Talk:Flanderization

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Mx. Granger (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that oversimplifying a fictional character over the course of a show's run is called Flanderization, after Ned Flanders of The Simpsons? Source: Flanderization: How Ned Flanders Became Synonymous With Bad Writing

• Reviewed: Fires on the Plain (2014 film)
• Comment: Not 100% about this wording, but can't quite seem to punch it up. Open to suggestions.

Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 03:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC).

• I was delighted to see that this subject is up for DYK: I'm currently re-watching the show (I'm at season 6 right now), so this couldn't have come at a better time. The article checks out for newness, length, and is within policy (no copyvio, neutral, inline citations). QPQ is confirmed. The hook is in order with regards to characters, neutrality and 'being interesting'. It is also backed up with a source in the article. As far as the wording goes, I personally would make the minor change from 'oversimplifying' to 'the oversimplification of'. That's up to you, of course, and I'm happy to approve the hook in it's current form. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the recent change

@Daniel Case:@Tbhotch: Regarding the recent change where I removed references to the website TV Tropes, as pointed out by Daniel in discussion earlier today, that website is unreliable as it is an open wiki, per WP:RS, and external links to the website regarding articles that are not directly talking about it that violate criterion No. 12 of WP:ELNO. These removals were made in according to Wikipedia's policies, however, I understand deeming such content "Fancruft" in my edit summary may have confused you.

I actually spent most of the evening combing wiki articles that referenced the website and its content as a source or xlink unless it was being referenced as a secondary, more reliable source. A majority of them, I found had no place in those articles as being uncited, inappropriate, unrelated to the subject, etc. As for reasons pertaining to this particular article, the sources that claim the term was coined by members of the site does not actually reference the site. For lakc of a better term, it's false information.

Unless there's another reference in page or that can be found that proves the website coined the term, in which case, feel free to add that in. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:EC83:2ECC:D0B2:3B45 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If you go to the top of WP:RSP, you will read the following: "Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation." This is one of those situations. Number one, TV Tropes is not used as a WP:source, it is used as a real-world reference. The sentence reads as follows: "The term was coined by TV Tropes, a wiki focused on popular culture, in reference to the character of Ned Flanders." It is sourced by an independent-to-TV Tropes source, a book titled Loaded Dice 2 by Aron Christensen and Erica Lindquist. If you search for this online you will find several sources that mention it as well: "TV Tropes coined the term 'Flanderization' in reference to when a TV series has been around for a while and turns a familiar supporting character into a caricature of their former self", "ser BonesOnly linked to a TV Tropes entry for a perceived TV phenomenon called 'Flanderization.'" In other words, secondary sources are pointing out the origin of the term "Flanderization", which happened to come from a source deemed unreliable by Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it that TV Tropes is to be erased from Wikipedia altogether ("context matters tremendously"). Number two, as an external link: ELNO says: "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (bold mine). TV Tropes is one of those. This is why we have Template:Discogs artist, Template:IMDB name or Template:Fandom content. All unreliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, but those are perfectly valid links that users can click and go to find information about the topic without compromising the reliability of the article. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

1. Can you please provide a source that shows Wikipedia policy deemed TV Tropes in particular a “Stable” website, with a “Substantial” amount of editors? As the website only has 15,000 members, some of which are inactive, I don’t see it on the surface. But don’t feel discouraged in trying to prove your point.

2. Those articles were published in May of this year (2021) and copied the Wikipedia article, which itself has been parroting false information. This is recursive and can’t be considered valid since those news articles clearly trusted this website to be correct when it was wrong.

3. If you go back to the pages creation on February 2021, you see that Wikipedia has flagged TV tropes as a “Deprecated (Unreliable) source”, per the Perennial sources section, from the looks of it Wikipedia does not trust this website as a source of information.

4. Like I said, none of the sources on this page reference TV Tropes in any capacity, let alone the origin of the term.

Again, I understand calling it “Fancruft” may have confused my intentions but this is being done strictly in accordance to policy. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:FDC6:70E:25E2:9338 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Please, go to the article and click reference #2. ("Christensen, Aron; Lindquist, Erica (19 November 2020). "Flanderizing Characters". Loaded Dice 2. Folsom: Loose Leaf Stories. ISBN 9781643190624.") This is the key problem here. You didn't verify the source, you merely assumed that TV Tropes was being used as the source. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I said the source did not reference TV Tropes, not that the source was TV Tropes.

And to boot, per a previously stated rule, TV Tropes is not appropriate as an xlink. Given that once this article is clear of false information it will have nothing to do with the website, the xlink becomes irrelevant. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I’m trying to say here. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:FDC6:70E:25E2:9338 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If I search pre-2021 sources I still find the same: "In fact, Ned's drastic degradation inspired the term 'Flanderization' on TV Tropes." (2019) this one is using TV Tropes to explain the concept itself but it's from 2020. I even found a random comment at Tor.com dated June 22, 2012 that says "So it's basically a self-fulfilling stereotype, what TV Tropes calls a Flanderization of the character." Nobody is copying Wikipedia. What I'm trying to point out is that the world does not always revolve around Wikipedia and that external sources can do their researches without our help.

You said: "I actually spent most of the evening combing wiki articles that referenced the website and its content as a source". But, this is why context matters, you are using this as an "I must do it" instead of a "Do I have to do it?" From what I read, this is the second time you were stopped. You should truly start to question it by now and to discern when it is appropriate to keep TV Tropes' references. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t stopped, I was told to add null edits to explain why my changes were justified and in line with policy to avoid edit wars with people like you. Since, like I told you twice already, I stated “Fancruft” when the issue was actually a deprecated, unreliable source that Wikipedia had deemed such a long time ago. Secondly I spent the whole evening analyzing each article and cutting out references to the website if it was being used as a source, xlink in an inappropriate fashion, or something else. I did not just mass delete it all, which I why you can still see 500+ links to the website and the website’s page in other articles.

However if you had spent the night looking up the sources you were able to pull up so easily, instead of arguing against a consensus that has already been set in stone years ago, there would be no edit war. Feel free to punch the sources you found in order to properly verify the article’s contents and justify references to the website, but do not use the website as a source. There are still other issues, but I will discuss those with you when you’ve decided not to straw man my statements, or fling insults and accusations towards others. Peace out. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:FDC6:70E:25E2:9338 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You were stopped at Groundhog Day (film) by Masem who concluded pretty much the same I did above. And no, I didn't write this article, I'm watching it as it is a pop culture topic that can be potentially vandalized due to its nature. If it has errors, they come from the original author. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I know I said I would leave, but you’re just lying through you’re teeth now. Masem concluded that TV Tropes was a deprecate and unreliable source, but because it was being referenced by a reliable 3rd party source, and given the subject matter of the article, it was a valid addition to the article. And we had a much tamer discussion about that than the mental gymnastics you’re doing here. Like I said before, you found multiple valid and reliable sources that reference the website, which did not exist before I pointed it out. Please add them and be done with this. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:FDC6:70E:25E2:9338 (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If you can remove content, certainly you can correct it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, I'm not going to do your work for you, you're the one who wanted to go against a consensus because you had a source that proved the information wasn't false. And please you all of the sources you found too, or someone might contest this in the future. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:EC83:2ECC:D0B2:3B45 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This is blatant WP:DE. You don't know the purpose of the displaytitle template, the article doesn't need more citations as everything is sourced, if you have concerns about the reliability of sources, you have to discuss them at WP:RSN, the citation needed next to a link is pointless, the removal of the Wiktionary link is unjustified, and you were already explained on the exceptions of some links. If you continue with such behavior I will request your range to be blocked from editing this page. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, all I did was add the template. I don't remember removing the wikitory link, that must have been another user sharing my IP.

Again, you're free to add the sources that justify the mention of the website if you want, you've spent more time obsessing over me than fixing the page. It's not like I was discussing this with you a week ago, and it's not like you already pointed them out to me. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:80D6:BDD3:3C8:2D93 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because I already linked it? And the very next thing you did was to add a citation needed tag next to that link? And no, there is no other user sharing your IP range. It's illogical to believe that two users from West Point, NY are removing TV Tropes-related content. You are the only one that is obsessed here, with TV Tropes. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely do not remember removing the wikitory link, that's all I can tell you. I never denied removing TV tropes citations, like I and Daniel already explained and according to the website's policy, primary sources from TV Tropes are unreliable and cannot be used. A vast majority of them were inserted over 10 years ago. You linked to more than one secondary source that referenced the website and supported your position, which made this particular page valid, but you expected me to do your work for you. Like I said before, the burden of proof was on you.

As long as I don't remove secondary sources (Which I was already told about, by you and others) I am completely justified in removing or replacing unreliable primary sources, per WP:RS, rule 12 of WP:ELNO, and the Perennial sources section. I don't understand why you still insisted on arguing content policy with me if you were in the right and could have simply corrected the issue I brought up.

This conversation ended a week ago, I should have left it there. I'll be on my way now, unless you want to lie again. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:80D6:BDD3:3C8:2D93 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Flanderization" or "flanderization"?

There is inconsistent capitalization of the term throughout the article. TV Tropes (the ur-tropenamer) and most of the articles linked in the footnotes capitalize, but ScreenRant doesn't in two, but does in another. (I ignored the German link because they capitalize all Nouns.) I've gone ahead and capitalized the word. SigPig2 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

if it's based on a name (that being flandre scarlet ned flanders), i think capitalizing is the correct option that is right and not wrong

wiktionary seems to capitalize it as well

woag cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As the article writer, I'm inclined to lean towards capitalization, which I think is MOS-supported here given its use in the supermajority of sources. The article's switched caps a few times, and I suspect drifted towards lower-case because of its usual default assumption on enwiki. (I dig that the enwikt entry uses the funniest free image on the whole project, btw.) Vaticidalprophet 12:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)