Talk:Lexa (The 100)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category:Fictional murderers vs Category:Fictional mass murderers

NeoBatfreak, regarding this edit you made, how is Category:Fictional murderers redundant to Category:Fictional mass murderers? Like I stated when reverting Kcorilol, "She is a fictional murderer, n[o]t just a mass murderer." These categories are obviously not one and the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Restored due to lack of response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Lexa's Death

Do you think we should have a section for the reaction to Lexa's death? It had such a strong reaction from the media and fans and everyone I think it deserves a section of its own. TheHiddenDemons (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

TheHiddenDemons, I've already typed the material up, and will be adding it within the hour. It will be in the Debates section, since it's been heavily debated and I don't believe in spoiling readers with a heading (such as "Death"). The only reason that I have not yet added it is because I will also be adding a little something else to the article, and I want to do it with one edit.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username; I signed it for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

TheHiddenDemons, I added the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: Couldn't have worded it better myself, very nicely worded.--TheHiddenDemons (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed a refname matter here. TheHiddenDemons, thank you. And you're welcome. Now all we need is the Appearances section filled out a little more; I know that you stated that you will probably take care of that. Thanks for your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: Yeah, I totally got the rest of the Season 3 appearances covered! --TheHiddenDemons (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last appearance" field -- stating "alive" or "deceased"

Vindre, regarding this and this edit you made, I reverted you on the infobox matter for reasons noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 21#Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character. Do not comment there; that discussion is archived. Like I stated there, "We do not treat characters as though they are permanently alive or dead [...] the reason why is pretty much due to what MOS:PLOT states: By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'."

In addition, your infobox editing in this regard was unnecessary spoiling and clutter. In other words, by including that material, I see no needed encyclopedic purpose being served. I ask that you do not WP:Edit war over this. If necessary, I will bring other editors in to discuss this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lexa Pledge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As a result of this discussion, Lexa Pledge was redirected to this article, with a note by the closer that "Any interested editor who still wishes to retrieve material from the redirected article, may do so from its history, which is well preserved." This discussion is therefore redundant, so I am procedurally closing it, despite being involved. AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The topic is primarily about, and discussed because of, the TV series character. Alternatively merge to The 100 (TV series).  Sandstein  13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support – There is no reason this should have a separate article. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Sandstein, from the tag you placed on the Lexa Pledge article and this one, it seems you want the Lexa Pledge article merged into this one. I support that, and had already suggested this on Talk:Lexa Pledge, but the character is WP:Notable and should have her own article. The vast majority of this article is about the character, not the Lexa Plegde. Furthermore, I don't see much more that needs to be added to this article about the Lexa Pledge. I would rather that the text reciting the entire Lexa Pledge not be added to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If we want to cover the pledge, inclunding by merging here, I think we do need to reproduce its text.  Sandstein  15:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein, I do not think that the "Commitments of the pledge" section in the Lexa Pledge article is encyclopedic. And the rest of what that article states is already covered in this one. I'd much rather simply redirect that page to this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support There's no evidence of wider usage of the term developing. Btljs (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I queried WP:TV about weighing in on this matter since the merge discussion also concerns whether or not to actually merge any of the article's content. I also noted that this discussion can be spoilerish.

I would definitely like to hear from Bignole and GoneIn60 on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect - there is practically nothing in the separate article that isn't already stated or inferred in the Lexa (The 100) article. As what's properly a controversy concerning a fictional character, that belongs in the proper sections of the fictional characters article. As it stands, there's nothing to suggest that the usage of the term isn't just specific to this particular fictional character. While the pledge does concern other gay characters (hence "future gay characters"), coverage of this "pledge" has not been substantive enough to warrant enough content for a separate article. And since there's nothing from the Lexa Pledge article to take to the Lexa (The 100) article, I'm not so sure "proposed merge" is the proper thing to call this discussion, seeing as there's effectively nothing to merge. —Mythdon 08:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge to THIS article - THis article clearly meets the GNG, and I see nothing on the Pledge article to support a page. Merge it either here or to the 100 series page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge to THIS article - The Lexa Pledge is all about the character that is the subject of this article, and there is no evidence of wider acceptance, so it best belongs here. Normally I'd say just redirect, as the whole thing is a bit silly - fans complaining about LGBT (really guys, get a better acronym) characters being killed off while ignoring the fact that the very much alive main character is also LGBT - but the subject is notable so there should be some mention. There is a brief mention in the main article, added by Sandstein, which is all that is needed there since it really is just about what happened in one episode to one character, so that doesn't need to be expanded upon there. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding information about the fan-created character Elyza Lex

Hello, I tried to publish an article about Elyza Lex, and even though the article wasn't approved, the user NewYorkActuary suggested it might find a home somewhere on this page. "it is unlikely this fan-created character will ever be demonstrated to have the enduring notability that we expect for the articles. But one of your sources, the one from the Huffington Post, does appear to be useful. I encourage you to see whether any of the material in that source can find a home in the article on Lexa (The 100). You might consider opening up a discussion about it on the talk page for that article, which is here. NewYorkActuary"

---

I'll elaborate - Elyza Lex is a fanon created by the Clexa fandom who ship Lexa (The 100) and Clarke Griffin.

The Clexa fandom invented Elyza Lex almost immediately after Commander Lexa, was accidentally killed in Season 3 Episode 7 of The 100. Elyza Lex is recognized by the fans to be the reincarnation of Clarke Griffin, while Alicia Clark, (a character played by the actress who played Lexa, Alycia Debnam Carey, on the show Fear The Walking Dead) is recognized to be the reincarnation of Commander Lexa - which is why Elyza Lex is shipped with Alicia Clark. (Their ship name is Lexark, to differentiate from Clarke and Lexa's ship name - Clexa) The creation of Elyza Lex happened shortly after the airing of Season 3 Episode 7 of The 100, when there was an overwhelming fandom uproar over the death of Lexa. The first documented post mentioning Elyza Lex is a Tumblr post that read "Here’s hoping that Alicia Clark gets a girlfriend in the future and that that girlfriend is played by Eliza Taylor." and the response to this post was "and call her Elyza Lex", giving her a name that is complementary to Alicia Clark's - Elyza, instead of Eliza (Taylor), Lex, as derived from Lexa, and by so, achieving closure for both Clarke and Lexa, that they didn't get due to the rushed death scene and one sided "I love you" from Clarke to Lexa on the season finale - Season 3 Episode 16) ----

NewYorkActuary stated that the following source - an article from the Huffington Post, is in fact a reliable source and can be a legit reference to the existence of the fanon character Elyza Lex - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jin-jet-cava/when-fandom-gets-creative_b_9496012.html

That being said - I wish to suggest some addition to this article which will mention the amazing creation of the fannon character Elyza Lex. There are Twitter pages, Instagram pages, Facebook profiles, Tumblr accounts and credible articles (even though it's been 7 months since Lexa died on the show) that support my claim that this character exists, even if it's only in the minds of the broken-hearted Clexa & LGBTQ fans. The creation of this character is something no fandom has ever done so far. In my opinion, that's an INCREDIBLE coping mechanism for the death of a beloved character which is exactly why I strongly believe it should be officially documented somewhere, preferably on Wikipedia.

Waiting for your prompt reply. --ShayaRonnie (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what on Earth is a "fannon"? I assume you don't men "cannon". That aside, we really don't include information about fan fiction. That's content best left to fan sites,blogs and self-ppublished sources. That it was mentioned in one RS really doesn't justify inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"The canon of fandom. Fanon is the collection concepts and ideas that are normally used in most fan fiction, but don't really existence in the real story's canon."

AussieLegend - it saddens me that you don't see the importance of the creation of Elyza Lex.

Name another fandom that was so emotionally attached to a fictional character in such strong way that after it's death it literally created from scratch a character that will meet the reincarnation of the beloved character in a completely another TV Show, only for the purpose of bringing closure both to the killed off character and to her soulmate?

Elyza Lex is perfect for the role of a love interest for Alicia Clark in FTWD, plus their names make sense because both are derived from the characters real names (Eliza and Alycia) and both include their past lives names (Clarke and Lexa).

I don't know about you, but something that strong that happened because of a death of 1 character, to my opinion, is something worth mentioning. Even in one sentence. It should be documented somewhere, because it exists.

The creation of that character brought and still brings some closure to the hearts and minds of the thousands of fans hurt by Lexa's shocking death, and if Wikipedia were to include that in it's article, it would make the fans and myself included of course, feel they can make a difference, even if they're only fans, of a character, in a show.

It could be historic.

But if you think all of that does not justify the inclusion of Elyza Lex, there's nothing much I can do, right?

All I'm asking is that you consider it again.

Thank you for your reply, and I wish you have a great day. :) --17:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC) ShayaRonnie (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the television series. Since this character is not part of the TV series, she is not really relevant. Every scifi series has fan fiction created. There are volumes and volumes written about series like Star Trek.

Name another fandom that was so emotionally attached to a fictional character... Star Trek fans were so emotionally attached to Spock that they had to bring the character back after he died. Literally hundreds of characters have been created by fans about that series. I have 66 novels sitting on my bookshelf right now. It puzzles me as to why The 100 fans think this is a new thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to break it down to you, but that's totally not the case here. Bringing back a character that died? No. The 100 fans accept the fact that Lexa died, Alycia Debnam Carey had to focus on FTWD. What they didn't accept is the fact that Jason Rothenberg advertised and promoted queer relationship in his feed the entire time Lexa was alive, to bait LGBTQ fans into the show, and then with a blink of an eye, exactly after the two characters finally consummate their love, he directed such a disrespectful "accident" which led to her death. "Lexa deserved better" is not just a phrase.

After her inevitable death, if you haven't heard, the next episode had the most lowest ratings the show has ever seen. Why? Because everyone in the community who looked up to Lexa, were devastated. Every single one who loved Lexa, supported the LGBTQ characters right to have a happy ending on a tv show - for once - literally MIGRATED to watch FTWD, because of that actress and what her character stood for. It even has a name, the Great Gay Migration. So I'm not talking about being sad that your character died and create billions of fanfics. I'm talking about fans who followed the character to a different TV Show and created an entire character from scratch, just so that they can have the closure they need; just so that Clarke can have the closure she needs; and just so that Lexa gets the respect she deserved. This is really phenomenal and I don't know how you can't relate to it. I would recommend watching this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWHo_72a-g - that was created because of Lexa's death and what it meant to fans worldwide. It include many accurate statistics and facts and mainly focuses on what fired it all, Episode 7 of Season 3 of The 100. (Even the video itself is 3:07) Even the actresses are aware of the creation of that character, here's Alycia Debnam Carey with a fan who made an entire comic of the Lexark ship (Elyza Lex & Alicia Clark) - https://www.instagram.com/p/BKu1gmIBNAl/?taken-by=clairthompsn&hl=en Look, It's really just about respect. Respect for The 100 and FTWD, respect for Clexa, respect for Eliza Taylor & Alycia Debnam Carey, and respect for their fans. I don't ask for much... Just a mention of that character. Hope you re-consider maybe in the future. Thanks in advance. --ShayaRonnie (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ShayaRonnie, the main issue with your proposed content is that the sources at Draft:Elyza Lex are poor. That proposed article won't make it. Read and study WP:RS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of betrayal and fanbase rivalry section

Betrayal is redundant as that part is already covered under the "relationship with Clarke Griffin" section. The "fanbase rivalry" part's inclusion is even harder to justify. What is its relevance to this page? Aer0s0l (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Aer0s0l, if this was you (the editor I reverted), do not simply blank material because you don't like it. The section is not at all redundant. What is covered under the "Relationship with Clarke" section is creator and portrayal commentary. The "Betrayal and fanbase rivalry" section is in the Reception section, and it covers what critics and fans thought. And these aspects are covered because they were/are significant debates among the Clarke/Lexa fanbase. When reliable sources cover fanbase reaction, we sometimes cover it (just like we cover what fans thought about Lexa's death). One example includes this section of the Supernatural (U.S. TV series) article. And as noted at MOS:FILM, we do it for film articles too; sometimes we have an "Audience response" section in film articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg's commentary is in the "Betrayal and fanbase rivalry" section as well, but that is because he is specifically responding to upset fans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: I tweaked the content with this edit (followup edit here). As noted in that tweak, I have considered splitting up the paragraphs into separate sections, but I decided against it. They don't need their own sections. I am open to retitling the section, though (as I've always been somewhat dissatisfied with that title). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I can see where Aer0s0l is coming from. Look at this in context: The series regularly had around 1.1-1.2million viewers. The number of fans online is going to be a lot less than that so the number that were actually discussing this is not going to be all that high. Much of this was a storm in a teacup, blown up by the most rabid of fans. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I know how you feel about covering fan reception. I know that you also feel that Lexa's death was blown out of proportion by fans. That's why I held an RfC on the death matter, about whether it should be covered in the The 100 (TV series) article. That RfC concluded with the view that that it should be briefly covered there, especially since Rothenberg had responded to the death more than once and that the in-depth material on the Lexa character, including her death, is best left to this article. When it comes to covering the reception to this character, that includes any significant debates. These two aspects were (and still are, especially among newbies to the series) significant debates among the Clarke/Lexa fanbase. This material is specifically about that fanbase, not the fanbase as a whole. The series does not have as many viewers as a show like The Walking Dead, but that's the usual case for The CW shows (which are on a much smaller network). Among that fanbase, however, there is a significant portion that loved this character so much that many media sources decided to cover her (and not just her death).

Aer0s0l has not offered any solid reasoning (and certainly not a guideline or policy-based reasoning) for removal of the content in question. The editor is simply removing it because he or she does not like it. And if I had to guess, I would state that the main reason why Aer0s0l has repeatedly removed the content is because it partly discusses the shipper war and this text states something that Aer0s0l does not like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And I reiterate that the section is not simply about what fans thought; Lexa's betrayal was discussed among critics as well, which is why I included three critical commentaries on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I know how you feel about covering fan reception. I know that you also feel that Lexa's death was blown out of proportion by fans. That's why I held an RfC on the death matter - Really? You actually threatened an RfC before I had even commented. In fact you threatened the RfC after two other editors had opposed your edits.

I held an RfC on the death matter, about whether it should be covered in the The 100 (TV series) article. - The disputed content here is about the betrayal, not the death.

That RfC concluded with the view that that it should be briefly covered there - More correctly, it concluded with the view that it should only be covered briefly, provided that the words "iconic" and "national debate" were avoided. Howver, again, the disputed content here is about the betrayal, not the death.

These two aspects were (and still are, especially among newbies to the series) significant debates among the Clarke/Lexa fanbase. - What fans do or do not do is irrelevant unless reported in multiple sources. Two of the references used are from the same person, another refers to the fanbase only as a minor point. It's certainly not significant coverage.

Aer0s0l has not offered any solid reasoning - Aer0s0l stated in his or her edit summary, "Betrayal is covered under "relationship with Clarke" and "fanbase rivalry" is unnecessary",[1] and restated it here. Redundancy is a pretty solid argument. If there is an entire section concerning Lexa's relationship with Clarke, which includes discussion of the betrayal, it doesn't need to be, and should not be, given prominence in another section.

And if I had to guess, - Don't guess, it doesn't help your argument to speculate or, for worse, to claim that one editor is persistently removing content when there is no evidence of that. Three editors removed the content, one from Canada, another from Argentina and we don't know Aer0s0l's location. Stick to the facts ma'am. If you believe that all of these are the same editor, open an SPI case and wait for the outcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, Flyer22, Lexa's page is already unnecessarily long as it is. As I have mentioned before, having another section covering the same issue that had already been covered in a previous section is redundant. As for the latter part of your argument, an entire paragraph talking about Bellamy and Clarke's relationship as per the creator is in a section of a page for Lexa. Tell me again, what is the relevance of including that in a page for Lexa? If you really want to keep it, then add it to Clarke or Bellamy's page. Are there other wikipedia pages you can point me to where "fanbase rivalries" exist as precedent? You're the one who seems to be including this not because it's relevant for Lexa's page but because you want to include it here for whatever agenda you have. This is wikipedia, not fandom history. Why exactly does it have to include in your words, "shipper wars?" Has it been covered by mainstream media? Leave that stuff on tumblr where it belongs. I only removed the section once, the subsequent removals were from different people. Stop throwing around unfounded accusations. Aer0s0l (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend, let's look at that RfC again. You are the only one who stated that I threatened an RfC. In fact, I argued against that claim. Another editor, in the discussion section, also challenged you on that claim. Why are you accusing me of making such a threat again when you know that I disagree with that claim, and when I have tried to make peace with you since that dispute? Contacting WikiProjects and/or starting an RfC is what I turn to when it's clear that editors are at a stalemate, and especially when it's me debating one editor; it saves time and bickering. And when it comes to the two of us, we bicker with each other. You are the only editor who reverted me on the content; see the discussion above that RfC. In that discussion, I'd waited for others to reply, last commenting on May 20, 2016. You did not respond until September 6, 2016, after I noted that I was considering starting an RfC. The discussion continued, in a somewhat unproductive way. And the closer of that RfC was clear that the in-depth material on Lexa's death belongs in this article, while the main article is for summarizing. The closer would not have been validly able to rule on what goes in another article anyway since the RfC concerned the main article. I even talked the RfC matter over with the closer before implementing the text.

Yes, the disputed content here is about the betrayal (and the fanbase rivalry), not the death, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you see all the attention this character got, on any level, as having been blown out of proportion. And you can have that opinion, but it doesn't negate the significant coverage this character has gotten. You stated, "What fans do or do not do is irrelevant unless reported in multiple sources. Two of the references used are from the same person, another refers to the fanbase only as a minor point. It's certainly not significant coverage." How fans felt about Lexa's betrayal is discussed by multiple sources. More than that, the betrayal is discussed by multiple critics. Including mention of fan reaction to the matter is perfectly reasonable/allowed. That any reliable source has reported on a shipper dispute, with the creator of that show weighing in on that shipper dispute, is enough to cover that shipper dispute in an article that is specifically about the character(s) in question. I don't need to go the citation overkill route on these two aspects. As for the claim that Aer0s0l offered a solid argument, no, the editor didn't; I already argued that there is no redundancy. Creator and portrayal commentary with regard to development of a character's relationship is not the same thing as reception to that development; this is the case for a number of our articles. As for the claim that three editors removed the content, no, I don't think so. And I'm not the only editor to state so. Aer0s0l didn't claim that he or she is not the IPs until you implied above that Aer0s0l is not.

Aer0s0l, in what way is Lexa's article "already unnecessarily long"? How are you judging that? By your feelings toward the character? Simply because the character was a recurring character? If so, that is poor reasoning. This character received a lot of media attention. I've covered the aspects of that attention proportionally and in an encyclopedic manner. I see nothing that should be cut. AussieLegend arguing about how many viewers the show had or has or you arguing similar (like the character being recurring) is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We don't decide how much attention and detail an article should get based on how many viewers a show had or if a character was a recurring character, not when that character got as much attention as Lexa did. Such reasoning is similar to the argument that I gave too much attention to the Jennifer's Body article because it is "a completely forgettable and inconsequential film.", or that editors have given too much attention to the gigantic flop known as Battlefield Earth. One is WP:GA; the other is WP:FA. Like Horkana, who no longer edits Wikipedia (at least under the Horkana username), stated, even bad films deserve good articles. Similarly, even recurring characters deserve good, comprehensive articles. And once I source the plot section of this article, even though it doesn't need sourcing, and tweak a few other things, this article will be WP:GA too. And, really, given the attention this character got, I would not be surprised if the character is covered in academia in the future, specifically with regard to the "bury your gays" trope.

I don't understand your reasoning for questioning the mention of the fanbase rivalry in an article that is specifically about a character at the core of that rivalry (other than Clarke herself). Mention of it should be in the Clarke Griffin article as well, but I have not gotten around to fixing up that poor excuse for an article. When I do, mention of it will be there, but there will be a link pointing to this article for further detail, rather than repeating all of that; see WP:Summary style. If Bellamy had a Wikipedia article, it would not belong in his article. The core of the dispute is Lexa, who is not canon in the books. You can talk about my supposed agendas as much as you want to, but as many here know, I am thorough. When I write a Wikipedia article, or significantly improve one, I cover every significant aspect of that topic so that the article is comprehensive. As for another article that talks about fanbase rivalries, the aforementioned Supernatural (U.S. TV series) article is sort of one. The One Tree Hill (TV series) article is another; see here. The creator of that show has commented on that fanbase rivalry multiple times, and it's mentioned in the Lucas Scott article as well (the "Personality and wardrobe" section of that article). I didn't think I'd have to clarify what "shipper war" means since I linked to the Shipping (fandom) article (and explained what shipping is within parentheses) in the section above that one, but I've gone ahead and changed it to "rivalry between the fanbases." With that edit, I also slightly changed the title of the section. Since more opinions are needed on this topic, I will alert WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to give my input as a completely neutral party who was drawn here by a RfC. I do not believe there needs to be an entire section about the character's betrayal, as much of it is simply critical reception for an individual episode. I would recommend cannibalizing the content of that section, cutting it down to one paragraph and slipping it in as a second paragraph under the "General" section. Yes, it is a pivotal moment for the character, but I don't find it to be exclusive- or beyond the scale- of the more general reception. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, DarthBotto, I didn't think it needed its own section either. That's why I combined it with the material on the fanbase rivalry, a rivalry that the creator responded to. So your suggestion is that I put both pieces in the General section? Although the content is more specific than general, I could agree to that. The above is not an official RfC, by the way, but I understand how it feels like one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I know it's not an official one, but I understand what you're going for, so that's why I gave it the short handle. ;) That being said, yes, a paragraph under "General" would by my proposition. I don't believe it should be an area of contention, as it's certainly a poignant element of the series. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See this edit that Clpo13 just reverted? Yeah, the reasoning that IP gave is the actual reason this content is being repeatedly removed. An invalid, illogical reasoning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend, let's look at that RfC again - Why? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please stick to the topic at hand and stop dragging in irrelevant stuff.

How fans felt about Lexa's betrayal is discussed by multiple sources. - As I said, and which you quoted, the discussion was hardly significant. Two of the references used were the same person, so that's really one source. Another mentioned the fans more as a minor point than anything else.

That any reliable source has reported on a shipper dispute - Terms like "shipper dispute" belong on fansites, not in an encyclopaedia.

As for the claim that Aer0s0l offered a solid argument, no, the editor didn't; I already argued that there is no redundancy - Your argument is not convincing. The section titled "Relationship with Clarke" deals encyclopaedically with the relationship. The section being discussed is about fan reaction. It's more trivial than anything else. Fans get upset all the time and discussions about this or that are not uncommon. Have a look at any TV program related to the Marvel or DC universes, which have a lot more fans than this TV series. (The Flash, to pick one at random, regularly pulls 3.5 million viewers.) You are assuming that fan discussions about this series are somehow more important than fan discussions about other series. The reality is that they are not. They're really nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of arguing at the water cooler over which football team is best.

As for the claim that three editors removed the content, no, I don't think so - The evidence shows that 3 editors have removed the content. What you think happened has no relevance unless a SPI discussion proves you correct.

Aer0s0l, in what way is Lexa's article "already unnecessarily long"? - The article for the main character in this series has a mere 860 words of readable prose. By comparison this article, which is about a recurring character who appeared in less than 30% of episodes, has 8,282 words, more than 9 times the length of Clarke's article. If we take it one step further, the main series article only has 1,792 words. There seems to be unnecessary focus on this character simply because she was gay and was killed off. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Why look at the RfC again? Because you elaborated on it in a way I significantly disputed before. But I agree that we should not rehash that. So moving on...

Regarding Lexa's betrayal, I didn't quote anything as not being hardly significant. But like I stated, I included sources which note how fans felt about Lexa's betrayal, and three sources from critics specifically commenting on the betrayal. I don't consider two references from Eric Goldman of IGN as one source, but I understand you viewing him as one source. I focused on fans/viewers briefly for the betrayal because sources note that viewers were upset and confused by it. Readers can read the sources for further detail on that. There is no need for me to elaborate more on what fans felt about the betrayal when I quoted Andy Swift of TVLine essentially speaking for them. Like DarthBotto stated above, "I don't believe it should be an area of contention, as it's certainly a poignant element of the series."

As for you not finding my argument that "creator and portrayal commentary with regard to development of a character's relationship is not the same thing as reception to that development; this is the case for a number of our articles", MOS:TV disagrees with you; its "Reception" section specifically states, "Generally, this would be where critical response to the character—not necessarily an analysis of the character, like what would be found in the 'Characterization' section—would be placed." I'm not going to include portrayal and creator analyses of a character's motives (a betrayal in this case) in a section that is specifically about reception to those motives. Not unless I think it flows better there. There is no redundancy; one section includes what went into the writing and portrayal of Lexa's betrayal, and the other includes how fans and critics felt about the betrayal. Two different things. The only reason that creator and portrayal commentary regarding Lexa's death is in the Reception section is because the creator and portrayer are specifically responding to the reception to her death. All in all, this a personal taste matter. I don't find the "Betrayal and fanbase rivalry disputes" section to be "more trivial than anything else." The first half of it is mainly critics commenting on the betrayal. And the second half of it is specifically about the shipper rivalry between the fanbases. It includes a media commentator commenting on the matter and the creator responding to the matter. If the matter was really that trivial, then why did the creator feel the need to respond to it by explaining what he was doing? Yes, fans get upset all the time, but when reliable sources cover it, it's common for us to cover it, and especially when the creator speaks out on it. That's the main reason that Lexa's death even gets a mention in the main article and the attention it gets in this article -- a preponderance of reliable sources covered that death, and even Javier Grillo-Marxuach, who wrote the episode, called it a cultural impact matter.

I'm not "assuming that fan discussions about this series are somehow more important than fan discussions about other series." I looked at the sources regarding this character. The vast majority of the sources about this character concern her relationship with Clarke and her death. The article reflects that. The sources regarding this character are very much about the Clarke/Lexa fanbase, and many of the sources do indeed use the shipper name "Clexa," which is why I felt that it was important to mention that shipper name in the article. You stated that "terms like 'shipper dispute' belong on fansites, not in an encyclopaedia." We have an article called Shipping (fandom); it's currently a poor article, but we have an article on the matter regardless. If I've clarified what a term means early on, I don't see an issue with using the term a little later in the article. Either way, as noted, I've already removed "shipper war" from the article. And, really, as someone who commonly trades out "movie" for "film," "flop" for "commercial failure," and "panned" for "generally negative reviews," I know all about using encyclopedic language on Wikipedia.

As for whether or not Aer0s0l was the IPs, with one of them stating, "This section is demonizing a healthy canon F/F couple. Why someone will click in a lesbian character wiki page to read about a non existing- straight couple as bellarke?", I'm going to have to continue to disagree there. My common sense, knowledge of WP:Proxy, and experience with catching socks, makes me highly skeptical. Either the editor was logged out making the edits or the IPs were directed to the section by some website post, which is a common thing to see in a case where multiple IPs suddenly pop up around the same time to blank material. The timing of the IP removals is no coincidence. Also, given that Aer0s0l has had no trouble remembering to sign posts and WP:Indenting, which is highly unusual of newbies, it seems that Aer0s0l has experience commenting on Wikipedia or on another wiki. Either way, if my opinion on this aspect doesn't matter, then neither does yours. I am not pursuing a sock case for Aer0s0l/the IPs; as editors who report IPs in a sock case know, it's the usual thing that a WP:CheckUser will not publicly connect them to a registered account (not unless necessary). Let's move away from the "Aer0s0l was logged out while editing" viewpoint.

As for the size of this article, I go back to what I stated about Battlefield Earth. I'm not going to sacrifice the comprehensive quality of this article simply because some find this character trivial and/or feel that the reaction to her was blown out of proportion, and therefore that the attention given to the character in this article is undeserved. I'm not going to sacrifice the comprehensive quality of this article simply because the Clarke Griffin article is currently in poor shape or because editors have not expanded The 100 (TV series) article in the comprehensive way it can be expanded; that article is lacking. There are a number of character articles as big as, or bigger than, this one; featured article Pauline Fowler is an example. Given the abundance of sources on Lexa, the fact that Lexa was a recurring character is irrelevant when it comes to how we should cover her impact. But I will be considering the advice given by DarthBotto, as well as the advice given by Bignole. I'm not trying to have a fan page; I never am. This article looks nothing like Lexa | The 100 Wiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)