor articles - we are a work in progress. Tag them to note their flaws. But neither of those mandate removal, and they should not be construed to mandate removal. They say what fiction articles should do, not what they must not do. The only thing that mandates removal is NOR - if any of the articles are original research then indeed the original research (and possibly, by extension, the article) must go. However, there is no sane application of that policy that would treat these articles as original research. To treat these merges as required by policy is an egregious misunderstanding of policy at best, and a vicious lie being employed to dismiss the work of your fellow editors at worst. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:PLOT is a mandate against these articles as well as the general ones in WP:NOTE, in that their ultimate form needs to be more than just plot elements from the work. When there is a large collection of plot-only articles for the same work of fiction, it is generally more accepted to have a list of these than to let them sit as separate articles, and even then, this is a tenacious solution as some editors feel this still violates WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE. Yes, WP is a work in progress, but as part of the editing process, editors are expected to improve articles when others are asking to be bold to remove such due to failure to meet policy. If there is notability information to be found, we are expected to give a good-faith effort for you to find it but you also need to show that effort to include it. --MASEM 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording on WP:PLOT is key, though: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." This is a very different statement from the one about, say, dictionary definitions - the issue here is that Wikipedia should contain more - it's a policy about addition to articles, not removal. I will leave WP:NOTE be - I do not think it is a helpful injection into this depate, particularly given that the attempt to implement it for WP:FICT has so spectacularly failed to gain consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A plot-only should contain more, and if the article can't because that information does not exist, PLOT doesn't mean it could stay around. Remember, PLOT is within What Wikipedia is Not, meaning that these are things that should not be in Wikipedia. Of course, if you can add notability to satisfy PLOT, all the better.

If you are ready to dismiss WP:FICT due to its prolonged proposed status, then all articles on fictional elements are judged by WP:NOTE, and thus requiring secondary sources. It is very critical to this debate if you are rejecting FICT. (Mind you, we are trying to see if there are special cases where fictional elements may be considered notable without secondary sources, which is part of why the guideline has remained proposed for so long). --MASEM 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The information clearly exists. This was a critical darling of a show where every season is out on DVD, and each set has troves of documentaries, interviews, and special features to shed light on the creative processes going into the characters. I can get 899 news stories mentioning Lorelei Gilmore from 2001-2004. [6] took me a minute or two to find and has a couple good pull quotes that could be used to flesh out the article. I'd add them and go find more, but I'm strangely disinclined to given the apparent desire to delete any work I put into them and re-merge the articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have proven that one character out of maybe 20 exists, nothing more, nothing less. Now it's your job to filter out encyclopedic facts in significant numbers and add them to each article. All articles that don't can be trimmed because of WP:WAF#Notability and undue weight, short articles can be merged seemlessly because they still fail WP:FICT, and that's what happened after giving sufficient time. Since you keep rejecting my ways to improve the encyclopedia (which also happen to be backed up by policies and guidelines), that automatically makes it your turn. So, are you going to do some work, or are you just leaving a mess, hoping that others will do your work for you (which obviously no-one was willing to do in the last four months now)? I'd be happy to see that the former is true. Regards, – sgeureka ^t•c 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to put any effort into the articles while you are actively threatening to delete them, no. That seems a waste of my time. Get off your high horse and find something else to ruin on the project and I'll be happy to put some time into fixing them. But as long as you're actively threatening to delete the articles, no, I'm not going to put in the effort of re-writing them all. It's trivial to find sources for any of them - even if you pick a more minor character like Logan Huntzberger you can readily find interviews like [7] and [8] - both of which will require effort to follow up on and find the full article. You could find all of this too in a trivial amount of time. Now - are you going to back off and let me work on the articles, or are you going to keep bullying and threatening? Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you want others (e.g. me) to do the work when finding and adding the sources is so trivial and easy. "Threatening" the articles or not, no-one (including you) has ever worked on the articles in an encyclopedic manner, that's why they were proposed to be merged in the first place. Ample time was given to allow volunteers to show up, but no-one did (show up), amplifying the need for merging. If you check back on all your comments regarding these articles, you will notice that you never announced you'd like to fix them, but rather that you don't see the problems with these articles and that you reject my cleanup attemps, even going so far as to edit-war. So I had to assume you ignore policies, guidelines, and proper wiki-procedure. But I am hopeful with your last reply that you're sincere with improving the articles through encyclopedic expansion so that they can stand alone. I'll check back in a couple of weeks for progress. If university is too time-consuming for you at the moment (I know it is for me), I am sure you can live with the merged articles and improve only one article at a time. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a display of good faith on your part would be preferable. The articles clearly can be improved. I doubt you have any serious disagreement with that notion, given the availability of sources for the two I showed you. Given that the articles clearly can pass all requirements, it is preferable to have them in place. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to keep the articles, then the burden of proof to show notability is on your end. Now, that said, if you can show reasonable improves to two or three out of twenty characters in a reasonable amount of time, with the resulting articles agreed to have sufficient notability, then other editors should recognize your good-faith efforts to do so (knowing that WP is volunteer work) and allow the other articles to remain, re-evaluating the efforts after a few months. (Editors that don't allow for this would be strongly urged to pause and re-read this discussion and the ep&char 2 arbcom case). Alternatively, work the articles up in sandbox space so they are not challenged at all, and then present them. Either way, you or any other editor that wants these articles is responsible for showing why they should remain, given they have been challenged for some time now. --MASEM 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. I've got a very packed week (my PhD exams are Friday), but I'll start work on these over the weekend, and try to get a cross-section of them (i.e. not the three most important characters) started. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the meantime, I suggest you userfy the articles: I propose that the merger be reinstated, just in case Phil Sandifer is too busy to make improvements other than a merger. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Phil has said above he will start fixing these articles if I only backed off. I promised to do so for the next few weeks (a month), and now it's Phil's turn to keep his word. I am sure if he finds himself unable to do so, he will be more than glad to hand over his burden to cleanup the articles back to the editors who can (and already did) cleanup the articles instead of him. The merge can be reinstated then, and Phil can continue in userspace at his own pace so that the quality of the encyclopedia is not more strained than it has to be. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a single edit by Phil (or anyone else for that matter) in the last month to establish real-world notability of these characters. This makes it five months now since the initial merge discussion started. I am going to redirect all the characters now to the List of characters agin. Should anyone be interested in adding significant amounts of real-world information to a character, he is certainly encouraged to resurrect this one article, but not all at once to leave them in their former bad shape. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the link doesn't work anymore since the articles are all redirected now. But it showed about 15 edits in the last 30 days, mostly by IPs, a cat-bot, and some edits by an editor who made some minor edits and a major one adding an infobox. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who made some minor and major edits recently. I was attempting to fix the articles relating to the characters of Gilmore Girls, but I see now there has been lots of issues regarding this. I was more than willing to take the time to clean-up the articles but if all that's going to happen is a redirection into one article, I'll put my efforts elsewhere. Gospelgal23 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to work towards adding sourced and non-trivial real-world content (see WP:GA and WP:FA for many good examples), then please don't be discouraged by the redirection. From experience, you won't need more than one paragraph for each season to summarize the character arc, which mostly already appears in the characters list (that's why they were redirected in the first place). Everything else should be about e.g the casting, the reception, independently-sourced analysis of the character's characteristics and motivation, and maybe mentions in popular culture. This may be fairly easy for the very main characters (Lorelai, Rory), but it will probably be hard work finding sources for everyone else. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Bulbasaur is one of the four remaining Pokemon articles left after the other 489 were merged to lists. It has no reason to exist, but it has stuck around for some reason. The main argument to keep it is that it was once a featured article, but that's a moot point because it, like many other fiction articles, were demoted after our standards changed. Many of those have also been merged. The actual topic has nothing to establish notability, and for that reason it needs to be redirected. It has survived a few discussions so far because of wikilawyering, but it would be nice for that to change. I doubt this'll accomplish anything, but it's worth a try. TTN (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "I doubt this'll accomplish anything" you mean "I doubt I will be able to create a consensus to merge this article," I suspect you are correct. However, the article does have some things going for it. It does have some marketing information. The character has appeared in many different mediums, all of which are sourced. It has some creation and conception information. While I agree that the article still has a way to go, it seems to have a good deal of potential. Are four articles about individual Pokémon really hurting the encyclopedia that much?

Wikipedia has SO MANY articles that are not in good shape. Only a small percentage of them involve fiction. The encyclopedia only has four articles on individual Pokémon and you want to merge them, while it has thousands of poorly formed articles on biological life forms that have individual articles. Please move on. Perhaps you could begin by reading up on what the term wikilawyering really means. Why not help us out on #Character Lists in Play articles? Ursasapien (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For context, when did WP:POKE become inactive? And where were the most recent discussions about a merger of Bulbasaur? (I remember that there was a lot of hubbub a few months ago, but I didn't care joining then). I must say though that I would not be terribly embarrassed to see the article kept because a certain quality is there, but the article still just repeats what the Pokédex said, and where and when Bulbasaur appeared (i.e. everywhere). Any article for a Pokémon can do that. There are only a few bits of information that make Bulbasaur unique, and I am not sure he needs a separate article just for these bits. TTN, would you merge the article into List of Pokémon (1-20)#Bulbasaur as you see fit, without redirecting the article? That would make it easier for outsiders to see what content there really is (I read B.'s article, but I don't know how much of it is really important or significant). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you (FOR ONCE) TTN. It's not notable enough to stand on its own on this site (Unlike Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and Meowth). It needs FAR more sources and information than just "It's a toy at McDonalds!" & "It's the main star in 2 children books!" to stand out on its own, according to the current standards, correct? Oh, and to Sgeureka, I don't think his current restrictions allow him to merge articles at all, at least, that's how I remember it. ZeroGiga (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it died a few months ago. The discussions can be found on the project page if I recall correctly. The article has already been merged at this point. There is nothing else relevant to add. I believe I can move information over, but I have no real idea. TTN (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is on the cusp of being legitimately spinoutable, I think. With its creation section, it's better than the other 400 odd ones. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The only actual information in that section is just your average generic information. The mention about the article is just complete junk that was added to try to make it passable. It just hasn't been removed yet for some reason TTN (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(to ZeroGiga) TTN can in fact merge all he wants, he just can't merge&redirect. (to TTN) The promotional food chain merchandising of the character is not mentioned in the list, neither is the voice actor of the anime, and that B. was a main character of two children’s books (at least that's what I imagine is important to the real world). The ref-sourcing in the article should also replace the {{fact}}s in the list. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the merchandise is somehow special, it'd be pointless to list it for each individual one. The same goes for the books (there are various ones with books if I remember correctly). The voice actor information is pretty minor. It doesn't really matter if its there or not. Last time I checked, many of the references were pretty bad, but maybe I should look at them again. TTN (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

a clear example of the continuing all-or-nothing attitude that got us into this to start with. There's no real consensus over these, and the obvious thing to do in that case is to keep the best. This is among the better ones compared to the general run of such articles. so people of good will should simply let the matter rest & work on improving thousands of articles in this subject area that need improving. DGG (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have no real issues with this article as is. I would rather we tackled articles with more problems than this on, than attempt to prove a point with this article. I agree with DGG. We need to build a working compromise whereby we wrok together as a whole towards a common goal. Hiding T 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Hiding, there are bigger fish to fry and since this one is at least making an effort there's not a dire need to deal with it right now. Stardust8212 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• In this instance, DGGs statement that this article "is among the better ones compared to the general run of such articles" is so way off the mark. Not only does the article fail WP:N, but it is riddled with synthesis; statements like "Bulbasaur enjoy soaking up the sun's rays" are just not supported by the sources that are cited. Stepping back, it obvious that the primary characteristic of this article is that it has been padded out with primary content, but what makes this article so mawkish is the trivial nature of the content. I would say the lack of real-world content from reliable secondary sources is the reason why trivial content is given undue weight, as there is hardly any real-world content available to give this article any sense of proportion. The only redeeming feature of this article is the extensive use of in line citation, which is probably the only reason why it has escaped deletion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls episodes

Just a heads up, we're getting really badly written episode articles popping through here. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Try notifying User talk:ThegreatWakkorati, the guy who's writing them. User:Krator (t c) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasted summary is the majority of the article

Not sure what to do here: Pygmy (novel). The copy and paste of an official summary makes up most of the article. Any ideas? Does fair use really allow for this? Thanks. --Rividian (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have paraphrased it, although someone more attuned to our exact copyvio policy may want to warn the originating editor for removing the copyright vio. tag -- does citing the source automatically make something less of a copyvio? --EEMIV (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing the source makes it a quotation, not a copyvio... but if an article is almost entirely a quotation, that's just too much fair use. Thanks for summarizing, the issue seems resolved unless someone wants to warn the editor not to remove tags, but because of how WP:SCV works removing tags doesn't seem to stop the cleanup process. --Rividian (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute at Glitch City

Hello, please forgive me if this was posted in the wrong place.

There is currently a content dispute at the article Glitch City, which is supposed to be a redirect, but a stubborn user continues to revert it back to an article. Glitch City is simply a glitch in Pokémon Red and Blue, and is non-notable, which is why it was changed to a redirect in the first place. My discussions with him can be found at Talk:Pokémon Red and Blue#Glitch City and Talk:Glitch City. Can I have a third opinion of this please?

Thank you Artichoker (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved this from WT:FICT to get broader input here. Ursasapien (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently up for deletion. Deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch City. Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam Manson's Hair

I am having a dispute with an unregistered user who is insisting on adding to the entry that there is debate whether or not the character's hair has been died black (the debate is where other than on wikipedia? there is no citation). They support this opinion to be fact because her parents have blond and red hair and therefore it's not possible for her hair to be black (despite the fact that the show is about a half ghost boy which is impossible). The character is only seen with black hair. There is no evidence that her hair has been dyed. I have asserted that this "opinion" of theirs falls in the realm of original thought, and that this is not a fan site. They have asserted that in their opinion the idea that her is dyed is not original thought and that the possibility should be allowed. They also assert that her chin length hair isn't short and perpetually change the entry, though still asserting that the matter is up for debate. I assert that the wikipedia isn't a place for debate but for fact. I need help. I worked hard to rework a nightmare of an entry (though it still a mess it is much better than it was before). Can I get some help on this? Am I wrong and they're right? I really don't think their personal opinion should be allowed on the wikipedia. Doratheghost (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say you're pretty much right in this situation. While there is a certain level of common sense when assuming what is "fact" within fiction, it's still fiction, and details like genes and hair color don't have to reflect the real world. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The anon's opinion is just that, an opinion and pure WP:OR. It has no place in the article at all. And I agree, the irony of them arguing genetic impossibilities in a fictional animated series is rather, um...interesting. :-P I've left them a warning on their talk page for adding OR. That said, the article doesn't give any evidence the character has any real world notability for having an article, so I have left some tags noting this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

e-mail of a fictional character

Resolved

 – Thanks --Rividian (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is rather silly, but an IP address is coming to Wikipedia every day to insert an e-mail address supposedly belonging to Clay Davis, a fictional character in The Wire. Now, we don't even include e-mail addresses for real people, let alone fictional ones... and I've explained this to the IP, but he just shows up continually to re-add the e-mail. Can someone warn him more strongly than I apparently can, or semi-protect the page or something? --Rividian (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If its a static IP, report him to AIV for blocking, otherwise request semi-page protection. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well they want like 4 warnings, notorized and in triplicate at AIV... I was hoping for a less mechanized response. A 24 hour block wouldn't do much anyway... as this IP editor is long-term. --Rividian (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's silly but unfortunately, going to the top warning level is the only way that works. Annoyance is not yet speedy-blockable. :-( – sgeureka ^t•c 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Common sense neither? Oh well, I guess I'll have to jump through the hoops... aren't we supposed to not be a bureacracy? --Rividian (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat shorter road - left him a 3RR warning as he has long passed that. Next revert, report to 3RR for blocking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiction/Notability

I was looking through some articles about an old television show, “Beast Wars”, when I noticed that most of its related articles, pertaining to characters, vehicles, and other plot elements, do not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability or MOS for Fiction. Many of the standalone character articles in [[Category:Maximals]] and [[Category:Predacons]] feature articles that discuss the their subject in an entirely in-universe tone. I'm uncertain what approach to take – I tried to improve one, but it is very difficult to find reliable sources for the series let alone individual characters =0. Suggestions?--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag for merging into a character list. They are highly unlikely to meet WP:N, but let them be tagged for a month or so and start a discussion noting reasons. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a common problem. Merge proposals are often more successful than AfDs, so you should go with that, even if it's just redirecting. You may have enough mergable bits to create a new Merchandise section in List of Beast Wars characters, but that's all I anticipate. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More fictional notability

New user User:Colt9033 queried my prod of Dropships (Battletech) so I bothered to check the guideline (oops) & noticed that WP:FICTION is a bit of a mess at the moment. Is this article, & others in the small Category:BattleTech technology ok, or should they be merged into on list, or merged even higher. Thanx in advance Ben.--Bsnowball (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stagnant yaoi merge proposal

Ten days ago, I proposed a merge of shonen-ai into yaoi, my reason being that they are both part of the same phenomenon in fiction, and the terms are conflated in the literature (often with Boys' Love too). Trouble is, I've received only two responses (on my user talk page). Thought I might post a notice here to publicise the proposed merge. -Malkinann (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be more useful to post in the Anime and manga project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Son Goku

First of all: the talk page and the article in question. I've contended that the inclusion of the Superman "fact" isn't notable in the slightest, especially in light of the fact that Wizard magazine isn't exactly a reliable source. The editor who seems to take issue with this hasn't responded to the talk page, and I'm just wondering what others here seem to think. I've also been doing some reading and this fact also seems to fall under fancruft.ChimpZealot (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's of fairly trivial nature, but since the section is about the depiction in other media and the character was depicted in this medium, I consider it only a good reason to remove it is when (1) the section begins to suffer under its own weight and the least notable depictions need to be removed, or (2) a GA-drive is started. The removal of one trivial piece of information is not suddenly making a bad article much better, so I suggest to leave it in for now. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Masters of Horror episodes

Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. I also spent over an hour adding some actual real content to the main series page, though it isn't a series I'd ever heard of nor would ever watch. An editor who hasn't done much editing in a month, and really barely in the last year, has been systematically going back and undoing all of these redirects. When I left a polite question on his talk page asking why, he left an uncivil response[9]. I AfDed one episode and he again made personal attacks instead of addressing the issues[10] and again in undoing one of the redirects[11] and on my talk page[12]. AfD should not be the place for dealing with this mess. The articles had all sat untouched since at least June, with few major edits before then either. What is the next step in dealing with this? Start a merge discussion on all of redirected articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman Emblem

Is this topic suitable for an article or should it redirect to Batman? Hiding T 11:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how a proper article (read: GA-worthy article) can be written on this limited subject matter, so the article content should find a place elsewhere. Still, I think Batsuit might be a better merge/redirect target(?). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Clique series

There is currently a discussion at Talk:The Clique series#Merges on the proposed merging of all but one of the individual novel articles for The Clique to the main article. Discussion stopped and I felt consensus was to merge, however in noting this, one editor disagreed. So I requested a 30, which feels that there is not a clear consensus to merge because a single different editor disagreed and offered to work on all the articles (though she had only worked on one then never did anything with the rest). I asked at the Novel project for additional comments regarding a possible merge, but so far there has been no response. Since this is a fictional novel series, I thought I should also ask here. At what point is there consensus for a merger? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there, but as for At what point is there consensus for a merger? - in general, when established editors (not IPs or single purpose editors) are unlikely to edit war about the merger. I don't think the Clique articles are truly there yet. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Labh Singh

If you see my last edit I replaced the names Khalistan with India. This is because there's no country called "Khalistan" and Punjab stated there are today in India. Although many Sikhs fought for "Khalistan" there's no such thing as a land called that, or there has never been. Moreover the flag next to it is an Indian flag. These people will just revert my edits and I'm new here. Can you please help? There's misinformation in Wikipedia. Any unfamiliar reader would think where's Khalistan. It's only a conceptualized state. Please look into it. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.28.100 (talk • contribs)

Edits and articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labh_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=242295581 and Khalistan. You're really at the wrong place here though (this noticeboard is for entertainment fiction). You should discuss this at Talk:Labh Singh. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User 71.188.174.137

Here is the user's contributions page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.188.174.137

Here is the user's talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.188.174.137

This user has repeatedly added original research to numerous Godzilla related articles, even if it contradicts provided references. His edits have been REPEATEDLY undone, and he's been warned on his talk page. He seems impervious to any argument, as he refuses to even respond. He shows no inclination to stopping, therefore, an administrative action seems appropriate.Dark hyena (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please use the templates listed at WP:WARN, and if this doesn't work, report the user at WP:AIV. If none of the warning templates apply to the situation, you have a content dispute, and admins can't help there (talkpage discussions, WP:RFC, and WP:MEDCAB may help there though). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

American Dad episodes

Can I get some comments here? It's currently overwhelmed by fans that don't seem to care that this is an encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've had my say. Reyk _YO! 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_16#Category:Antiheroes

FYI. Postdlf (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New notability proposal

There is a new notability proposal up at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Unlike past attempts, this one tries to start from the existing trends in inclusion and deletion on AfD, and go from there to guidelines. As such, it is unlikely to please any hard partisans on either the inclusionist or deletionist camps, but is similarly unlikely to actually offend anyone. But comments are very much welcome on the page - I'd like to try to get it to guideline status so that the deletion debates can be put behind us. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

List of House episodes

Differences of opinions exist between two, perhaps three, camps of editors:

1. Those who favor including the "final diagnosis" from every episode of House
2. Those who favor including the "final diagnosis" from every episode of House, but hidden by default with a "show" button.
3. Those who favor removing the "final diagnosis" section.

I would think that the second and third perspectives violate WP:SPOILER, but the argument of the second group seems to center around the fact that nothing is removed, "spoilery" content is just hidden. What do the denizens of this noticeboard think? Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the final two are pretty blatant violations of WP:SPOILER. Episode summaries should include all major plot points, including the beginning and the ending, not just "teasers" or partial episodes. Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

#1 is the perfect wikipedia solution but it does/would upsets fans, #3 is plain wrong per some plot summary guideline I can't find (unless the diagnosis is merged into the plot summary prose, which would make it even harder to avoid IMO), and #2 is a trade-off. Now the question is whether we want to allow (temporary) trade-offs. I'll give a non-answer and say that I don't really care as long as the hide function is not the permanent solution. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as not just a House MD fan, but as a regular user of episode lists for many different productions, I personally do not believe that the final diagnosis entry is a "dangerous spoiler that will ruin my enjoyment of the show". The second camp's suggestion is blatantly in violation of WP:SPOILER, whilst the final suggestion would have useful and important information about each episode removed. As such, I see only two solutions - either keeping the table column, or changing the details to be at the end of the prose plot summary (which seems a bit cruel and unusual for this to be done when a table format exists for other common information, and doesn't prevent the problem). Most importantly on this discussion, the only reason I have seen on the debates over there for removing/hiding is the fear of spoilers - which is not a valid reason to make a decision when editing wikipedia (and indeed, since it can result in incomplete coverage, it is potentially harmful). As such, the first option has to be the prefered approach. LinaMishima (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree neither 2 or 3 is correct because of SPOILER, I also don't think it needs to be there in the first place - it is not a critical aspect of the show to have a special block sectioned of in a busy Episode List article. It should, of course, be part of the plot summary. --MASEM 02:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also concur here. It doesn't need to be a special column at all. Work it into the plot summary, particularly if anyone ever plans to try FLC again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If I ever take it to FLC, it will be between seasons. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, smart move ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Silent Hill (film) Character Dispute

I'm looking for what other users think of this problem:

• A character in the movie is not listed in the official cast list, however, her appearance is obvious and her name (Dark Alessa) has been mentioned in multiple interviews with cast and crew.

• That character is not easy to understand by the standards of what is presented in the movie, but both the actress and the director have put out multiple interviews where they confirm that she is the dark part of another, listed character (Alessa Gillespie).

Another user feels that I should not be allowed to use the name Dark Alessa anywhere on the movie page or on the Alessa Gillespie page because it's not on the cast list and refuses to allow me to even mention her on either page. The fact that Alessa created a dark double of herself is central to the movie's plot and what and who this particular character is has been confirmed several times by the director and actress. To ignore her entirely, I feel, is completely off. When I originally wrote up the synopsis on her, I included direct quotes from both director and actress as well as links to the pages, however, this user deleted all my efforts and left only the director quotes, since he/she claimed that the quotes directly answering questions about who the character in dispute is has nothing to do with Alessa Gillespie (despite that those quotes proved she *IS* Alessa). What should I do? I'm tired of re-editing everything over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessaGillespie (talk • contribs)

Here's my input: 1) Is this dispute happening in Silent Hill (film) or in Alessa Gillespie? 2) Looking briefly through the history of both, I didn't see the activity you're looking at, but my examination was admittedly cursory. In general, I saw uncited sentences removed, which is in line with the expectations of WP:BURDEN. However, if reliable secondary sources exist and document the additional character, the lack of description in the primary source (the film's credits) doesn't preclude its mention. However, if contentious material is to be mentioned, it needs to be properly cited. Are you familiar with how to go about that? Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes, it has to do with those boards. I actually had an entire somewhat large section complete with quotes from actress and director about this particular character, but it was all reased. 2)I know how to make references, but not sure where it would be proper to put those quotes in the context of the page. I tried editing down to the one line in the movie pointing to what she is ("I'm the dark part of Alessa"), but even that was erased until I reedited it last night.The user in question used accusations of me putting my PO (personal opinion) in his reasonings for editing the pages, despite the evidence from the cast and crew about her. He claims in the discussion page that nothing outside of the movie itself should be included. Because she is not named in the cast list, he basically thinks I should act like she doesn't exist and isn't a major character. AlessaGillespie (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hillsfar

New sources that indicating that this topic is notable have been added to the article Hillsfar in good faith, but it is not clear whether they are accetable from the perspective of their quality, i.e. they may be Questionable sources.
For example, one of the sources in question is a citation from a (probably defunct) publication "Amiga Computing" (December 1989), but the source comes to us not directly but second hand, as the citation cites a transcription of the original magazine article on the website amigareviews.classicgaming.gamespy.com. Could anyone give me a view as to whether this source (it is a good one) can be classed as evidence that the topic is notable? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The gaming magazines that published the reviews are all reliable though all are defunct by now. The "unreliable" part is the use of the transcription site as it is it run by one person (not an official adjunct of gamespy.com, a otherwise normally reliable site). There's no need (or even appropriate - these are technically copyright violations) to link to the gamespy transcript of the material, only to provide the print reference. This is fixable. --MASEM 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with these publications myelf, but you say that "The gaming magazines that published the reviews are all reliable though all are defunct by now". What do you mean by reliable in this context and what is your evidence for this view? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Amiga Computing and Amiga Power were part of IDG and Future Media respectively, and thus had editorial controls in place. Compute! was independent but also had editorial controls at the time and I would think most people skilled in the art recognize that. None were directly (if any) controlled by Commodore or the like so no COI-type issues (compared with Nintendo Power). If you question these further, you can try asking at WP:VG, but I suspect you'll find the same answers. --MASEM 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "What do you mean by reliable in this context and what is your evidence for this view?"

What is your evidence for your view that they might not be notable? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question wasn't if they were notable, but if they were reliable, and that is completely a fair question to ask and appropriate per WP:V. Mind you, no one is going to be able to show (another) source that says "Magazine X is reliable" , all one can do is say what aspects make them reliable and go from there. --MASEM 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"I am not familiar with these publications" sounds a lot like WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Defunct means the magazines are no longer in publication. Reliable refers to verifiable third party resources. shadzar-talk 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still a fair question. I get that all the time when I take articles to FAC. Mind you, we're talking about an article of present low quality so there's no need to have pristine reliable sources, but editors should be expected at any time to have to vouch for the reliability of sources in addition to verification that is required. --MASEM 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought (and might be wrong) that part of the problem Gavin was raising was whether we could trust the transcriptions. As I think Masem was right, I removed the links to what were (as far as I can tell) copyright violations, but that still means that both I and prior editors had to rely on an unofficial account of what the articles said. If this was a BLP issue, I certainly wouldn't touch articles that I couldn't guarantee the accuracy of. In this case I agree with Gavin in that I'm very uncomfortable relying on the transcriptions long term, but I might differ in that I'm willing to accept them in the short term, given three factors: there is no cause that I can see for the transcriptions to be anything other than accurate, short of standard transcription errors; most claims have additional support in the two sources which I am willing to trust; and the material is relatively minor, unlikely to cause significant harm if it was incorrect. Nevertheless, I'm planning to track down the originals, as otherwise I'll continue to be uncomfortable with their use. - Bilby (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, without actually verifying the cited source, how can one know that the quote came about "second-hand?" Look at it this way; if I had posted the reference with no link to the webpage with the possible copyright violations, would we be having this discussion? If so, it would make any addition of any out-of-print (or off-line) material very difficult, as a questioning editor would always be justified in stating "I am not familiar with these publications myelf." I mean, I'm not familiar with "Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I," but I would never call the source questionable just because I wasn't familiar with it. And look, it's being used in a featured article! The burden of proof is the source -- there's nothing in WP:V, WP:CS, WP:N, or WP:RS about being required to prove that a source is reliable (it only talks about proving added material with sources). So long as the source is cited clearly (as it was), and the source passes WP:RS (and it does), then the proof stands. So Drillnoth would be correct: what evidence does Gavin have that this source is not reliable? He obviously has not attempted to research the magazine, or attempted to find a hard copy. So how can his statement that the source is "questionable" have any validity? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I may just be wrong about the issue here - sorry if that's the case. From my perspective, the original magazines are reliable and should be treated as such. :) My only concern is whether the source of the transcriptions are ok, simply because they aren't official - I tend to limit myself to original sources or official databases, such as EBSCOhost. But that might be unrelated to the discussion at hand, and may not be a significant concern anyway, given the nature of the material. - Bilby (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that unofficial transcriptions can't really be used as reliable sources, but only one of the seven reliable secondary sources is a transcription, from what I can tell. So, while the reliability of that source may still be in question, the article's notability is still established. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No argument there. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Two-part episode merge

Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons)

Does this article provide sufficient evidence of its notability? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that, as it stands, it does not establish notability because it doesn't really address the real-world impact of the subject. However, since there is an abundance of primary-ish sources I'm betting there will be some decent independent stuff as well which would tip it over the line. Regards, Reyk _YO! 23:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I'll look for some more sources. I had hoped that with the information on development and publication history and secondary-sourced section on the video game would pretty much establish it, but I thought I'd ask before being sure. Thanks again! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Using the 3-prong test at WP:FICT, which doesn't it meet? I'm just wondering so that I can better improve the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Bear in mind that WP:FICT is still being discussed and developed, and isn't an official guideline yet. That said, the three prongs have more or less settled down and seem likely to be officially adopted. I think where the Sigil article is still lacking is in the third prong- specifically the critical, commercial or cultural impact of it. What did the D&D community think of Sigil? Is there a professional review of the video game that discusses the city? Is there a critical review that, say, compares the city to similar locations in other works of fiction? Sources that address questions like these will establish the real world impact of Sigil. Other than that, it's a very strong article. Reyk _YO! 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I'll keep working on it. I'd read "the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design," and thought that if that was present then the "critical, commercial, or cultural impact" mentioned afterwards wouldn't be as necessary. Thanks for all your help. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
          • My pleasure. I just wish more people would write about fiction this way. Reyk _YO! 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)