Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn in other media: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:38, 10 December 2019 editDarkknight2149 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,414 editsm →Harley Quinn in other media← Previous edit Revision as of 02:07, 10 December 2019 edit undoTTN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,138 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
:::::* No, '''this''' is content ownership. Whether or not you have faith in the community is irrelevant. If you want change, you have to propose it, raise your concerns, and discuss it like everyone else, instead of throwing consensus out the window and trying to force your point of view. And as previously mentioned, the matter of there being an "ownership" cabal at ] has been hotly discussed multiple times in the past, so this really is you taking matters into your own hands. There have even been instances in these nominations where users have pointed you to specific guidelines/conventions that you have chosen to ignore on the basis of "''I don't like that!''". At the Goblin nomination, when mistakes in your nomination were pointed out to you, you tried to ] instead of admitting your mistake. It was also '''you''' who tried to to open a discussion for you, so your ridiculous ]ing of ] is hypocritical as hell. You boldly tried to change the WikiProject through mass deletion nominations. At this point, more than one user has expressed their exasperation with this behaviour and your justifications have been ridiculous and disruptive. If this continues, action will likely be taken against you. ''']]]''' 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC) :::::* No, '''this''' is content ownership. Whether or not you have faith in the community is irrelevant. If you want change, you have to propose it, raise your concerns, and discuss it like everyone else, instead of throwing consensus out the window and trying to force your point of view. And as previously mentioned, the matter of there being an "ownership" cabal at ] has been hotly discussed multiple times in the past, so this really is you taking matters into your own hands. There have even been instances in these nominations where users have pointed you to specific guidelines/conventions that you have chosen to ignore on the basis of "''I don't like that!''". At the Goblin nomination, when mistakes in your nomination were pointed out to you, you tried to ] instead of admitting your mistake. It was also '''you''' who tried to to open a discussion for you, so your ridiculous ]ing of ] is hypocritical as hell. You boldly tried to change the WikiProject through mass deletion nominations. At this point, more than one user has expressed their exasperation with this behaviour and your justifications have been ridiculous and disruptive. If this continues, action will likely be taken against you. ''']]]''' 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::*The irony is that TTN only has to "deletion spam", in the words of DarkKnight, because comic book fans remove PRODs offhand no matter how fancrufty and non-notable the content is, which in itself is disruptive editing.<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC) ::::::*The irony is that TTN only has to "deletion spam", in the words of DarkKnight, because comic book fans remove PRODs offhand no matter how fancrufty and non-notable the content is, which in itself is disruptive editing.<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::*Oh boy, you just aren't going to drop that you lost that argument, are you? You keep mentioning changes or gaining consensus. What exactly am I doing that differs from consensus? Is there a consensus that non-notable articles should exist? That's not a consensus a project can make. Projects can decide how to best organize content and act as a place of easy communal discussion. They don't get to override site-wide consensus on Notability. You are clearly trying to assert project dominance in a space where it doesn't exist. Thus you are claiming ownership. I in no way believe my pace is anywhere near a level of disruption, especially where these articles clearly fail ] and ]. ] (]) 02:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Summary style is king. Rather than a proper fork article, this is pure, unchecked bloat. There should be sections that discuss the most important roles and the character's impact in those roles. I could certainly see comic characters possibly having scholarly articles built entirely on their depictions in various media through proper sourcing, but this is not currently in such a state. ] (]) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - Summary style is king. Rather than a proper fork article, this is pure, unchecked bloat. There should be sections that discuss the most important roles and the character's impact in those roles. I could certainly see comic characters possibly having scholarly articles built entirely on their depictions in various media through proper sourcing, but this is not currently in such a state. ] (]) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:07, 10 December 2019

Harley Quinn in other media

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Harley Quinn in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appearances of a comic book character in film, etc. This fancruft fails WP:LISTN. I get that this is a spin-off article of Harley Quinn#In other media, but it is not a worthwhile one, and would be removed as excessive detail if it were still in the source article. For very popular comics characters with dozens or hundreds of appearances, Misplaced Pages should not attempt to list all appearances. Doing so verges on WP:IINFO and is of no interest to any but the most devoted of fans. Fan wikis are better suited for such purposes. Our article about the character should instead provide a broad overview of appearances and highlight the most important appearances. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Merge with Harley Quinn. Instead of deleting this content, consider condensing it into a table that simply lists works (or groups of works) by publisher and medium. It's not necessary to list detailed plot and character information from each of Quinn's appearances in video games, movies, etc. (that information, if it differs from her general bio from Batman: The Animated Series, should be captured in the articles for those separate games, movies, etc. and can be just briefly referenced here). I appreciate what the author was trying to do here but I don't think that it is necessary to maintain this level of wp:fancruft. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just pure fancruft and the amount of detail in this article is extremely trivial in nature, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of these cameo appearances are not necessary to mention anywhere besides her Wikia page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Obstensive Keep - When characters are adapted into other media, they are usually reinterpreted, adapted, and portrayed by multiple different actors. And Sandstein, we do list every appearance except for irrelevant minor appearances (such as a cameo) and trivial non-appearances (such as a mentioning). If you can fit all of the character's relevant appearances into the main article at a reasonable length, I will change my vote to delete. If not, there is no basis for a deletion. "In other media" sections get spun off into separate articles when they reach a certain length.
What I will say is that (in general) these deletion spammings (especially those of TTN) are getting out of hand, and are beginning to border on disruption. If certain users have an issue with how the WikiProject operates, they need to open a larger discussion instead of making an excessive amount of WP:POINTy deletion nominations. In fact, there actually have been such discussions where users have claimed that there is some secret ownership cabal at WP:COMICS, so the deletion spammings are really just a way to bypass the discussion without having to worry about changing consensus. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You act as if project permission is needed to nominate vast swathes of articles that fail multiple policies and guidelines. You act as if there is some affront to not dealing with a project directly over the articles related to the project. That is a claim of ownership. I have absolutely zero faith such a project can do anything when many of these articles have been sitting for literally 14 years at this point. Any attempt at self-cleanup seems to have died right out of the gate. Look at the Marvel and DC character lists and their complete lack of any organization. Look at all the various merged characters brought back by people like Rtkat3 out of complete ignorance of how WP:N and WP:WAF work. Look at the several people who seem angry at the mere fact that I'd nominate some of these articles even before there is any discussion on Misplaced Pages-defined Notability. There is no working with such a mishmash of cloistered people. It's not like there aren't some reasonable voices, but they're definitely drowned out. TTN (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, this is content ownership. Whether or not you have faith in the community is irrelevant. If you want change, you have to propose it, raise your concerns, and discuss it like everyone else, instead of throwing consensus out the window and trying to force your point of view. And as previously mentioned, the matter of there being an "ownership" cabal at WP:COMICS has been hotly discussed multiple times in the past, so this really is you taking matters into your own hands. There have even been instances in these nominations where users have pointed you to specific guidelines/conventions that you have chosen to ignore on the basis of "I don't like that!". At the Goblin nomination, when mistakes in your nomination were pointed out to you, you tried to dance around it instead of admitting your mistake. It was also you who tried to push the onus onto me to open a discussion for you, so your ridiculous WP:GAMEing of WP:OWN is hypocritical as hell. You boldly tried to change the WikiProject through mass deletion nominations. At this point, more than one user has expressed their exasperation with this behaviour and your justifications have been ridiculous and disruptive. If this continues, action will likely be taken against you. DarkKnight2149 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The irony is that TTN only has to "deletion spam", in the words of DarkKnight, because comic book fans remove PRODs offhand no matter how fancrufty and non-notable the content is, which in itself is disruptive editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh boy, you just aren't going to drop that you lost that argument, are you? You keep mentioning changes or gaining consensus. What exactly am I doing that differs from consensus? Is there a consensus that non-notable articles should exist? That's not a consensus a project can make. Projects can decide how to best organize content and act as a place of easy communal discussion. They don't get to override site-wide consensus on Notability. You are clearly trying to assert project dominance in a space where it doesn't exist. Thus you are claiming ownership. I in no way believe my pace is anywhere near a level of disruption, especially where these articles clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Summary style is king. Rather than a proper fork article, this is pure, unchecked bloat. There should be sections that discuss the most important roles and the character's impact in those roles. I could certainly see comic characters possibly having scholarly articles built entirely on their depictions in various media through proper sourcing, but this is not currently in such a state. TTN (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Categories: