Wikipedia

Talk:Gwen Cooper

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Frond Dishlock in topic Middle Name
Learn more about this page
Good articleGwen Cooper has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gwen Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gwen Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Middle Name

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago78 comments3 people in discussion

Recently added the middle name of the character, 'Gwen Elizabeth Cooper', as per the episode Something Borrowed, in which it is clearly stated during the marriage ceremony. DonQuixote reverted without discussion, providing the rationale "not a real person; common name should be in the lede, character history should be in mentioned in the appropriate section". After reviewing the relevant policy pages/manual of style pages, as well as previous discussions on the subject in their archives, and some other pages mentioned where the same discussion has arrisen, I do not believe this is valid rationale. WP:COMMONNAME relates to article titles only. There's nothing in WP:LEAD that suggests this limits what should be included in the lede in the way suggested, merely that it should be clear that the subject is fictional, which I think "is a fictional character" sufficiently conveys. In fact, the inclusion of this implicitly confirms that the policy in general does apply, as also does the note at WP:MOSBIO, which specifies fictional characters should use the common name in uses subsequent to the lede section. Implicitly defining the article as otherwise applicable, as per the Exception that proves the rule. Her not being a real person is irrelevant, since details about fictional characters are still real facts about a fictional character. That is, the article is about a fictional character and it is a real-world fact about that fictional character that this was the name of the fictional character. It is the natural and usual place for inclusion of this information in articles, even for well-known characters like Dr. Watson, whose article begins "John H. Watson, known as Dr. Watson". Nor could it really be described as 'character history'. The full name is also mentioned in relevant sources, such as entertainment website Den of Geek, and The Torchwood Encyclopedia by Gary Russell.Frond Dishlock (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

She's not a real person and this isn't a biography. Unless it's a defining characteristic or a key plot point, it's not lede material and just fancruft (i.e. trivia). It's a single line in an episode of the second series. It's trivia that can be mentioned in the article body and shouldn't be given more importance that it's worth. DonQuixote (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry but none of that constitutes a valid argument for its non-inclusion, I have already addressed and refuted the position of her being fictional. It is totally irrelevant. Fictional characters exist as fictional characters. It's rather confused to act like they don't exist in the context of an article about them as a fictional character. Mentioning the full name of a character within the fiction they are from is not 'giving it more importance than it's worth', completely baseless assertion. Unless you have an actually valid argument then it should be included there for the reasons already outlined.Frond Dishlock (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's trivia. Most sources don't mention it when they talk about the character. Promotional material didn't make a big deal of it. It wasn't important to any episodes after that single episode that it was mentioned. The lede is for important information. Mention it in the appropriate place in the article body and get on with your life. DonQuixote (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
As per the initial comment, the relevant policies implicitly apply. A fictional character's full name is a piece of basic information about the fictional character. Stating it, in the natural and completely appropriate place for its inclusion, implies nothing about 'importance'; It is simply a basic fact about the fictional character, as stated within the narrative the character is from. Tell us how any middle name isn't 'trivia' about literally any person, fictional or otherwise, by the same ill-defined and subjective standard. Is Jair Bolsonaro's middle name a 'defining characteristic' of who he is? I'm sorry, but you haven't presented any compelling arguments or valid grounds for its removal.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, dude, Jair Bolsonaro is a real person. Defining characterstics for fictional characters are things that are mentioned by the majority of reliable sources. You're kicking up dust about a single line of dialog that most people didn't give a second thought to. That's the point. Unless you can show that the majority of reliable sources think that this is an important detail, it's trivia that doesn't need to be and shouldn't be in the lede. Seriously, we're in the middle of a culling of non-notable Doctor Who articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts‎), littering our Good Articles with fancruft isn't helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Except the name of a fictional character, from the piece of fiction they are a part of **is not fancruft**. Your attempt to use that as though it's a pejorative is not an argument. You haven't provided 'any' valid arguments, you've made weird flat statements. Saying 'Jair Bolsanaro is a real person' does not answer the question that was posed. Why prithee is such information not 'trivial' in relation to a real person such as him? Do you need to know that information? Does anyone? In what context is his middle name more or less meaningful information for the purposes of that article. Does it define who he is as a person? Is it relevant to why there is an article about him? Do not 'seriously dude' me, when you are making completely empty statements based on some odd arbitrary and completely baseless position. This is officially the fictional character's name, it makes perfect sense to include that information there. It isn't paying buglers to parade in front of a procession carrying a banner bearing the middle name while ticker tape rains down as cars with loud speakers proclaim it to the world, claiming that it is giving it too much 'importance' is a level of preposterous hyperbole that can not be overstated. It is giving the name of the fictional character in the article about the fictional character. I've already provided sources, including a guide to the series which demonstrates that such information is considered a relevant detail to include about the character. Again, and I'll stress this since you apparently think mere repetition will make it not so, -you have not provided a single valid argument for its non-inclusion. The relevant policies have been shown to implicitly apply. That is the correct position in the article for this information. Unless you have something else, then it should be re-inserted.Frond Dishlock (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The character's "official" name is Gwen Cooper, as all press releases and internal documents refer to her as such. Wikipedia should be written with a real world emphasis and not an in-universe emphasis. See Tess Mercer (revealed in-universe to be Lutessa Lena Luthor). DonQuixote (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The character's official full name is inherently defined by what it is within the officially released media they are a part of. That is absolutely a real world fact. You are again merely repeating the same non-argument which confuses the issue of a story being fiction, with the real world facts about the content of that fiction. It clearly states 'is a fictional character' in the lede. There is no confusion of fact and fiction in stating what the character's name is within that context, it is not "in-universe" to state what the fictional character's name is within the fictional story they are from. The story exists here in the real world.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Character backstories are frequently changed for one reason or another (full names, number of siblings, etc.) and thus they shouldn't be treated as real people and these articles shouldn't be written as if they were biographies. These articles should reflect what reliable sources have to say with due weight. If the majority of reliable sources refer to the character as Gwen Cooper, than that's what she should be referred to in the lede as that's the most reliable and stable fact about the character. Given that virtually no reliable source mentions her middle name, it should be mentioned as the character's history in the article body and not as a defining characteristic in the lede. See James R Kirk (Star Trek), Nebby Lawrence (Boy Meets World), the Doctor being half-human, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
A name is not a 'backstory', that entire line of argument is totally irrelevant. This is about the character which exists in the media which has already been published, there have been no changes, nor any indication of a potential for one. They could 'hypothetically', reboot the show entirely, bring the character back but say her name was never 'Gwen Cooper', it would make no difference to the character and details that were established within the original run of the television show Torchwood. 'Virtually no' is not the same as 'none', and such have been provided. The article deals with real world facts, not fanciful hypothetical scenarios which neither apply nor anyone has any reason to think could apply, and it is a real world fact that within the fiction that is the full name of the character. Those analogies are inapplicable false equivalence. James T. Kirk's article also begins 'James Tiberius Kirk'. The majority of sources don't quote his full name every time they reference the character. It doesn't need to be, since it is referenced where appropriate, such as encyclopedic guides on the subject; [| For example].Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's literally an in-universe encyclopaedia. Again, a general encyclopaedia is written from a real-world perspective. We should reflect the reliable sources with due weight. Most sources refer to the character as Gwen Cooper. Hardly any source mentions her middle name. It's trivia. She's not a real person. This isn't an in-universe biography. Mentioning it in the article body should be enough. DonQuixote (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is not 'literally an in-universe encyclopedia', that is a nonsensical claim. It is, as it states right there on the cover, an encyclopedia about the BBC TV series. 'The definitive guide' as it says. It exists here, in the real world, and is about a tv series that exists here, in the real world, about the things in that tv series that exists here, in the real world. It isn't 'trivia', it is the character's name that the article is about. It is no more 'trivia' than a real person's name is in the context of stating their name, so the distinction you are attempting to draw is moot. Just as the article on Captain Kirk, correctly starts by stating the character's name that the article is about. Repeating she's not a real person over and over is not going to make it a meaningful argument. Fictional characters have names. She is a real fictional character in a real TV show and has a name from that tv show. These are all real world facts. The relevant policies have been shown to implicitly apply, you haven't forward any actual argument. The common name policy explicitly relates to article titles, not ledes.Frond Dishlock (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I should have been a little more careful with my words. What I meant was that it's an encyclopaedia written from an in-universe perspective, which is the complete opposite of what wikipedia is supposed to be.
The point is that reliable sources don't consider her full name important. This article should reflect what reliable sources think with due weight. Details about fictional characters aren't important unless reliable sources think they're important, no matter how important we think that they should be. Look, I'm not say that it's not a fact, it's just a fact that's not considered important by reliable sources. Such unimportant facts can be mentioned in the article body. DonQuixote (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
But it isn't written from an in-universe perspective. It is about the details regarding the content of the tv show. This is relevant information about the content of the tv show, specifically relevant information about the character. Its importance is relative to what it is being conveyed. When you are giving details about a character it is a relevant piece of information to give the name of that character. Relevance, not an ambiguous and subjective assessment of importance is what is the point. That source demonstrates that it is considered relevant information by a source specifically intended to convey information about the character in the TV show. It isn't written as though it is an encyclopedia from within the fiction. Like say, a faux diary of the Prime Minister from Yes Minister might be, it is written as a real-world guide to information about the TV show. Or in the same way a guide to Star Trek would specify Kirk's full name. Since it is relevant information about the fictional character. As opposed to the type of source that might be discussing the TV show, simply using Captain Kirk. Rather than repeating his full name with every reference. In the same way articles about President Clinton, might just say 'President Clinton', but you would expect an encyclopedia to start with his full name. Even though in general someone might consider 'what is Bill Clinton's middle name?', to be a question suitable for a pub trivia night, it is relevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia entry. The distinction of him being real and the character being fictional is irrelevant. It is still name of the character and of relevance when giving information about that character.Frond Dishlock (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's the content of the tv show in terms of in-universe details. That encyclopaedia is entirely plot-based. Real world focus is on character creation, public reaction, etc.--the way that this article is set up (see Doctor Who: The Early Years for a real-world based book).
Look, I never said that it was irrelevant, I just said that it's not an important aspect of the character. It's mentioned once in the entire history of the series. It's not mentioned in the press releases. Apart from an in-universe encyclopaedia, no secondary source mentions it. If the reliable sources don't think that it's important, then it's just trivia. Trivia can be omitted from the article without affecting the reader's understanding of the character. But like I said, trivia can be mentioned in the appropriate place in the article body. It's not as important as you would like it to be. DonQuixote (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Again, it is not an 'in-universe encyclopedia', an impractical definition you have created. It is an encyclopedia that is a guide to the details about a tv show. The plot and details about characters of a tv show are real world facts about that tv show and those fictional characters. An 'in-universe' guide would be something like 'Tiffany Aching's Guide to Being A Witch', written as a faux guide as though it existed 'in-universe' in relation to the fiction, or an encyclopedia that existed within the fiction itself, such as the Encyclopedia Galactica. It is neither. It is not written with any pretense that the articles are relating fictional aspects as though they are real world events or people. The entries are, like this is, regarding fictional characters and details of a TV show. It demonstrates that for that context it is considered a relevant piece of information. The name of the character within the fiction is a relevant detail about the character from the fiction. 'Importance' is relative to context and use. Your subjective assessment of what is and what isn't 'trivia' is neither here nor there, the fact remains it is a relevant fact in relation to the name of the character which is what is being related. It is no more 'trivia' in that regard than including Bill Clinton's full name at the start of an article about him. Or do you think the majority of reliable sources and press releases about him, refer to him as William Jefferson Clinton? And don't merely repeat the moot point 'she's not real, he's a real person', the analogy is regarding the relevance of imparting a full name about the subject of an article. And also, as previously demonstrated, the relevant policies implicitly apply regardless.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again, it is not an 'in-universe encyclopedia', an impractical definition you have created.

Seriously, from MOS:INUNIVERSE *Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense. *Fictography – a character description that is written like a biography, placing undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof. All the entries on that page in the encyclopaedia that's linked above are written in this fashion--it's written with an in-universe focus.

You really need to learn the difference between real-world focus and in-universe focus. That's the problem here. You're placing undue weight on in-universe content (placing undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof). In the real world, all the reliable sources don't care about this character's full name. Wikipedia is written from an in-universe focus where an obscure line that no reliable sources thinks is important shouldn't be given more weight than what the reliable sources give it. DonQuixote (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is not written with an 'in-universe focus', it is writing about the subject of a tv show and the elements within it. And constitutes a reliable source. It is not written from an 'in-universe' perspective. These are real world facts. The MOS:INUNIVERSE does not create a definition that applies to external guidebooks, that is your creation, nor negates specialised guides to pieces of fiction from being reliable sources. It is entirely a 'real world focus' to report real world facts about a fictional character in an article specifically about that character. You haven't presented a valid argument, nor have you addressed the counters to your position, and the relevant policies have been shown to implicitly apply. I would also say the same of you in regard to needing to learn the difference between in-universe and real-world focus, because this absolutely falls under the later as a relevant fact for the given context.Frond Dishlock (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Whelp, that's me done trying to explain. I suggest you actually read and study WP:Writing about fiction of which MOS:INUNIVERSE is a part because it's obvious you don't understand MOS:INUNIVERSE (I literally quoted it above). Also, reading WP:DUE might help too. DonQuixote (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Misplaced condescension isn't an argument either. I have read, and understand those policies. They do not support your position or provide a basis for not including it. It is perfectly 'due weight' to state the name of the character that the article is about at the start of the article where the name of the subject of the article is stated, and it is not 'in universe' to do so. This is a real-world fact about the character. You haven't addressed any of the arguments previously given nor presented an actual reason to preclude its inclusion. It is in line with the relevant policies which have been shown to implicitly apply, and established precedent from Bertie Wooster to James T. Kirk. There has zero connotation of 'trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article', especially in the context of a sentence that literally states 'is a fictional character'.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The fact that you don't understand that the above Torchwood encyclopaedia is written in an MOS:INUNIVERSE style clearly indicates that you don't understand MOS:REALWORLD or MOS:INUNIVERSE or the difference between them. That's the problem. DonQuixote (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your opinion on the applicability and relevance to this specific fact, of internal Wikipedia policy in defining an external encyclopedic guide to a tv series as an 'in-universe encyclopedia' has been refuted. I understand both policies perfectly well thank you, and neither supports your position in regard to this indisputably real-world fact about the name of the character. Not that Wiki:lawyering policy names is a substitute for an actual argument in any case. You also appear to be under the impression that your position will stand here as the default. You continue to ignore the arguments given and repeat flat assertions that do not constitute arguments, nor reflect policy or demonstrable precedent.Frond Dishlock (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to take you seriously when you literally said It is not written with an 'in-universe focus'. MOS:INUNIVERSE-style encyclopaedias are a category of works that have been published for more than half a century. That's why there's a policy not to write in that style. Wikipedia is trying to be in a MOS:REALWORLD-style--that's where Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have to say with due weight (which includes things like significant coverage). This is also why a lot of Doctor Who articles have been recently deleted because reliable sources weren't talking about them. If reliable sources aren't talking about something, then it shouldn't be emphasised more than it should be. Per MOS:INUNIVERSE: dont plac[e] undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof. Again, it's an obscure line of dialog that no reliable source is discussing and doesn't affect the plot or the character in any way. Reliable sources is the name of the game. DonQuixote (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to take you seriously when you misrepresent sources and the meaning of terms, and their applicability and relevance to this discussion. Describing writing as 'in-universe' has an established meaning; It is not written with any pretense that the subject is real. Your confusion regarding the discussion of fiction and writing that is in-universe is totally irrelevant. It does not apply to this discussion. The book is a reliable source for that information, and an example that it is considered appropriate information in the context of an entry specifically about the details of the fictional character. Giving the name of the character that the article is about, is not 'undue emphasis', it's not even 'emphasis' for goodness sake. Nor is the name of a character a 'fictional trait'; the fictional character has a name. That is a real world fact. It 'affects' the name of the character significantly when it literally defines what their name is. You still refuse to address any of the arguments that have been raised, including established precedence and applicable policies.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Torchwood encyclopaedia entries are written in the style of fictographies. That's the point. They don't discuss the characters in terms of a real-world perspective at all, which is the first thing mentioned at MOS:REALWORD. Tardis wiki and other fan wikis are written in the same style. So, no, it's not a misrepesentation of the source, it's just an example of what not to do here.
And you're putting undo emphasis on an obscure line of dialog that reliable sources aren't discussing. It's trivia. If it were the character's birthday, it would be the same thing. Seriously, I never said that it shouldn't be included in this article, it's just not important enough for the lede because reliable sources don't think it's important. That's the real-world perspective. Reliable sources think that just Gwen Cooper, ie the common name, is good enough, so that's good enough for the lede. Full names, birthdays, and other details that reliable sources don't think is important (ie WP:DUE) and don't affect the plot or the character can be mentioned in the article body. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
You still refuse to address any of the arguments that have been raised, including established precedence and applicable policies.
All addressed by MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:DUE. For example, James T. Kirk's middle name has significant coverage (WP:DUE) in reliable sources. They even covered the fan reaction to it being slurred in the 2009 trailer. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument which doesn't take into account the various reasons why it's present in the other article (such as WP:DUE). Another example, William Jefferson Clinton is a real person and his article is a real-world biography. This character isn't a real person and this article shouldn't be a fictography. Etc.
Again, the lede should be a summary of what reliable sources think is important (WP:DUE). This isn't a fictograpy so it doesn't have to mention every detail about the character in the lede. Giving importance to any detail that reliable sources don't think is important is giving undue emphasis (MOS:INUNIVERSE). DonQuixote (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, there's nothing in MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:DUE that is applicable to your argument. The name of the subject of the article in not an in-universe fact, it is a real world fact, and it is entirely due weight to give the name of the subject of the article in that position. As per the relevant policies, which have been shown to implicitly apply. Not just flat assertions which don't constitute actual arguments. Nor is it WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to point out there is an entirely ubiquitous established precedent based on those relevant policies. It is not 'giving importance' to name the subject of the article in the appropriate place for the name of the subject of the article. It is relevant to the context of information about the name of the subject of the article. You *again* repeat the entirely irrelevant non-argument that William Jefferson Clinton is a real person that I've already addressed, and you have ignored. It is not fictograpical to provide the name of the fictional character which is the subject of the article. James T. Kirk is overwhelmingly not referred to with his middle name in references to him, by your argument it would be undue weight to include it; Undue weight doesn't mean if you can find any references at all after-all, relative to all references to him those that refer to him by his full name are negligible, -But that isn't the point is it, anymore than it's undue weight to begin the article on Bill Clinton, 'William Jefferson Clinton', 'due weight' doesn't apply that way. Commonname is for the title of the article. You apparently mistakenly think that because the character is fictional, the name is fictional. That's not how names work.Frond Dishlock (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, under Fictography in MOS:INUNIVERSE: don't plac[e] undue emphasis on fictional traits (titles, birthdates, etc.) that are unimportant to the plot or interpretation thereof. The middle name is mentioned once-and-only-once in the entire history of the programme. It doesn't affect the plot or the character in any subsequent episode nor does it affect any preceding episode. It's not mentioned in any promotional material and secondary sources aren't discussing it. It's not about You apparently mistakenly think that because the character is fictional, the name is fictional, it's about not every little detail about a fictional character is of the utmost importance. Again, Clinton is a real person and the writing style of his article is a biography. The writing style of this article is a style that emphasises a real-world frame of reference for works of fiction (MOS:REALWORLD). That is, instead of writing something in the fashion of the Torchwood encyclopaedia (MOS:INUNIVERSE), this article should write something like: "Gwen Cooper is a fictional character appearing in the television series Torchwood...In the episode [episode], her middle name is revealed to be [middle name]]...etc." WP:DUE means that we reflect that it's mentioned only in one line, has no effect on the plot or character in any subsequent episode, and that no reliable source is discussing it. Like I said, it can be mentioned in the article, it's just that undue emphasis shouldn't be placed on it. Also, Kirk's middle name has significant coverage in secondary sources (WP:DUE). DonQuixote (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let me try to be a little clearer. Clinton is a real person, and as such there are many ways to write about real people, which include biographies, autobiographies, interviews, fictionalised accounts, etc. Many of them don't mention the subject's full names at all. The short biographical is the style of writing that's used here. Policy clearly says not to use this style for fictional characters (ie fictography). So pointing to real people is meaningless here. DonQuixote (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let me try to be a little clearer. You are incorrect. Your argument is inapplicable. The policies cited do not support you. Any reference to 'fictional traits' is moot because it is not a fictional trait. That demonstrates precisely why it is exactly about you thinking that because the character is fictional the name is fictional. It is not comparable to a fictional birthdate, because a name is a real world fact. Just as the date a fictional character first appeared in publication, broadcast, etc, is a real world fact. That Clinton is a real person is irrelevant, you don't list his full name because he is real, you list it because it as the name of the subject of the article, it is relevant information. It has no more relevance because he is a real person, it is not why he is known, it doesn't affect the details of his life that make him notable, or have any relevance to the events of his life, the vast overwhelming majority of sources do not refer to him by his full name. You haven't listed one thing that distinguishes why the name of a character is 'trivia' and why his name is not. And no 'because he is real' is not an argument. It's a flat statement. And inapplicable since fictional characters are also real things that can be named. The name of the subject of the article is not a 'little detail', it is the name of the subject of the article.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
As I have pointed out above, even with real people stating the subject's full name isn't important depending on context. It's only a requirement for MOS:BIO. That style should only be used for articles about real people. It shouldn't be emulated here per MOS:INUNIVERSE. Given that Gwen's full name is mentioned only once in the entire history of the programme, it doesn't affect the plot in any way, no press materials ever mention it, and secondary sources aren't discussing it, WP:DUE determines that it's not an important aspect of the character. Putting it in the lede places undue emphasis on it. Mentioning it in the article body is sufficient for the context of this article. DonQuixote (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Look, context matters. Even with real people, full names aren't important in-and-of-themselves. Articles about albums don't include a person's full name, nor do articles about films, historical events, etc. Common names are adequate. The only articles where a person's full name is important is MOS:BIO articles. Again, articles about fictional characters shouldn't emulate MOS:BIO. When even the primary source doesn't consider the middle name of a fictional character important, it's not a defining characteristic and shouldn't be given undue emphasis. DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is a requirement because it is relevant. BECAUSE it is literally the name of the subject of the article. There is nothing in MOS:UNIVERSE that supports that assertion. It is not a fictional trait. I have already refuted these points. Affecting the plot is irrelevant. That is an invented criteria not supported by any policy nor logical argument. Her last name doesn't 'affect the plot', the character could've been called Betty Jones and the plot kept exactly the same. I've also provided secondary sources that do mention it. WP:DUE is inapplicable, as it is entirely due weight to mention the name of the subject of the article. It is not undue emphasis, no one reading the name of the character is going to think 'oh my gosh, this must be a vital fact with huge earth shaking importance to the plot', they will think 'okay, that's the name of the character'. The common name policy applies to the title of the article. Articles about albums, films, historical events, and so on, DO include the name of the subject of the article. Precisely because the name of something is a relevant fact about the subject. It is not 'emulating MOS:BIO', though the wording of that policy demonstrates that it does implicitly apply as already shown, it is following the entirely expected and normal practice of providing the name of the subject of the article. Your analysis of the subject is incorrect.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, WP:DUE is applicable for everything on Wikipeida. For fictional characters, the lede summarises details that are commonly and consistently mentioned by reliable sources. Any detail with significant coverage can also be mentioned in the lede. Details without significant coverage shouldn't be mentioned in the lede but can be mentioned in the article body. It's that simple. What you're trying to do is emulate MOS:BIO, which shouldn't be done for fictional characters. Fictional characters aren't real people and shouldn't be treated like them. You're so hung up on "real names" but fictional characters don't follow the same rules as real people. For example, Captain Kirk's "real names" included James T. Kirk, James Tiberius Kirk and James R. Kirk. All of them are valid and all of them are real because they've been mentioned in the primary sources. The point is that tertiary sources, like wikipedia, document all of them in terms of WP:REALWORLD history. Sources (both primary and secondary) commonly and consistently refer to the character as James T. Kirk, so that goes in the lede. There's significant coverage for James Tiberius Kirk so that can be mentioned in the lede. There's no significant coverage for James R. Kirk, so that can be mentioned in the article body. Similarly, reliable sources (both primary and secondary) commonly and consistenly refer to this characer as Gwen Cooper. That goes in the lede. The character's middle name is mentioned once in the primary source and apart from one MOS:INUNIVERSE-style encyclopaedia there's no coverage in secondary sources. It can be mentioned in the article body.
The point is that fictional characters don't have names like real people have names. That's why fictographies are discouraged (ie emulating MOS:BIO). Not all details are important for a short summary. Common and consistent details go in the lede. Minor details can go in the article body. DonQuixote (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I never thought I needed to go this deep because it should be obvious. WP:DUE even applies to MOS:BIO--again, it's just not mentioned because it should be painfully obvious. For example David Tennant's "real" names are both David John McDonald and David John Tennant. There's ample primary sources for David John McDonald (ie WP:DUE) and that's why it's mentioned in the lede. There's ample primary and secondary sources for David John Tennant as well and that's why it's also mentioned in the lede. It's the same for all MOS:BIO articles where there's ample primary and/or secondary sources mentioning each variation of a person's name, whether birth name or stage name or etc. Again, WP:DUE applies. Things with no significant coverage like obscure nicknames shouldn't be mentioned in the lede but can be mentioned in the article body--the key words being "obscure" and "no signifcant coverage". The fact that a fictional character's "birth" name doesn't necessary have the same coverage in primary or secondary sources is why fictographies are discouraged. Haphazardly and naively emulating MOS:BIO for fictional character articles without the coverage of primary sources that real people automatically have is contrary to WP:DUE. DonQuixote (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say WP:DUE isn't applicable, I said it is entirely due weight to mention the name of the subject of an article in that position. It has also been demonstrated that MOS:BIO implicitly does apply, though that is moot, since this point applies to the subject of any article about any subject. It is not a matter of 'fictographie', this is not a fictional trait. Your asserted point that fictional characters don't have names like real people have names is erroneous and irrelevant. Anything can have a name. In this case there is an established one. There's also no such thing as a 'MOS:INUNIVERSE-style encyclopaedia', MOS:INUNIVERSE is an internal Wikipedia policy, it has zero relevance or applicability to outside sources. It is an encyclopedia specifically relating to the series, its style is moot, it is a reliable source for this information. You can't say 'oh there's no sources, and if a source does mention it then that's being inuniverse so it doesn't count'. It's also false that it is the only coverage, as per the Den of Geek article that was provided in literally the very first comment in this thread, and here's another.Frond Dishlock (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
First of all, MOS:INUNIVERSE is a style of writing. That encyclopaedia is written in that style. It's based entirely on the work of fiction (ie summarising the plot) and doesn't cite any other documents. In other words, context matters. In this context, it's no different than just relying on the episodes themselves. Also, and this is the important bit, it's the one-and-only secondary source that you've provided that mentions it, so it's not even significant coverage.
And MOS:BIO only applies to real people--that's the point of MOS:BIO. Emulating it is fictography, which is advised against.
Look, it's quite simple. Any and all names of real people with significant coverage goes in the lede. Obscure names with minimal coverage can be mentioned in the article body. Any and all titles of books with significant coverage goes in the lede. Obscure titles with minimal coverage can be mentioned in the article body. Any and all names of plants with significant coverage goes in the lede. Obscure names with minimal coverage can be mentioned in the article body. Etc. You're just obsessed with this character's middle name because for real people their middle names are included in MOS:BIO-ledes because they naturally have significant coverage. This isn't necessarily true for fictional characters. This character is commonly and consistently referred to as Gwen Cooper (even in the primary source). That goes in the lede. The character's middle name is mentioned once in the entire history of the programme and outside of an MOS:INUNIVERSE encyclopaedia (ie just another episode summary) there's no mention of it in secondary sources. In other words, there's just the bare minimum coverage. This can be mentioned in the article body. DonQuixote (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
MOS:INUNIVERSE is a wikipedia specific guideline. In-Universe is defined as "Referring to a perspective or view from the context of a fictional world, in contrast to a perspective from the real world.", there is no pretense that the encyclopedia is written from such a perspective, and it is entirely irrelevant and inapplicable to this real world fact. This is just pointless red herring hand-waving. The name of a fictional character is not merely an 'in universe' fact, it is a real world fact. That is an reliable source. It is not 'fictography'. It has already been demonstrated that MOS:BIO implicitly has applications for fictional persons, but also as stated, it is still beside the point since this applies to any article about any subject. More hand-waving. The name of the subject is context relevant, and it is entirely in line with due weight policy to include it in that position. There is nothing about that position that exaggerates its significance beyond being exactly what it is. "and outside of an MOS:INUNIVERSE encyclopaedia (ie just another episode summary) there's no mention of it in secondary sources." -okay, so either you're trolling, which I'll discount for reasons of WP:AGF, not even reading replies, or being shockingly obtuse. That is literally untrue. Demonstrably False. Incorrect. Objectively Wrong. And other such synonyms. Sources have been provided. Also accusing someone of being 'obsessed' with anything is offensive, and incorrect again. If anything it's blocking a perfectly salient fact about the name of a character from the natural place for inclusion, and insisting it be instead noted with an explanation within the body of the article explaining the context of said name, is the position that exaggerates it out of proportion.Frond Dishlock (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, MOS:INUINIVERSE is a guideline about a writing style. MOS:REALWORLD is a guideline about a writing style and it's a style that wikipedia adopts in writing about fiction. First person narrative is a writing style. Third person omniscient is a writing style. Epistolary is a writing style. Etc. I don't know why you're harping on about this.
Also, WP:DUE is the same reason that a lot of the Doctor Who articles have recently been culled (eg Lucie Miller and Ben Jackson). They were mostly plot summaries or at best citing MOS:INUNIVERSE-style sources and did not have significant coverage in MOS:REALWORLD-style sources. That's the issue. The lede should reflect with due weight what reliable sources are stating. Significant coverage is a big part of WP:DUE. Osbscure factoids with minimal coverage (or in this case the bare minimum coverage) can be mentioned in the article body as trivia. So not really hand waving if reliable sources don't think it's an important aspect of the character and it falls under trivia.
It has already been demonstrated that MOS:BIO implicitly has applications for fictional persons,
MOS:INUNIVERSE specifically says not to write a fictography. Emulating MOS:BIO is writing a fictography. That's why I keep bringing up that MOS:BIO should only apply to real people and that fictional characters aren't real people.
That is literally untrue. Demonstrably False. Incorrect. Objectively Wrong. And other such synonyms. Sources have been provided.
Then cite them. That's literally what's needed to show significant coverage. Going back and reviewing...yep, I forgot one, Den of Geek's listicle. Mostly about the episode though--ie context matters. It would be better if a source mentioned the character's middle name without being about that episode. That is to say, sources that were about the character or the series as a whole and are written in MOS:REALWORLD style (ie. not MOS:UNIVERSE plot summaries) would be more helpful in showing significant coverage. DonQuixote (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lucie Miller should not have been culled, there was sufficient evidence of notability that was improperly not addressed before closure, and Ben Jackson was merged with Polly, both are completely irrelevant and more hand-waving. You didn't 'forget' one, you neglected two others in addition to the encyclopedia, and still ignore the other. That I have already cited them was rather the point. Your not reading the replies undermines the validity of your input. "Emulating MOS:BIO is writing a fictography" this continues to be an erroneous argument no matter how many times you flatly repeat it. The name of a character is not a fictional trait. MOS:INUNIVERSE does not apply. Characters have names. This is a real world fact. Your argument has been refuted, no matter how stubbornly you attempt to cling to it. Stating a name is not a 'writing style'. It is entirely hand-waving and red herrings to continually bring up irrelevant arguments that have been addressed. There is also no basis for the argument that the official encyclopedia pertaining to the series is not a reliable source for facts and due weight, based on its writing style, whatever it happens to be. You haven't got a valid argument. The policies do not support you. The fact is sufficiently supported.Frond Dishlock (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The purview of Wikipedia is to cite and summarise reliable sources with due weight. You need to get over the fact that what you think is important isn't necessarily what reliable sources think is important. Significant coverage matters in every article. If there's no significant coverage, then it's not notable or is trivia. In the context of this article, we have one obscure line in about 40 hours of content in the primary source, a brief mention in a listicle about weddings, an entry in an encyclopaedia written in an in-universe style as described in WP:INUNIVERSE and one essay. That's still not significant coverage and constitutes trivia. Unless you can show that there's significant coverage by citing more and/or better sources, it's going to remain trivia. Trivia can be mentioned in the article body.
"Emulating MOS:BIO is writing a fictography" this continues to be an erroneous argument no matter how many times you flatly repeat it.
Yeah, no. Literally from MOS:UNINIVERSE: Fictography – a character description that is written like a biography. From the wiktionary link: A fictionalized biography; a biography written about a fictional character. Emulating MOS:BIO is literally writing like a biography. Your failure or unwillingless to understand is the problem.
Characters have names. This is a real world fact.
And as I have pointed out, everything has names. Names with significant coverage go in the lede. Obscure names with minimal coverage can be mentioned in the article body. That goes with any facts. Facts with significant coverage are summarised in the lede. Facts with minimal coverage can be mentioned in the article body. Context matters.
Stating a name is not a 'writing style'.
Seriously, context matters. In the context of the Torchwood encyclopaedia, its entries are written in the style of fictographies as described in MOS:INUNIVERSE. Your failure or unwillingness to understand that is all on you.
There is also no basis for the argument that the official encyclopedia pertaining to the series is not a reliable source for facts and due weight, based on its writing style, whatever it happens to be.
Again, context matters. An MOS:INUNIVERSE encyclopaedia isn't significant coverage. Compared to production documents (such as a character outline or a series bible), it doesn't hold much weight. It's bare minimum coverage (WP:DUE).
still ignore the other
Oops, missed that one. Still doesn't add much to show significant coverage though.
You haven't got a valid argument. The policies do not support you. The fact is sufficiently supported
See above The purview of Wikipedia is to cite and summarise reliable sources with due weight...Unless you can show that there's significant coverage by citing more and/or better sources, it's going to remain trivia. Trivia can be mentioned in the article body. DonQuixote (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't need to 'get over' anything, because you remain incorrect. Context does matter, that's precisely why the multiple sources referencing this for a character in a science fiction TV show does indicate due weight. This isn't the president of the United States (None of the sources of which are going to go into any length on the middle name of the subject being of great and serious importance to why the subject is important either for that matter.). It is due weight in the context of naming the subject of the article, because it is what the article is about. That's literally the context. It does not magically imbue the middle name with undue weight out of proportion to what it is. A middle name. Literally no one is going to read a name being stated and think "OMG THIS IS MAJOR INFO RIGHT HERE". It is the normal basic information about a subject expected in that position. It is a patently ridiculous basis for argument that it confers undue weight to state the accurate name of any subject of an article at the start of the article.
"Yeah, no." Yeah, yes. Precisely because none of those parts you cite are applicable. It is not writing writing a character description like a fictionalized biography to name the subject of the article. It isn't a fictional trait. It isn't biographical. It is simply a basic fact about the subject of the article.
"And as I have pointed out, everything has names." Yes. That's the point. And it has sufficient coverage to include it. You're the one that doesn't want to give it 'undue weight': It's stating it in that position which gives it less weight than writing about it specifically within the article. Context mattering is exactly why it should be there.
Again Internal Wikipedia Policies are irrelevant to outside sources, and do not mitigate their use as sources for citation in any case. The source is not written with any pretense that it is an in universe encyclopedia. It is not presenting its content as though it were real. It is merely detailing facts about the fiction. It isn't writing in that style to cite it. The style it is in is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the fact that it cites it which confirms the fact, and that it has coverage.
"Still doesn't add much to show significant coverage though." In your opinion. Multiple sources mentioning it are quite sufficient to demonstrate there is enough coverage to cite it as a basic fact.
You opinion of what constitutes 'trivia' is neither here nor there. Context matters. In the context of an article about a subject it is not trivial to provide the basic information about the name of that subject.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, the three sources that you provided is nowhere near significant coverage. Firstly, it's just three sources. That's trivia level coverage. The fact that the first source that you could scrounge up was a listicle about weddings is indicative of the level of coverage for this topic. The fact that you're scrounging for sources in the first place is indidicative of the level of coverage for this topic.
It is due weight in the context of naming the subject of the article, because it is what the article is about. That's literally the context. It does not magically imbue the middle name with undue weight out of proportion to what it is.
Actually, you're the one imbuing it with importance. The article is about the fictional character that relialble sources, including the primary source, commonly and consistently refer to as Gwen Cooper. You're placing undue weight on an obscure line of dialog that most source don't care about at all. It's on the order of placing undue weight on the fact that the first person to appear on cinema screens as James Bond was stuntman Bob Simmons. Although true, most sources don't care. That's the point. We reflect what the reliable sources are stating with due weight.
It is not writing writing a character description like a fictionalized biography to name the subject of the article.
You literally pointed to biographies about real people to justifty mentioned it in the lede. Like I said, emulating those articles is trying to write a fictography and that's why pointing to real people is meaningless. That's actually the point. Real people's names have significant coverage to begin with. Fictional character's names have different levels of coverage because fictional characters don't necessarily have fully formed backgrounds like real people. That's why due weight matters. Reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to Captain Kirk as James T Kirk. There's significant coverage for James Tiberius Kirk. James R Kirk is an obscure bit of trivia that has the same level of coverage as Gwen's middle name (a handful of sources such as listicles). Again, you're the one imbuing Gwen's middle name with an importance that it doesn't have. Reliable sources don't care about an obscure line of dialog. It's an obscure detail. That's why it's trivia.
Again Internal Wikipedia Policies are irrelevant to outside sources
MOS:INUNIVERSE is a description of a writing style as well as an admonition to not write in that style. I pointed you to it because you denied that the Torchwood encyclopaedia entries are written in that style. Wikipedia policies are irrelevant to outside sources, yes, but the descriptions are stil valid. That's the point. You should just accept that and move on.
You opinion of what constitutes 'trivia' is neither here nor there.
Again, you're the one imbuing Gwen's middle name with an importance that it doesn't have. Reliable sources don't care about an obscure line of dialog. It's an obscure detail. That's why it's trivia on the level of James R Kirk, Topanga having siblings in earlier seasons but not in later seasons, or Bob Simmons being the first stuntman to portray James Bond. Chuck Cunningham literally has more coverage than any of these.
Again, WP:DUE. We need lots of coverage from sources that are better than listicles. Commonly and consistently being mentioned helps but is unlikely. In the context of MOS:REALWORLD, Gwen Cooper (and Lucie Miller) are minor characters nowhere on the same level of notability or popularity as Captain Kirk, Wonder Woman or Dracula, so it'll be difficult to find significant coverage in MOS:REALWORLD-style sources (as opposed to just plot summaries) actually discussing the characters in-and-of-themselves. That's what I meant by moving the focus from what you think is important to what reliable sources think is important. The purview of Wikipedia is to cite and summarise what reliable sources have to say, and if reliable sources aren't talking about it much, then it's triva. DonQuixote (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Again, you're the one imbuing Gwen's middle name with an importance that it doesn't have." -NO. No, I'm not. That is the entire point, you're the one acting bizarre about it, it's a middle name. Saying a middle name, in an article about a character, doesn't magically imbue it with any more importance that a middle name has. It is an entirely appropriate and normal place to mention it in context. Including it as a whole note about it in the body of the article is what would 'imbue' it with more importance. Everything you've said has been addressed and refuted. It satisfies WP:DUE, because something as mundane and being as mundanely noted as in just stating a character's name doesn't need huge articles written about it. No more than you need to reference multiple books discussing JFK's middle name specifically and asserting it has huge weight and importance in relation to why he was famous. Due Weight is context dependent. Nor is it WP:INUNIVERSE, this is a fictional character in our universe who is named in real life. Fictional Characters are a thing that can have a name. There are real facts about fiction and it is written in that context, not as though these things are real. I'm not going to accept your opinion as fact, since it's irrelevant to the point and incorrect.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Drop the stick, dude. Go and edit some other articles and get a feeling for Wikipedia standards. If you don't want to have to worry about significant coverage or due weight, then there's tardis wikie where the rules are looser. Do more than obsess over this one article. DonQuixote (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not at all 'obsessed', your reply is entirely inappropriate, and your condescension entirely misplaced. I think you'd do better to worry about your own 'feel for Wikipedia standards', as per this discussion it is clearly lacking. Since your reply contained no counterpoints other than a personal attack, and all you've done is repeat refuted points in circles, this edit seems to be justified now.Frond Dishlock (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
After about half a year of inactivity, the first thing you do is to pick up the stick and beat this dead horse. It's not healthy. Move on to something else. Here's an idea, why don't you research secondary sources and write a kick-ass article on Ben Jackson or even Lucie Miller. Drop the stick. Move on with your life. DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've already advised you that your tone is inappropriate, stop it. I'm not going to be baited by weak attempts at personal attacks. Here's a better idea, you drop your weird obsession. You have no valid argument, not based in policy or otherwise, do you intend to edit war?Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please read WP:DROPTHESTICK. There's a reason why there's an old essay on it. Work on some other articles for a change. DonQuixote (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or, how about you have a read of it, since you're the only one holding a stick regarding this perfectly valid edit. You could stand to check out WP:CIV as well. Again, do you intend to edit war?Frond Dishlock (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:DROPTHESTICK: If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away.
This horse has been dead for six months. You should move on.
Also, If you have "lost"‍—‌sorry, hard luck. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't actually "win" because of ... whatever.--the important part being that last sentence. It's dead. Listen to advice and move on. Sorry that you think that this is "uncivil", but like the advice from WP:DROPTHESTICK states--you should move on. DonQuixote (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Look if you're saying you aren't going to edit war, that's fine. I'll make the edit then; you haven't presented any valid reason not too. And I'm sorry, but I'm not rising to your trollish baiting. I've been very patient, but your behaviour has been problematic at best, you don't WP:OWN this article. Nothing about that policy is applicable here. You are more than welcome to move on. Please by all means, don't let me stop you, since you instigated this in the first place.Frond Dishlock (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, dude, I literally quoted Wikipedia at you. If Wikipedia tells you not to do something on its pages, you should probably not do it. You, the person wanting your change, should move on. That's what WP:DROPTHESTICK is saying. You making the change to your version is being WP:DISRUPTIVE. And, as I have suggested, work on some other articles for a change. That would be less disruptive. DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've warned you about your tone multiple times, your rudeness and condescension is extremely misplaced, continuing this is WP:HOSTILE, I'm not going to be baited so quit it. Your misrepresentation of what you have quoted has already been refuted, flat repetition doesn't make it any less so. You haven't presented any valid arguments at all, least of all based on any policy. It is you being disruptive by threatening to edit war if you don't get your way, based on entirely spurious and arbitrary reasoning. You don't WP:OWN the page, I would suggest you go edit some other pages and quit this.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're ignoring what Wikipedia tells you what you should or shouldn't do in order to "win". Does that sound honest to you?
Seriously, please review WP:DROPTHESTICK. This has been dead for six months. That's something you can't deny. This is clear cut and unambiguous. Per WP:DROPTHESTICK, you should drop the stick, just accept that you didn't get your way and move on to something else. I'm literally repeating what Wikipedia is saying. The person being WP:HOSTILE in this case is you. DonQuixote (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not at all ignoring what 'Wikipedia' tells me. You are not Wikipedia DonQuixote. The time between comments is irrelevant, it wasn't dead, full stop, drop it. You may conceptualise this as being about 'winning', it is not. It is about whether the edit is valid or not. I have presented the position for it being so, you have not presented any valid arguments for it not being so. Maybe you should accept the conversation hasn't gone 'your way', if that's how you think this works, instead of acting like you WP:OWN the page and that your arbitrary word is final. And no, you have repeatedly and pointedly been rude and condescending, despite being politely requested to cease that, WP:HOSTILE is very much applicable to your behaviour, and continues to be I see.Frond Dishlock (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are not Wikipedia DonQuixote.
Well, yeah...that's why I keep quoting Wikipedia. WP:DROPTHESTICK is Wikipedia consensus. You're wilfully ignoring it.
The time between comments is irrelevant, it wasn't dead
Yeah, no. It's been dead for six months. WP:DROPTHESTICK is there to discourage what you're trying to do. Again, from WP:DROPTHESTICK: If the debate died a natural death‍—‌let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it. So, the next time you find yourself standing over the body of a clearly deceased horse: please don't beat it. It won't help. There is no way to beat a dead horse back to life. Let the poor animal rest in peace. Having been dead for six months, it's a clearly deceased horse.
Also, from WP:DROPTHESTICK: don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't actually "win" because of ... whatever...meaning that your "valid arguments" don't matter when it's been dead for six months. Again, per WP:DROPTHESTICK no matter which side you were on, you should walk away...Now go about your business DonQuixote (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No DonQuixote, your attempt at Wp:Stonewalling, is not going to work. Dropthestick only applies to your position here. I don't work to your schedule, and the conversation did not 'die a natural death', it was not dead, it is not dead. Your entire line here is irrelevant, I won't enter into any further discussion on it. Either discuss the actual matter or move on. You insisting the conversation is over is irrelevant. Stop your attitude.Frond Dishlock (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sigh...whelp, that's me done. I literally copied and pasted what Wikipedia has to say. Seriously, six months is an unhealthy amount of time to be this obsessive. Also, most auto-archiving is set at 90 days...so not really "my" schedule. DonQuixote (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, 'sigh' is really cutting out the problematic attitude, great job Don, nor is accusing others of being 'obsessed'. Your personal attacks are irrelevant and inaccurate. They have nothing to do with this page. And if anything it's rather more obsessed to be this worried over blocking the inclusion of a character's name in an article about that character. Your mis-citing parts of policy as though they are applicable when they are not, is neither here nor there. Can I take your claim to be done as saying you are dropping this misguided attempt at stonewalling, and will not edit war over this minor edit?Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you think six months is an appropriate amount of time for a response, then you'll give me up to six months to respond, right? That's only fair, isn't it? DonQuixote (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for confirming you are blatantly engaged in WP:Stonewalling, if you find you can't be WP:CIVIL you are welcome to disengage at any time, and I'll take that as a sign you will not edit war. I've been more than patient.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
From WP:Stonewalling: An editor may have a good reason for disengaging from discussion, for example, WP:DEADHORSE--ie, six months is an unreasonable amount of time as I have tried to illustrate with my questions. DonQuixote (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Deadhorse doesn't apply. I've already said drop it. The discussion was not, and is not concluded. If you can't defend your position with anything but cheap handwaving, that is precisely, WP:Stonewalling, not to mention a weak attempt at WP:PETTIFOGing. As you are refusing to offer any valid argument, and removing yourself from the discussion, the edit can be made. The only reason it hasn't been done thus far is your clear intention to stonewall, and edit war over the point. If you're done, fine. I'll take any further deliberate avoidance of the question as confirmation you will not edit war.Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you want to enjoy a six-month response time, then you need to be willing to give that privilege to other people (ie my obviously ridiculous request). Otherwise if you think a six-month response time is unreasonable (ie your response to my request), then you need to acknowledge that it's unreasonable for you as well--ie dead horse. So which is it going to be?--are you going to give me up to six months to respond or are you going to acknowledge that it's a dead horse. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm beginning to think that you both can't drop the stick given that this discussion has been going on for 7 months and yet only contains the two of you. The only reason I'm leaving a message is because it occasionally pops up on my watchlist and it's slightly annoying. Have either of you considered seeking third party advice by starting an RFC or opening a file at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard?? @DonQuixote: you've complained about Frond leaving the discussion for six months and suddenly coming back, and this has been your main argument around said stick. Taking that into consideration, why do you think it makes it okay for you to do that in reverse? It doesn't make you any better than Frond, just because "they did it first" doesn't make it okay for anyone to do and quite frankly ruins the reputation you have of being a well-established editor just by entertaining the idea. For you, @Frond Dishlock:, ignoring the countless policies/guidelines/essays that you've been cited by Don, you do need to gain a consensus for your edits. The version without the middle name is very clearly the WP:STATUSQUO. I know you haven't edit warred, but you don't have the right to just push your preferred version just because you believe Don is "refusing to offer any valid argument". Which I have to admit Don has, you both have, but I don't care enough to take a position. I wouldn't care if I had to read an extra name, but I also don't lose any understanding of the article in context by it not being there, nor do I leave wondering "What was Gwen's middle name?" I think it's safe to say that the two of you aren't going to be able to settle it here. This dispute (with other editors) has been going on since 2008. Nearly 20 years, 400+ editors, and 1,300 edits, yet we still can't settle this? At the bare minimum, if you don't take this to RFC or DRN, I suggest you at least take it to the talk page(s) of WP:Doctor Who or MOS:TV, maybe WP:TV. Otherwise, unless the two of you are going to start debating it again as content then perhaps you should take the "you drop the stick, no you drop the stick" to one of your user talk pages instead. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Taking that into consideration, why do you think it makes it okay for you to do that in reverse?
@TheDoctorWho: I'm not doing it in reverse. I'm just using it as an illustration to show that it's unreasonable. DonQuixote (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
"ignoring the countless policies/guidelines/essays that you've been cited by Don," -I don't believe I've done that, I addressed the points as they raised them, despite the WP:PETTIFOG overtones, and likewise cited policy/guideline. I'm not going to go round in circles on them after they've been addressed, and flat statements don't make an argument. Don is quite clearly not contributing to the discussion in good faith, they explicitly admit they're being disingenuous above. This is a gambit to stonewall and engage in page ownership.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
How is showing by example "disingenuous". If you think that someone else doing something is unreasonable (my request), then you doing the exact same thing should also be unreasonable. That was actually my point.
And my apologies to TheDoctorWho for this bit. DonQuixote (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Except I didn't do anything of the sort. The conversation did not come to a natural end, I merely didn't reply in a while, which is irrelevant. The conversation is on-going, or rather it isn't since you refuse to actually contribute anything relevant. You're stonewalling. Saying 'oh well I won't reply for six months, okay for you it's okay for me' is just playing disingenuous immature games.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to clear it up, the quote you mentioned in your reply to me was just to precede my statement. More of a "I'm saying this from an outside prospective, by ignoring what Don has cited so far" (not because they said something I agreed/disagreed with, just because I wanted to reply as a neutral third party) not a "You've ignored what they've said."
That said, the fact that you two have already gotten back into it only furthers my point about needing to seek an outside third party. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, my apologies. I admit that I got obsessive about explaining things, fair play and logic. DonQuixote (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Saying 'oh well I won't reply for six months, okay for you it's okay for me' is just playing disingenuous immature games.
It's called fair play. Pointing out that if other people can't do what you're trying to do then you shouldn't be doing it either.
And with that, I'm dropping the stick as TheDoctorWho advised. You're not worth my time anymore. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not called 'fair play', since again, I didn't do anything equivalent to posting a disingenuous non-reply playing an immature game of 'oh well I won't reply for six months since you didn't', relating to an irrelevant tangent I've repeatedly said to drop. Your behaviour has been indefensible, immature, rude, personal, and more to the point, entirely irrelevant to the actual discussion. And you've repeatedly refused to address whether you intend to edit war over this edit. It seems rather apparent that you are engaging in this merely to stonewall. The fact that you'd act like that over something as minor as the inclusion of the full name of a character in an article about that character, is just odd.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Frond, you seem to be under the impression that this talk page is for discussing the conduct of other editors. Word of advice: it isn't. If you truly believe that Don has exhibited outrageous behavior that shouldn't be tolerated here, you should take that to an appropriate forum. However, I find it doubtful that any administrator would take any action against Don, especially given that you have also done everything that you've accused them of doing. You may want to give WP:PERSONALATTACK a quick read over. "The fact that you'd act like that over something as minor as the inclusion of the full name of a character in an article about that character, is just odd." You realize that you started this discussion don't you? If you'd like to get back to discussing the article content, I won't object. Otherwise, it's time to drop the back and forth. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Frond, you seem to be under the impression that this talk page is for discussing the conduct of other editors. Word of advice: it isn't." -Well that's a little irritating, considering that that is **exactly** what I've been saying. It's Don that keeps trying to be personal about me, despite multiple requests to drop it, and me who keeps saying that it's irrelevant to the actual subject being discussed. "You realize that you started this discussion" and? It is the behaviour in relation to I said was odd, not merely discussing the subject. Which I've never said was anything other than minor. In fact it was a large part of my point that it does not 'imbue' it with 'importance' to include it in that position as Don asserts.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay. Well no one has presented a valid reason not to put it in that position. Despite the attempt to stonewall, for bod knows what reason, and all that irrelevant fluff, I will be putting it back in.Frond Dishlock (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwen_Cooper&oldid=1230676879"