Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs) |
Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Curly Turkey went on to claim that [[WP:COMICS|WikiProject Comics]] are just [[WP:OWN]]y fanboys and that apparently ''all'' other non-comic fictional character articles are written differently, pushing his P.O.V. that the vast majority of comic book character articles are wrong and that all character articles should be written in a specific way. First of all, his [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? [[Count Dracula]] and [[Francis Dolarhyde]] are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. [[Darth Vader]] is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. [[Hal-9000]] is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, [[Garfield (character)]], [[Batman]], [[Wolverine (character)]], [[Kick-Ass (character)]], [[Superman]], ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. [[Joker (comics)]] is no different. Having [[Joker (character)]] exist is like saying that an article about a novel can't be the base article because of a film adaptation, and then creating a third article about the story itself. Of course, Curly Turkey continues to insist that he has the consensus, even though he admits that an entire WikiProject is apparently against him. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
Curly Turkey went on to claim that [[WP:COMICS|WikiProject Comics]] are just [[WP:OWN]]y fanboys and that apparently ''all'' other non-comic fictional character articles are written differently, pushing his P.O.V. that the vast majority of comic book character articles are wrong and that all character articles should be written in a specific way. First of all, his [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? [[Count Dracula]] and [[Francis Dolarhyde]] are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. [[Darth Vader]] is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. [[Hal-9000]] is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, [[Garfield (character)]], [[Batman]], [[Wolverine (character)]], [[Kick-Ass (character)]], [[Superman]], ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. [[Joker (comics)]] is no different. Having [[Joker (character)]] exist is like saying that an article about a novel can't be the base article because of a film adaptation, and then creating a third article about the story itself. Of course, Curly Turkey continues to insist that he has the consensus, even though he admits that an entire WikiProject is apparently against him. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
* '''NOTE''': Darkknight2149 has [[WP:CANVASS]]ed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=759057925&oldid=759000892 reported it.] The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "the jerk" Turkey]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' I think there's a major COI here if The Dark Knight is trying to delete an article about the Joker. HAHA. Anyways, looking at both articles and reviewing the arguments I think the character page is redundant and not needed. [[User:Comatmebro|<font color="green"><b>Comatmebro</b></font>]] [[User talk:Comatmebro]] 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' I think there's a major COI here if The Dark Knight is trying to delete an article about the Joker. HAHA. Anyways, looking at both articles and reviewing the arguments I think the character page is redundant and not needed. [[User:Comatmebro|<font color="green"><b>Comatmebro</b></font>]] [[User talk:Comatmebro]] 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong delete''' Utterly superfluous and redundant. It's literally just a second article for the same character, it's not an alternative universe or a media adaptation, the "in other media" article exists for the stuff that is here.[[User:*Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:*Treker|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Strong delete''' Utterly superfluous and redundant. It's literally just a second article for the same character, it's not an alternative universe or a media adaptation, the "in other media" article exists for the stuff that is here.[[User:*Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:*Treker|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
*'''Delete''': Completely agree with statements made by Darkknight2149. —[[User:DangerousJXD|DangerousJXD]] ([[User talk:DangerousJXD|talk]]) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''': Completely agree with statements made by Darkknight2149. —[[User:DangerousJXD|DangerousJXD]] ([[User talk:DangerousJXD|talk]]) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' per Darkknight2149 and others. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per Darkknight2149 and others. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
* '''Strong keep''', and there should be repercussions for Darkknight2149's [[WP:CANVASS]]ing of so many sympathetic editors. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=759057925&oldid=759000892 reported it.]<br>The [[Joker (comics)]] article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics. Semantically, a ''character'' cannot be a subset of that characters ''appearances in medium X''. A character's appearances are a subset of the character.<br>When a character appears primarily in one medium, a "XXX (character)" article will inevitably be primarily about the character's appearances in that medium, per WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:WEIGHT, Joker has appeared prominently in numerous media (film, TV, animation) and is best known to the general public through ''these appearances''—a film such as ''[[The Dark Knight (film)|The Dark Knight]]'' grossed ''more than double the entire comic book industry'' for 2008.<br>Chances are ''extremely high'' that anyone doing a search for "Joker (character)" will be doing so after watching, say, ''[[Sucicide Squad (film)|Sucicide Squad]]''—most of these viewers have never read the comic books, which have been selling around {{val|100000}} copies per issue for ''years'' now.<br>The solution is simple: the article that focuses on the appearances of the character in comics should be titled something like [[Joker in comics]], while the base article about the character ''in general'' should be at [[Joker (character)]], so readers will find what they want without confusion.<br>WP:COMICS has a long history of confusing characters with their comics appearances, and used to have this stuff baked into its MoS page, until the wider community overturned it [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation|here]]. This request is another attempt to overturn community consensus, and is highly disruptive. This has been an ongoing problem with WP:COMICS, and it needs to be put to an end. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "the jerk" Turkey]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:13, 9 January 2017
Joker (character)
- Joker (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Joker (character) is a redundant duplicate of Joker (comics) that does nothing beyond rehashing information already on the latter and listing links to other articles. The reason it was apparently created was due to a "lack of a base page" and because (according to a user on this discussion) it "can't ever be the one-stop upper article, because of its comics focus." However, Joker (comics) isn't different from any other character article, as it includes information regarding the general characterisation, other media interpretations, and alternative versions on that page. The only reason it branched off into Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker is because there was to much information to include in those sections alone. Joker (comics) even goes into detail about the various actors who have played the Joker and the other media appearances in the lead. Joker (comics) is the base page. The reason it is called "(comics)" is the same as numerous other comics character articles: WP:NCC regulations. However, there is cause for renaming Joker (comics), especially given the existence of articles like Joker (comic book). What there isn't cause for, however, is the existence of the current Joker (character) article.
The primary opponent of the deletion seems to be Curly Turkey. Turkey's arguments (seen here) state that Joker (comics) can't be the base article because of its focus on the comics. However, that's because the Joker is a comic book character. He was created by writers hired by DC Comics for DC Comics publications and all subsequent media, which are covered in the article, are adaptations. If you find any movie with the Joker in it, it will say some variation of "Based on the characters from DC Comics". This isn't different from how any other comic character article is written. It's standard to include all various other media (such as film or television adaptations) in their own respective sections in these types of articles.
Curly Turkey went on to claim that WikiProject Comics are just WP:OWNy fanboys and that apparently all other non-comic fictional character articles are written differently, pushing his P.O.V. that the vast majority of comic book character articles are wrong and that all character articles should be written in a specific way. First of all, his WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? Count Dracula and Francis Dolarhyde are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. Darth Vader is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. Hal-9000 is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, Garfield (character), Batman, Wolverine (character), Kick-Ass (character), Superman, ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. Joker (comics) is no different. Having Joker (character) exist is like saying that an article about a novel can't be the base article because of a film adaptation, and then creating a third article about the story itself. Of course, Curly Turkey continues to insist that he has the consensus, even though he admits that an entire WikiProject is apparently against him. DarkKnight2149 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- NOTE: Darkknight2149 has WP:CANVASSed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have reported it. The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I think there's a major COI here if The Dark Knight is trying to delete an article about the Joker. HAHA. Anyways, looking at both articles and reviewing the arguments I think the character page is redundant and not needed. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong delete Utterly superfluous and redundant. It's literally just a second article for the same character, it's not an alternative universe or a media adaptation, the "in other media" article exists for the stuff that is here.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete it is needless repetition to have more than one article on the same character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I was neutrally invited to comment. I need to mention that not too long ago I was involved in what turned out to be highly contentious RfC with Curly Turkey, an editor I respect very much regardless of that one issue. I also know DarkKnight and Snuggums are similarly top-notch editors. (I'm unfamilar with Comatmebro and I'm sure he's a fine editor, too.) While I do have a thought on this, which I'll share depending on how this RfC progresses, I'd like to abstain for now to avoid any possibilities of hard feelings among my very good colleagues. I know...I'm a wimp! But I didn't want anyone to think I was simply ignoring the invitation.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note that if the consensus is to delete, this parge should be redirected to Joker (comics) as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The most famous fictional Joker is the one from the comic books, and this is a plausible search term for readers. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No need for the redundancy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Joker (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Completely agree with statements made by Darkknight2149. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Darkknight2149 and others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep, and there should be repercussions for Darkknight2149's WP:CANVASSing of so many sympathetic editors. I've reported it.
The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics. Semantically, a character cannot be a subset of that characters appearances in medium X. A character's appearances are a subset of the character.
When a character appears primarily in one medium, a "XXX (character)" article will inevitably be primarily about the character's appearances in that medium, per WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:WEIGHT, Joker has appeared prominently in numerous media (film, TV, animation) and is best known to the general public through these appearances—a film such as The Dark Knight grossed more than double the entire comic book industry for 2008.
Chances are extremely high that anyone doing a search for "Joker (character)" will be doing so after watching, say, Sucicide Squad—most of these viewers have never read the comic books, which have been selling around 100000 copies per issue for years now.
The solution is simple: the article that focuses on the appearances of the character in comics should be titled something like Joker in comics, while the base article about the character in general should be at Joker (character), so readers will find what they want without confusion.
WP:COMICS has a long history of confusing characters with their comics appearances, and used to have this stuff baked into its MoS page, until the wider community overturned it here. This request is another attempt to overturn community consensus, and is highly disruptive. This has been an ongoing problem with WP:COMICS, and it needs to be put to an end. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)