Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 3

message: Meets all criteria Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: Well, I've set this article to be peer reviewed, which means that Wikipedia editors from all over will come in and help us to improve this article. It might involve some changes, but it will help to get this article to FA status. Tuvas 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tuvas!plange 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: ive read on some pages about a script for an unmade episode titles Dead or Alive... does anyone have any links to where i can find this script? -Xornok 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard of one...Let us know what you find out -plange 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I really want to find if this script is official, it is used for references on other wiki pages about firefly, and the alleged writers (theyre names are on the script, but anyone can write names)are people that worked on the filmed firefly episodes—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.184.222 (talk • contribs) 
I have a long audio file of a Firefly cast and crew interview at a comic book convention (I think) some time after Firefly was cancelled but before Serenity had begun. Someone in the audience asked about Dead or Alive after reading a script online. Joss answered that it was indeed an episode idea but it wasn't as polished or useful to the overall story as he'd like so they didn't go ahead with it. I'll try find a link to that audio recording.
Choinkees 07:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead or Alive? 

message: Thanks Josiah-- that actually is a direct quote from the DVD that I had in there, so perhaps adding your disclaimer in front adds more authority to that. -plange 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Kaylee 

message: Just ran across this, but gotta run out. Would make a great addition to the article http://www.tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=212 plange 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being released in HD 

message: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 where it'll be for a month until the archive page goes pay-only.
Since Firefly is capitalised and italicised, I think they're referring to the spunky TV show and not the insect. I'd mention it at the top of the talk page with one of those websitemention boxes, but I don't know if an appropriate one exists. It wasn't linked directly by a high-traffic website. Nor is The Onion a news source in this dimension. TransUtopian 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right about the meaning of "Firefly" here, but this really isn't something worth posting a note about at the top of the talk page. The primary purpose for this page is to discuss article content, and the Onion reference, even if it were verified as a reference to the Whedon show, is not worth adding to the article. (Thanks for the notice about the amusing article, though.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Point of interest, Jeandre notified us about this last week on our project talk page :-) plange 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and cool. I've been shying away from any project because I edit teensy things on anything I happen to land upon, but I might stop by and get sucked in. :) TransUtopian 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief The Onion mention 

message: ok, i was just watching Serenity's extra features and it does say his name is Meria. its on Re-lighting the Firefly on the extra Features... pause the movie and youll see it DOES say Meria... -Xornok 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted on the Book talk page, Meria was an early version of his name and changed prior to the final version of the film, just as an early version of Zoë's name was Warrren.  By the time the film came out, Whedon had changed both and in all official published sources (the novel, the RPG, the Serenity Companion and Firefly Companion (both written by Whedon), the name is given as Derrial.Shsilver 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book's name 

message: "Whedon himself maintains that the series' trademark splash (featuring Reynolds' ship Serenity soaring over a corral of unshod horses) was intended to serve as a readily digested five-second condensation or representative summary of the show."
This was removed for being uncited. (I didn't add it.) I thought having it here might prompt someone to remember where it might've been said or written down. TransUtopian 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like that's from the DVD commentary on the pilot episode?  I'd be willing to give it a look-see and find out.  (Oh, an excuse to rewatch Firefly!) -- Merope 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that would be great-- I remember it from somewhere too, but I removed the statement so that we can encourage contributors to provide sources first instead of leaving it all up to us in one big mammoth search for sources like we had to do to get our GA nom. --plange 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the back of my mind says that this is a Joss comment from the pilot. EVula 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited statement removed 

message: I thought that the logo looked somewhat unclear, so I changed it to a scanned copy of the DVD cover.  Is this okay with everyone? ChunkySoup 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer your change, I say you change it back unless some one explains why (or where it is said) that the opening credits logo is standard (?) - BalthCat 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opening logo looks better as the main image. The Wookieepedian 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I said that it might be what Whedon used, had it been a stationary logo, as it is on this page.  I've never seen any site use a screenshot of the opening for promos.    Note that the Fox site uses the same as the DVD cover, just slightly different saturation.ChunkySoup 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with the DVD cover, designed as a still image. The other logo is designed to be animated, and doesn't look quite right as a still. Barnas 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, one could argue that WP:IAR is relevant here if there is a guideline. ;) EVula 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt the DVD cover crop would even pass fair use, it is a set in stone standard to use a cap from the television show intro, few people would recognise that unless they actually owned the dvd. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking over WP:FAIR, I don't see anything that outright states we can't use a scan of the DVD cover. The DVD cover is clearer than the screen capture, which is why we're using it instead (which fits into fair use). You'll have to cite the policy about the "set in stone" rule about intro captures before I can actually address it. EVula 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatsthe proble,. it's not the dvd cover it's self it is a cropped bit of the DVD cover, a DVD cover would likely constitute fair use. Also being better quality then the previous does not constiute fair use. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: DVD covers really only used to illustrate the DVD. ed g2s • talk 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is tough.  It is unestablished territory whether a DVD cover is acceptable fair use on Wikipedia to illustrate a television show, although it is accepted to use screenshots.  Therefore, to play it safe, I am reversing my self and now recommending to switch back to the TV screenshot logo, albeit of inferior quality.-- danntm T C 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone could retake it from a HDTV source then that would be peachy (or a DVD source) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An HDTV screencap won't make a difference. For starters, if the source isn't "HD", the resulting screencap won't be "HD". Secondly, it is an animated image; that's part of the problem. There just isn't a clear image of it... aside from the DVD case (and is the reason that a DVD scan could work under Fair Use). EVula 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I took my DVD and went frame by frame in the entire opening sequence and could not find a better image.   Even if someone broke the encryption on the DVD and exported the VOB as frame by frame stills, what you have there is as good as it gets. - Trysha (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed logo 

message: :I doubt the DVD cover crop would even pass fair use, it is a set in stone standard to use a cap from the television show intro, few people would recognise that unless they actually owned the dvd. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking over WP:FAIR, I don't see anything that outright states we can't use a scan of the DVD cover. The DVD cover is clearer than the screen capture, which is why we're using it instead (which fits into fair use). You'll have to cite the policy about the "set in stone" rule about intro captures before I can actually address it. EVula 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatsthe proble,. it's not the dvd cover it's self it is a cropped bit of the DVD cover, a DVD cover would likely constitute fair use. Also being better quality then the previous does not constiute fair use. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DVD covers really only used to illustrate the DVD. ed g2s • talk 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is tough.  It is unestablished territory whether a DVD cover is acceptable fair use on Wikipedia to illustrate a television show, although it is accepted to use screenshots.  Therefore, to play it safe, I am reversing my self and now recommending to switch back to the TV screenshot logo, albeit of inferior quality.-- danntm T C 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone could retake it from a HDTV source then that would be peachy (or a DVD source) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An HDTV screencap won't make a difference. For starters, if the source isn't "HD", the resulting screencap won't be "HD". Secondly, it is an animated image; that's part of the problem. There just isn't a clear image of it... aside from the DVD case (and is the reason that a DVD scan could work under Fair Use). EVula 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I took my DVD and went frame by frame in the entire opening sequence and could not find a better image.   Even if someone broke the encryption on the DVD and exported the VOB as frame by frame stills, what you have there is as good as it gets. - Trysha (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use implications of changed logo

message: I have twice removed a new section called "Shows with similar themes" that is yet another attempt to draw original, unsourced comparisons between Firefly and other shows like Cowboy Bebop. This has been discussed extensively in the following talk page topics:
* Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 1#Outlaw Star
* Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 1#Outlaw Star Reverts
* Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 1#Firefly and Outlaw Star
* Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2#A suggestion about the "See also" section
* Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2#Outlaw Star redux
Note that, as this article moved toward good-article status, we've managed to lose these comparisons and even the "See also" section. I see no reason to risk de-listing from GA just because someone simply must make these comparisons. Magic Pickle made the argument, in restoring the section, that "Intro claims the show is 'atypical' - this is OR as well." This is not a justification for adding more original research. If we really feel "atypical" is OR, it should be removed, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unsourced comparisons (again) 

message: "The show also features slang not used in contemporary culture (e.g. "shiny" as a synonym of "cool")." I'm probably being really pedantic, but shiny has been commonly used that way in my area for about as long as i can remember, back at least to early 80s i think.. 81.153.253.32 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a teenager in the UK in the 80's and it was never used here. I'd never heard it before Firefly so I too am curious to know where "here" is.  Sophia 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been state-side for my entire life (Tennessee and 23, respectively), and I'd never heard shiny used in the same manner before. It did of course exist as a word, but not as an alternative to "cool" EVula 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: shiny was used mid to late-80's and 90's or so in reference to the idea the some people are attracted to shiny objects, much like racoons.  it's been around a long time.  i wouldn't say it means cool as much as 'wow' or 'bling'.  it was started on a television show, maybe on fox, perhaps married with children, but certainly one that dimunized certain human's intelligence.  here for me at the time would have been northern p.a. then washington d.c.--Buridan 17:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I know "shiny" as a joke about distraction: "I have no attention span to speak of, and -- ooo, shiny!" (In fact, I'm pretty sure Oz says something like this in Buffy, since we're in the Whedonverse.)  That's very different from the use in Firefly, though.  And I've never heard it used as in Firefly in my stints in New York, Boston, and Dallas. - Corporal Tunnel 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've heard the "ooh, shiny!" bit too. Firefly's use of the word is totally different. EVula 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with EVula, Corporal Tunnel, etc. here. I've never hears "shiny" used as a synonym of cool.  If you could provide verification to the contrary, that would be great.-- danntm T C 19:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not exactly true... 

message: Should the DVD Release section be moved to List of Firefly episodes? Most other shows have the DVD info on the episode page, so I'm wondering if the whole section should be moved, or just add the basics of the DVD release to the episodes page. JQF 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Release section 

message: I think we're close! I wanted to see if we could put our shoulders to the wheel and get the article ready for WP:FAC, what do you guys think? Here's some things I thought of, what else needs doing?
*finish incorporating any valid suggestions from our peer review. I think I got most, but here are some open issues:
**Did we decide what to do here about Serenity film having its own section? I think the original point from the peer review is still valid. Here's what the reviewer said: "I cannot wrap my head around having the movie, which is clearly the most important spin-off, relegated after the books and comics. I'm not even sure the movie deserves to be called a spin-off - it seems rather more than that, and it seems to me like an expansion of the movie section would be reasonable - things like how it did and what plot threads it picked up on"
**Whether or not it's really needed to get into where it aired everywhere and in what order. Perhaps this could go on the new List of episodes page instead?
**Mentioning unique dialog in Signature show elements. I think we can find sourced info on this in Finding Serenity. I left my copy at work, so can't add until tomorrow.
*Since we moved the list of episodes to an article, we need to have a summary section here I think. I took a stab, but I think it still needs work. 
What else?
--plange 06:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting ready for [[WP:FAC]] 

message: Can we please remove / drastically rewrite the International section? Seems to me it's dull as dishwater and supplies information of little interest (what's the point listing every country in the world and when it first aired, and in what order?) --Oscarthecat 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, so did a reviewer (see my note in section just above this). I think it should either be moved to the List of episodes or deleted. I know someone went to a lot of work, but am wondering if it's encyclopedic? --plange 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it might have some use, but it only has any context in List of episodes, and thus I support moving it there.-- danntm T C 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I, too, think it would be better served on List of Firefly episodes. EVula 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, am moving it now... --plange 18:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, this had the added benefit of helping to flesh out the Episodes section... What about the suggestion above about moving the DVD release to the Episode page? If we do that, we should just make a short mention of the DVD release in the Episodes and broadcast history section. --plange 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International section 

message: I missed that the quotation template I'd inserted had been removed when I added more later.  Sorry!; as such, I reverted myself.  However, where in the MoS does it say we aren't allowed to use wiki quotation templates, but we can use html (basically just indention)?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Direct quotations is what you're looking for. EVula 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the only time you should use that style (or some of the others that place them in boxes and colors them) are when doing "pull quotes" like magazines do: the quote isn't part of the flow of the article, but is instead used as a highlight outside of the flow of the prose to highlight that section. Sort of like how images illustrate that section, but are not part of the flow of the prose. For a good example, see Demosthenes (they use blue ones). --plange 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:quotation|quotation]]}} 

message: A little while ago I added a  tag to the section on how the ratings suffered due to episodes being shown out of order.  That tag's gone and the section now reads: "Variety magazine cited several actions by the FOX network that contributed to the low ratings, most notably the fact that FOX aired the episodes out of chronological order"  Only... the  Variety piece doesn't actually mention that at all. It talks of sporting pre-emption, but nothing on reordering or delaying of the pilot.  S'why I added the citation tag.--Nalvage 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right-- confusion ensued when the original sentence was changed from saying Browncoats/fans attributed it to... to the one that took out saying it was fans, see , from someone reviewing for FAC. Will look up cites; I'm just coming off a week-long wikibreak... --plange 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I managed to add to the confusion by accidentally removing the Variety ref when reverting the removal of my cite tag. Somehow it'll all work itself out...--Nalvage 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variety cite 

message: in the music it talks about a song called "sad violin" and it being used at the end of "the message" but the song at the end is "the funeral", track 6, not "sad violin"... is the name just wrong or are they 2 different songs? -Xornok 05:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sad violin 

message: I've been watching the top DVD sales at Amazon.com this December and have always seen Firefly in the top 10 (This morning it was number 9). Does anyone know where the public can acquire total sales?
--Neilrieck 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only places I've found useful in the past are videobusiness.com and BoxOfficeMojo.com, but they are of limited use. VideoBusiness maintains several free lists of top sellers, but they only have the current top 20 in any category, so the information is quite ephemeral and rarely helpful for anything that isn't a recent release. (They may have much more detail for-fee, but that's not especially helpful for Wikipedia:Verifiability.) BoxOfficeMojo is exclusively for films, I think. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, videobusiness.com is now a spam redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

text:  www.fireflyfans.net have listed firefly and serenity's rank from amazon ever since theyve been released... -Xornok 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-12-xx Sales 

message: I know there's a link to the series' IMDb page in the infobox at the top of the page, but I've added one to the External Links section as well, my reasoning being that anyone reading the bottom of the page might not have seen the link in the infobox and/or might expect to find such a link in the External Links section.
Hyperflux 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links section 

message: The link to the boston globe article is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.193.225 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 404 

message: Hi all, again, I apologize for my splitting up this article without talking about it on discussion page.. Anyway, do you think that Firefly has 14 or 15 episodes? I count the 2-hour long pilot as two, because it can be split up into two in syndication.. Anyway, I will not change it again, unless there's a consensus somehow here... Thanks, Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there are 15...serenity is 2 episodes... -Xornok 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There are 15 hours in 14 episodes, per the show's production numbering ("Serenity" has the single production number "1AGE79") and the DVDs (as JBK405 points out). This has already been discussed at Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2#Missing 15th Episode?. Sci Fi Channel and other syndication outlets are not more reliable sources than the producers. Please do not make changes based on perception rather than documented, reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 or 15 episodes? 

message: If you wanted to get this article (and the show) some real acclaim, you could get this article put as the front page featured article. But you need an image that can be displayed on the front page to do that, and that means no fair use. Do we have any such images related to firefly? --causa sui talk 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That didn't seem to be the case as recently as February 21 (Avatar: The Last Airbender), February 12 (Make Way for Ducklings), and February 1 (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace). They each featured fair use images. Travisl 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use images can be used on the main page, that's a benefit of it being in the main space. Matthew 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm wrong then. I'll nominate it. --causa sui talk 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would putting this article on the main page provide the Firefly series with "real" acclaim?  This article is already "Featured Status," and should only be monitored to ensure that it stays that way from this point forth.  It would be much more productive to try elevating other articles to featured quality rather than wasting time trying to get certain articles plastered on the main page.  Not only is it entirely pointless, but such a thing brings a massive influx of anonymous editors and vandals who'll only ruin everything that's already been done. What possible purpose could such an objective serve? Gamer Junkie 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you don't agree, but I'm nominating it. --causa sui talk 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Gamer Junkie, I've never really seen a benefit from being taped on the main page, e.g. Lost used to be in a good condition prior to it being on the main page. Matthew 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know... all you have to do is revert it. The Wookieepedian 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit wars never solve anything.  It simply seems that getting this article onto the Main Page is a fairly pointless goal, and it would be good if those in favour of this would explain the positive ramifications of such an achievement. Gamer Junkie 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article]] 

message: I know you're all going to be up in arms about this. If the show got cancelled because of low ratings, even if it was all the network's fault, doesn't that make it a flop? And thus earns a category in TV flops. Yadda yadda yadda it was successful on DVD and almost sort of in the cinema. Still a flop on television though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Witw (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, i consider flops like being cancelled after 1 or 2 episodes... -Xornok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.134.67.3 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this is the very reason I removed it from the article. A show that premiers and disappears quietly would count as a flop (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussing whether an article should be classified in a category or not (in this case, :Category:Television flops) is well within the bounds of what article talk pages are for. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for a better understanding of what is and isn't acceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe Firefly meets the definition of "flop" you presented above. Matthew 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Television flops is about to be deleted, after a discussion at categories for discussion, so this point is now moot. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pretty much.  No doubt there are Firefly discussion boards out there in cyberspace where one can debate the alleged flophood of the show until the cows come home.  This isn't one of them.    RGTraynor  16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flop? 

message: when and why was the original run dates changed? the original run was from sept 20. to dec. 20 of 2002... the other 3 episodes that aired are not considered part of the original run because.. um.. they didnt actually air when it was originally on tv... i believe skiffy aired them to promote the release of the dvds... -Xornok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.134.67.3 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First air date is the first airing of an original air date, last is the last airing of an original episode. Thus it's correct. Matthew 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but that wasn't its ORIGINAL run... it originally ran on Fox and left out The Message, Trash, and Heart of Gold... those weren't aired till later... in the second run... because the aired on Sci Fi... -Xornok 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems very original to me. Matthew 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original run 

message: Seriously, I am very so sorry about  this. It was an accident, I think I accidently selected all when I was trying to undo that spam link. I do not vandalise Wikipedia, and I want everyone to know this! I will be more careful next time. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it, it happens.  By the way, if it happens again, you'll be banned forever.
I'm joking. Gamer Junkie 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you, that's a relief. I double check every time now to be safe.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am so sorry 

message: There's only one star system.  All the planets that they visit and discuss are all around the same star? -Gomm 19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. It's one star system with several gas giants with many planets (moons) around them terraformed to moderately earth standard. That's why you get references to the edge of the system in the series (where the browncoats etc were from) and the inner planets (those closer in nearer the star that were better terraformed or may even have been earth like in the first place being in the habitable zone.  Also why a lot of the worlds they visit are referred to as moons. Ben W Bell talk 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The system may also be a multiple star system. The difficulty people have with the idea of the Firefly universe as one system is that people tend to take our solar system as the model for other solar systems, when it has now been determined that our solar system is in fact unusual. The majority of systems out there that we know of that have planets have 2 or 3 stars orbiting a central point (usually another star) with planets round them. In real life they reckon there are planetary systems out there with dozens of planets and possibly then many hundreds of moons. In addition there is plenty of evidence in the show itself that there is no faster than light travel as any time they are travelling they can pass other ships that they can interact with in real space. Ben W Bell talk 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  I have added a link from that statement to the supporting discussion, so the next baffled reader will have an easier time.  Cheers, Gomm 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'movie makes it clear there's only one star system'? 

message: From what I've read from the link to Katakana, it seems to be a written language. If we're talking about pure writing, I don't think Japanese Katakana is used prominently in the show, if it is used at all. I believe that the writings are Chinese characters.
As for spoken language, it should be all mandarin (although there are times the pronunciations are too far off the mark that I can't understand it, even with English subtitles). Basically, I don't see why there's a mention of Japanese Katakana - and without citation. Bockbockchicken 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature show elements - Japanese Katakana 

message: I have been attempting to update the links on this page. In particular, I suggest that Fireflyfans.net be added.
I have no prior experience in editing, and would like to know how to do this without having my editing changes removed. 
Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read WP:EL to see what links would be suitable. Generally only links that add encyclopaedic content will be allowed. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links related to a subject but an encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell talk 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I have reviewed WP:EL. I understand that Wikipedia does not seek to generate exensive non-encyclopedic external links. My rationale for Frieflyfans.net is that it is actively maintained and an effective and reliable aggregator of news on this topic, very similar to Browncoats.com, and perhaps superior in its breadth and timeliness. This would possibly meet criteria for inclusion 3 & 4. Please let me know if there are other factors I should be considering. Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance Request 

message: Firstly, the table of release dates, which is specific to the US, doesn't mention it as being so. Secondly, if the last three episodes were never shown in the US (which is what that table is based on) why are they there? That just further obfuscates things, I feel. 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of this table is to show how the Fox network released the show - out of order and without airing several episodes. The episodes that went unaired are listed in the order that they would have aired, had the show not been canceled. The show has been shown on other networks on other occasions, but the original showing on its primary network are listed in that table to show how the Fox network permuted the show. That should clearly be the intent of the table, and the label "in order of release date" makes that pretty hard not to get. It being rerun on another network or overseas is not the "release" date. --Cheeser1 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Beat me to it.  The table compares the order of the episodes when aired to their "proper" order in the DVD set.  -Fnlayson 04:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Table 

message: Just removed "on his phone", from a sentence; "received a call on his phone". Redundancy, etc. etc.
FinalDeity 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial little change 

message: http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2005/10/16/serenity-fan-purchases-320-tickets-and-gives-them-away/
My friend Mike Alward was the Browncoat mentioned in this article. I think it's a shining example of Browncoat loyalty and I think it would really add to the Firefly page if it were included. I can provide further information if desired.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be OK with seeing a line included referencing this, should you be able to prove notability by uncovering a second reference from a more well-known site than sliceofscifi.com - Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 10:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A properly cited reference to a print article does not have to have a weblink. The latter is merely a convenience. Cite the article as you would any newspaper article, then add parenthetically "(available online at [URL here]])". --Orange Mike 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an entry to the Fandom section... 

message: Each normal-length episode consisted of approximately 40 or 45 minutes of footage, broadcast over an hour on TV with commercials. The pilot episode is 2 hours long without commercials, so presumably must have had a longer running time when shown on TV. The article says "Firefly consists of one two-hour pilot and thirteen one-hour episodes." That sentence must be wrong. It should either be a 2 hour pilot and thirteen 45-minute episodes, or a longer than 2 hour pilot and 13 one hour episodes. I've edited it twice and been reverted each time, and I don't intend to start an edit war, but you can't leave the sentence as it presently stands. It's misleading. Richard75 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Richard, for that clear explanation of what you meant by your edits; as one of those who reverted your edit, this makes it much easier to understand what you intended to convey. As to the details, I will defer to others more expert on this minutia. --Orange Mike 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems right about the actual running time.  I haven't checked my DVDs.  However, it's referring to TV episodes, so I don't see the need to state actual times like that.  It's going to confuse some people as to whether those are regular TV lengths or what.  The approximate running time would fit in better where the DVDs are mentioned later in the article, imo. -Fnlayson 19:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode running time 

message: I think this line (from the Synopsis section) is misleading: "In addition, the outlying areas are rife with Reavers, a roving cannibalistic race."  They're not a separate race.  Perhaps also debatable whether they're "roving".  Just trying to sharpen up a little detail, though I'm not sure how to correct it.  Ian McKinney 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No aliens ... so don't call Reavers a "race"? 

message: The article currently has this sentence After reading The Killer Angels, Whedon read a book about Jewish partisan fighters in World War II that also influenced him.[6] citing to Serenity: The Official Visual Companion. Can we actually get the name of the book? Even if it's only in the footnote it would be better than the current mysteriously unnamed book. --Lquilter 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  killer angels and the other unnamed book 

message: I don't see a particular reason to merge. These articles are of substantial length, these are major characters, and a merge would only be necessary if the articles were perma-stubs, which (upon examination) I don't think they are. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The outcome of the discussion here showed no consensus to keep the articles in their current form. The most obvious solution, proposed by most of the contributers to the AfD would be to merge. The articles may appear to be substantial at the moment but very little - if any - of the informstion within them is sourced or verifyable. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Verifiability requires a source only for contested information. What information do you contest from these articles? Once again, it is not a requirement of WP:N that every bit of information in every article be "notable" and WP:V requires that we source information that could/would be contested (it's verifiable, not verified). Furthermore, there is no consensus required to keep things in their current form. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't list everything I contest, just one sentence as a start. I contest the statement in Derrial Book "He is a Shepherd — a kind of holy man or preacher — and provides frequent spiritual advice and perspectives for the crew of Serenity." - personally I would not say he frequently gives advice, I'd also question whether the word spiritual is really an accurate description of said advice. I'm not sure if the concept of a Shepherd is really elaborated on enough to classify it as like a holy man or preacher. Just my opinion though. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're seriously going to nit-pick word-choice, and consider that a WP:V question? How about frequently→often? Or sometimes? Or just omit the qualifier? That is not a WP:V question. The show makes clear that he is a holy man of some sort, who is celibate, who blesses people, who reads from the Bible, and who gives sermons. All of this is blatantly and easily verifiable in the show itself. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that was a terrible example and wasn't meant to constructive. A better example might be the section Derrial Book#Past whioch starts "One of the most debated aspects of the show is Shepherd Book's secret past." a lot of the section is viewer interpreation/speculation based on limited evidence from the television show. I would also poitn out that this is one of several articles which currently has no reliable independent sources and so shows no evidence of notability. The article can't simply be a summary of character details mentioned in the series - that would be a plot summary. There is a complete absence of real world information as required by WP:FICT, WP:WAF reccomends that articles on fiction should be based around such information. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you'd like to improve the article, you're welcome to. You can even remove information if it's blatantly irrelevant. However, it's not so blatant as I see it, and if you'd like to work to improve the article feel free. I don't see the purpose in merging articles of substantial length, even if they require improvement (especially since some/all of them have sources out there that can be/have been integrated properly already). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous.  This isn't some sort of minor book that nobody's ever heard of.  This is a notable work of fiction and as such, should follow the standards of other such works, which is what it is now:  pages for major characters, one for minor. 71.115.86.64 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is ridiculous. The precedent on Wikipedia for major character pages is undeniable. Arguments against such pages based on semantics ("frequently") or the inclusion of some original research is desperate at best. If one thinks the article shouldn't say "frequently" or "spiritual", then rephrase the line. If there's original research, find a citation for it or edit it out. This entire discussion is pointless. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book, which demonstrates this discussion is neither pointless nor ridiculous.  The consensus may still be that these articles should remain separate, but the discussion there made it clear that it was possible that consensus could change.  Rather than dismiss the discussion, please participate in building a consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. I'll keep an eye on the debate, and per WP:MERGE, after 7-10 days or so I'll see if a rough consensus has emerged to merge.  If not, I'll remove the tags.  Please help to build a consensus by keeping comments civil and assuming good faith in the process. Hiding T  21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you elaborate on how one article is better than many?  --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Briefly, there's no scope for a separate article on any of these characters, at least where notability is concerned. There is perhaps just enough scope under Summary Style for one spin-off Characters article, though the existing Cast and Characters section is already reasonably comprehensive (it could use some additional real-world commentary, casting information and the like, but still...) I repeat, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and for these articles to justify their existence we need to see some real-world commentary, coverage and analysis from a notable-enough source. Best regards, Steve T  • C 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, ridiculous.  Check the precedent.  This is not non-notable.  Anyone with half a brain would call that ridiculous, given that they are the protagonists of the show, and this is a featured article.  Notability, you'll notice, is a guideline.  It specifically mentions the application of common sense, as I recall...  Would you rather we put a notice at the top of every page saying "this article is notable"?  It's ridiculous.  Besides.  Precedent for fiction is clear.  There's a page for each major character.  There's a page for each major character in other Joss Wheedon shows (see Buffy, for instance), there's a page for every major character in movies, books, games, the whole nine yards.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but neither do you decide what is "indiscriminate".  This isn't a print encyclopedia.  Just because it's a TV show doesn't change a thing.  Maratanos (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, you should speak for yourself, instead of setting up your opinion as unquestionable ("take it up with ____"). Those are just policies. You aren't in charge, and neither is your interpretation of policy in this matter. None of us are here to violate policy in some free-for-all until you catch us and give us a talking-to. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not stating my opinion, I did not interpret anything, I was citing policies and guidelines. So should you instead of linking to an essay that doesn't even apply here. It's been two weeks. Practically nothing has changed to show that these articles have improved. The policies and guidelines still say the same as before. (Except WP:NOT#PLOT, which now explicitly states that Summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings may only be appropriate when paired with such real-world information but not when they are the sole content of an article.) It's becoming increasingly harder to believe you (or anyone) that these articles will improve anytime. Wikilayering may save you sometime but you really need to actually do something to prevent a merge. – sgeureka t•c 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * The proper place would be List of minor characters in the Firefly universe to start with, then rename. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You DO know that the proper thing to do in this case would be to IMPROVE the articles in question, rather than take a leap of faith and dump them all in the scrapyard where they're not likely to be? Maratanos (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize you're saying this on the talk page for the main article on the show, which is a featured article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  And we're using this page for centralized discussion of what to do with some of the more problematic content around the edges.  Friday (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there is very little OR on the pages in question and when OR does appear, it is generally reverted quite quickly. So, specific examples of "original-research-laden fanboyish cruft," please? Shsilver (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean this table of contents , which title is meant to tell me that the individual characters are notable? Also I don't think that one collection of essays edited by a friend of the series creator confers notability for seven individual articles. [[Guest9999 14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also despite this source being mentioned several times none of the articles make use of it. To me this would seem to indicates that it may not actually be a suitable source for the articles as they are. [[Guest9999 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter.  If you'll look, the sources do NOT need to actually be in place in the article for it to fulfill the notability guideline.  Maratanos 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that, what I am saying is that I do not belive that either collection should count as a suitable rleiable, independent source that could confer notability to the individual characters articles. No one has shown any providence or content that would seem to indicate that they are. Even if they were suitable sources I do not think that two collections of essaysequals significant coverage. [[Guest9999 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying that, as if repeating your opinion makes it fact.  Having read one of the books and currently reading the second (which I doubt you've done), I could also keep repeating that these are suitable sources and offer significant coverage.  And no matter how many times I repeated it, it would still only be my opinion. Shsilver 13:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You replied to my comments above by saying that the existence of sources fulfilled the notability criteria - with or without inclusion of said sources (which I agree with to a point). I simply wanted to make clear that I wasn't questioning the existence of the sources I was questioning their suitability. My opinion is based on the fact that none of the essays seem to be directly about individual characters (from the table of contents listed) and that even though the books in question have been mentioned many times both here and in the original AfD, nobody has added any content from them - indicating to me that they may contain no suitable content. Also I think the fact that they may not be completely independent of the subject and that it is questionable as to whether they offer significant coverage – mean that they do not confer notability. This is only my opinion, if I have repeated it, it is only because I have been replying to counter arguments that have been put forward by other users - which I feel is reasonable. [[Guest9999 14:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would find it much more reasonable if you actually read the essays before commenting on their suitability.  Especially since I've pointed out at least two of the articles in previous posts that are on specific charaters (one on Book, one on the marriage of Zoe and Wash), which can be gleaned from their titles. As I've mentioned before, I could easily go through and update all the articles with the information, and will most likely do so if/after this argument is closed, but I won't do it while a merge or delete debate is going on because a) I feel that merge and delete arguments before requesting sources is inherently hostile and b) I don't want to put in work if there is a chance of the article being deleted.Shsilver 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I re-removed the unsourced information fromt he reformed article - the consensus to not have unsourced, contested information in Wikipedia is established in WP:V. [[Guest9999 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd said something, but I guess I didn't.  Anyway, this is somewhat related to my comment at the bottom of the page, so read that.  In summary, it says that the level of character detail compared to real-world analysis in this article is comparable to that of the vast majority of articles on fictional characters.  It's not "inappropriate to this project".  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it's not a competition.  Your opinion as to the importance of Firefly does not have relevance in this debate. Maratanos 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Comparing fictional characters that made a total of fewer than 20 appearances in individual works, to presidents of the US and countries of Europe, reflects the lack of sense of proportion and real-world relevance that Wikipedia as a whole demonstrates. I would very much hope that wikipedia would reflect the amount of real-world scholarship in these issues in roughly proportionate ways, but it doesn't, and that's why we have WP:CSB and other projects to try to remedy the imbalance between "Super Ultimate FanCyclopedia" and "encyclopedia of all knowledge". --Lquilter 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Wikipedia is not a notability competition where only the most notable articles are deemed somehow "worthy".  - Dravecky 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, in case you didn't notice, it IS a guide to almost every show in the world.  Remember: not a paper encyclopedia.  And we're not holding a deletion discussion, so can people please stop bringing it up?
*Verifiability. Why should Firefly characters be exempt from WP:V which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-01t22:24z
**This isn't enforcing Wikipedia:Verifiability; it's deliberate disruption to illustrate a point.  If you read more of Wikipedia:Verifiability than just its title, you'll note that nowhere does it forbid from properly using primary source material, as this article did. —Cryptic 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *When all the information from primary sources is removed you can see how little there is from secondary (or tertiary sources) sources. None of the secondary sources are third party (so cannot be considered both independent as required to establish notability in WP:NN). If you read WP:V you will find it says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - so far no reliable, third party sources seem to have been found. [[Guest9999 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so far, you're still deliberately ignoring the truth.  I've said it already.  Finding Serenity.  So what if you think it doesn't count?  The rules specifically state it is an objective assessment, not a subjective opinion.  And god damn it, but you can't tell me all 21 authors were directly associated with the production of Firefly and keep a straight face.  Unless you're completely and utterly insane.  Plus, the definition of "reliable" in this context is essentially equivalent to "edited by someone other than the original author".  Besides.  Once again you're arguing that we DELETE the articles and then concluding from that argument that we should merge them.  If they're really as you say, then they SHOULD be deleted.  But there was no consensus to delete, and so you'd better start using arguments that are relevant to merging and stop arguing that they should be deleted. IT's the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi.  It's like me saying "All humans die.  Socrates is a human.  Therefore, I have a million dollars buried in my back yard.  There's a logical conclusion that can be reached from your argument, but it's not the one you're proposing.  And I'd like to point out at this time that just because you're argument is logical doesn't mean it is meaningful.  I think your premisses are false, which undermines the soundness of your argument.  Maratanos 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the arguements that I have made support the idea that the individual articles should not exist. A merged article would be under a different title and on a different topic about which there may be more real world information available. I would imagine that more has been written about the Characters or Cast of the series as a whole than the individual characters. [[Guest9999 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it has been proposed that Finding Serenity could act as a single source for three of the seven characters mentioned, I do not think one source counts as significant coverage even if the source does meet the WP:RS criteria for a secondary source. [[Guest9999 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing saying that a single source cannot be used in seven different articles. This is a red herring. --Cheeser1 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I suppose our views on what the "average" reader is looking for are different.  IMO, a reader who turns to wikipedia is most likely looking for an overview, and having to go to ~10 pages for individual characters is a problem.  In your view, apparently, the average reader will be looking for detailed information on a single particular character.  Is that right?  --Lquilter 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already have an overview in this article.  What is being proposed is to remove everything except the overview.  Not everyone is looking for the same thing.  Why can't we serve both kinds of readers? —Cryptic 23:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that in all likelyhood, the average reader won't even visit ANY Firefly pages unless Random Article dumps them there.  Many of the more pop-culture-related articles are not designed for the average reader, but rather those readers who have a basic interest in the topic and/or are fans of the topic.  There's a delicate balance, of course, and we do strive to avoid cruft.  But catering to the average reader and them alone means Firefly (TV series) probably shouldn't exist.  It means ignoring Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Maratanos 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that you weigh in, but I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy.  We don't vote anymore.  A vote that doesn't support itself is essentially useless and probably will be ignored. Maratanos 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple things need to be said.  If you READ what I SAID, you'd notice that I am agreeing that there should be no merge.  I merely pointed out that no indeed, we don't vote.  Even though I agree with Spaceriqui, it doesn't change the situation that their vote without any sort of justification is likely to be completely ignored.  Eusebeus is right, we don't vote.  However, Eusebeus is also tragically mistaken in several key regards.  WP:FICT and WP:N do not mention anything about articles on fictional characters, and indeed, there has been a completely different de facto standard for quite some time.  I had thought I had said this already, but I don't see it anywhere, so here it goes again.  Look at other fictional universes.  Buffy.  Discworld.  The Ender's game universe.  I would wager that the majority of articles on fictional characters fall into exactly the same category as the Firefly characters: mostly in-universe information.  Maybe that should change.  Maybe not.  But I don't see a huge amount of evidence that this whole shebang is consensus anymore.  You can't argue that it is because of your definition of consensus because neither of those pages are "policies".  So in the context, consensus must be determined from practice.  I've shown you practice.  Next up is reliable sources.  You cite WP:RS.  Fine.  But Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples brings up an interesting point, despite it being only an essay.  The general standard for reliable sources is that they are academic and peer-reviewed.  This simply doesn't work for most of popular culture, though.  So we end up using primary source material and the occasional essay.  This is rampant within articles on fictional characters.  Consensus is once again defined by practice (remember that WP:RS is not a policy).  And since Verifiability has never really been in question, I don't see how you can logically pull that in, even though it IS a policy.   I would also like to see what you mean by WP:NOT.  As I said, I think the most useful item on that page is the part about it not being a paper encyclopedia. Maratanos 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reply - I'd question your statement that WP:FICT does "not mention anything about articles on fictional characters" - as it cites several example cases of character pages such as Superman and Prince Hamlet and states:"Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of characters... within a work of fiction.". WP:NOT#PAPER which you mentioned states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines. These guidelines and policies include the ones discussed above and WP:NOT#PLOT which says :Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis. I have highlighted some parts in order to try and better illustrate my point. [[Guest9999 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're right.  But you're still arguing that we should delete the articles, which we've already proven there's no consensus to do.  Irrelevant conclusion.  Doesn't really help your case.  Can we please start having arguments about flaws that a merger would help? There's one thing you could possibly explain to me, though.  Why do guidelines take precedence over de facto standards?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maratanos (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I am arguing that the individual articles should be removed, this can be done by merging them. The article that would result from a merge would be under a different title and about a different topic which may meet all appropriate polcies/guidelines as it likely that there has been greater coverage of the characters/cast as a whole rather than individually. [[Guest9999 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Can we see some numbers on that?  Comparing the number of articles on the cast as a whole over the characters individually?  That's your idea, so burden of proof is on you. Maratanos 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will once again remind you that there is nothing telling us we can't use the same source for several separate articles. The fact that such a source supports them all in no way tells us that such a source can only support a merged version. Take the obvious example of several articles of related academic material, all supported by a textbook that covers a larger portion of the relevant subject matter. (e.g. Product rule, Quotient rule, Power rule, Derivative, Antiderivative, etc; all can be supported by a single calculus text - some subset of those even by a single section of a text - and yet they clearly merit their own articles.) --Cheeser1 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the same source can be used in several different articles in order to verify information within the articles, however a sources (or even multiple sources) about the cast/characters as a whole could not be used to establish notability of the charcacters individually, notability is not inherited.[[Guest9999 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes.  And no.  Because as Sshsilver has established, we have evidence to support the idea of Derrial Book being notable at the very least, given his article dedicated to him specifically in the aforementioned book "Finding Serenity".  But we could also argue, based on this evidence, to have only one article for both Zoe and Wash, given the fact that there is one article for both of them in the same book.  We couold also have no articles for the rest of the characters, or even clump them all in a merger like you suggest.  But how stupid do you want to go here?  Maybe we should have no article at all for Kaylee, and a stub for Mal?  Consistency is important.  It's more important that notable subjects have their own article than that non-notable ones don't.  So consistency argues that since Book is notable, all by himself, we should probably have an article each.Maratanos 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once more, for posterity.  I see you brandishing the "not inherited" stick quite a lot.  Tell me, then.  Why is it only an essay?  If this actually represents some sort of meaningful interpretation, if your cherished consensus is so, why isn't it a guideline or a policy?  Where is it said that I should listen to what this dude who wrote the essay said?  Why should I CARE what he thinks? ...  And I quote:  "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged " Maratanos 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only linked to WP:ATA once in this essay. The example directly above. Every other link that I've given has been to a guideline, policy or fundamental principle. The reason I linked to an essay was, in a word, laziness. I belive that notability is not inherited and that this view is supported by the core polcies and guidelines for inclusion. However rather than explaning why I think that this is the case it was easier to link to an essay which gave an explanation for me which roughly matches my own views. [[Guest9999 07:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion