Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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:

-- 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.

v • d • e
Full House
Characters
Episodes
Cast
Books

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)