Talk:Timmy Martin (television character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] Note

When the ArbCom injunction on character articles is lifted, this article will be merged into the main Lassie (1954 TV series) article unless the tagged issues have been addressed by then, most especially the in-universe, plot, and lack of notability aspects. Collectonian (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the ArbCom injunction? Notability has been/is being established and were not working with "plot" on this article. I think the article is out-universe at this point -- with some refining will continue to be so. I'm tired now and need to rest. But will be back. Please record very specific points regarding your concerns about in-universe, plot, and lack of notability aspects before tampering with article or merging with other articles. Thanks. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities to see the ArbCom injunction. The article is still very much in-universe, with over 50% plot and OR. It only has a few badly sourced real world tidbits that speak more to the popularity of the series, not the character. For character articles, notability must be established from non-primary sources. Provost's biography and Collin's book are primary resoures and do not count. You must show that there has been extensive coverage in significant third-party sources to establish notability. Otherwise, the article will be merged. Also, refering to another editor's work as "tampering" is not very WP:AGF nor WP:CIVIL. Collectonian (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the uncivil comment about "tampering". That indeed was uncivil and rude. And I am sorry I made such a comment. I hope you will forgive me. I truly value and respect your knowledge and your work.
I understand primary sources in television are the shows/programs themselves, as the primary source for writing a character article on Heathcliff would be Wuthering Heights itself. And, I believe, Wiki editors are not strictly forbidden from checking/consulting/using primary sources though forbidden from making interpretations about the material in the PS. I understand in television writing one may watch an episode and use it as a cited source. Am I correct? Collins and Provost are secondary sources. Writing for fiction according to WP requires secondary sources for notability and this article has provided secondary sources as I understand. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
For fictional characters, per lots and lots of discussion over at WP:FICT (which is like a four coffee cup read at this point), books specifically written about the series and biographies can be used to supplement the information as can specific. However, the key is that they can not be used to establish the topic's notability. As Collins book is an "official" one for Classic Media, it is considered a primary source. For an outside example, for Star Trek, the series itself is a primary source, as are all the novels, commentary on the DVDs, and companion books written about it can provide details for the article, but do not establish the topics notability. I guess you could say it comes down to neutrality. I could, for example, write five books about the characters from my novels, then write an article sourcing those books, but that still wouldn't make those individual characters notable. :) Similarly, studios and related parties to a series can write a lot about it or create lots of commentary, but that doesn't automatically confer notability on that topic. In establishing notability, the topic needs significant coverage by non-beneficial parties. Secondary sources for establishing notability would include newspaper articles (but not press releases), academic books and journal articles, and significant mention in books or works not directly tied to the Lassie franchise. Does that help any? Collectonian (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thank you. From my view, it would be difficult if not impossible to establish notability for this article. I'm not likely to find newspaper articles, or academic books and journal articles to establish notability for "Timmy Martin". And I'm wondering about Lassie (1954 TV series) too. How many third party sources could be retrieved at this date? Academic sources and journals are likely scant, or if available, treat the topic briefly.
It was more than generous of you to organize the references in this article. Thank you!ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's where it gets tricky. For the series itself, notability is already established and really, for any TV series, presumed if it aired. In airing, its notable. In airing for 19 seasons and 588 episodes, its really notable. :) While the main series article could certainly use more more third party sources, its notability is already established so primary sources can be used to provide additional details. Third party sources can be retrieved, but many of them are likely to be found on microfilm or microfiche in libraries rather than online. The collective episodes are notable (hence the list of episodes in progress). The notability of the series is not, however, inherited by the individual characters in the series, nor the individual episodes. To have their own articles, they must establish notability of their own. It is a confusing thing, I know...though they are trying to make it clearer at WP:FICT.Collectonian (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)