 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
There's something that's confusing me about Ambrose's time on the field team. He was clearly on the team while the Drummer was still just a child. Given that the Drummer appears to be in his early 20s in the series' first issue and that Wildstorm tends to follow real-world chronology, the rescue mission for the Drummer would have to have taken place earlier than Ambrose's documented recruitment in 1994. I figured that Ambrose left the team and the Drummer took his place until 1994, making Ambrose's documented recruitment actually a re-recruitment, but I wasn't sure so I basically sidestepped it in the article itself. Ellis will probably reveal more details as the series progresses, but if anyone else has figured this problem out, please edit the article to explain it. Thanks. TheCorpulent1 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Reality warper is too strong a term. Psychokineticist will do. Zythe 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. While alot of his tricks are explanable by psychokinesis, he's done a couple things not traditionally under that power-
- 1. Slowing/stopping time ( Planet Fiction )
- 2. Warping either matter and energy, or the space it occupies ( Zero Point )
- 3. Transporting himself somewhere else, apparently outside normal reality ( Planet Fiction, as explained in Systems )
- He's obviously not a reality warper in the sense that, say, Mxylplzytk(sic) or James Jaspers are, or even most super mages. Still, he does seem to be altering local physical law.
I've removed the redirect to Planetary (comics), because it effectively amounted to deleting the entire article, which is not appropriate without discussion. Even a merger of the two articles (e.g. a subsection in the Planetary article discussing the character of Ambrose Chase) should be discussed before it's performed. Wikipedia articles should reflect the consensus of the editors.
I've also removed the "plot summary" tag. The article is no more plot summary than most of the hundreds of wikipedia articles that describe comic book characters' histories and their powers. If someone feels this is not the appropriate way to deal with comic book characters in wikipedia, this should be brought up through WikiProject Comics, not by unilaterally making selective edits to individual articles.
Basically, respect the consensus of the group and don't scrap people's work without discussion. -- Tim314 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further looking into it, I see that the previous editer is involved in WikiProject Comics, so maybe these changes represent some consensus of which I'm not aware. Has it been decided that "super hero profile" type articles are simply not going to be included on wikipedia, as the "plot summary" accusation seems to suggest? I think that'd be a horrible shame, as many comics book fans rely on these pages as references. (As evidence, note that this wikipedia article is the #1 hit on Google for the text "Ambrose Chase", a ranking which reflects a high number of other web pages linking to this one.)
- In any case, why was the article deleted without the typical voting for or against deletion -- if it happened, I can't find it -- and more importantly, without incorporating any of the content into the Planetary article. You've basically said "lets take the most cited description of this fictional character on the whole world wide web and scrap that information completely." The Planetary article includes nothing from this article whatsoever, only saying Ambrose Chase was the "former third man". -- Tim314 05:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- In particular, I don't find this merger/deletion listed in either the Project Comics merge discussions or the Project Comics deletion discussions.
- To reiterate: even if the vote is for merger, the content should be incorporated into the Planetary article. Something as basic as the superpower of a former member of the team is not an irrelevant detail in the context of that article. Brief descriptions of all current and former members would be appropriate, with links to their own articles where they exist. -- Tim314 05:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- you might find our page advising editors to be bold helpful, as well as notability guidance. Hiding Talk 14:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Readded the plot tag. I'm adding them as I go, and I am adding them in line with policy, per what Wikipedia is not. Please have a read here as to why arguing that all other articles just like this should be tagged first os not such a good idea. As to the plot tag, and why it has been added and your disagreement with it, please discuss this issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), where a consensus on how to write about fiction has emerged. Also, the article wasn't deleted, it was redirected. The history was all there for anyone to see, let's not make more of this than there needs to be. Given the mood at afd these days, I'm not sure this article would stay, so a redirect is a lot kinder than a deletion. Hiding Talk 15:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- If it's any help, the reason this one got hit before a lot of the others is because I'm going alphabetically. Hiding Talk 15:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- 2-ish¢
- With the absolute lack of real-world context and cited references, either primary or secondary, it's hard to say the article is justifiable, let alone notable.
- As for redirecting: If this is all this article will be, then yes redirect. In such a case I would compress this and add it to the article on the comic in a new section for characters, wither just before or after the biblio section. If that get to large, then split off that section in full to a "List of Planetary characters" article. - J Greb 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense but I'd suggest we can skip the merge and the split as, as well as the core members of the group (which are shaky on WP:FICT) we also have Axel Brass, Four (comics), Bret Leather, Lord Blackstock and John Stone (comics) - all of which are in real need of merging to a list of Planetary characters-type article. If we do that we may as well sweep them all up - sort them by group (with an other section for Stone). ( Emperor 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- My fourpennth - I think simply redirecting isn't the way to go. Chase may have only appeared a few times but his influence and back story runs through the series.
- That said Hiding is right and this is failing
WP:FICT, however, all the Planetary characters are:
Elijah Snow is actually worse off than Chase on this front. I can address issues of
WP:V, etc. and provide suitable sources (which I'll do now) but there is still
WP:N. I'd suggest, in line with FICT, that we merge all the Planetary characters into "Planetary characters" with an eye on the example they give
Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. None of them appear outside the series (except for the crossovers in Crossing Worlds) and so the plot is really their own story. Of course you could merge them all into the main article but they'd probably need splitting out again so we can probably skip that step. (
Emperor 17:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- If that's the way we decide to go, remember to add the lead of the "Planetary characters" article to Planetary (comics), per Wikipedia:Summary Style, and note all the merges in the edit summaries per WP:MERGE, for GFDL. Hiding Talk 19:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- And I agree that long term "simple" redirecting isn't the way to go. The issue is the large number of articles we have on characters that simply can't meet current policy and guidance. It's easier in my mind to redirect them all to avoid WP:WAX and then after sort the wheat from the chaff and work out what goes where. For me, redirection is preferable to deletion since a deletion leaves a hole; the reader is uninformed. A redirect leaves the map, and lets us work back. I'd rather redirect since it leaves everything in place if we ever need it; a deletion is very hard to get undone, even to un-delete and redirect can cause issues. Hiding Talk 19:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I must add that I don't believe the references added meet WP:RS, nor actually add anything to the article. The comics themselves will better source the information presented. For me they all equate to questionable sources and self-published sources. Hiding Talk 20:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, changing this page to a redirect, either to the article on the comic book or a character list, is preferable to just deleting it. And I had suggested the move to the comic book article first as a stop gap. If we are going to go for the character list, that article should be in place before this and the like are changed over to redirects. - J Greb 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with redirecting and then sorting things out is that people just undo the redirect (as you haven't had any merge discussion - a bit of a Catch 22 and you might as well go the whole hog and do the merge properly) and once redirected it is out of sight out of mind and may never get dealt with so you might as well have deleted it (except that someone will eventually come along and undo the redirect - see the first one). Basically redirecting resolves nothing and sweeping it under the carpet just means someone will eventually find it when trying to work out what that odd lump is (to drive the analogy to its inevitable conclusion).
- Granted we are going to hit WP:WAX but the reason one of the other names for that section is "other crap exists" is because it isn't a suitable argument against doing something. Granted there will be problems if you were to do it one at a time (as just merging Snow would be odd if you didn't do it with Wagner and The Drummer) but the simple answer is to do one big fat merge discussion and list all the 9 characters. I agree you would need to start the article beforehand although it would largely be a shell and you'd need to be careful in case someone tried to speedy it when your back was turned. Sooooo if this was deemed the best way forward I'd be happy to sketch out the shell in my sandbox and then it can be made live at the same time the merge tags are posted.
- There are going to be A LOT of characters failing
WP:FICT and needing merging to a character list and Planetary seems quite a good test case as it is a well-defined set of characters who haven't appeared much outside the main title. (
Emperor 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- Actually, not that many are being undone, and they won't get forgotten about either, since they're all categorised. And you don't need any merge discussion. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there are so many policies and guidance now that would let us simply blank the article on sight. Wikipedia:Verifiability for starters would have allowed all information removed from the article. We currently have over 4000 un-assessed articles. I don't think there's a huge issue in being bold, running through them all, and sorting them all out and picking the pieces up after. I don't see that you have to start the article first, you just do the merge in one hit, but maybe that's just me. The joy of Wikipedia is that we all work differently. Hiding Talk 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can I also point out that it is possible for consensus to emerge through editing as much as through discussing. From WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process. Hiding Talk 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- However... as always... point-blank redirecting or merging does run the possibility of someone watching the page complaining. Such as the case here. And we have to step back and break out the hoops anyway.
- I'm not adverse to the pb approach, but it helps if "But no content was saved/moved" complaint. That means that if the character gets flipped to the comic, the comic has a character section where the image is already repeated or where it can be placed. If it's going to a character list, same thing. With this character, if the goal was to have a "Planetary characters" article, it would have helped for that to exist before this article was flipped. Get the article up then either pb redirect the nine articles to it or set up the mass merge discussion. -
J Greb 21:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, and let's not forget this is a learning process for everyone here. The trouble is working outt which articles are going to end up where. Look at the discussion over amalgam characters, which has broadly decided to have no separate articles. I think we've got to remember to assume good faith a bit more, and just seek common ground rather than perhaps escalating an issue beyond whatr it is; an edit in an encyclopedia. I apologise for the abrupt manner in which my edit was made; this was one of the early ones. From the B's onwards I'm adding notes to the talk page. I don't mind getting it wrong, it's how you learn. But I think we all have to bear in mind that everyone has a different idea of how Wikipedia works, and the best thing to do is focus on the content. Hiding Talk 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not that many are being undone, for now. The problem is that we create a rolling wave of redirecting and then reversing and you can't necessarily rely on the precedent that the previous redirects haven't yet been undone. I notice you did a lot of Bloodlines redirects recently and I notice that someone has raised this issue with you [1]. I'm afraid that nothing gets resolved here unless the move is obvious.
- The problem is that although it still technically exists the information is not being merged it is essential disappearing from the public eye and this is going to cause confusion and possibly even bad feeling - I know I was pretty confused when you redirected two near identical comic articles I was trying to merge with each other to the publisher and I had nothing to do with the articles other than trying to resolve a problem. If people have been doing hard work on various articles then logging in to find they'd simply been redirected with no discussion is not going to make them happy.
- Granted we do have reams of policy that would allow us to point to something to justify doing this (although reading through
WP:FICT there are a lot of other solutions to the failing of notability in this area, of which I feel redirecting should be a very minor aspect) but it doesn't mean we should. If the outcome is a no-brainer then we might as well still go through the formality of doing the discussion so things can be properly resolved with a consensus and as I've said I have concerns about the various character articles for Planetary and would be happy to head up a move to get these merge into their on article. (
Emperor 15:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
- That merge of two identical articles you mention had been tagged for a merge for five months. I'd say anyone wanting to merge the two articles should have done it by then, if they were that bothered. I seem to recall mentioning the bloodlines articles at WP:COMICS so it appears I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I'm not interested in relying on precedent, point of fact I don't believe in precedent. I'm just looking to edit articles in line with consensus, and I'm happy to discuss when people want to discuss. I'm glad so many people have an interest in my talk page, maybe I can stop answering queries on it now and let others do that. If people think that Wikipedia needs articles on every comic book character going then can they please raise that at the relevant page, WP:FICT. If they think they don't need sourcing, please take it to WP:V. If they think they can be all about plot, can they take it to WP:NOT. If they think it can be about in-universe details, please take it to WP:WAF. I've spent two years on Wikipedia talking about all those decisions, engaging in discussion, seeking consensus. The minute I start to implement the results of those two years, people want more discussion. I'm just all talked out. The article here is Ambrose Chase. This is the talk page for that article. Can we please keep discussion here to the character Ambrose Chase, and can we please, per Wikipedia policy and guidance, focus on the content, not the editor or the editor's actions or anything else. If anyone thinks the content I've been redirecting merits an article, then feel free to un-redirect. That's the beauty of redirection as opposed to deletion, it can be undone so very easily. I'm not looking for anyone to head up a move to get these articles merged, I'm not looking to get involved in ten or twenty pages of discussion that doesn't quite achieve resolution. All I was trying to do was create a better encyclopedia in line with policies and guidance. Good day to you all, happy editing and see you around. This is Wikipedia. Everything is obvious and nothing is. Cheers, Hiding Talk 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of content and notability, I'll have to look this material over some more before I'd even have an opinion as to whether this should be turned into a redirect or remain a separate article.
- Regarding the editorial process, however, I think turning it into a redirect was a fair edit to make. At cursory glance, the article is skimpy of content, the character doesn't sound notable (which may or may not be correct; at this point, I'm just talking about the impression the article gives), and it's weakly written with some speculation, although not so weakly written that a rewrite looks like a huge and daunting task. Wikipedia tells us to be bold. Although that's an argument I usually get sick of seeing people use, that's because they tend to misuse it and to dig in their heels about edits that have turned out to be controversial. You'll notice that as soon as this turned out to be more controversial than Hiding anticipated, he engaged in dialogue about the article's worth. When nobody particularly seems to care enough about an article to edit any more than this one has been, then it's hard to expect that a redirect will be controversial, and it's hard to believe that there really is anybody invested in the article enough that this needs to be discussed with them.
- Re: "Basically, respect the consensus of the group and don't scrap people's work without discussion." What group? What consensus? Look at this thing's skimpy edit history. As for not scrapping people's work without discussion -- well, that sounds nice, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We cannot engage in dialogue over every single thing we might need to delete. Until Hiding did the redirect, who knew there was anybody who needed to discuss this? I know I would get awfully tired of being asked to discuss every single edit I'd made that someone else wanted to change.
- Hiding redirected. Someone objected. Hiding un-redirected. Dialogue has begun. Doczilla 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers with my comments above. I was just a bit shocked to find a 600+ word article which I personally found useful (as a comic fan trying to get up-to-speed on the Planetary series) suddenly gone. (Not gone gone, but buried in the history of a redirect page, so that I'd probably never have found it if I hadn't already seen the page before the redirect.) Truth be told, I'd probably be OK with incorporating this (and descriptions of other Planetary characters) into a section of the Planetary atricle (with links to their own pages if we think they should have them). But it should be incorporated, not removed. While the character is minor in the grand scheme of fiction, he's not minor within the context of the Planetary comic -- that is, someone wanting to know about the series would want to at least know who's been on the team and what their super-powers were. Currently the Planetary article only says that the team had a former member named Ambrose Chase.
So if the decision is to merge, I say incorporate the relevant info, then merge. Isn't that how mergers are usually done? To do otherwise needlessly buries this info.
That said, I think using the general wikipedia guidelines for fiction as a guide for dealing with comic book characters would be a mistake, because comic book characters are inherently different than most other fictional characters in certain key ways. The vast majority of fictional characters appeared either in a single novel or a single series of novels written by a single author. Comic book characters are typically written by numerous different authors and appear in numerous different series, with the only common thread usually (but not always) being the publisher. (I admit, Ambrose Chase is not a good example of this, which is why I say I'm OK with a merger.) The reason that there are so many wikipedia articles that are basically profiles of comic book characters is that knowing the characters is the fundamental literacy that anyone who wants to understand superhero comics needs -- knowing the names and descriptions of the ever-changing list of publications is secondary.
Moreover, most of those who contributed to the wikipedia guidelines for fiction may not even be aware of thses issues, because they are specific to superhero comics as a genre. The most appropriate place for settling questions of how comic book characters should be dealt with on wikipedia is through WikiProject Comics. Deletions and mergers of comics articles should also first be posted in the Project Comics merge discussions and Project Comics deletion discussions pages, to attract the attention of those with the knowledge to comment on them. That's what those pages are there for. -- Tim314 08:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a few comics fans had input into the Wikipedia guidelines for fiction, and we mentioned the drafting at WikiProject Comics so that everyone could have their input. I'd also point out that part of the impetus for drafting the guidance were articles on soap opera characters, characters I'm sure you will agree share what you refer to as "typically written by numerous different authors and appear in numerous different series". You make incredibly good points, but I have to take issue with the idea that WikiProject Comics can become a closed shop; it has been demonstrated time and again that Wikipedia does not allow such a broad remit to WikiProjects; the consensus of Wikipedia will always take precedence over the consensus of WikiProjects where they differ. There are a vast number of superhero character articles on Wikipedia, and sadly not all of them have made more than one appearance. Like you say, Ambrose Chase is not a great example, which is why I chose to redirect it. Articles on characters who have made a greater impact will not be merged. We're looking at the smaller characters, those whose appearances are limited to one series, one team or one issue; characters for whom a merge is sensible. I think the thing to focus on here is the end result, not the methods used to get there. Hiding Talk 09:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I really don not see any reason for this page to be turned into a redirect, and if it came to a vote I would vote against that action. -- Basique 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
There's something that's confusing me about Ambrose's time on the field team. He was clearly on the team while the Drummer was still just a child. Given that the Drummer appears to be in his early 20s in the series' first issue and that Wildstorm tends to follow real-world chronology, the rescue mission for the Drummer would have to have taken place earlier than Ambrose's documented recruitment in 1994. I figured that Ambrose left the team and the Drummer took his place until 1994, making Ambrose's documented recruitment actually a re-recruitment, but I wasn't sure so I basically sidestepped it in the article itself. Ellis will probably reveal more details as the series progresses, but if anyone else has figured this problem out, please edit the article to explain it. Thanks. TheCorpulent1 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Reality warper is too strong a term. Psychokineticist will do. Zythe 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. While alot of his tricks are explanable by psychokinesis, he's done a couple things not traditionally under that power-
- 1. Slowing/stopping time ( Planet Fiction )
- 2. Warping either matter and energy, or the space it occupies ( Zero Point )
- 3. Transporting himself somewhere else, apparently outside normal reality ( Planet Fiction, as explained in Systems )
- He's obviously not a reality warper in the sense that, say, Mxylplzytk(sic) or James Jaspers are, or even most super mages. Still, he does seem to be altering local physical law.
I've removed the redirect to Planetary (comics), because it effectively amounted to deleting the entire article, which is not appropriate without discussion. Even a merger of the two articles (e.g. a subsection in the Planetary article discussing the character of Ambrose Chase) should be discussed before it's performed. Wikipedia articles should reflect the consensus of the editors.
I've also removed the "plot summary" tag. The article is no more plot summary than most of the hundreds of wikipedia articles that describe comic book characters' histories and their powers. If someone feels this is not the appropriate way to deal with comic book characters in wikipedia, this should be brought up through WikiProject Comics, not by unilaterally making selective edits to individual articles.
Basically, respect the consensus of the group and don't scrap people's work without discussion. -- Tim314 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further looking into it, I see that the previous editer is involved in WikiProject Comics, so maybe these changes represent some consensus of which I'm not aware. Has it been decided that "super hero profile" type articles are simply not going to be included on wikipedia, as the "plot summary" accusation seems to suggest? I think that'd be a horrible shame, as many comics book fans rely on these pages as references. (As evidence, note that this wikipedia article is the #1 hit on Google for the text "Ambrose Chase", a ranking which reflects a high number of other web pages linking to this one.)
- In any case, why was the article deleted without the typical voting for or against deletion -- if it happened, I can't find it -- and more importantly, without incorporating any of the content into the Planetary article. You've basically said "lets take the most cited description of this fictional character on the whole world wide web and scrap that information completely." The Planetary article includes nothing from this article whatsoever, only saying Ambrose Chase was the "former third man". -- Tim314 05:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- In particular, I don't find this merger/deletion listed in either the Project Comics merge discussions or the Project Comics deletion discussions.
- To reiterate: even if the vote is for merger, the content should be incorporated into the Planetary article. Something as basic as the superpower of a former member of the team is not an irrelevant detail in the context of that article. Brief descriptions of all current and former members would be appropriate, with links to their own articles where they exist. -- Tim314 05:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- you might find our page advising editors to be bold helpful, as well as notability guidance. Hiding Talk 14:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Readded the plot tag. I'm adding them as I go, and I am adding them in line with policy, per what Wikipedia is not. Please have a read here as to why arguing that all other articles just like this should be tagged first os not such a good idea. As to the plot tag, and why it has been added and your disagreement with it, please discuss this issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), where a consensus on how to write about fiction has emerged. Also, the article wasn't deleted, it was redirected. The history was all there for anyone to see, let's not make more of this than there needs to be. Given the mood at afd these days, I'm not sure this article would stay, so a redirect is a lot kinder than a deletion. Hiding Talk 15:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- If it's any help, the reason this one got hit before a lot of the others is because I'm going alphabetically. Hiding Talk 15:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- 2-ish¢
- With the absolute lack of real-world context and cited references, either primary or secondary, it's hard to say the article is justifiable, let alone notable.
- As for redirecting: If this is all this article will be, then yes redirect. In such a case I would compress this and add it to the article on the comic in a new section for characters, wither just before or after the biblio section. If that get to large, then split off that section in full to a "List of Planetary characters" article. - J Greb 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense but I'd suggest we can skip the merge and the split as, as well as the core members of the group (which are shaky on WP:FICT) we also have Axel Brass, Four (comics), Bret Leather, Lord Blackstock and John Stone (comics) - all of which are in real need of merging to a list of Planetary characters-type article. If we do that we may as well sweep them all up - sort them by group (with an other section for Stone). ( Emperor 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- My fourpennth - I think simply redirecting isn't the way to go. Chase may have only appeared a few times but his influence and back story runs through the series.
- That said Hiding is right and this is failing
WP:FICT, however, all the Planetary characters are:
Elijah Snow is actually worse off than Chase on this front. I can address issues of
WP:V, etc. and provide suitable sources (which I'll do now) but there is still
WP:N. I'd suggest, in line with FICT, that we merge all the Planetary characters into "Planetary characters" with an eye on the example they give
Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. None of them appear outside the series (except for the crossovers in Crossing Worlds) and so the plot is really their own story. Of course you could merge them all into the main article but they'd probably need splitting out again so we can probably skip that step. (
Emperor 17:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- If that's the way we decide to go, remember to add the lead of the "Planetary characters" article to Planetary (comics), per Wikipedia:Summary Style, and note all the merges in the edit summaries per WP:MERGE, for GFDL. Hiding Talk 19:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- And I agree that long term "simple" redirecting isn't the way to go. The issue is the large number of articles we have on characters that simply can't meet current policy and guidance. It's easier in my mind to redirect them all to avoid WP:WAX and then after sort the wheat from the chaff and work out what goes where. For me, redirection is preferable to deletion since a deletion leaves a hole; the reader is uninformed. A redirect leaves the map, and lets us work back. I'd rather redirect since it leaves everything in place if we ever need it; a deletion is very hard to get undone, even to un-delete and redirect can cause issues. Hiding Talk 19:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I must add that I don't believe the references added meet WP:RS, nor actually add anything to the article. The comics themselves will better source the information presented. For me they all equate to questionable sources and self-published sources. Hiding Talk 20:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, changing this page to a redirect, either to the article on the comic book or a character list, is preferable to just deleting it. And I had suggested the move to the comic book article first as a stop gap. If we are going to go for the character list, that article should be in place before this and the like are changed over to redirects. - J Greb 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with redirecting and then sorting things out is that people just undo the redirect (as you haven't had any merge discussion - a bit of a Catch 22 and you might as well go the whole hog and do the merge properly) and once redirected it is out of sight out of mind and may never get dealt with so you might as well have deleted it (except that someone will eventually come along and undo the redirect - see the first one). Basically redirecting resolves nothing and sweeping it under the carpet just means someone will eventually find it when trying to work out what that odd lump is (to drive the analogy to its inevitable conclusion).
- Granted we are going to hit WP:WAX but the reason one of the other names for that section is "other crap exists" is because it isn't a suitable argument against doing something. Granted there will be problems if you were to do it one at a time (as just merging Snow would be odd if you didn't do it with Wagner and The Drummer) but the simple answer is to do one big fat merge discussion and list all the 9 characters. I agree you would need to start the article beforehand although it would largely be a shell and you'd need to be careful in case someone tried to speedy it when your back was turned. Sooooo if this was deemed the best way forward I'd be happy to sketch out the shell in my sandbox and then it can be made live at the same time the merge tags are posted.
- There are going to be A LOT of characters failing
WP:FICT and needing merging to a character list and Planetary seems quite a good test case as it is a well-defined set of characters who haven't appeared much outside the main title. (
Emperor 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
- Actually, not that many are being undone, and they won't get forgotten about either, since they're all categorised. And you don't need any merge discussion. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there are so many policies and guidance now that would let us simply blank the article on sight. Wikipedia:Verifiability for starters would have allowed all information removed from the article. We currently have over 4000 un-assessed articles. I don't think there's a huge issue in being bold, running through them all, and sorting them all out and picking the pieces up after. I don't see that you have to start the article first, you just do the merge in one hit, but maybe that's just me. The joy of Wikipedia is that we all work differently. Hiding Talk 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can I also point out that it is possible for consensus to emerge through editing as much as through discussing. From WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process. Hiding Talk 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- However... as always... point-blank redirecting or merging does run the possibility of someone watching the page complaining. Such as the case here. And we have to step back and break out the hoops anyway.
- I'm not adverse to the pb approach, but it helps if "But no content was saved/moved" complaint. That means that if the character gets flipped to the comic, the comic has a character section where the image is already repeated or where it can be placed. If it's going to a character list, same thing. With this character, if the goal was to have a "Planetary characters" article, it would have helped for that to exist before this article was flipped. Get the article up then either pb redirect the nine articles to it or set up the mass merge discussion. -
J Greb 21:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, and let's not forget this is a learning process for everyone here. The trouble is working outt which articles are going to end up where. Look at the discussion over amalgam characters, which has broadly decided to have no separate articles. I think we've got to remember to assume good faith a bit more, and just seek common ground rather than perhaps escalating an issue beyond whatr it is; an edit in an encyclopedia. I apologise for the abrupt manner in which my edit was made; this was one of the early ones. From the B's onwards I'm adding notes to the talk page. I don't mind getting it wrong, it's how you learn. But I think we all have to bear in mind that everyone has a different idea of how Wikipedia works, and the best thing to do is focus on the content. Hiding Talk 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not that many are being undone, for now. The problem is that we create a rolling wave of redirecting and then reversing and you can't necessarily rely on the precedent that the previous redirects haven't yet been undone. I notice you did a lot of Bloodlines redirects recently and I notice that someone has raised this issue with you [1]. I'm afraid that nothing gets resolved here unless the move is obvious.
- The problem is that although it still technically exists the information is not being merged it is essential disappearing from the public eye and this is going to cause confusion and possibly even bad feeling - I know I was pretty confused when you redirected two near identical comic articles I was trying to merge with each other to the publisher and I had nothing to do with the articles other than trying to resolve a problem. If people have been doing hard work on various articles then logging in to find they'd simply been redirected with no discussion is not going to make them happy.
- Granted we do have reams of policy that would allow us to point to something to justify doing this (although reading through
WP:FICT there are a lot of other solutions to the failing of notability in this area, of which I feel redirecting should be a very minor aspect) but it doesn't mean we should. If the outcome is a no-brainer then we might as well still go through the formality of doing the discussion so things can be properly resolved with a consensus and as I've said I have concerns about the various character articles for Planetary and would be happy to head up a move to get these merge into their on article. (
Emperor 15:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
- That merge of two identical articles you mention had been tagged for a merge for five months. I'd say anyone wanting to merge the two articles should have done it by then, if they were that bothered. I seem to recall mentioning the bloodlines articles at WP:COMICS so it appears I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I'm not interested in relying on precedent, point of fact I don't believe in precedent. I'm just looking to edit articles in line with consensus, and I'm happy to discuss when people want to discuss. I'm glad so many people have an interest in my talk page, maybe I can stop answering queries on it now and let others do that. If people think that Wikipedia needs articles on every comic book character going then can they please raise that at the relevant page, WP:FICT. If they think they don't need sourcing, please take it to WP:V. If they think they can be all about plot, can they take it to WP:NOT. If they think it can be about in-universe details, please take it to WP:WAF. I've spent two years on Wikipedia talking about all those decisions, engaging in discussion, seeking consensus. The minute I start to implement the results of those two years, people want more discussion. I'm just all talked out. The article here is Ambrose Chase. This is the talk page for that article. Can we please keep discussion here to the character Ambrose Chase, and can we please, per Wikipedia policy and guidance, focus on the content, not the editor or the editor's actions or anything else. If anyone thinks the content I've been redirecting merits an article, then feel free to un-redirect. That's the beauty of redirection as opposed to deletion, it can be undone so very easily. I'm not looking for anyone to head up a move to get these articles merged, I'm not looking to get involved in ten or twenty pages of discussion that doesn't quite achieve resolution. All I was trying to do was create a better encyclopedia in line with policies and guidance. Good day to you all, happy editing and see you around. This is Wikipedia. Everything is obvious and nothing is. Cheers, Hiding Talk 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of content and notability, I'll have to look this material over some more before I'd even have an opinion as to whether this should be turned into a redirect or remain a separate article.
- Regarding the editorial process, however, I think turning it into a redirect was a fair edit to make. At cursory glance, the article is skimpy of content, the character doesn't sound notable (which may or may not be correct; at this point, I'm just talking about the impression the article gives), and it's weakly written with some speculation, although not so weakly written that a rewrite looks like a huge and daunting task. Wikipedia tells us to be bold. Although that's an argument I usually get sick of seeing people use, that's because they tend to misuse it and to dig in their heels about edits that have turned out to be controversial. You'll notice that as soon as this turned out to be more controversial than Hiding anticipated, he engaged in dialogue about the article's worth. When nobody particularly seems to care enough about an article to edit any more than this one has been, then it's hard to expect that a redirect will be controversial, and it's hard to believe that there really is anybody invested in the article enough that this needs to be discussed with them.
- Re: "Basically, respect the consensus of the group and don't scrap people's work without discussion." What group? What consensus? Look at this thing's skimpy edit history. As for not scrapping people's work without discussion -- well, that sounds nice, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We cannot engage in dialogue over every single thing we might need to delete. Until Hiding did the redirect, who knew there was anybody who needed to discuss this? I know I would get awfully tired of being asked to discuss every single edit I'd made that someone else wanted to change.
- Hiding redirected. Someone objected. Hiding un-redirected. Dialogue has begun. Doczilla 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers with my comments above. I was just a bit shocked to find a 600+ word article which I personally found useful (as a comic fan trying to get up-to-speed on the Planetary series) suddenly gone. (Not gone gone, but buried in the history of a redirect page, so that I'd probably never have found it if I hadn't already seen the page before the redirect.) Truth be told, I'd probably be OK with incorporating this (and descriptions of other Planetary characters) into a section of the Planetary atricle (with links to their own pages if we think they should have them). But it should be incorporated, not removed. While the character is minor in the grand scheme of fiction, he's not minor within the context of the Planetary comic -- that is, someone wanting to know about the series would want to at least know who's been on the team and what their super-powers were. Currently the Planetary article only says that the team had a former member named Ambrose Chase.
So if the decision is to merge, I say incorporate the relevant info, then merge. Isn't that how mergers are usually done? To do otherwise needlessly buries this info.
That said, I think using the general wikipedia guidelines for fiction as a guide for dealing with comic book characters would be a mistake, because comic book characters are inherently different than most other fictional characters in certain key ways. The vast majority of fictional characters appeared either in a single novel or a single series of novels written by a single author. Comic book characters are typically written by numerous different authors and appear in numerous different series, with the only common thread usually (but not always) being the publisher. (I admit, Ambrose Chase is not a good example of this, which is why I say I'm OK with a merger.) The reason that there are so many wikipedia articles that are basically profiles of comic book characters is that knowing the characters is the fundamental literacy that anyone who wants to understand superhero comics needs -- knowing the names and descriptions of the ever-changing list of publications is secondary.
Moreover, most of those who contributed to the wikipedia guidelines for fiction may not even be aware of thses issues, because they are specific to superhero comics as a genre. The most appropriate place for settling questions of how comic book characters should be dealt with on wikipedia is through WikiProject Comics. Deletions and mergers of comics articles should also first be posted in the Project Comics merge discussions and Project Comics deletion discussions pages, to attract the attention of those with the knowledge to comment on them. That's what those pages are there for. -- Tim314 08:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a few comics fans had input into the Wikipedia guidelines for fiction, and we mentioned the drafting at WikiProject Comics so that everyone could have their input. I'd also point out that part of the impetus for drafting the guidance were articles on soap opera characters, characters I'm sure you will agree share what you refer to as "typically written by numerous different authors and appear in numerous different series". You make incredibly good points, but I have to take issue with the idea that WikiProject Comics can become a closed shop; it has been demonstrated time and again that Wikipedia does not allow such a broad remit to WikiProjects; the consensus of Wikipedia will always take precedence over the consensus of WikiProjects where they differ. There are a vast number of superhero character articles on Wikipedia, and sadly not all of them have made more than one appearance. Like you say, Ambrose Chase is not a great example, which is why I chose to redirect it. Articles on characters who have made a greater impact will not be merged. We're looking at the smaller characters, those whose appearances are limited to one series, one team or one issue; characters for whom a merge is sensible. I think the thing to focus on here is the end result, not the methods used to get there. Hiding Talk 09:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I really don not see any reason for this page to be turned into a redirect, and if it came to a vote I would vote against that action. -- Basique 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)