Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:24, 17 December 2008

• WP:FRN
• WP:FICTN
• WP:FICT/N

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report incidences relating to the merging, splitting, redirection or notability of a fiction topic. Often, such topics can be branched out without due consideration of guidance on plot summaries or the notability of the topic itself. As the guidelines given at Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) state, topics dealing with a work of fiction or elements of a fictional work should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Misplaced Pages aims to reflect academic consensus.

Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of the fictional topic, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Misplaced Pages articles dealing with fiction topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fiction will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Also, fiction should never be presented as "fact."

Before posting a concern on this noticeboard, please try to work out local consensus with the editors of the page in question; you also may wish to seek assistance and consensus of any WikiProjects that the article or topic may belong to, particularly if dealing with several articles at a time. This Noticeboard should only be used in cases where no consensus can be reached, or additional advice or opinions are sought for topics and articles relating to fictional works. Should the suggestions from this Noticeboard fail to resolve the issue, other dispute resolution measures should be taken.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_16#Category:Antiheroes

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

New notability proposal

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

List of House episodes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silent Hill (film) Character Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillsfar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two-part episode merge

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

Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

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

Removal of {{notability}} and {{mergeto}} tags in regards to The Outer Limits episodes

What should be done in cases where an editor removes {{notability}} and {{mergeto}} tags with the edit summary "Adding templates" and doesn't leave a note anywhere in the merge discussions, as happened here (one of many)? I am in particular looking for an answer that doesn't raise accusations of bad faith on my part while assuring that the episode coverage eventually passes WP:EPISODE and various other policies and guidelines. (I have informed the editor in question of this noticeboard thread.)

I also use this occasion to invite editors to participate in the merge discussions at Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes. (It's got a bit of background, but a look at a few random articles will give you an idea why a merge proposal is on the table). – sgeureka 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think you'd be within your rights to revert the removals, leaving explanations at both the editor's talk page and the article's talk page. I think this falls well and truly under bold, revert, discuss. If the editor is open to discussion, then all is good. If they are unresponsive, well, I for one find hit-and-run editing like this annoying and unproductive and shouldn't hinder the people who aer actually trying to improve the articles. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• This question was initiated by you at least two times, and as you know, both times the result was To keep and Not to merge all TOL episodes' articles . Templates was removed in accordance with these discussions. Please, don't raise the same question again. Krasss (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The merge discussions show a no consensus at best, not a straight keep. But I'll leave this be for a few months. I have restored all notability tags to be better able to track the notability and/or improvement of these episode articles. Please avoid using misleading edit summaries in the future. – sgeureka 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot and In-Universe tags on the same article?

Does it make sense to have both in one article, in this case Bruenor Battlehammer? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, what about {{importance}} and {{notability}} on the same article? BOZ (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say no. Important would indicate that one feels the article probably is notable, but isn't "showing" it, while the latter questions whether it is notable at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, although these two tags are nearly interchangeable when the tagger is unfamilar with a topic. I nearly always only use the notability tag, or don't tag at all. – sgeureka 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, makes perfect sense as they speak to two different things. Plot is excessive amounts of plot, while in-universe notes that the fictional discussion is written from an in-universe perspective instead of real-world. An article could have one or both issues. Could have the right amount of "plot" type content, but have too much written in-universe, and visa versa, or both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I usually reserve {{plot}} for plot section of undue length in otherwise legitimate articles, and {{in-universe}} when the whole article perspective is wrong (no real-world focus). – sgeureka 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Frequently articles suffer from both flaws, which makes it even more confusing. Reyk _YO! 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the amount of suitable plot information is defined by the amount of present or addable real-world information elsewhere in the article, while {{in-universe}} often means that there is literally not even an attempt to cover real-world information. {{plot}} requires a trim but leaves the article structure mostly in-tact, while {{in-universe}} requires a completely rewrite of the article and expansion with real-world information (come to think of it, I use {{notability}} instead of {{in-universe}} most of the time, because they require the same solution). – sgeureka 08:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Galaxy Being
2. Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards