Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firefly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly page.
Shortcut:
WT:FIREFLY

Use this TALK PAGE to discuss the format and arrangement of the main Project page. Go here if you are wanting to discuss policy or strategy

Contents

[edit] Revised Episode format proposal

Not so much different, but more specific to Firefly.

  1. A general description of what the episode/serial is and when it was first broadcast.
  2. A teaser Synopsis with no spoiler content.
  3. A more fully detailed Plot with spoiler warning.
  4. Trivia
    1. "Standard" trivia information
    2. Guest cast, with the name of the character followed by an em dash (— or —) followed by the name of the actor
    3. Allusions to earlier episodes
    4. Foreshadowing
  5. References
  6. External links, to include a link to the BBC on-line cast list.

Just a few tweaks; the allusions/foreshadowing sections work well as children under the Trivia heading, in my opinion. I stuck the guest cast section in there as well, since rarely is it significant enough to warrant its own section (for example, Objects in Space only has a single guest star). EVula 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made the change. Everyone, definitely help with things like this as I just put up a skeleton. Some of you are more experienced Wikipedians than I am :-) -plange 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Happy to help. I've tagged a few articles with the project template, and tweaked a few other things. When I have some time, I'll see what I can do about improving elsewhere. EVula 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character format

Okay, I just put up something, just so we'd have something to work against in coming up with what we'd like to see the article format appear. This is NOT me saying it must be this way, so please, if you have changes or alternatives, let's discuss :-) -plange 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. My only concern would be "Motivations" and "Goals". Unless they redo the series through the eyes of River, we're not likely to be able to poke around inside the heads of characters, and so those sections are liable to be full of original research. The two characters who spring immediately to mind are Book and Jayne. What ARE Book's motivations, especially when the hints to his backstory are taken into account. Why DOES he stay on the ship? With Jayne, is he REALLY as mercenary as he likes people to think? Fans and people who watch the series can come to their own conclusions, and a lot of them'll be different- but none are supported by canon, and so nearly anything put in those categories will be or tend towards OR. Barnas 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
yikes, yep, you're right, and I definitely don't want to encourage OR as we already have a problem with that....
Expanding on the idea of "Conflicts", with whom or what does the character get along especially well? I would suggest a section such as "relations to other characters" or somesuch which describes significant or consistent trends in relationships between characters. On another note, the tag {{spoiler-about|n}}, which was brought in for the needs of WP:Buffy, might be helpful for people who don't immediately realize that they will be reading spoilers for the series, the comic, and the movie. (For instance, knowing that Jayne is a member of the crew in the film is a pretty good indicator that he doesn't get sucked out the bay doors at the end of Ariel.) - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new image

I uploaded the image [Image:Firefly-layout.png] and rationaled it as fair use. If anyone wants to take a look and comment on it, please do so. Thanks. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, though this isn't my forte ;-) plange 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

I've updated the examples of {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} to reflect the following ideas:

  • Specificity is important in book sources. Without page numbers or at least a chapter name, readers must hunt through the entire work to find the relevant information. There should be no excuse not to include page numbers for Firefly citations because the three (so far) canonical books have only 1 edition each, so there can be no confusion about the numbering. (If we're good about page numbers, we probably don't need the chapter names.)
  • Adding some space around the wiki template markup makes it MUCH easier to spot references and decipher their content. This is critical because the new ref format embeds the entire footnote in the text. (There is currently a bug in the book and web templates that requires the first parameter be on the same line as the template name, but the rest may be space-indented safely, and the closing ref tag is placed unindented on its own line to visually mark the end of the reference, and, not incidentally, prevent errors when adding or deleting optional parameters.)

I didn't tweak the {{cite podcast}}, {{cite episode}}, and {{cite visual}} examples because I haven't personally tested them, and some of them seem to be somewhat fragile and inflexible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff! One tip too for using page numbers. If you're citing from the same book but from multiple pages throughout, it can get quite cumbersome to have to keep putting in the full cite book template each time, so you can do a simple markup in the ref tag and then do the cite book template citation in the references section, like I did here: CSS Virginia II -- You would put your <references /> in the Notes area and the full book in the References section. SOOO much easier to cite things that way and cleaner when editing. And I didn't just make this up as a way to do this, it's the way the MILHIST project recommends their articles be done for these cases. plange 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point. That is a well-established mechanism, even in print publications. Another way, which avoids having 2 sections, is to provide a full citation for the first reference to the work, then to use the abbreviated version (e.g., "Finding Serenity, pp. 3-4") for further citations. This is also a very common system in publishing. (We should probably use abbreviated titles rather than author surnames, given the ambiguity of "Whedon" in this situation.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation work

Hi. I've done some refactoring work on your Project's categories and templates today (along with several other WikiProjects). I'm confident you'll find that the new organisation a big improvement. For more information and a rationale please see what I've written at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best_practices#Categorisation or drop me a line on my talk page.

If you're not yet assessing articles for Wikipedia 1.0 and using Mathbot, you might also find Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects and it's talk page very useful. --kingboyk 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks kingboyk, yep, we're already participating in 1.0 and are listed on that page - Mathbot's been very helpful! plange 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 :) Yes, I know you are. I copy and pasted this message, should have been more careful! Anyrode, thanks for the thanks! --kingboyk 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

"Full dates (including month, date, and year) should be linked to allow preference-based formatting. Any of the following formats will accomplish this, and will be displayed exactly the same to any reader, based on their preferences:"

This is actually only partially true -- if the user hasn't specified a preferred date format under his preferences, then they will show up differently. For that reason, any single article needs to be consistent in its date formatting to avoid disorienting readers. If the particular format bothers the reader, then he can go change his prefs. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags up for deletion

Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page templates and assessment scale

Hi, I'm working on creating a WikiProject for Pink Floyd (I haven't gone public with it yet). I love the talk page template and assessment scale you guys use at this Wikiproject. I took a quick look at the template and I can see it's got coding it in way beyond my abilities to comprehend. Would you mind if I adapted it for my project? I'll give you guys full credit in the code, of course. - dharmabum 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest, though I also got help from others who are credited in there, so if you could carry that over too, that'd be great. You're free too to copy anything we're doing in our Project structure-wise as well! If you do the assessment scale thing, make sure you make all the categories that are needed so that the bot can pick it up.... Good luck! plange 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Shiny. ;) Thanks, and I'll certainly carry over your credit to the military history and Beatles projects. I'm finding the complexities of creating these more code-level aspects of a good WikiProject a little daunting but challenging and fun. - dharmabum 04:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree but it's so worth it when you figure it out :-) plange 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Onion.

The Onion has noted that the Firefly article is one of the most detailed on Wikipedia, rivaling the American Inderpendance article. ;) -- Jeandré, 2006-08-02t20:06z

OMG, that was a riot! Cracked me up! Thanks for the notification! plange 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Companion (Firefly) has been created

BEHOLD! And then edit the hell out of it (or assess it, at least). :) Runa27 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone going to Dragon*Con?

I'll be there this weekend - was going to see if any of you might be going? plange 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] created a new template

{{Firefly Character}}

I can be thanked in pies. ;) --KrossTalk 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar userbox

Just an FYI, I've created a userbox for people who are given a Browncoat Award. You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firefly/Award userbox. EVula 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Firefly curse words

I think this page should be renamed to something like "List of Firefly curse words and slang", or something to that degree so we can add shiny, verse, sly, etc... -Xornok 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Or Firefly dialog? That way we can get away from a list and write some prose about the dialog, etc.? --plange 16:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Trying to write an article about the dialogue would inevitably lead to OR. But I agree that slang and such should go in the article. - Che Nuevara 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe vs. Zoë

Hi, folks. If you look at Talk:Zoe Washburne#What's in a name? you'll see that Nalvage (talk · contribs) has kindly provided proof that the shooting scripts spell our favorite first mate's name as "Zoe", not "Zoë". I've moved the page accordingly, and am about to embark on a quest of correcting the references in Firefly articles — however, it's likely that I'll miss a few. Should any brave knights care to join me on this adventure of diaeresis removal, all are welcome! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Jubal Fillion Early

Nathan Fillion is a distant relative of Jubal Anderson Early, hence the naming of Jubal Early in "Objects in Space".

Where in the hell is this verified? I'm arguing with an anon editor about this, who promptly sent me to the two people's articles (which didn't have {{fact}} tags at the time) as evidence.

At one point, the "Objects in Space" article claimed that Joss said this in the commentary for the episode. However, in watching it to verify a different bit of trivia, I failed to hear anything about this. Is it perhaps in another episode's commentary? (My DVDs are loaned out to future browncoats, so I can't readily verify this) Is it anywhere? I'm looking to put a final nail in this coffin one way or the other. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do seem to remember it somewhere, I've got my set, so I'll get back to you. In the meantime, I think you're right to revert. Especially since it was stated as a fact, when, even if we find the commentary, it should only say that Fillion claims he's a descendant, and not that stating that he is, in fact, a descendant. --plange 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, there's that aspect as well. I'd be perfectly happy with actual evidence that he's even done that much, to be honest; my expectations are apparently quite low. :-)
Additional information: I've consistently heard this as "Joss says..." as far as the origin of this goes; my guess is that, if it isn't in the "Objects in Space" commentary (which I'm 99% sure it isn't), it might be in the "Serenity" commentary (or any Joss-only commentaries; pretty sure that Nathan or Alan don't mention it in "War Stories"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's my thinking too (that it must be in one of those you mention) --plange 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I never got my DVDs back (some day...) so I just bought another damn copy. I'll start running through the episode commentaries (starting with "Serenity") while I clean my living room. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So, I've gotten through "Serenity" and "The Train Job". Jack squat on Jubal in either one of them. That just leaves "Shindig" (highly unlikely), "Out of Gas" (not particularly likely), "War Stories" (highly unlikely), and "The Message" (highly unlikely) (discounting "Objects in Space", which I'm 99.9% sure doesn't have the comment in it). Once all the commentaries have been checked for this fact, I think it will be safe to purge the item from all relevant locations (which, at this point, is just Jubal Early#In popular media and Nathan Fillion).
Also: doing practically anything, especially housework, is next to impossible with the commentary going on. My living room remains a mess. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wrapped up "War Stories"; no mention (not particularly surprising, but I wanted to watch it again anyway). On to "Out of Gas". EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"Out of Gas" ain't got nothin'. That just leaves "Shindig" and "The Message". EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just rewatched the "Objects in Space" commentary. You're right. There's no mention of Whedon saying that Fillion told him about his relation to Jubal Early. Maybe it's the frequent mentions of this "fact" on the Internet that makes me think that I've heard confirmation of this "fact" in a Firefly commentary. --Darren Lee 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the frustrating thing; its been around so long that it has become an assumed fact. Hell, I never would have realized that it was false if I hadn't been looking into the "Jubal Early is Boba Fett" item. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The commentary for "The Message" failed to mention Jubal Early. I'm... I'm just shocked. My faith in humanity is non-existant at this point, and I'm not sure how I can keep on living after such a crushing (and absolutely surprising) failure...
Incidentally, some people think I'm sarcastic. Not sure why. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin; I just finished watching the "Shindig" commentary. I've now gone through all the commentaries, and not once did anyone mention that Nathan is related to Jubal Anderson Early. The closest thing to evidence we have is IMDB's entry for "Shindig", but since every instance of "this is true" involves the DVD commentaries, I'm inclined to disregard IMDB. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research, folks! It's an unfortunate fact that IMDb's editorial staff is sufficiently overworked that much plausible but inaccurate information gets added to its Trivia pages. I have submitted a request that they delete the relevant items unless they themselves have a non-fannish source. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This "fact" is still getting added to articles. As a result, I've made up a boilerplate message for dealing with it in a polite (and informative) manner; feel free to use User:EVula/admin/Jubal Early for all your rumor-stomping needs! (just make sure to include an article when you use it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] free-use images

I replaced the fair-use images at Nathan Fillion [1], Christina Hendricks [2], and Sean Maher [3] with free-use alternatives. I also replaced the existing free-use image at Alan Tudyk with a better one [4]. Thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image source?

Any idea where Image:Zoe 23.jpg came from so we can keep it from being deleted? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The image (provided a source and a detailed fair-use rationale are applied) would be fine for the Zoe Washburne article. However, it cannot be used for the Gina Torres article per WP:FUC criterion #1 and WP:FU counterexample #8. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Browncoat image up for deletion

I'm sure what the exact origin for Image:Independent flag.jpg is, but it is currently up for deletion. I'm arguing that it should be kept, for no other reason than that there isn't a real reason to delete it (remove it from the two mainspace articles, and at worst, it is a userbox image).

Anyway, please join in the discussion. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of Category:Firefly (TV series) producers. Tim! 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Firefly episodes images are gone, thought you should know.

List of Firefly episodes images are gone, thought you should know. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

i tried reverting the deletion of the images, but the actual images themselves are deleted, not just from the page. when i reverted all the images came up as red links. Anyone know what happened????

-Threewaysround 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They were all deleted on February 8th by User:Thebainer. The deletion logs [5] [6] state that they were Speed deleted. Would have been nice if we have been notified.--SirNuke 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


was any reason stated for their deletion???-Threewaysround 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log message says no fair use rationale. I assume the images were screenshots from the episodes, and would have following under Wikipedia's Fair Use Rational.--SirNuke 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

well from my understanding screen shots are ok with the fair use rational. But anyway would the pictures of episodes in the menus of the dvd be a good replacment for those pictures (under fair use)????? - Threewaysround 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the screenshots are from, as long as you say what the source is. Also, they should be of a key scene in the episode, not just a random screengrab. The image page should end up looking something like what I did for Image:Man vs. Wild season 1 episode 8.jpg. - Peregrine Fisher 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

so the images really didn't need to be deleted, as long as they had a source listed right? can we undelete them???, if they didn't have a source listed could we just right the DVD's as a source because that is where they would have gotten them????-Threewaysround 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They may have had the source already listed, it's hard to tell since they're deleted. What they were lacking was the fair use rational. You might ask the admin who deleted them if they would put them back so we can fix them. Or, apparently there's a template for this, Template:ImageUndeleteRequest, and some random admine might help. - Peregrine Fisher 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly Old Wounds

Hello Folks! And what an amazing page that's here! Well done! I just wanted to request that Firefly: Old Wounds be submitted as an external link. As the saying goes... I'm not doing this for page rankings or the esteem. Our little audio drama was the first Firefly fully developed full cast series of Firefly and I think it nicely ties in between the television series and the comics. I'd love to see it placed here so others who love firefly can find it, and listen to it.

Thanks so much, Jack

Jack Ward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonicsociety (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, Jack. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. However cool your drama might be, it is not appropriate to the article, any more than a link to somebody's fanfic site would be. Just sayin'! --Orange Mike 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Firefly slang words AFD Notice

  • Thought I'd let y'all browncoats know that the above article was nommed at AfD. Link: List of Firefly slang words (AfD discussion). Please note that I did not nominate the article, nor do I expect to participate in the discussion. Just conjured that y'all might want to know in case anyone wanted to try a barnswallow. LaughingVulcan 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New guideline on fiction: Delete Firefly-related articles?

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't Stop The Serenity charity event - needs an article?

After a bit of going back and forth on the Can't Stop The Serenity section on the Serenity (film) article regarding how much detail should actually be included, it's been suggested that we simply create an article for the event so that we can have expanded, accurate, detailed coverage of it without overloading the film itself's main article too much.

Keep in mind that the event is international in scope, has made local press at least a few times, is increasingly successful, and as far as I know, unique amongst charity events relating to films. Oh, and now with two such events in the past and a third on the way, it's officially an annual event (which in 2007, took in over US$113,000), making it even more notable.

If we get enough news articles in, and enough details on the history (you could probably copy-paste some of the previous versions of the event's section on Serenity (film), if you want a starting point to work from, as it's not there now but has been there before), and a good lead, as well as a good perspective as to exactly how unique the event is (as in, are there any similar charity events that have ever been done with a film, let alone cult film, and have they been so widespread or international, or annual in nature, and if so did they ever raise more than US$100,000... or is Serenity really 100% unique in this?), I think we can put together a pretty good, accurate, well-written, well-sourced page where notability is established quite well... which, you know, might actually stay up even! (/AFD joke)

Any input on this would be much appreciated! Runa27 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing Character Merge Discussion

Following the result of a recent AfD a merge discussion has been started on the talk page of the main Firefly article here. The discussion seems to have slowed down a bit and I thought people here might like to give their input. [[Guest9999 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Browncoat page

Per the deletion discussion for this article, I cast my vote for "keep" conditioned on the removal of all fan events and other fancruft. All of this content was in clear violation of WP:NOT, i.e., Wikipedia is not a list of links, social networking site or soapbox. This position was supported by at least one other reviewer of the article. I have now removed all of it, bringing the article more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Please do not replace it, and please keep an eye out to prevent others from replacing it. I know there are responsible Wikipedians in the Firefly WikiProject, and I appeal to you to keep this article in line. Thank you. --Boradis 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Scenes

Deleted Scenes aren't mentioned in the Canon section. Are deleted scenes canon or are they additional material like the novelization and RPG? Either way, their existence should be mentioned. Observatorr (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

[edit] WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [8] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly (soundtrack) AfD result

copied over from Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Firefly (soundtrack). -- saberwyn 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

An Articles for Deletion discussion has recently concluded on the article Firefly (soundtrack). The result of the discussion was to merge the information to the Music section of the main article, although the closing admin declined to perform the merger themselves, requesting that other editors do so to avoid cluttering this article. A mergetag has been placed on the Soundtrack article, but not here yet.

Previously, I merged in the soundtrack infobox (which I have just updated with the most recent version from the soundtrack article, and added a line about the slightly different digital EP release before the physical CD release (see this 2-edit diff). I've just updated the infobox. The only other things in that article but not in the main article are the CD tracklist (which has been suggested be converted to the {{tracklist}} template when/if included), an unsourced whinge about the lack of "The Ballad of Jane Cobb" on the CD, and some external links that may/may not be of use.

So I'm making it known that Firefly (soundtrack) needs to be merged and redirected to the Music section of the main article. Does anything else need to be merged over before it is redirected? -- saberwyn 07:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • All been wrapped up following discussions on the Firefly series talk page. Nothing to see here... move along. -- saberwyn 10:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serenity comics merge idea

I was flicking through the first issue of Serenity: Better Days (looking for info on the planned Shepherd Book comic) when I noticed in the bottom right of the back of the title page that BD was "Number 4 in a series". BD #2 is the same - "Number 5 in a series".

This got me thinking, that in terms of publishing, that each 'series' is also/actually a story arc in a broader Serenity comic series, which appears to be slowly ongoing with the Book series slated for the end of the year. So I've got this crazy idea that I'm throwing out to the fans (before I slap any mergetags on or do any really heavy lifting myself). Merge the two articles into a combined Serenity (comic series) article:

  • The series so far is small enough to handle a combined article. There have been no major changes in the structure of the storyarcs or the people involved with producing the comic, so eliminating any duplication following the merge will condense the size more.
  • As mentioned above, it eliminates some of the redundancy between the two articles, by having information on the authors (Whedon, Matthews) and illustrator (Conrad) condensed in one section, the history of the series in one section, reactions condensed into one section, etc.
    • As a part of this, each storyarc would have its own section (likely under a Storyarc over-heading), where the specific publishing info of the series and a plot summary can be provided
  • It doesn't look like the series will be expanding dramatically in the near future, with only one more storyarc (Sheperd's Tale) between now and the end of the year.
    • If it (hopefully) does explode in the near or distant future, enough material about the series overall would have been generated to support an article on the series itself, while the individual storyarcs could be re-split out as sub-articles
  • It will provide a single "main article" to anchor the Spin-offs > Comics section of the Firefly series article and anywhere else such a main article anchor would be beneficial

I've knocked together a crude layout in userspace (see User:Saberwyn/Serenity (comic series)). If there is some support for this idea, I'll flesh it out in userspace before getting final opinions and putting it in main. I want to make it clear that I have no intention of merging the articles without some strong feelings of joy from the main Firefly article editors, hence, no mergetags on the articles yet... I'm new in this section of Wikipedia, and don't want to step on any toes. I'm also going to link this discussion to the respective talk pages of the two comics, so everybody knows what's going on.

So... yes? No? Opinions? -- saberwyn 10:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Horse site states they are sets of mini-series [9] which would make them more like Hellboy, which has a few articles on the different series. I suppose the question is can the two current articles be fleshed out enough to warrant their own articles (and satisfy WP:FICT? If no then they should be merged together. That said it might be worth having an article that acts as an overview of the series (comics Project naming conventions would suggest the best name would be: "Serenity (comics)") a bit like The Sandman (Vertigo) which has separate articles for each trade collection of the larger series (or have a look at Hellboy Animated or a good parallel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight) you could then use {{main}} to link the sections to the main articles. So think either way it'd be worth creating the article and then perhaps look into merges. (Emperor (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
To respond to the points I think you're trying to make.
  1. Dark Horse site says they are mini-series. Cool. They're mini-series (miniseries-es?). I will admit I was confused because of the inside numbering, but I can put that down to little knowledge of comics in general (although I will be asking questions if The Shepherd's Tale #1 reads "Number 7 in a series" on the inside cover - is it actually a series of mini-series?). This idea could easily be made workable again, per your sgeestion of main-linking to each miniseries article. Also see my main statement below.
  2. Could the articles as they are pass WP:FICT? I think yes, but only by the skin-of-teeth. Both articles need expansion in the "real world" matters, which could be done in either the min-series articles or a combined 'series' article. The former will result in a lot of duplication between the two articles, while the latter keeps all the general information in one place (most likely in WP:Summary style), while keeping the mini-series articles as sub-articles. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The comics are not a "slowly ongoing" series. They're miniseries, period. The fact that there is enough information on each miniseries to warrant an article for each means that much of that information would be lost in a merge. I think they're fine the way they are. If and when enough individual miniseries get published that it may be beneficial to compile all the info they've created, and to show how that info fits into the chronology of Firefly and the Serenity feature film, that can be done with a new article, but it doesn't mean that the individual ones have to be eliminated. Nightscream (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
To respond.
  1. They're miniseries, period. See my first response to Emperor above and my full statement below.
  2. Material would be lost in a merge. Not necessarily. I've done a crude userspace merge up to this edit (although I do reserve the right to add information I come across while looking at this topic from this point on). All I've 'lost' so far is:
    • the blow-by-blow plot summaries
    • the pricing and page count info from BD
    • the ComicBook Database 'references' for each comic
    • The external links from each article (although the Chinese translation link has been added as I feel this is a very important resource for a combined article, while the others are only mildly important)
    • Some of the incredible, incredible detail from the "Notable occurances" section of Those Left Behind, as I dont feel a discussion on the fact the handle of The Operative's sword does not appear to be a katana is very important to the article. The important stuff is detailed in the small paragraph describing how the comic links the series and the movie, and sets up the movie.
  3. The individual articles will be eliminated'. No. Originally, my intention was to merge all (or failing that, all but the blow-by-blow) information in a single location, where it would be easily accessible to anybody interested in comics set in the Firefly/Serenity universe, and would avoid people having to go back and forth between two articles to get the whole deal. I don't want to lose the information. I don't want to then put the articles up for deletion. But this has changed, see below. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take two

Following the comments of Emperor and Nightscream, I've rethought the process. Instead of merging the two articles into a unified whole, I'm going to treat a [{Serenity (comics)]] article as a master article, of which the individual mini-series would be treated as sub-articles. (i.e. main article contains all the important info, while the miniseries articles go into more specific and more relevant detail.)

User:Saberwyn/Serenity (comic series) has been updated with 'merged in' info (everything but the blow-by-blow plot summaries and the really, really detailed trivia). I may look to start adding new info to it in the next few days.

So. Take two. Thoughts?

I favor the Master Article idea, as opposed to the merge one. A third miniseries is coming eventually, I've heard, and a Master Article will be limited in the amount of info it can have. It can be like The Ultimates, which has a master article, but has separate articles split off for The Ultimates 2 and The Ultimates 3.

[edit] Inclusion of Brust novel in Firefly (TV series)

Comments invited: Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Inclusion of Brust novel. xenocidic (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whedonesque.com

I could use more sets of eyes on whedonesque.com. I would like to get it to GA status despite the anti-blog perspective some editors seem to have. Since this project includes guidelines on using whedonesque.com as a reliable source, I expect this ought to interest someone around here. Can anyone lend a hand? Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Challenge to Episode Guide Notability

Just as an FYI, Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner? (an episode from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series) has a tag up challenging its notability. When I checked to see the rationale, they basically took the position that episode guides in general are inappropriate. So presumably if they can get this one deleted then they will attempt to delete more episodes of more shows. I'm not in any science fiction wikiprojects atm but I thought that this was something that people should be aware of. Wellspring (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)