Talk:Bubbles (Trailer Park Boys character)

Redirection

There's absolutely no discussion for a redirection on this article, and as such, no reason for it to be redirected.

Continued Redirection

Hey there, guy, stop redirecting the article without providing justification. You claim it's due to an AFD, but I looked and there isn't one. Stop vandalizing this article immediately. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.130 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Claims of consensus

This talk page shows no existing consensus. This talk page shows attempts at communication. Eusebeus, you need to stop blanking the article. It is clearly vandalism. Kinsloft (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy (Trailer Park Boys character). And go read WP:VANDAL. Accusing editors of vandalism when their edits are not vandalism is a blatant, disgusting and reprehensible personal attack of the basest kind. I am restoring the rd pending generation of a new consensus to have these as standalone articles. If you cannot be bothered to do the research, that is not my fault; but let's leave the churlish little adolescent insults at home. Eusebeus (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly no need for a new consensus, as the articles you post clearly show that your position is incorrect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy (Trailer Park Boys character) is not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubbles (Trailer Park Boys character). It's not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody (Trailer Park Boys character). If you want a consensus, you need to list these articles for their own AfD discussion, rather than taking the matter into your own hand. Kinsloft (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Want to accuse me of vandalism again for good measure? That AfD was cited in further discussion at the episode review page which resulted in determination to redirect. As I say, go start a discussion and get editors on board to agree to restoring the redirect. WP:BRD. Go read it. Now enough of this. Eusebeus (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_(Trailer_Park_Boys_character)

I don't see anything about it being cited in any episode articles, so I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Trailer_Park_Boys_episodes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trailer_Park_Boys for good measure. There's absolutely no mention of anyone agreeing to move all the character articles, as you claim. The research into this "consensus" isn't providing anything. As for WP:BRD, an essay is not policy. WP:POINT carries a bit more weight than WP:BRD, and you're providing false consensus, which it clearly lists. I don't need to go get consensus to restore something that there was never consensus against. If you don't like the article, don't read it. Kinsloft (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

This article is currently being cleaned up. Currently, I'm trying to pare down excess information, and clean up the format, as well as adding sources and references. Notability is still being established. Kinsloft (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge. No real world information backed up by third party sources. This is fancruft at its worst. Eusebeus (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added real world information backed up by third party sources. Removed most of the fancruft and other nonsense, with the help of Eusebeus. Opposing proposed merger, as this character represents one of the three primary characters of what appears to be a highly popular Canadian television show. Kinsloft (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you cannot shift the focus away from an in-universe perspective, which I highly doubt, then it should be merged to the LOC per the recommendation at fiction, itself a lenient version of WP:NOT#PLOT. The two tv critic sources you have adduced can be added to the LOC. The same applies to the other two main characters, and I shall suggest mergeing them along the same lines. I take back what I said above: the article on Ricky is trivia-laden fancruft at its worst. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the guide on in-universe writing seems to suggest that this article is clearly not written entirely in-universe. There are several mentions of Bubbles being a character, of the events occurring in different seasons of a television show, and so forth. Kinsloft (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I'm east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and I've volunteered to take on this mediation case. I think I'm pretty dispassionate and enjoy resolving disputes, so I'll try to get yours settled. From what I can see, this is only a dispute between two users, unless I'm missing some discussion elsewhere. Kinsloft is currently trying to keep this as a standalone article on the merits of their cleanup efforts, and Eusebeus is attempting to merge/redirect what they consider useful information to List of Trailer Park Boys characters under the aegis of WP:PLOT. Have I gotten anything wrong? If the parties can agree to the scope of the dispute, we can move forward from there. east718 // talk // email // 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for the most part, that sums it up, however, the scope seems to be a bit more than this article at the moment, and his edits do not appear to be constructive to any of the articles. Case in point, in this edit and this edit, he has left incomplete sentences, removed references that are still in use, and then proceeded to add tags that are inconsistent with the actual nature of the articles in question. Kinsloft (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is correct - and see the related issues at characters pages for Julian and Ricky - let's add them to mediation as well. My "unconstructive" edits may be related to the sudden reversion of a longstanding redirection to the LOC by an anon contributor, (now logged in above) who made undiscussed edits, ignored WP:BRD when I reverted back and then chose to accuse me of vandalism - and in fact is still accusing me in so many words of vandalism, which is frankly maudit f(*& de c(*& behaviour of a c$#(*&d, pardon my French. But accusations of vandalism are completely unacceptable here. Eusebeus (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about Julian or Ricky at the moment; individual articles can stand or fall on their own merits. We can address the other articles later, if you wish. From my reading of WP:PLOT, the article must be written an out-of-universe perspective, and secondary sources should be used to cite material of the sort listed in WP:WAF#Secondary information (this is simply an extension of our verifiability policy). I'm going to go looking for a few possible sources to use. Lastly, can I request that comments such as "his edits [aren't] constructive" etc. be avoided by everyone? It's a matter of effective discourse and professionalism that we refrain from personalizing disputes and treat each other with courtesy. east718 // talk // email // 02:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:WAF, I feel the sources I've added to the page satisfy primary and secondary sources, and that the article did adhere to the section about plot summaries in accordance with WP:NOT#Plot. I feel that if an editor disagrees with how much of that accordance is being met, then the ambiguous language in use should be modified, rather than removing entire sections of the article, which helps contribute to the article as a whole. Kinsloft (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the parties still interested in mediation? I'd like to hear a little more from Eusebeus before I continue. east718 // talk // email // 07:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am. I would like to get this resolved before I continue the effort of improving these articles. Kinsloft (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

I see no material here that cannot be adequately covered at the LOC; the notability, fictional, reference, & in-universe concerns remain unaddressed. As we all know, absent a solid foundation of real-world notability, be it as a meme, merchandising, referential or totemic figure, demonstrable real-world cultural significance etc..., individual spinouts are justified in the case of length. This, however, usually trips up against WP:UNDUE. As has been well-established at the talk page of the failed FICT debate, the LOC is a generally agreeable middle path for fictional topics, where the principal focus is the in-universe characterisation of the subject. Since the focus of the three main characters of TPB is (and should remain) their in-universe characterisation, this is therefore best treated at the LOC. As also was generally agreed at the failed WT:FICT, the accumulation of fancruft, unencyclopedic trivia, excessive fictional biographical material and other such content is highly discouraged per the clear terms elaborated at WP:NOT#PLOT; the use of a centralised LOC for in-universe content offers a practical and manageable mechanism for containing such material. As a result, it seems to me that as no compelling case has been made for the restoration of this material based on a real-world notability of the character, this should be redirected to the LOC. I will post this to the other character pages as well, since it applies equally. Eusebeus (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As interesting as all that is, I don't see how the talk page of a so called failed debate really matters. There needs be no compelling case for the "restoration" of the material, as there was never a consensus to remove it. Out of universe notability can be established here. Kinsloft (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not having seen this show, I found this article most interesting and informative and thank the editors who have created it. I have added a citation to the Calgary Sun which may assist. Redirection to a summary list is obviously inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)