| Revision as of 02:56, 9 January 2017 editCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →Joker (character): no, Darkknight, you don't get to bury this← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:59, 9 January 2017 edit undoCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →Joker (character)Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Curly Turkey went on to claim that ] are just ]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 ] argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? ] and ] are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. ] is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. ] is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, ], ], ], ], ], ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. ] is no different. Having ] 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. ''']]]''' 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | Curly Turkey went on to claim that ] are just ]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 ] argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? ] and ] are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. ] is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. ] is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, ], ], ], ], ], ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. ] is no different. Having ] 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. ''']]]''' 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
| * '''NOTE''': Darkknight2149 has ]ed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC) | * '''NOTE 1''': Darkknight2149 has ]ed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Note 2''': Darkknight2149's original plan was to wait until ] closed, and then move the article to ] after the wider community's eyes were off it, despite the fact that ] was created specifically to avoid having the base article be specifically about the character's appearances in comics (which is why the first FAC was archived). ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 02:59, 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. ] ] 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. ] ] 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:59, 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 1: 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)
- Note 2: Darkknight2149's original plan was to wait until Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joker (comics)/archive2 closed, and then move the article to Joker (character) after the wider community's eyes were off it, despite the fact that Joker (character) was created specifically to avoid having the base article be specifically about the character's appearances in comics (which is why the first FAC was archived). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:59, 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)
- I'll assume you really believe you were "nuetrally invited", Tenebrae, but you weren't. You were WP:CANVASSed, and the selection of those invited was highly biased. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I assumed good faith. I didn't check to see who else was invited and the invitation itself was worded neutrally. I think my response indicates I took it neutrally. If it helps, whenever I've invited other editors to participate in an RfC, I always use some objective criteria that I disclose: "the last 10 registered editors on the page"; "every editor for the last 30 days" (or 60 if editing has been sparse, etc.) I know I've included editors whom I knew would be against whatever position I was espousing, but that's the only fair way to do it. In any event, out of respect for you and the other initial editors, I refrained from offering an opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll assume you really believe you were "nuetrally invited", Tenebrae, but you weren't. You were WP:CANVASSed, and the selection of those invited was highly biased. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 9 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 - /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)
- I have to wonder why Darkknight2149 couldn't be bothered to inform any of the following, who have all taken part in these discussions before:
- {{ping|AIRcorn|In ictu oculi|SMcCandlish|Nat Gertler|Diego Moya|Unreal7
- Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: The false "canvassing" claim is being dealt with at WP:ANI. If you'd like, you could notify those people. I notified all of the Wiki projects, various people who edited the Joker articles or near them, some people who happened to be on my Watchlist, and some who were seen in other edit histories. In fact, it was Argento Surfer who left the link to the Wolverine discussion to begin with. You are free to notify people as well, as long as it doesn't violate WP:CANVASS (which I'm sure you haven't read).
- "The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics." - Oh, here we go again. I addressed that in the multiple paragraphs above. I'd suggest reading them. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, more of your WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. We have a simple problem with a simple solution, but it's running face-first into the wall of your POV. The rest of the community is more concerned with serving the average reader than what your deep-seated feelings about this character are. This WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nonsense at WP:COMICS has to end sometime.
- I screwed up the pings, so here we go again:
- @Matticusmadness, Steel1943, Erachima, Nicknack009, BlisterD, and J Milburn:
- @King of all fruit, NatGertler, Masem, Herostratu, Tahc, and Alpha Quadrant:
- Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I screwed up again: @AIRcorn, In ictu oculi, SMcCandlish, Nat Gertler, Diego Moya, and Unreal7:@Herostratus: Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand how WP:IDONTHEARTHAT works. I addressed each one of your points at Talk:Joker (comics). It was you who ignored mine. You not liking what I have to say, and other editors disagreeing with you, is not WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm pretty sure I've pointed that out before. And on your "Strong keep" comment, nothing you said wasn't already addressed and explained away in the deletion proposal above. Do you see the hypocrisy in accusing me of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT yet? DarkKnight2149 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You most definitely didn't address my points—just endless variations on the irrelevant "where exactly do you think the character came from?" You never addressed how titling the Joker (comics) article as Joker (character) will misdirect all those who come after watching one of the endless stream of movies the character appears in (just one of the many points I keep bringing up that you ignore). You also keep bringing up WP:NCC even after I showed you where it was overturned. You simply can't be reasoned with. This is a general encyclopaedia—we serve the needs of the general reader. WP:COMICS doesn't get to override that through a raise of hands. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- All I said was that WP:NCC was the reason that Joker (comics) was called "Joker (comics)" to begin with. The movies are covered in Joker (comics), briefly in the lead and then in the "In other media" section (as I pointed out above); I also addressed your point regarding the films at Talk:Joker (comics), and Joker (comics) can be renamed Joker (character) for the reasons mentioned above (which I know you still clearly haven't read). DarkKnight2149 02:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You "addressed" it by dismissing it. That's not what adults mean by "addressing" an issue. If the article is to be titled "character", it must cover the character—to which your absurd response is that the comics character is the character. Seriously, what rational objection do you have to an article about Joker'S appearances in comics being titled Joker in comics? That's as straightforward and unambiguous as it gets. What do you have against unambiguity? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- "your absurd response is that the comics character is the character." - No, that's simply why the page was called "Joker (comics)" and why it primarily takes the perspective of the comic character. Same as Wolverine (character), Garfield (character) and literally every other fictional character article. And as I have stated numerous times, the page does cover other media as well (read the last paragraph of the lead, for Christ sakes!). The only reason Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker are separate articles is because there was too much information to include it all in the sections at Joker (comics), which I have once again stated more than once. Did somebody say WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? In regards to that last question, your mistake is assuming that you must be right and everyone who disagrees with you is an immature idiot, is WP:NOTHERE, or any of the other things you said at Talk:Joker (comics). DarkKnight2149 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- As long as you continue to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, it'll keep being brought up. Now answer my question that I keep asking but you keep ignoring: what, concretely, is wrong with Joker in comics for an article about Joker's appearances in comics? No red herrings about an irrelevant, three-paragraph "in other media" subsection of a subsection, please. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is not how we title character articles, comics or otherwise. You should already know this. DarkKnight2149 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- As long as you continue to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, it'll keep being brought up. Now answer my question that I keep asking but you keep ignoring: what, concretely, is wrong with Joker in comics for an article about Joker's appearances in comics? No red herrings about an irrelevant, three-paragraph "in other media" subsection of a subsection, please. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- "your absurd response is that the comics character is the character." - No, that's simply why the page was called "Joker (comics)" and why it primarily takes the perspective of the comic character. Same as Wolverine (character), Garfield (character) and literally every other fictional character article. And as I have stated numerous times, the page does cover other media as well (read the last paragraph of the lead, for Christ sakes!). The only reason Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker are separate articles is because there was too much information to include it all in the sections at Joker (comics), which I have once again stated more than once. Did somebody say WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? In regards to that last question, your mistake is assuming that you must be right and everyone who disagrees with you is an immature idiot, is WP:NOTHERE, or any of the other things you said at Talk:Joker (comics). DarkKnight2149 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You "addressed" it by dismissing it. That's not what adults mean by "addressing" an issue. If the article is to be titled "character", it must cover the character—to which your absurd response is that the comics character is the character. Seriously, what rational objection do you have to an article about Joker'S appearances in comics being titled Joker in comics? That's as straightforward and unambiguous as it gets. What do you have against unambiguity? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- All I said was that WP:NCC was the reason that Joker (comics) was called "Joker (comics)" to begin with. The movies are covered in Joker (comics), briefly in the lead and then in the "In other media" section (as I pointed out above); I also addressed your point regarding the films at Talk:Joker (comics), and Joker (comics) can be renamed Joker (character) for the reasons mentioned above (which I know you still clearly haven't read). DarkKnight2149 02:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- You most definitely didn't address my points—just endless variations on the irrelevant "where exactly do you think the character came from?" You never addressed how titling the Joker (comics) article as Joker (character) will misdirect all those who come after watching one of the endless stream of movies the character appears in (just one of the many points I keep bringing up that you ignore). You also keep bringing up WP:NCC even after I showed you where it was overturned. You simply can't be reasoned with. This is a general encyclopaedia—we serve the needs of the general reader. WP:COMICS doesn't get to override that through a raise of hands. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand how WP:IDONTHEARTHAT works. I addressed each one of your points at Talk:Joker (comics). It was you who ignored mine. You not liking what I have to say, and other editors disagreeing with you, is not WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm pretty sure I've pointed that out before. And on your "Strong keep" comment, nothing you said wasn't already addressed and explained away in the deletion proposal above. Do you see the hypocrisy in accusing me of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT yet? DarkKnight2149 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I screwed up again: @AIRcorn, In ictu oculi, SMcCandlish, Nat Gertler, Diego Moya, and Unreal7:@Herostratus: Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Joker (comics), Redundant. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)