Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serenity (franchise)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Most of the discussion below is about renaming, refactoring, or merging, none of which require deletion. And the general tenor suggests that much of this content is appropriate for Wikipedia. But, on the other hand, there is no clear consensus to keep in the present form either. Further discussion at the appropriate talk pages is required, but deletion seems unneccessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity (franchise)[edit]

Largely a duplicate of the Firefly (TV series) article, and incorrectly identifies the group of media as being part of the series of Serenity as opposed to that of the pre-existing (and featured article) Firefly series article (which addresses the film appropriately). Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I would not be opposed to a merge of the two, for while there is significant overlap, there are stylistic differences between the articles that I think would benefit in a merge. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your first comment is saying. Could you try explaining it again? If you're saying that Firefly was originally meant to be a stand-alone series and not part of a larger franchise, this is true, but the same could be said for the film Stargate or the original Star Trek and they are both considered part of a franchise. The only difference between them and Firefly/Serenity is that the franchise had a name change. Imagine if they tried to squeeze every piece of Star Trek media into the article for Star Trek: The Original Series.

Of course, I am not saying that the article does not require a lot of improvement, but its existence is justified.--Marcus Brute (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that a simple name change to Firefly (TV series) to Firefly (franchise) might allow for the largely duplicated information to be incorporated into that article, instead of a largely duplicative article. As well, I am not sure where you are finding the references that the franchise is referred to as Serenity; most media franchises are named after the parent (initial) offering - Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Doctor Who, etc. - all have offshoots, and all are considered franchises. And all use the parent title as the name of the franchise, and yes, Star Trek does incorporate all of the media regarding it, though only briefly and via subsidiary articles. There isn't a need for a new article where there is an existent one - a featured article at that - that can be adapted to fulfill the needs of the criteria. Have you considered initiating a discussion regarding this at WikiProject Firefly?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I titled the article "Serenity (franchise)" instead of "Firefly (franchise)" is because that is the title used for all media since the TV series; not only the film but also the RPG and the comics (which are written by Whedon himself). I'm not sure whether Whedon no longer has the rights to "Firefly" or chose to change the name, but he has used "Serenity" for every piece of media and shows no signs to switching back to "Firefly." Star Trek isn't called Star Trek because the first series was titled Star Trek but because the majority of the franchise uses the name.

If we changed "Firefly (TV series)" to "Firefly (franchise)," this would present a problem because the Firefly TV series would no longer have its own article. Again, imagine if the only article with information on Star Trek: The Original Series was in the Star Trek franchise article. As for the comment that "yes, Star Trek does incorporate all of the media regarding it," I don't think you're realizing that Star Trek (an article on the franchise) and Star Trek: The Original Series (the article on the original TV series Star Trek) are two separate articles. The Star Trek: The Original Series article has no information on the different parts of the franchise besides one link to the Star Trek franchise article in the opening paragraph.

As you keep bringing up that Firefly (TV series) was a featured article, I must point out that it was a featured article in November 2006. As you can imagine (and a quick look at the article history will confirm), the article has undergone significant changes since then, so bringing up that I have changed a featured article seems a little irrelevant.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the subsequent info is termed; it all refers back to the original product: the Firefly series itself; everything springs from that, and listing the franchise as a subsequent product inappropriately credits the latter product. Star Trek isn't really a fair comparison - every product within the franchise begins with the appellation "Star Trek" followed by a colon and the product title. Star Wars is the same way. A better example would be the Buffy series (also by Whedon). Different named products, all within the same omnibus of BTVS.

Additionally, i agree that just bc an article is FA doesn't mean it cannot be touched; it should be retouched, and often. Perhaps the sole problem here is the name of the omnibus article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your last comment, I take it that you no longer want the article deleted, just moved? In that case I propose we end the discussion here, and a new one is opened under proposed moves.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, let's just rename the sucker, and be done with it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it should be deleted, and I also don't think moving it is a good idea. Everything since the series has had titles starting with Serenity (I'm almost certain that's because Fox owns the rights to Firefly), which to me suggests that the name of the franchise has been changed. Wikipedia should use the latest name of something, unless I'm mistaken. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I trouble you to cite where we do that? In virtually all other cases, we use the parent product as the name. :)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard style is to use whichever name is most common. My personal thinking is that Firefly is the more common name, but that could be just because the circle of fans I happen to read the writings of began with the TV series (which had a much better reception here in the UK than it did in the US, perhaps because it was shown on a channel that cared about it and in the right order...) JulesH (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marcus Brute. THF (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any other franchise that's switched names like this. Like I said, I could be mistaken; closest match I can think of off the top of my head is using a married name over a maiden name. Even then, when someone is overwhelmingly known by a stage name we use that, so I'd agree with using the most common name, but I'm not sure how we'd objectively measure that. Short version: I wouldn't move it but don't feel very strongly about that. However, I do think that the subject merits an article, whatever we may call it. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Firefly / Serenity franchise or something. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is: Here's the thing: nothing in the franchise has been called "Firefly" since the TV show. All the RPGs, the comics, the movie, everything is called "Serenity". Even Better Days, a comic set entirely in the Firefly timeline, is called "Serenity". Also, the page seems to serve as an index for the whole franchise (which was probably the intent), which is something that I consider useful. I know that there is something about it that just seems wrong, especially to all those fans of the series out there, but looking at it objectively, this is what makes sense. kingdom2 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that is the first time I've been lumped as a fanboi; nothing could be further from the truth. In every other franchise article, it is based off the parent product; that means that this is Firefly, and not Serenity. Here's the real thing: Firefly came first, then Serenity. This is still an encyclopedia, and there are patterns to how we do things. This is one of those things. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and move discussion to an appropriate talk page, as not even the nominator is arguing for outright deletion; at best the nom is arguing for a rename and a merge and consolidation of redundant content. Whether that should be done or not, AfD (Articles for deletion) is not the proper forum. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a second look at what the Firefly article looked like before the change and I now change my position to delete. kingdom2 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.