Talk:List of fictional ducks

message: How is this "badly sourced"? Two references were given (which, I might note, is 2 more references than those given to such "notable" ducks as Mr. Fredward's Duck or "Zero a duck in Ozamu Tezuka), one is the actual episode in which the duck appears, the other a clear reference to it from TV.com, a website of cnet networks. What was deleted in the AfD was an article dedicated to this duck - it might not warrant a separate article on WP (like several others on this list), but that not a reason to exclude it from a "list of fictional ducks". Isarig 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources are inappropriate. He is merely mentioned in the first one in the "quotes" and "trivia" sections (neither suggest he is notable--and that's on a page dedicated to the very episode he is from). The second source is a search function for Nickelodeon; it says nothing, other than "delete me". Please find more adequate sources, or remove the duck from the list. · AndonicO Talk 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, the second source is okay (the page hadn't loaded correctly the first time). However, it does not prove the notability of Croppy. Please find more sources. · AndonicO Talk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Croppy

message: Okay, that's enough.  I've protected this page for seven days, as there's been an ongoing slow-motion edit war for at least three months.  Recently the edit warring has been accompanied by accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry from several parties.
Have an RfC or find some other way to sort out what is becoming a candidate for WP:LAME.  If there have been any genuine acts of vandalism or sockpuppetry, report them on WP:AN/I or WP:RFCU with supporting diffs.  The use of sockpuppets in an edit war will be dealt with harshly.
Further incivility – including unsubstantiated accusations – on this talk page, on user talk pages, or in edit summaries – is apt to draw sanctions.  Act like adults or find something else to do.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The image :Image:Rabbit-seasoning-mm.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Rabbit-seasoning-mm.jpg

message: I find that the section on Donald Duck's family, extended family, friends, enemies, and other related ducks takes up far too much vertical space physically. It currently represents over 1/4 of the article and would probably be closer to 1/2 or more if all of the non-notable members of the list were removed. I have seen smaller-scale versions of this issue on other lists of fictional animals such as the case with the placement of Arthur Read, David L. Read, Caitlin "Baby Kate" Read, and Dora Winifred "D.W." Read from the TV show Arthur within the "List of fictional animals (other)" article (see here). In this case rather than listing out all members of the Read family (which would have represented a disproportional emphasis on Arthur characters), the consensus was to place them into a single-line entry thus:
* Arthur Read, David L. Read, Caitlin "Baby Kate" Read, Dora Winifred "D.W." Read, aardvarks from Arthur
I propose we alter the layout of this first massive section on Donald Duck in a similar fashion. I'll draw up a specific suggestion for improvement below in small scale. The final version would be full-sized. What do people think about this suggestion? -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this approach. 28bytes (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I have condensed these entries and also added in the duck characters from "Darkwing Duck" which its article lists as a spinoff of the Donald Duck universe (several overlapping characters like Launchpad, etc.). Subsequent to my removal of all cruft from the article (see below), we now have a new problem related to vertical space-fillers: images. I think that the number of images in this article should be pared down a bit. Images such as that of a generic rubber ducky with a caption discussing a notable song about rubber ducks, for instance are almost entirely irrelevant to the topic of this article. I suggest removing this image. As a result of my having condensed the Donald Duck section down, I also think we could safely remove the image of Daisy Duck. Daisy Duck is a notable character within the Disney series, however there is no need for 3 images of notable Disney ducks when Donald and Scrooge (apparently the most famous of the notable Disney ducks) are already included. So I am suggesting that we remove the rubber duck and the image of Daisy Duck. Any thoughts on this? Also any suggestions for other duck images to remove? -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to keep in mind is the free versus unfree status of the images. The rubber duckie and video game duck are both free images, whereas the cartoon ducks are not. If you think there are too many images, I'd suggest paring down the unfree ones and leaving the free ones in place. 28bytes (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes good sense, however I still believe that the rubber duck image is more than we need. It isn't really related to the article as a whole and it is not connected to any of the entries in the list. The closest we come is the character Rubberduck, but they really aren't the same at all. Anyway I'll go ahead and remove the rubber duck and Daisy Duck images then and I think that's all that's needed for the moment. -Thibbs (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Duck et al. (proposed layout alteration) 

message: I have now completed my review of the duck characters presented in the list. According to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, a stand-alone list such as this should be properly defined to avoid it becoming an indiscriminate collection of information or becoming Listcruft. WP:LIST states that the definition of the list should come in the lede paragraphe and of the three common selection criteria listed at WP:LSC, it is clear that "Every entry meets the notability criteria" makes the most sense for this article. I have added a short lede to reflect this in keeping with the ledes of other "List of fictional animal" articles.
With that said, we now are faced with the large number of non-notable entries present in this list. While in most cases the work of fiction from which the character duck is taken is notable (or at least is presumptively notable by merit of the fact that a WP article on the work exists), the character itself is quite frequently non-notable per WP:INHERENT and thus should be removed from the list. This is not, after all, a "List of fiction about ducks," but rather a "List of fictional ducks." I am interested in cleaning up articles like this that have in many cases become near-complete listcruft and have consequently been nominated for deletion. In order to verify that each list entry is notable via sources would take me the rest of my life (or at least several years) and so I am operating under a set of assumptions which should vastly improve these articles. The major assumption is that if no article or subsection on the character exists then the character is non-notable. Of course this assumption is premised on the notion that all notable topics have WP articles written on them and this is clearly not the case. For that reason I have also been happy to accommodate redlinked entries that are supported by sources. The hope would be that an article would soon be written on this purportedly notable character duck in the future.
At any rate, I am now going to remove all un-sourced red-linked entries from this list which will greatly reduce its size. This large-scale removal of information can potentially alarm some editors, but please try to react calmly. I am not interested in removing notable entries so if entries I will have removed are in fact notable then I would be glad to see them re-inserted into the article provided that they have either a WP article devoted to them or a subsection devoted to them (or one that covers them substantially), or that they are supported by reliable sources. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability issues 

message: This article is a list of fictional ducks. To be included in this list an item must meet 3 criteria.
#Duck - The character must be a duck - "species in the Anatidae family of birds."
#Fictional character - The character must come from the world of fiction - "any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s)".
#Notable - The character must meet WP:N - The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
*A bluelink is usually enough to satisfy requirements #1 and #2, but for redlinks these must be verified through reliable sources.
Since fictional species, robots, aliens, mythical creatures, etc. do not meet criterion #1, we cannot include them in this list even if we as individuals consider them to be in roughly the same general category. This is not an unbounded indiscriminate list, but rather it is a list with clearly defined criteria.
If we wish to expand the scope of this article then we need to do 3 things:
*A)Gain some semblance of consensus between editors who commonly edit the page.
*B)Alter the lede to reflect the new inclusion criteria.
*C)Alter the title of the article to reflect the new (expanded) topic.
-Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duck-like fictional species, duck-like robots, duck-like aliens, etc. 

message: So, Jemima Puddleduck isn't verifiably a fictional duck? How do you explain that? does this article count as a verifiable source that Jemima Puddleduck is a fictional duck? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, instead of arguing I'll revert that one per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles don't meet the standard set out in WP:RS, so the answer is: No, this article cannot be used to verify that Jemima Puddleduck is notable. The entries I deleted earlier had all been tagged as needing sources since as long ago as February. It doesn't seem like they are going to be sourced any time soon, but I'm open-minded so I've re-affixed the verification needed tags for them. If you can find sources for them then please add them as soon as you can. If not, then they need to be removed. This article as a whole needs normal sourcing just like any other normal article. Deleting "verification needed" tags and claiming that it is common sense to ignore Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy is not a workable solution. -Thibbs (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: You need a reliable source to say that the main character in The Tale of Jemima Puddleduck is Jemima Puddleduck? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you need a reliable source to say that the character Jemima Puddleduck is notable. Since there's not even a wikipedia article on this character, it may well be that the book is notable but that the character isn't. Remember: this is a list of characters, not a list of media. -Thibbs (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The entry needs reliable sources indicating notability. The standards for reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. If a reliable source suggests that the character is notable in some way then the entry should be restored with an appropriate citation. -Thibbs (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I fixed the cite errors for you, but please note that "referencing" the books themselves is not really what's needed here. 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 28bytes is exactly right. I know that there are plenty of loopholes in WP:RS for sources that are published by experts in their relevant fields and frankly I don't know much about the field of fictional animals so I usually just assume the goodfaith of the editor who adds a source, but... You should keep in mind, Deltasim, that if your sources don't meet the guidelines presented in WP:RS or if they don't demonstrate the character's notability then they are still open to deletion and the entries so-sourced may yet be removed. Assuming your sources are reliable though, thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jemima Puddleduck