Talk:Marianne von Edmund

Untitled

Listen, can you removed the bit about Hilda and AO3? It doesn’t happen in the game, and it’s basically just bias and doesn’t seem very scholarly. Kind of just feels like you’re using this article to shill your ship.

Wikipedia does not engage in censorship. Discussion of shipping is acceptable on Wikipedia, so long as it's cited by reliable sources. Not being featured in official content does not disqualify its inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, Kirk/Spock. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter. It has NOTHING to do with the character, and should be removed. 2600:1008:B058:F773:D141:7D64:E6E8:9508 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Marianne is part of the ship, and thus seems relevant to the article's topic. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not canon. It has no place in the article. This is not the place to shill your ship 2600:1008:B058:F773:D141:7D64:E6E8:9508 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are unable to produce a policy or guideline that requires for any external of the characters to be canon, I legitimately have no idea what you're doing besides demanding that everyone listen to how you think Wikipedia should work. If you want to have the content removed, you have to do so via consensus, not edit warring multiple editors who disagree. Doing so will cause you to lose editing privileges. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Enough with the fanon. Quit forcing your ship. 2600:1008:B033:B1D0:1C9C:7739:AFFF:7C56 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anything. We are simply including information that reliable sources have considered noteworthy. My personal favorite video game ship is not included in that article, as much as I would like it to be, because it does not have the required sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Find better sources. Shipping isn’t notable 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of shipping content

I don’t know how you do consensus, but I believe it should be removed, as shipping gossip has nothing to do with her character, and only serves to make the article look ridiculous. 2600:1008:B033:B1D0:1C9C:7739:AFFF:7C56 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It may be fanon, but Wikipedia focuses on external reactions to these kinds of things. If the external reactions are that people enjoyed shipping Marianne, then that is a valid topic to cover. The editors are not "forcing a ship," they're merely mentioning the ship because another website reported on it. This happens exceptionally rarely in fandoms, so it's extremely difficult to "force a ship" even if it was, somehow, intentional. It would be a concern if the source was unreliable or the mention was uncited, but here this is not the case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with reception. It’s ridiculous 2600:1008:B033:B1D0:1C9C:7739:AFFF:7C56 (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these arguments are based on policy or guidelines. By the way, I am going to revert your removal until consensus to remove is achieved. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Leave it out. It’s fanfiction nonsense. She’s straight ffs 2600:1008:B033:B1D0:1C9C:7739:AFFF:7C56 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

True, wikipedia SHOULD NOT be pure fanon made up shit, being realist, leave that for 'fandom' 2806:104E:1F:77A6:1DD0:80CD:3E5D:C296 (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no logical reason to include an unsourced mention of a non-canonical ship pairing involving another character on this Wikipedia page. I don't know why you are unable to grasp that. It doesn't offer any important information and the page does not benefit from it in any real sense of the word.

This debate is not about what you or the other users here think regarding her romantic preferences, it's just not important information and it does not relate to the page in any significant way. 2605:A601:A949:D400:7D84:2E4E:6430:48C (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, it should be unbiased, by all, just facts, not 'ifs' or 'i think', etc etc 2806:104E:1F:77A6:1DD0:80CD:3E5D:C296 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what y'all are talking about. The claim that the ship is popular is sourced, claiming that it isn't is either a lie or a demonstration that your understanding of how Wikipedia works is really insufficient. As for the notion that it is unbiased, well, it is. We are reporting on what reliable secondary sources say about the character. As it turns out, one of the things said is the thing you want removed. What you propose isn't removing bias, it's asking for it to be removed because of what your personal bias is. The notion that "fanon" should not be included has no bearing here, and your exclusive focus on that instead of any policy or guideline on Wikipedia tells me that this is purely "old man yells at cloud," so I won't be continuing to participate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter because it isn’t canon. Remove it 2600:1008:B033:B1D0:1C9C:7739:AFFF:7C56 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. We are allowed to report on fan creations as long as we have reliable sources for the information. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It adds nothing to the article and only serves to add bias and make at look bad 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It is actually the only thing relevant here. In the other hand, your argument consists solely of IDONTLIKEIT. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No it isn’t. It’s completely irrelevant to the reception of Marianne. It has nothing to do with her character, her growth, or anything 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion Requesting the discussion to be move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Removal of shipping content on Marianne von Edmund. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I personally think this discussion should move to be discuss on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters for second opinion of other experienced editors and project admins. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

How does this work? 2600:1008:B033:B1D0:1C9C:7739:AFFF:7C56 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to move this, just wait a sec Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I foolishly just plowed into this without checking the talk page, but I made a few edits. I think that covering fanfiction shipping is fine, but also don't think it's something that's so important in Marianne's case that it rises to the lede. For comparison, Spock and Draco Malfoy don't discuss their rather famous shipping either in the lede either, which I think is correct. It'd have to be a titanic part of the character's notability to really qualify for the lede, IMO. (As a side note for some uncitable original research, this AO3 search shows Hilda / Marianne at #12 in popularity, which isn't THAT impressive by Wikipedia standards. Maybe if it was #1 or #2. Maybe.) SnowFire (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, you usually don't "move" the discussion to the Wikiproject , just ask people to come to the article for further feedback and consensus.

I personally believe that while including the shipping stuff is technically allowable as long as it's backed up by a source, it currently has no explanation for why it is there, leading it to fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply saying "X and Y character were noted as being shipped" is neither here nor there, as two characters being shipped is incredibly common in every popular work of media. It is akin to saying "fanart was made of character X" - generally unimportant.

It should only be there if we can draw a conclusion from it or mark it as a milestone somehow. If shipping two characters represented something unique that was mentioned by critics, then by all means include it. Otherwise it's fans wanting to put their favorite ship into an article apropos of nothing. Wikipedia is not concerned with being canon or not, as we are not Nintendo, but we are concerned with undue weight and remaining on-topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh Okay, Thanks for letting me know. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the ship exists, the article says that it's a particularly popular ship. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not relevant to her character. It doesn’t add anything to this article 174.239.116.5 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

We use reliable sources to decide that, not your personal opinion. This article is nowhere near the point where we need to exclude sourced information. Please try to understand that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Get better sources then. Don’t include pointless shipping culture. A bunch of people rave about Ike and Soren yaoi, yet you don’t see it on Ike’s article. 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Because third party sources haven't covered it yet. We base what's in articles based off of coverage in reliable sources from other places of coverage, such as news sites. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s a lie, as I’ve seen it myself. Just because an article mentions it doesn’t make it noteworthy or even factual 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to a reliable secondary source that talks about Ike and Soren? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It was on some game archive website, I’ll see if I can find it 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• If third party reliable sources are commenting on it, it's fair game. That said, I'd keep it relative brief, and probably explain what "shipping" means a little better. (There's many non-gaming demographics who won't be familiar with the term.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  But fanfiction isn’t reliable 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  But the source discussing it is. If it discusses that the fanfiction thing is notable, then it is a notable thing to reference here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Except it isn’t. The article is clearly biased 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are exactly zero unbiased articles in the reception section. I have no idea what you think the point of reception is. One source is discussing a ship they enjoy, and the other is making a factual statement of the popularity of a ship involving Marianne. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  A ship which is listed at number 12 on ao3 isn’t worth mentioning 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  These arguments you keep making are baseless and not persuading anyone. Please rethink what you're doing. It's not working. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not a popular ship, it’s only at #12 on ao3, which really isn’t notable 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  We don't go by that (or any of the things you're alluding to so far.) On Wikipedia, we go by whether or not third party, reliable sources mention things or not. Sources like those found at WP:VG/S. So, for example, we look for whether or not websites like IGN or GameSpot cover it in the articles they publish, not how many message board users or Twitter users talk about it. Published content from professional websites/writers is what matters. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Except the article isn’t professional. It’s written like a bunch of teenagers gushing over crushes instead of something actually analyzing character relationships. 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  What sources are you referring to? Please link to them when you talk about them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is not relevant, because the argument was that "MariHilda" was one of the most popular lesbian ship on AO3. Looking at a chart, the only lesbian ship above MariHilda is Edeleth, and that's not even purely lesbian, since it covers both male and female Byleth. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Except your article tries to make it sound like it’s canon, talking about Hilda (who is straight) “advancing” on Marianne (who is also straight). I have no idea where the writer is coming from with that, as this doesn’t happen in game, so why even put it in? The conversation was about Hilda doing her best to cheer up Marianne, who ignores her. Nothing in it implies anything more than that. It’s like these guys never played the game. 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  There, it's now clarified to say that it's how they interpreted the scene. To reiterate, "unbiased reviewers" or whatever are not a thing and is not something that Wikipedia concerns itself with. The content of the article also does not claim that anything they're saying is canon, which is not a relevant factor to whether something should or should not be included. I also strongly recommend that you not jump from point to point when a point falters, it just makes the discussion chaotic, frustrating, and comes off as trying to "win an argument" instead of making an effort to understand how any of the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia work. If you want to edit Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that you create a user and familiarize with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because nothing you're arguing is actionable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It’s so clearly biased it’s not even funny. I have no idea why you’re so insistent on keeping it in. 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because bias, short of WP:BLP issues or contentious topics like the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, is almost never a relevant factor when scrutinizing sources on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  And that is a problem. Wikipedia should be unbiased 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:FCBD:73DE:1377:2BAB (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  This would see every single opinion by an external critic removed. Wikipedia itself is unbiased, there is no expectation that the sources used be unbiased outside of contentious topics, and that's only really important when it comes to citing factual information. An unbiased opinion is a misnomer, and I don't know that there's much more that can be said in this conversation if you disagree. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent) To suggest to our IP address to point this discussion in a more productive way: you should read Zxcvbnm's comment above. You're not going to win this by saying "it's biased" or "it's not canon." There is a genuine argument here, and it's WP:DUEWEIGHT. Not every opinion on the Internet is important enough to include - someone writing an article just saying they like XYZ isn't always sufficient to include XYZ. That's the more reasonable argument to make. On that note... I'm not 100% sure the Fanbyte article is good enough to use? ([1]) Frankly I think Fanbyte needs another round at WP:VG/RS, but the Wayback link doesn't work for me, the website doesn't seem super-reliable anymore, and a name like "Ib hunktears" who seems to barely exist on the Internet does not fill me with assurance that this is a notable opinion. (EDIT: Article misspelled them before, they're coming up on the Internet now - should have been "lb". ALthough they also aren't at Fanbyte anymore.) SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is a point to be made that Fanbyte needs to be reevaluated, but I don't think that this article is necessarily an example of its problematic nature. The piece was written in 2022, after all. I also don't subscribe to the notion that using a pseudonym, by itself, is an issue. Articles posted after the departure of then-EIC Danielle Riendeau, perhaps, but this should be fine under her watch. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It does not try to claim any of the character x character romances it proposes are at all important or relevant to the game's story, it's pure fluff. It reads like a personal blog post - with how it describes the relationships as "tasty dynamic" and "fine dining", I can't honestly take it seriously as a source, anywhere, anyhow.

  The most it draws from the actual story is suggesting some supports indicate some chemistry, but saying it is anywhere close to a legitimate source requires some serious gumption. There has to be some sort of manual vetting going on besides blindly saying "it's a reliable site". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Feels like a blog post" affects the reliability of a source in absolutely no way. Your personal tastes are no more relevant or important than "it's not canon so it shouldn't be mentioned," except you've been editing for 14 years so you should know that this argument means nothing. As far as vetting goes, even if we accepted it was too trivial to mention, it is honestly kind of rich to see you saying all these things after you defended a geeky joke blog post as being an unironic examination of the similarities between two characters named Sigma. If you want to argue that the article lacks substance, go ahead, but I'm always going to explicitly shoot down any attempt to push the non-guideline/policy-based argument that "reading like a blog post" affects the merit of a reliable source in any capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  While that's getting into ad hominem territory in trying to paint me as a hypocrite, I should mention that at the very least, the article brought up the possibility that Overwatch Sigma was in fact based on the Mega Man character in some regard. Despite the article being jokey, the point was sound, as the two characters do have distinct similarities. An article that is purely musing on the most compatible characters does not really try to demonstrate any point, or even urge you to A rank them for story reasons. I don't know if I'd call it clickbait, but it's pretty close.

  So, yeah, an article being humorous is not an enforceable thing. But, going against WP:INDISCRIMINATE is. There is no conclusion you can draw from it that is relevant to the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  The point of both is sound? The shipping article is discussing ships they enjoy and why. I also don't understand where WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes into play here, highlighting specific ships a source views as quality is anything but indiscriminate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we decide that the source is usable, I still question including so much text from it. Now that I've gotten the Wayback Machine to work (Thanks Cukie)... these are very short blurbs. Yet we spend about as long in the Wikipedia article going over it: three long sentences. I'd be fine with cutting this down significantly - my suggestion would be something like "Fanbyte writer LB hunktears enjoyed both the relationships between Marianne and Dimitri, as well as Marianne and Hilda. They thought that Marianne and Dimitri bonding over shared self-hatred with monstrous dark sides was an unhealthy basis for a relationship, but an interesting one; and that Marianne and Hilda made an endearing couple." SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think that would be fine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I still don’t really understand why it’s even notable. I’ve seen countless articles of this type, and yet they never get coverage. Why make an exception here? 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  For this to be an exception, you need to show examples where a source was removed from Wikipedia explicitly because it's about shipping. Simply "these other articles aren't used in other articles" (that you've yet to link to) means nothing unless you can demonstrate what the "why" is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Firstly, what articles are you referring to? Secondly, have you seen articles explicitly deemed unsuitable? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’m talking about shipping articles. They’re everywhere, and for almost every fandom or character, but usually never get mentioned. So why make an exception here? 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:FCBD:73DE:1377:2BAB (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Usually such articles aren't from sources Wikipedia uses, like independent blogs. This isn't some special exception being made here, someone just happened to write an article for a website about the ship and it was put into this article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  But why? I doubt anyone using this page to read up on her would care at all 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:FCBD:73DE:1377:2BAB (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you took the time to learn understand what sorts of sources Wikipedia seems usable and unusable, you'd be able to answer your own question. If you just keeping yelling "nuh uh, it's biased and I dont like it" like you keep doing, you'll never understand or persuade anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not the one yelling here. I’m saying it’s a pointless addition with obvious bias towards something that doesn’t happen in game. Hilda never “advances” on Marianne, whatever that means. It shouldn’t be given time of day 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:FCBD:73DE:1377:2BAB (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay well you appear to be in the minority here so fuming about it won't change that. The discussion appears to be leaning more towards figuring out just how much coverage to give it, not to remove it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, replace "yelling" with "repeatedly saying" and my point still stands, including your last comment. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Re Cukie Gherkin's "notion that using a pseudonym, by itself, is an issue" comment - see my later edit. When I wrote that, "Ib Hunktears" had almost nothing come up on the Internet other than this Wikipedia article, which made me think they were random person - the problem wasn't the anonymity, the problem was that they seemed to "barely exist on the Internet" as already noted previously. As I noted in my edit, "Lb" was misspelled as "Ib", and searching for "Lb" turned up the person and verified they do really exist, so that problem was already handled. That said, we still have a problem for verifiability here - the Wayback Machine link doesn't work for me & the Fanbyte page is gone, so what the article said may unfortunately only be in your memory, unless there's another sneaky archive somewhere (pinging the author at their Twitter account?). Makes it hard for others to take a look and judge how reliable / relevant the article was. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. We can’t include every single little thing in an article. It would eventually just look very bloated and filled with well… filler 2600:1008:B059:AAFD:811A:B46:D1F2:40C9 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)