Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Appropriate use of infobox?

Battle for Dream Island
Created by	Cary Huang Michael Huang
Country of origin	United States
Original language	English
No. of seasons	5
Original release
Release	January 1, 2010 (2010-01-01) – present

Would it be appropriate to add Infobox television (as shown on the right) under the section "WP:BFDI#What is BFDI?". AlphaBeta135talk 19:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

i really wouldn’t think so, as this isn’t an actual article on the web series and it’s rather just a quick little summary of what the show is GoldenDorito (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it has several paragraphs, and would assist in people who don't know what BFDI is, just assisting with anti-vandalism, etc

but i can't really say because i don't really edit (or do anything other than look at pages) at all MacheteSoutheast (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

wait is no one talking about the fact that cary huang is linking to some random planets' name??? XD GoldenDorito (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

minor planet (asteroid/small body) called 10003 Caryhuang MacheteSoutheast (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So the infobox caused the talk page title to be entirely in italics. Even when disabling italic_title and using the DISPLAYTITLE template, the talk page title overwrote the infobox name for whatever reason. So maybe it is not a good idea to implement an infobox about BFDI onto the main essay. AlphaBeta135talk 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I test this infobox in the sandbox, it displays the name correctly, so that doesn't help us figure out why it's not displaying the correct title here. Let me try something:

Original infobox, which always appears to display Battle for Dream Island correctly in previews
Battle for Dream Island Created by Cary Huang Michael Huang Country of origin United States Original language English No. of seasons 5 Original release Release January 1, 2010 (2010-01-01) – present

In previews, the infoboxes give links to their template pages, so I decided to look through these pages:
Template:Infobox television → Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary manual displaytitle → Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unnecessary manual displaytitle → Draft:Kahhori What If...? episode
At the draft page, the infobox says Kahhori-centric episode, and looking in the source, it shows rtitle in the place of the name parameter. I'll try making that change to see if that doesn't work:

Test: rtitle instead of name, which, according to the preview, appears to cause the infobox to incorrectly display Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia? instead
Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?/Archive 1 Created by Cary Huang Michael Huang Country of origin United States Original language English No. of seasons 5 Original release Release January 1, 2010 (2010-01-01) – present

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

✗ Fail: Changing name to rtitle didn't change the actual result. What we see in previews isn't what we get. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback

The essay currently looks quite good and helps to explain notability and GNG for inexperienced fans. That being said, I don't think this essay should focus on notability alone. I think it needs to have more in-depth explanations of what Wikipedia is not and gaming the system (especially with names) (it was violations of these principles that got BFDI salted in draftspace, especially considering how notability doesn't apply to drafts). Sockpuppetry may have also been involved as well, though I'm not sure. Anyways, well done for trying to keep fancruft crap off Wikipedia!

To quote Robert McClenon: "There are a few subjects, including certain albums, certain actresses, and certain web sites, that [even if they become notable] will never have Wikipedia articles, because the efforts made by their fans to game the system are too obvious and too disruptive. [Regional at Best] is an example, as is the Battle for Dream Island."

118.149.77.183 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually sockpuppetry was likely involved per User:IloveRumania 118.149.81.242 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking through its talk page & contributions, IloveRumania seem to be a regular vandal who happened to create a page about BFDI. Their sockpuppetry does not appear to be related to BFDI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only sock that tries to recreate BFDI is the "Ericallums" accounts (1, 2). See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ericallums15tetert/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ericallums2007/sandbox AlphaBeta135talk 00:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I just searched "BFDI Wikipedia" on Google via incognito mode and the top search result happens to be this very essay. I wonder if this coincides with the essay's high popularity. AlphaBeta135talk 21:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well done! 118.149.79.177 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@AlphaBeta135:: I feel as if a lot of immature kids are on Wikipedia who obsess over children's/preschool TV shows no one else cares about (preschool shows generally don't get more notable–especially in Wikipedia terms–than shows made for other audiences), to the point it can become disruptive and lead to blocks and sockpuppetry. And this is an example.

This honestly makes me concerned, but I do have to feel sorry for those kids who need to understand that Wikipedia isn't just for their cartoons. They need to realize cartoons obsessions that result in things like this are not healthy. As a guy who loves cartoons, I also used to obsess over them greatly, but now watch cartoons moderately and don't let them absorb my whole life. There are so many better things they could spend time on rather than just shoving shows into Wikipedia that just don't simply belong here. As CGP Grey said: "Your job is to work on you, and to make yourself an independent person in the world." NOT to spend time on stupid fancruft. 118.149.74.5 (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Aston Smith

From what I've heard he's a British child with autism who wrote a book about astronomy, leading him to be featured on BBC (and possibly other significant coverage), so he might meet GNG. I personally would love to see him merit a Wikipedia article provided he meets GNG, but the problem is, he revealed himself to be a BFDI fan in an interview, so an article on him could be a BFDI disruption magnet. 118.149.82.5 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to make sense considering the nature of the BFDI fandom/object show(s) community. EnbyPie08 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What does this mean Race To Oblivion (ネザーへのハイウェイ) (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"BFDI disruption magnet" as in the page could attract people from the fandom that could obsessively gatekeep the page. EnbyPie08 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever made an article/draft/etc. about Aston Smith (I checked). This isn't really something to be concerned about considering that articles on a living person have extra restrictions like WP:BLP, not to mention actual legal complications that may arise from it. Again, try to be aware of WP:BEANS so as to not give ideas to the OSC editors. AlphaBeta135talk 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Shortcut

Should WP:OSC redirect to this essay? 118.149.79.177 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

why not, sure. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 118.149.85.96 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimer

@Ca: I removed the disclaimer as it implied that the "What is BFDI?" section was supposed to be a "pseudo-mainspace article" or something; that section's purpose is definitely not to be like an article on Wikipedia! And it definitely shouldn't have "reliable" in it per WP:WPINARS.

The purpose of the section is to provide Wikipedia users (who don't know what BFDI is yet likely know the disruption) what the disruption is about, not to educate the average Wikipedia layperson (browsing it to get information about a topic) about BFDI as it isn't notable for that. 118.149.87.27 (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the prose without the disclaimer could be considered WP:FAKEARTICLE. Adding a disclaimer would make that clear. Reliability is a subjective topic; a prose without any sources to support it is less reliable than prose with sources. So in this context, regular Wikipedia is relatively "reliable". Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

But I don't really care, I would not oppose you reverting my edit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Should Dream Island be protected?

I don't know. 118.149.73.154 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, there are no ongoing disruption nor frequent vandalism. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and "OSC" editors

I am aware that there are many, many pages that failed to achieve notability and thus failed to become articles. Some were recreated numerous times to the point of being salted (e.g. SMG4). I created this project page on February because of the sheer volume of BFDI pages being recreated and deleted and, more importantly, the fact that BFDI is the only entertainment series (web, movie, TV, etc.) to be blacklisted. To my surprise, this project page became one of the most viewed essays on Wikipedia. Yes, there is a possibility of BFDI having a Wikipedia article at some point in the 21st century; we just don't know when and how. What we do know is that it is not notable enough for inclusion in today's Wikipedia in this very universe. AlphaBeta135talk 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To BFDI fans and the "OSC"

One of the things that should be brought up is that just because BFDI gets deleted for failing notability does not mean that Wikipedia editors "hate BFDI" or "hate the OSC" or something similar. Some editors, like me, do support and watch BFDI at times. We editors do not think it is appropriate to shoehorn a topic like BFDI onto Wikipedia; there are policies and guidelines in place (e.g. notability and webhosting) that would not allow such topics to be included. In fact, there is absolutely no media coverage from well-known, reliable sources on this very topic, not even from WIRED, which meaningfully covered Homestuck ([1]). Regardless, a handful of editors tried to add BFDI onto Wikipedia, which often results in deletions, creation protections, and general annoyance among some users (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB (2nd nomination)). I am not saying that these editors are intentionally breaking Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but Wikipedia does hold standards that are higher than what most people would expect. Don't take reversions and deletions personally.

Of course, this does not apply to most fans of BFDI or the "OSC". Most fans are probably oblivious to the fact that BFDI is being constantly recreated on Wikipedia, often through unsolicited recreations. Furthermore, most editors who are fans of BFDI generally understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and follow them. It is only a handful of BFDI fans who are both visible and bold enough to try to promote BFDI on Wikipedia. Just to reiterate, we do not "hate" BFDI, but shoehorning non-notable topics is generally frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. AlphaBeta135talk 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To editors concerned about "OSC" editors

There are editors who are annoyed by a constant stream of recreations that turned out to be more or less the same as its pre-deleted state. There are editors who do not want to waste their time constantly talking about why this one repeatedly-recreated topic should be deleted. I can understand that, which is the reason why creation protection exists. Yes, there will still be editors circumventing salts by using alternative titles and spelling variants. Yes, there will still be editors doing a "little" disrupting whether or not it is intentional.

However, one of the things I have observed within the past few months is public expression of online anger directed at fans. While it may be frustrating for some editors to find out that a handful of editors are still disrupting, they are ultimately people. The Wikipedia community frowns upon "biting newcomers" and uncivil comments because they can discourage editors from editing constructively. In the worst case scenario, editors could retaliate, essentially escalating a heated situation. In other words, I am a bit concerned about the treatment of editors, even when they disrupt for the promotion of BFDI (not that I support disruptive editing). AlphaBeta135talk 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if any of my editing behavior (including edit summaries) was of the kind you are talking about here. Of course, I get frustrated every time I hear about all the deletions, salting, and discussions over BFDI. But indeed, we are all humans, even if we don't know who's on the end of your computer screen, so it's better to be more kind and supportive.

BFDI has references to mathematics (especially algebra) and its creators are quite good at it–would it be nice to encourage BFDI fans to seek out more notable and relevant topics on Wikipedia like algebra and mathematics, computer science, and astronomy? 118.148.102.81 (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you think BFDI will ever meet SIGCOV/GNG in our lifetime?

This is more of a poll question. I honestly don't think so, as I said above: "if it hasn't yet received SIGCOV when it's been running for 13 years why would it suddenly do so later?" 118.149.82.192 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the rise in subscribers doesn't seem to slow down, there's the possibility that the sub count becomes high enough for new episodes to appear in trending and/or on YouTube's main page for logged out users. Salad Fingers got very popular when it appeared on Newgrounds' main page, for example. This way, the fan base would become more noticeable outside the Internet. New BFDI episodes could also be eventually broadcasted in television or picked up by a notable streaming service. A much darker but effective alternative would be if at least one of the Huang brothers die young - Eddsworld, from 2003, only had a significant increase of interest after creator Edd Gould died in 2012, and YouTuber Technoblade was reported so much upon his death that the article was created and eventually promoted to good article status (see relevant Signpost opinion piece). I really hope this doesn't happen, though.

These would likely catch the attention of independent journalists and make them write SIGCOV about BFDI. Until then, despite its popularity, BFDI gets... no article. Best thing to do is wait and see. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Cary Huang page ban

Is the titleban for a Cary Huang page really necessary? It seems done more out of spite than anything, Cary has done a lot more than simply work on BFDI. He created Scale of the Universe, which almost certainly has been covered by reliable sources — he's run a data visualization channel called Abacaba that got big during the COVID-19 pandemic for its visualizations of the disease's spread. I understand why BFDI is currently disallowed, but I feel like expanding those restrictions beyond that is overkill. 24.93.123.39 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the fault of the OSC ultras who forced BFDI onto Wikipedia and violated many Wikipedia policies in doing so, many of which are explained in the essay. I actually do feel bad for Cary and Michael Huang though. As I said previously, Scale of the Universe (not BFDI, because SOTU has some significant coverage) is really the magnum opus of the HTwins; they don't deserve being banned from having a Wikipedia article. However, if more SIGCOV picks up on them in the future, the article ban on them may be lifted. I really hate having to say this, but I see the BFDI fandom (not just them, but other fandoms as well, of course) as nothing but a bunch of hooligans at this point. 118.149.92.92 (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Cary's data channel Abacaba has also received some (though sparse) notable coverage.

There are more beyond these two. I think at the very least it is a tad unfair. If you invented the stereoscope to much news praise, but also created a popular radio drama that has a large and extremely rabid fandom following but no coverage by outlets, is it fair to you to be banned from having a Wikipedia article written about you just because of fallout from people trying to create unreliable articles about the radio drama? Be unbiased.

In defense of BFDI itself, most of the essay's reasoning seems valid but is worded in such a way that comes across as a tad snarky or biased. However it's worth noting there is an official Scholastic-published BFDI universe/character guide book that has been in print since 2019. TSwanyIRL (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The hooligans mentioned the book too, which isn't going to cut it for the time being. 118.148.103.158 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "snarky" or "biased"? 118.148.103.158 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

And, of course, the OSC guys will come along to a potential article on the HTwins and try and get BFDI mentioned to an unnecessarily overdetailed extent, adding to more disruption–basically the same thing I pointed out with #Aston Smith above. Also consider AlphaBeta135's reply on that section about articles on living persons (i.e. WP:BLP). It should also be noted that the two sources on Abacaba don't explicitly mention Cary and Michael Huang. As I said, I do feel bad for both of them though, but it is what it is. 118.148.103.158 (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The book was made in partnership with Jacknjellify according to Jacknjellify's website, so it's not independent. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Christian Potenza

I've added disclaimers on the talk page of the article asking people not to include within the article some reference to Inanimate Insanity, a spinoff of BFDI which Potenza actually voiced in (this cannot be verified with an independent, reliable source). Inanimate Insanity has at times been included without a source, and I've seen BFDI fans claiming on Reddit that we are partial to Inanimate Insanity being there and not BFDI, which is why I am not comfortable with II being mentioned there. 118.148.84.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please nominate Draft:Inanimate Insanity for deletion?

Same reason as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB (2nd nomination). The topic will never meet WP:GNG, the draft focuses on a BFDI spinoff and the mainspace (Inanimate Insanity) has also been salted. Yes, notability doesn't apply to drafts and the editing there hasn't been that disruptive, but that doesn't change it from being related to and a WP:COATRACK for a blacklisted and multi-salted topic. Pure fancruft.

Thanks! 118.149.85.96 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Undone - Did not notice that it survived MfD. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Should the Inanimate Insanity draft be nominated again for MfD considering it's been declined 13 times, its mainspace has been salted, and the topic will never be notable? 118.149.85.92 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because something will never be notable doesn't mean that it cannot be in draftspace. Drafts have expiration dates; if no one edits a draft within six months, it will automatically be deleted per WP:G13 (although in this case, it's not likely). Renomination would probably yield more or less the same result. Out of curiosity, is there a difference between a "fake article" and a legitimate userspace draft (e.g. this project page)? Also, when you say "declined 13 times," do you mean 13 declines since the draft's existence (2019) because that is basically 3-4 declines per year (not very much). AlphaBeta135talk 12:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I just don't want this likely fancruft draft to look acceptable to OSC people (outside the Wikipedia community) when Wikipedia's consensus is that object shows do not belong on WP at all. 118.149.83.79 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was already discussed (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Inanimate Insanity); renominating it for deletion would probably yield more or less the same result.

Also worth mentioning is that expressing online anger or with an angry tone against other editors who do the wrong thing (e.g. adding BFDI content on Wikipedia) is not helping the situation (see WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE). As a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", there will be people, especially new editors, adding BFDI content on Wikipedia without due regards to Wikipedia policies/guidelines, even with additional measures in place. This is the very reason why this project page was created: to educate editors on the subject matter. AlphaBeta135talk 00:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I am just frustrated at all the obsessive OSC fans who wasted volunteer time and caused the BFDI disruption. Honestly, this essay came to be because of the BFDI disruption which recently hit a crescendo, and this having to be made really speaks volumes about the OSC. And the obsessive behavior of the OSC obviously isn't just limited to Wikipedia (which is why the creators made the "Let's keep BFDI casual" video). And, as I mentioned in an earlier reply, they could have done other things, like working on other Wikipedia topics, and not let small things like BFDI absorb their entire lives. I am honestly ashamed to watch BFDI because of things like this.

And, let's face this: BFDI and object shows will never be notable, especially in today's world. Black Mirror will always be relevant but object shows just interest their fans. BFDI isn't even the magnum opus of its creators (it is undoubtedly The Scale of the Universe), and as for Aston Smith his magnum opus will always be his astronomy book, not bringing a Marker plush to BBC. But as for BFDI fans who understand why their show(s) are banned from Wikipedia and respect Wikipedia's decision (which I'm guessing includes you), I respect you.

I know Wikipedia is not a place to rant about this but I feel like it had to be said.

118.149.85.142 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Amen. As a BFDI fan myself, it's really embarrassing that people kept trying to make articles for it so often that it and related titles had to be blacklisted. If accuracy and reliability is a concern, they should improve their own Fandom wiki instead of trying to create a Wikipedia article. Besides, you don't need to have a Wikipedia article to have a respectable info repository, you just need discipline. Not that Wikipedia is an "info respository", of course.

It's unfortunate, but reliable third-party sources will never be enough to give a full picture of reality. Thus, Wikipedia was never meant to be a "full picture of reality", just a repository of everything that we are reasonably certain of via corroboration. JumboDS64 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Amen. What you said was 110% correct. I also do think the BFDI Fandom wiki also has a few issues (pointed out in the "Let's keep BFDI casual" video and also a different one), so all the BFDI disruption time could have been used to improve their Fandom wiki instead. If the BFDI fans want to their show seriously (in my opinion), they should be using the literary criticism and analysis techniques they learn in school (i.e. like on SparkNotes and CliffsNotes), not obsessively reporting every single little animation error or "goof". As someone said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island, Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything that exists.

"reliable third-party sources will never be enough to give a full picture of reality" - WP:TRUTH.

As I said, I doubt BFDI will get the SIGCOV it needs to meet GNG within the next 50 years; if it hasn't yet received SIGCOV when it's been running for 13 years why would it suddenly do so later?

I've seen many other "toxic fandoms" (let's not go into that dangerous territory), but only the BFDI fandom/OSC seems to be the only ones that are obsessed with getting themselves on Wikipedia. However I've also seen immature kids doing conduct violations on shows made for little children so... I am kind of a fan of Monty Python and Black Mirror and these have attracted SIGCOV which is why they have arricles here. But that also could be because they are more relevant to today's society than object shows. Those kids trying to force obscure preschool shows and object shows to a site where they simply don't belong should probably give them a try. 118.149.87.249 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

ya, there's not much to say about bfdi really. it's neat but doesn't do anything THAT unique, which is why nobody's really said anything. i'm sure it will inspire some kids to eventually pursue animation careers where they create things that will meet SIGCOV (in fact, IIRC an Inanimate Insanity crew member had a minor role in the production of Centaurworld), but it itself doesn't and won't JumboDS64 (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the fans just have to deal with it. Maybe they want BFDI to be part of the contemporary Western canon, but no way is that going to happen. Black Mirror and Monty Python are no doubt part of the contemporary Western canon, but not BFDI. 118.149.85.202 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think comparing some topic with another that is much more influential, and using that comparison to determine the former's notability, is quite harsh and unfair. The Wikipedia notability guideline's threshold is much lower than what is Western canon or anything near that level. Monty Python is in the list of the 10000 most important articles and Black Mirror is in the 50000 list. We have over 6 million articles. Publications don't just write SIGCOV on such important topics. Someone in this talk page mentioned about the existence of a book named Black Mirror and Philosophy; that helps proving Black Mirror's notability, but doesn't make BFDI less notable. It's absurd to say that the article about Nineteen Eighty-Four should be deleted because the Bible is more important; this also considers a threshold that is vastly different from Wikipedia's.

Even if editors consider that there's not much to talk about BFDI itself, I believe if SIGCOV ever exists, the article should not just focus on in-universe facts, but also on its conception, development and community pointed out by independent sources. It should also mention the reception from expert critics who comment on the animation, character development, jokes, etc., if they ever do that. Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective. (Just to clarify, I agree BFDI is still not notable.) ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Linking to this essay in Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information

A month or so ago, I added a hatnote to this essay in Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. So far, it have been met with two reversions. For the first one, I discussed or the reverter(QuickQuokka) and agreed to reinstate the hatnote. However, another editor came along and removed the hatnote. Since this seems to be topic for debate. I want to gain a consensus (or consensus against) keeping the hatnote in the article. What is your opinion on this matter?

• Pinging @Pppery, who removed the hatnote.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Quoting my edit summary, the effect is to circumvent BFDI not being allowed on Wikipedia by directing readers looking for it to content about it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, I personally do see linking this essay there as kind of treating this essay like a "substitute article" for BFDI, but again, you may see it differently. 118.148.84.2 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with directing readers to information about BFDI? It has disclaimers that the content is unreliable, and it presents confused readers/editors an explanation why seemingly very notable series does not exist in Wikipedia. It probably also helps stop future BFDI creation attempts because it is exposed to a wider range of people. People who wish to create a BFDI article would visit BFDI first, and if they find this essay on the hatnote, it has the potential to stop further disruptive creations and hurt feelings. I think a one line of space is worth it to mitigate disruption. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, still not convinced. We don't normally link to essays from mainspace, and the way you formatted the hatnote is treating this essay as if it were an article, which is definitely not done. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think compromising mainspace to push it is the right way to go about it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How about

"Bfdi" redirects here. For information on why Battle for Dream Island does not have an article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia?

?

This new wording makes clear that this is not a mainspace content article, while taking up the same amount of space. It will also be surrounded in noprint to avoid it showing up in mirrors or printed Wikipedia. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's better wording, but I'm still not convinced it belongs, and I suspect won't be convinced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hatnotes in mainspace are IMO for other stuff in mainspace, so I'm against. Impressive essay, though. And, for devil's advocate/WP:OTHERCONTENT purposes, there is, sort of, a similar inclusion at Conflict of interest and Conflict of Interest (disambiguation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

BFDI should be allowed

This article looks like a bunch of excuses to not add BFDI. It is relevant, one episode has 60M visits. YouTube and Fandom (if it’s a well moderated wiki) can be good reliable sources. You guys just hate BFDI for 0 reasons. If you basically reject to it, you’re gonna go against a whole community. This is not only a suggestion, probably a warning since you guys could get accused of foreshadowing object shows, and get Wikipedia in a big issue. Other web series like Salad Fingers, Eddsworld and Murder Drones have their wiki pages, it makes 0 sense to not add BFDI. Gafosin (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And no, the “let’s keep BFDI casual” video is not excuse,lots of casual projects are on Wikipedia. Gafosin (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

hi @Gafosin and welcome to Wikipedia! as someone who has encountered this question countless times before (and who myself is a casual fan of BFDI, though I still prefer II S2/3, you can't change my mind), there is a complete lack of sources that can be used to write an article about it. no reliable sources means no notability wikipedia-wise (which does require professional sources, raw popularity or absolutely anything but being discussed in professional sources does not mean notability), no notability and no sources (since you also have to source information from these sources) means one cannot write an article about it. honestly I believe that if there were sources, BFDI would already have a very detailed article (the fact that BFDI creation requests happen very often makes me think this), although the complete lack of mainstream attention and usable sources means it is unable to have one. I'm sorry, but it's nothing personal (from me or from other editors), just policy. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Go to university and try writing papers that cite nothing except YouTube videos and FANDOM wikis and tell me what grades you get. Anyone (including fans of BFDI) can write whatever goes at the top of their head, including disinformation. That is why we should not use them. We want what experts say–please look at the list of accepted sources here.

Additionally, Cary said in the "Let's keep BFDI casual" video that he felt as if the series being on IMDb was already "a bit too overblown"–which is right. BFDI shouldn't be on IMDb, let alone Wikipedia, because it is just a casual web series (especially when Wikipedia is intended to be a formal, non-casual project). Really the only ones putting BFDI on IMDb are obsessive fans, who also insert their own fanon projects like "BFDI: The Movie" and GoAnimate grounded crap, so those should be removed as well and therefore IMDb is not a reliable source.

If BFDI can't go on Encyclopedia Britannica then it shouldn't go here. 118.149.85.1 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

why are you bringing Encyclopedia Britannica into this

that thing does not have a single web series

what, you gonna remove every single web series here on wikipedia cuz "if it cant go there it shouldn’t go here"?? GoldenDorito (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This is a stupid comparison.

Britannica is much strictly importance-focused than Wikipedia. No webseries or any animated TV show has a Britannica article.

IMDb and Wikipedia are also different. IMDb treats webseries like professional TV works with professional casts and writing teams. Wikipedia does not, it merely documents its existence. 24.93.123.39 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BFDI fan here! The reason why BFDI is not on Wikipedia is because there is little to no actual extensive coverage by independent and reliable sources (afaik) meaning that BFDI is not notable enough to be on here on Wikipedia. I hope you understand this! EnbyPie08 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason why something like Salad Fingers (a well known Flash animated horror series) which could be potentially considered casual by some is on Wikipedia is because of the amount of coverage and analysis it has gotten online over the years. EnbyPie08 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Murder Drones has a Wiki page? I don’t see it. GoldenDorito (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Most likely referring to the draft page. AlphaBeta135talk 21:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Murder Drones fans aren't obsessively inserting and pushing their show into Wikipedia really gives the BFDI community a negative impression.. 118.149.75.177 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Murder drones is much smaller than BFDI right now (BFDI episode 1 has 65M views while Murder Drones has 18M views) I’d see why not many people would want it to have it’s own Wikipedia page yet. GoldenDorito (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Popularity does not equal notablity EnbyPie08 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

i know. just sayin though, the less popular it is the less likely it is to be notable. GoldenDorito (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of a webseries it's pretty close. And while popularity does not determine notability, it does determine how many people would want to see an article on the subject. 24.93.123.39 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an another show that isn't on Wikipedia but is on FANDOM, It is "The Pink Corruption", Why isn't that added too? Why are both BFDI & TPC not on wikipedia? ItsColdPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ItsColdPlayz, it may be helpful to read the essay. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 15:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Carpimaps I read it already... ItsColdPlayz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the specific section of the essay that you are confused about? Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@ItsColdPlayz I have watched that on youtube. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a fan of BFDI, but I still do not think it should be on Wikipedia. It is popular online, but only online, which is why media outlets haven't covered it. It would be like making an Eddsworld page before Edd Gould died, since all of the sources used on the page came from outlets talking about his death. BFDI is only popular on the internet, and no news outlets have covered it due to that. It does not meet the notability requirements. CharlieEdited (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, if it doesnt meet the notablility requirements since the only sources are youtube and fandom, why cant you use yiutube? You cant really get a more accurate source than a transcript of an episode, (using transcript to eliminate false memory)? Or is this just plainly against the policy. SquishyWikii (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@SquishyWikii The official web series videos would be a reliable source for the plot. However, as discussed in the essay, sources need to be independent to establish notability. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick response. Anyways, could a short arcticle dicussing the plot using the small amount of independent sources that are available be created? SquishyWikii (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what the sources are. I recommend you read WP:42. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@SquishyWikii YouTube is NOT a reliable source due to it being self released UGC content. EnbyPie08 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ik that, but shouldnt it still count if what the wikipedia arcticle is talking about is on youtube, because if the source is exactly what the arcticle is reporting on, then how much reliable can you get? SquishyWikii (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It has to be an independent but reliable source (i.e. a fact-checking news network) to show people outside the OSC care about BFDI. Wikipedia is not a directory for everything that exists. 118.149.72.32 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay SquishyWikii (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If the only available coverage on a fictional media is the media itself, the article about that media would not be able to display anything other than its plot. WP:NOT states Wikipedia is not a extensive catalogue for plots. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, i agree BFDI has no place on wikipedia for now, fans are better off reading TV tropes or whatever Account2hidemyip474 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think BFDI is relevant in modern society; it might never reach the relevancy of shows like Black Mirror and Spongebob Squarepants. 118.149.86.40 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, those 2 also aired on international, non-cable television, for years, and are made by professionals but i get your point SquishyWikii (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevancy and notability are different imo.

Relevancy determines a subject's significance in the world.

Notability determines whether a quality article can be written about the subject. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but they are usually intertwined. The reason why Black Mirror has SIGCOV and reliable sources about it is because many of its episodes have themes and plots that are relevant to today's world (i.e. artificial intelligence with ChatGPT now being a thing, and social media use that may negatively impact the life of others). There's even a book called "Black Mirror and Philosophy". 118.149.87.249 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

oh please dont bring in relevancy into this

it’s not like wimpy kid (aka the worst book ever) is relevant but it’s notable for some damn reason GoldenDorito (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit hypocritical

This kinda is a BFDI page on the wiki, so it is kinda hypocritical if i do say so myself. I could just be biased because I am a huge OSC fan. AmericanAccount704 (User talk:AmericanAccount704) — Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata (and Wikimedia Commons)

I removed the mention of Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons in the conclusion section because there were actually a lot of BFDI-related items on Wikidata that I nominated for deletion earlier in May; indeed over 500 data items (relating mostly to shorts, minor characters, etc.) were deleted. True, Wikidata and Wikipedia have different notability standards, but the data items were deleted nontheless (after all, any sources like IMDB or the Fandom wiki will likely be edited mostly by fans).

This showing that the BFDI disruption is also on other Wikimedia projects really goes to show how obsessive and hooliganistic the OSC seems to be... (for some reason, there is an article on BFDI on the Uzbek Wikipedia, but I doubt that belongs on there either. It's zero-sourced.)

Speaking of other Wikimedia projects, what's the point of having BFDI-related stuff on Wikimedia Commons when it will basically be uncyclopedic fandom/fancruft material that will be outside the scope of WC? The logos can be moved to just here on Wikipedia for the sake of this essay. 118.148.87.96 (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@118.148.87.96 I even found one image on Commons that is an obvious copyvio (it was from a DeviantART page; I am not linking this here per WP:COPYLINK). I promptly requested a speedy deletion on this image. Reverse image searching at its finest!

Also, I am okay with BFDI on Commons so long as these images are meaningful and do not violate copyright. Heck, the BFDI logo is used in this very project page. AlphaBeta135talk 02:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I recently changed the Uzbek Wikipedia entry on BFDI so that it is now about the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information instead.

Also, this. 118.149.94.25 (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hijacking articles in languages you don't speak is unlikely to be a good idea. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That's true that I had to use Google Translate. But doesn't GNG apply to all Wikipedias, not just the English one? 118.148.80.229 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No. With exceedingly rare exceptions (of which this isn't one), each language Wikipedia is free to set its own standards. It may well be that the Uzbek article on BFDI has merely slipped through the cracks rather than actually meeting those standards. The Uzbek Wikipedia's notability guidance is here, and it appears from a quick google translate to roughly match the English Wikipedia's one.

Consider this from a disinterested perspective: why should anti-Battle-For-Dream-Island hijackings like you did be more acceptable than the pro-Battle-For-Dream-Island hijackings that you mention in the essay. Normally behavioral rules are applied equally without regard to the merits of the content.

I'll drop a ping to Malikxan and Nataev, the two uz.Wikipedia admins most active on the English Wikipedia, to see if they wish to do something different with uz:BFDI. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks for the ping. I've deleted the article uz:BFDI, which was about an agency in the German government, since it was a machine translation. The older version of the article, which was about a TV series, also didn't meet the notability criteria on uzwiki. This version of the article didn't have any sources, let alone reliable ones, and was a horrible machine translation.

Malikxan ^talk 21:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

1. I agree with @Pppery; overwriting articles is a blockable offense and is something I absolutely do not recommend performing, even if it is on a non-English Wikipedia site (it could be seen as vandalism and/or disruptive). And besides, Uzbek Wikipedia doesn't have the same degree of the "OSC" problem as English Wikipedia, so it is not much of a priority, especially given the demographics of BFDI.
2. You can easily look up notability guidelines in a different language by finding the language tab somewhere on the top of the page. (already explained by Pppery)
3. Machine-generated translators like Google Translate are not 100% accurate, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when writing sentences or whatnot.

AlphaBeta135talk 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry @Malikxan:, @Nataev:, and @Pppery: for that. I should have known better, and indeed pinging the admins first before rewriting was the better way to go. 118.148.86.243 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A large portion of the fanbase consists of younger individuals who we'll just say aren't the most mature. It is an inevitability for any webseries. 24.93.123.39 (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've also seen it occur on TV shows made for little children (preschool shows), which generally don't get more notable–especially in WP terms–than shows aimed for older audiences. I have raised this in further depth here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1198#Cartoon disruption by ultras. 118.149.92.92 (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend to write talk messages in a more formal and civil way. I do agree that BFDI/OSC fans obsessively editing on Wikipedia for no reason is bad. However, calling OSC editors "hooligans" is a bit mean, especially when Wikipedia is usually a very welcoming community despite its strict rules. Insulting editors, will discourage editors from, well, editing. Davest3r08 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This does not mean I support disruptive editing, it's a waste of time and can potentially ruin Wikipedia's PR/reputation and the general impact of just spreading misinfo on WP (see Reliability of Wikipedia, second image). Davest3r08 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In short, don't bite newcomers. Davest3r08 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Another BFDI problem

Another major problem involving BFDI that wated volunteer time on Wikipedia was that of fans inserting their own fanon ideas and content, like fictitious BFDI-related companies and of nonexistant plans of a BFDI film. (See also this) Although these people doing it may have had no bad intentions, it is still a clear violation of many Wikipedia policies, such as not creating hoaxes. To edit Wikipedia, one requires a sense of maturity and civility, which is hard for me to see through these fanon drafts. These also don't seem like a legitimate attempt to actually contribute to Wikipedia. Hence, I think these policies should hence also be covered in the essay. Thoughts? 118.148.83.75 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A news website covered BFDI

Basically, pkbnews.in covered a BFDIA 6 MAP: https://pkbnews.in/bfdia-6-well-rested/ KandrewPedia (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. 118.149.87.99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

PKB is nowhere to be found in WP:RSPS, but its absence doesn't automatically mean that it is unreliable or reliable. Science Magazine is definitely reliable, but it is not included in RSPS. RSPS only mentions sources that are frequently mentioned in Wikipedia's discussions like RfCs and noticeboards.

In short, can you provide an explanation for why PKB News is unreliable? Just in case, you could always open up a noticeboard. There are articles (mostly short articles) that cite PKB News ("PKB News" and "pkbnews.in"). Of course, even if consensus agrees that PKB News is reliable, one news article is usually insufficient for a Wikipedia article. AlphaBeta135talk 02:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, the article is categorized under "Gaming" and seems to have rather poor grammar for its first paragraph. The rest of the article looks to be poorly AI-paraphrased from the first body section of the Fandom wiki's article. I'm not convinced. JumboDS64 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

But we’re getting closer and closer to getting a bfdi article ToadetteMisoSoup (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No, we aren't. If a course isn't reliable (and people above have made a credible argument that it isn't) then it doesn't count at all. And BFDI is hopelessly deep into User:JzG/And the band played on... territory anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that essay as something to be proud of though. A subject's notability does not depend on how much it pissed off editors. It's just a bias that we need to be conscious of. Of course, we give less attention to topics that have been discussed over again and again, but if a strong argument is provided, then WP:CCC may apply. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it was AI-generated. Plus, a lot of the article has poor grammar and it seems that this source altogether is the average clickbait news website. Not reliable. I'm an OSC fan, and I think that BFDI should not be on here until it can be (I have other media interests anyways). A major misconception that people believe in (in my opinion) is that Wikipedia is a directory of everything that exists: which it is not. For the love of God, please wait until BFDI is actually covered by the media instead of wasting your time disrupting Wikipedia. Davest3r08 ^(talk) 13:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

BFDI is a Wikipedia controversy

BFDI, one of famous Wikipedia controversies, should be added in List of Wikipedia controversies. 2001:448A:11A3:1155:51B1:ED4C:48D3:CB9F (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Like BFDI, it is not notable enough to be added, the list is for notable controversies. Davest3r08 ^(talk) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Even controversies need reliable third-party sources in order to be listed JumboDS64 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To simplify or not to simplify

There have been recent efforts to simplify this essay's prose. Here are the arguments (for and against) that we've seen so far:

• Ca: explain notability in simpler terms, remove unnecessary paragraphs, and simply English since more BFDI fans are young
• CJ-Moki: RV good faith edit, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia
• Ca: Many BFDI fans are on the younger side, and throwing hard words at them does not help them understand what this essay is saying
• Davest3r08: Do not revert edits that simplify the essay's grammar or calm down its tone. BFDI's audience is mainly children.

Though I wouldn't actively fight for either side, I personally don't consider simplification to be necessary either. For starters, I'm not aware of any policy, guideline or (other) essay on English Wikipedia that suggests certain pages should be "simplified" like that, even if those pages would get read by kids on a frequent basis. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Guidance for younger editors is a good example of what essays intended for kids should look like. Rules aren't everything; I don't think it is a stretch to think that text frequented by younger viewers should be written in simpler English. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Could Scale of the Universe meet GNG by itself?

Main page: Wikipedia:Source assessment/The Scale of the Universe

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
'The Scale of the Universe,' by Two Teenage Brothers. ABC News. Retrieved 2023-08-25.		Considered generally reliable according to WP:RSP	"I think the sources [...] provided here satisfy the definition." – Deltaspace42 (retrieved December 2023)	✔ Yes
“The Scale Of The Universe 2″ Animation Made By 14-Year-Olds Is Mind Blowing. Singularity Hub. Retrieved 2023-08-25.		"Singularity Hub should be reliable for this." – Ca	Same rationale as for ABC News	✔ Yes
"WGSBN Bulletin" (PDF). International Astronomical Union Bulletin. 1 (3): 7. June 16, 2021.		"WGSBN is definitely reliable" – Ca	"[I]t just mentions that the Scale of the Universe exists." – Ca	✘ No
APOD: 2018 October 7 - The Scale of the Universe Interactive. NASA. October 7, 2018. Retrieved 2023-08-25.	"Wouldn't an embed be a primary and hence non-independent source?" – IP editor	"I don't know how it could be unreliable." – Ca	"[C]an't be considered significant coverage, it's just a brief mention." – Deltaspace42	✘ No
@carykh (October 4, 2020). Hey Kurzgesagt! Hello from Scale of the Universe's Creator. YouTube. Retrieved August 15, 2023.		Self-published	?	✘ No
VanderBorght, Mieke. "Universe in a Nutshell App Review". Common Sense Media. Retrieved August 25, 2023.		Considered generally reliable according to WP:RSP	Wrong app	✘ No
Michigan Radio Offbeat: Two 14 Year Olds Show Us The Scale Of The Universe		"It's linked with NPR which is considered "generally reliable" according to WP:RSP" – IP editor	Same rationale as for ABC News	✔ Yes
The Planetary Society, by Emily Lakdawalla		"[L]ooks like a reliable and independent source for this." – P-Makoto (retrieved December 2023)	"It is, more or less, a brief review of the game." – P-Makoto	✘ No
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu	Cary graduated from this university.	? Not listed on WP:RSP	"just a brief mention" – IP editor	✘ No
Rao, Mallika (2012-07-20). "'The Scale Of The Universe 2': Cary And Michael Huang Let You Scroll Through The Universe (PHOTOS)". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2022-01-30.		WP:HUFFPO	Same rationale as for ABC News	✔ Yes
Murphy, Dan (1 March 2012). "Something beautiful: Cary Huang's Scale of the Universe".		Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news according to WP:RSP.	Same rationale as for ABC News	✔ Yes
Wired Staff [3/1/12] - The Scale of the Universe: an Interactive Infographic		Considered generally reliable for science and technology according to WP:RSP	Same rationale as for ABC News	✔ Yes
"The Scale of the Universe 2 - Walkthrough, Tips, Review". Jay is games. Retrieved 2023-02-14.		Blogging site	~	✘ No
Russell, Vincent. "Digital Artefact: The Scale of the Universe – Vincent Russell". Retrieved 2022-08-15.		Personal blogging site?	~	✘ No
"The Big and the Small". Wait But Why. 2020-09-22. Retrieved 2022-02-16.		Blogging site	?	✘ No
"Kurzgesagt and Wait but Why collaborate on beautiful Universe in a Nutshell app". Android Police. 2020-09-23. Retrieved 2022-01-31.		Blogging site	?	✘ No
"超ミクロな量子泡から超巨大な宇宙の果てまであらゆるサイズがスライダーを動かすだけで直感的に理解できる「The Scale of the Universe 2」". GIGAZINE (in Japanese). Retrieved 2023-02-13.		"probably less reliable though" – toobigtokale (retrieved December 2023)	~	✘ No
Winks, Mathias; Winkel, M. C. (2012-05-08). "The Scale Of The Universe 2 (Interactive Information Tool) > MC Winkels weBlog". MC Winkels weBlog (in German). Retrieved 2023-02-13.		Blog post	~	✘ No
"The Scale of the Universe 2 - FUSE - Department of Education & Training". fuse.education.vic.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-02-13.		"[Not reliable] for scientific subjects." – Banks Irk (retrieved December 2023)	"The FUSE source does not seem to constitute significant coverage." – P-Makoto	✘ No
"17.06.07: Micro Life in a Macro World: Understanding Life at the Microscopic Scale and the Spread of Disease". teachers.yale.edu. Retrieved 2023-02-13.		Same rationale as for the FUSE source	"[T]he mention of Scale of the Universe seems insignificant." – P-Makoto	✘ No
"When you feel small and big at the same time… | Heather MacFadyen". Retrieved 2023-02-13.		Blogging site	?	✘ No
Nicholson, Danny (2011-11-27). "A Sense of Scale: Visualising the Big and the Small". The Whiteboard Blog. Retrieved 2023-02-13.		Blogging site	?	✘ No
Marchiafava, Jeff. "How Big Is A Minecraft World?". Game Informer. Retrieved 2023-02-14.		Considered generally reliable for video games according to WP:RSP	"[I]t focuses mostly on Scale of the Universe (rather than Minecraft)." – IP editor	✔ Yes
"Scale of the Universe | ALN | NT2". nt2.uqam.ca. Retrieved 2023-02-14.	?	Same rationale as for the FUSE source	~	✘ No
Julie (2014-03-08). "Interactive scale of the universe to blow kids' minds". Cool Mom Tech. Retrieved 2023-02-14.		"[CoolMomTech] seem[s] to be closer to [a blog]?" – Hydromania	~	✘ No
"Miscellaneous: Fun and learning in one! Get stuck in to The Scale of the Universe 2". www.itsnicethat.com. Retrieved 2023-02-14.	"[I]s independent of Scale of the Universe" – P-Makoto	"[Not reliable] for scientific subjects." – Banks Irk "[I]t isn't making any claims that seem outrageous." – P-Makoto	~ "[C]ould pass as the significant coverage" – Deltaspace42	✘ No
"The Scale of the Universe". Devpost. Retrieved 2023-02-14.	?	Same rationale as for the FUSE source	~	✘ No
Chaffey, Nigel (2012-09-22). "…but size is nothing without scale - AoB Blog". Botany One. Retrieved 2023-02-14.		Blog post	?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not yet, but possibly within my lifetime (BFDI and object shows likely not). But as mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if OSC people will do anything to get BFDI even mentioned once. It might become nothing but a disruption magnet. 118.148.82.84 (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WGSBN Bulletin is, in my personal opinion, reliable, as it is managed by a worldwide group of PhD level professional astronomers. 118.148.82.84 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The NASA site is just an embed? I don't know how it could be unreliable.

WGSBN is definitely reliable, but it just mentions that the Scale of the Universe exists.

Singularity Hub should be reliable for this.

I don't think there are enough information about the tool to write an entire article about it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't an embed be a primary and hence non-independent source? 118.148.102.168 (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why we would use it as a source. It's literally the animation itself. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Would this count as a reliable source? It's linked with NPR which is considered "generally reliable" according to WP:RSP 118.148.86.143 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also this source from The Planetary Society (not on RSP), which I think may be reliable but I'm not too sure 118.148.86.143 (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

...and another one, though this seems to be just a brief mention 118.148.86.143 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would consider the Game Informer SIGCOV as it focuses mostly on Scale of the Universe (rather than Minecraft). Now with four reliable sources... 118.148.87.101 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Source assessment/The Scale of the Universe if anyone wants to expand the table there. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I just created Draft:The Scale of the Universe and have already submitted it despite it being a tiny stub, so I apologize if it was wrong for me to do that so soon. However, given that there are hundreds of other drafts pending review, we should expect to have plenty of time to edit and expand this draft before it gets reviewed. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Good news everyone, The Scale of the Universe is officially an article now! – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Should Cary Huang redirect to that article instead?

Also, I think it should be protected in case some OSC people come along. 118.148.100.49 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

118.148.100.49, don't give the OSC ultras ideas. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave the Cary Huang redirect alone. It redirects to the astronomical object for now and has a short description for the person there. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything concerning the contents of the Scale of the Universe (like how elements appear while zooming in or out and stuff). That feels very important to mention. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, someone added a gameplay section, neat! ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevant comments by User:AngusWOOF

"The [sources] need to check if it covers his career and is not a passing mention as an expert."

"The work has to be significant with critiques by those papers, not just a check out these videos mention."

"You can see the TwoSet Violin article as a reference, but also note their extensive discussion from third-party references. I would stay away from the Battle from Dream Island videos, which is what triggered mass article blocks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.103.211 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that these comments apply mostly to Cary and Michael having their own articles rather than one focused on mainly SOTU. 118.148.86.117 (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Unsuccessfully attempted request for comment that, in hindsight, turned out to be unnecessary

Since it's been a few days since anyone has said anything regarding the source assessment table above for determining whether or not Scale of the Universe may be considered notable enough for inclusion yet, I've decided to ask for commentary from additional editors. Hopefully, enough insights should be gained and gathered to fill in the rest of the blanks and make corrections where necessary. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but I don't think a RfC is necessary - I would just send the draft with the referenced to WP:AFC instead. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just learned that Yapperbot, the bot in charge of giving RfC notices to random FRS volunteers, hasn't been active since December 18, which would explain why I haven't seen anyone else come in to help complete the source assessments yet. (but then again, it's the Christmas season, of course, so I shouldn't be surprised if all the potential responders are on holiday at the moment) – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Judging by how subsequent RfCs have fared, even in talk pages outside of mainspace, I find it unusual that this RfC has gone unattended for this long. However, after going to RSN, all that would be left for anyone to do is to help assess how many of the independent, reliable sources listed cover Scale of the Universe in significant detail. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2023 (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.

MrPersonHumanGuy, thanks for the extensive source assessment for SOTU! That looks great and helps a lot towards having that article stay around. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can there be an Abacaba article?

I know BFDI can’t have an article because of their nonexistent reliable sources (for now) but I think Abacaba has multiple reliable sources, and it’s quite unfair that it doesn’t have a page JUST because the channel creator made BFDI… Gafosin (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that Abacaba probably doesn't meet GNG as of yet. Fortunately, I had salvaged three sources covering Abacaba from the Cary and Michael Huang draft before it was deleted and will list them in a brand new table. Keep in mind that each source listed so far seems to focus on just one specific video and not necessarily the whole channel in general, so more substantial, significant, sustained coverage may be necessary. I'm personally unsure as to whether or not an article about one video constitutes significant coverage of its channel, but if anyone knows anything, you are all free to modify the table below. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, because the mods decide what goes on wikipedia, that means anything they dont like will be deleted, its not because bfdi doesn’t meet guidelines, as some other flash animations like You only live once have wikipedia pages, this is because its not popular enough for mods to delete 89.184.62.82 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t make much sense since The Scale of the Universe has an article… Gafosin (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Is Coronavirus Spreading Faster Than SARS, Ebola, and Swine Flu?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2022-01-30.		"[C]ertified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable." – WP:RSP	"These articles don't contain much about the channel itself." – HansVonStuttgart (retrieved February 2024)	✘ No
"This video captures 15 years of meme trends in 10 minutes". The Daily Dot. 2019-04-19. Retrieved 2022-01-31.		? "[N]o consensus [...] though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact." – WP:RSP	See above	✘ No
Dvorsky, George. "Beautiful Visualization Charts History's Best Chess Players". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2022-01-31.		"[G]enerally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment" – WP:RSP	See above	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If anyone has found any other sources yet, it would be appreciated if you could mention them so they can be assessed in the table above, otherwise notability can't be demonstrated. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed move: Should BFDI be kept abbreviated?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? → Wikipedia:Why is Battle for Dream Island not on Wikipedia? – I don't think having the show's name written out fully would be a bad idea. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Come on, is this really necessary? I don't see a good reason for this move; anyone who this page would be useful for knows what "BFDI" is. However this is just a waste of time to debate about either way. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the logic behind the "everyone knows about the subject" argument could also be used to justify moving another essay to Wikipedia:Not every single thing Trump does deserves an article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: It doesn't matter what BFDI stands for; BFDI is just an arbitrarily chosen example of a topic with persistent interest and a lack of independent reliable sourcing. The essay is not especially about BFDI; it is primarily about why any randomly chosen topic that has some people interested in it is not necessarily a good subject for a Wikipedia article. A minor improvement of the phrasing might be justifiable, such as a rename to Wikipedia:Why isn't BFDI on Wikipedia? or Wikipedia:Why isn't there an article about BFDI on Wikipedia? or Wikipedia:Why isn't there an article about ⟨insert favorite subject here⟩ on Wikipedia? (shortcut WP:IFSH), but the details about the example subject are not worth such attention. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Wikipedia:Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on BFDI? would also be another good way to rephrase the title. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, if and when BFDI ever does finally get a sufficiently-sourced article someday, the essay could then be retitled to something along the lines of Wikipedia:Why wasn't BFDI on Wikipedia before? or Wikipedia:Why did it take so long for Wikipedia to have an article about BFDI? or even something more general like Wikipedia:Why are some topics excluded from Wikipedia?, but until the Battle for Dream Island page's chances of getting unsalted increase, this scenario remains hypothetical for now. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the page could just be marked as {{historical}} or with a similar custom notice. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Kinda long but mainly I think it's a waste of time to debate the titles of pages that very few people see anyways (in comparison to mainspace articles). I'd say just let it be, even if it's not perfect. That's what it was titled by the author. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think having the full Series name instead of the abbreviated "BFDI" would probably be a little more clear. Coolman1151 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

oh i replied to the wrong person my bad, point still stands. Coolman1151 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Could be a redirect, though. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 13:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

True, I personally just type ‘WP:BFDI’ to access this page nowadays but I think a redirect to here with the elongated term works too Coolman1151 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BFDI is helpful. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Changing "BFDI" to "Battle for Dream Island" would make everything more tedious and straight up useless (especially since some use shortcut WP:BFDI or find the page via Google). I support making it a redirect. WOndering-FLowers (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2024 (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.

Windows Never Released has a similar case

The following discussion 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.

---

Windows Never Released also lacks a Wikipedia article, probably because of the same reason as the topic of this Wikipedia essay. What should we do with this? 67.209.128.145 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would come as even more of a surprise if that topic turned out to have at least as much coverage as GoAnimate/Vyond "grounded videos". In case anyone is unaware or unfamiliar with the Windows Never Released phenomenon, it's a genre of YouTube videos depicting many fictional versions of Windows or other operating systems, but especially Windows. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't meant to list everything that doesn't have a page. The only reason we have this page is because BFDI has been recreated by lots of people a ridiculous number of times. That isn't true of Windows Never Released, as far as I'm aware. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but i think we should add the following comment to the disambiguation page WNR:

<!-- Please do not add information about Windows Never Released, as there is no article for it. -->

This will help prevent WNR from facing the same effects as Dream Island (disambiguation). 67.209.128.145 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:BEANS. There isn't an issue yet; we don't tend to do these things preemptively. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I've searched in the page logs, there appears to have only been one attempt to create a WNR-related page, as indicated by these entries from over two years ago: (unfortunately, Special:Log/Example links to logs for users, not pages)

• Vegrar81uyiA80 created page Draft:WNR (←Created page with '==Vegrar81uyiA80== Archive 1')
• Vegrar81uyiA80 created page Draft:WNR/Archive 1 (←Created page with '# Windows 1.1 (1987) # Windows 1.2 (1988) # Windows 1.3 (1988) # Windows 1.5 (1988) # Windows 1.51 (1988) # Windows 89 (1989) # Windows 90 (1990) # Windows 91 (1991) # Windows Server 1993 (1993) # Windows Server 1995 (1995) # Windows NT 4.5 (1997) # Windows NT 4.8 (1998) # Windows Server 1998 (1998) # Windows 100 (2000) # Windows 103 (2003) # Windows Server 2003 R3 (2007) # Windows Vienna 2.0 (2010) # Windows 113 (2013) # Windows 118 (2018) # Windows 10 ver...') (Tag: new user modifying archives)
• Vegrar81uyiA80 created page Draft:Windows Never Released (←Redirected page to Draft:WNR) (Tag: New redirect)

More recently, Windows Never Released-related user warning templates were made and deleted several months ago. On the other hand, there've been no attempts to create uw-bfdi1, 2, 3, 4 or 4im. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, one guy creating a few drafts doesn't really matter. That happens for tons of other non-notable things. And it's not like something non-notable getting recreated does much harm; the reason this exists was to help deal with the constant flood of "why don't you have this". And that just is not an issue with Windows Never Released. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 October 2024 (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.