Talk:Braceface

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Television Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian television.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Please provide any citations per verifiability and reliable sources.

Animation: Canadian / Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Canadian animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Once the references are added, please remove the `\|unref=` parameter from this template.

Untitled

Um, am I the only one seeing the irony in the description of Dion? I mean, he's described as loving Celine Dion, a budding fashion designer, and having an outrageous personal style, and helps Sharon with her issues. It sounds like the very definition of a stereotypical non threatening gay friend. Someone should remove that. 24.5.235.194 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dion=Mark Jones. Pseudo Dion, from is Celin Dion, canadish canary(She's born 1968).212.122.214.173 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dion is crutch for Sharon in crisis or hard situations.

Ps. My mother language is Polish.Alden Jones 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup...

Yeah, this article needs to be cleaned up. I just saw the name, and was curious who it was, and... This article is almost impossible to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.234.57 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Isn't there something about sentence fragments in the manual of style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.53.132 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

The characters section is quite long and detailed! Can it at least be split from the main article, or at least be condensed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on characters is pretty much the whole of the article. It should not be split off at this time, especially since it is largely unreferenced. Op47 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

While it probably should not be used as a reliable source, IBDb says it won multiple awards [1]. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't air on KidsCo?

We get it but since Braceface is a Nelvana show, why didn't it air on KidsCo? I mean that channel was made to air Nelvana shows along DIC Entertainment/Cookie Jar Group ones. 41.142.99.147 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Braceface characters proposal

I'm thinking about a page for this show's characters like Sharon Spitz. I think everyone deserves to know who the characters from the show are. I say we create a List of Braceface characters.

Support - Per above. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Add to the character descriptions in this article first. Maybe consider a list of characters article if it gets too big. Too soon. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the section that User:Drmies removed in direct contravention of WP:DINC in [2], and WP:EW in [3]. (Yes, the former is technically an essay, but it actually does represent established consensus.)

I was actually going to try to clean it up but I realized it would be very difficult to do so if not impossible, because there is nothing majorly wrong with the text as-is. And it cites numerous specific episodes, so it is not actually unsourced.

Additionally paging User:Stephen"Zap" and User:Geraldo Perez, and also User:Narutolovehinata5 and User:Op47 from the previous discussion above. Modernponderer (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh where to start. First of all, it was ridiculously excessive; as with all these kinds of excessive sections in these articles on children's TV programs and computer games it freely blends plot summary, character description, trivial, and pure original research. I mean, who writes tripe like this, "However, Alyson told Josh that she would still like to remain his friend. Despite all this, when it comes to giving out advice to her, his family, or anyone willing to listen Josh is, at times, wise beyond his years", and thinks it is encyclopedic? Or "...but mostly Sharon for being so naive and "annoying", even [[hypocrisy|failing to notice her own annoying attitude]]"? I bypassed the code so you can appreciate the wikilink, which isn't just a. a violation of OVERLINK and b. really silly but also c. pure original research, both in the "hypocrisy" link and in the qualification of someone's attitude as "annoying". Look it up--how odd that this is my third case of WP:OR in one single morning.
Also! None of this is properly qualified, it is full of excessive trivial content, and there is no need to have extensive descriptions of all characters. It's not about "everyone deserves to know"--there is no "right to know" here. As for Modernponderer's charges of edit warring, given that I made two edits to the article, that's obvious BS, and they should be ashamed of restoring such poorly-written tripe without any kind of secondary sourcing. Wikia, please. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Drmies, whatever its arguable faults in terms of cruft, they are no justification for deleting the section outright! What in the world do we have cleanup templates for, then?

I personally have trouble trimming down this text, as I already said, but what are the chances any other contributor would actually do so – now that the text is hidden in the page history? Modernponderer (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it charming that so many people have so many hobbies, but we are an encyclopedia. Why don't you improve Earth or Inner Mongolia? We do not, nor will we ever, need more trivia, original research, plot description, character analysis, etc. of any fictional character from a TV show. I don't know what we have cleanup templates for if we don't follow up on them. Cruft. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article again--it doesn't have a single reliable source that proves this is somehow important to write up in the largest encyclopedic project in the history of mankind. Y'all need to take it to Wikia. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source here is the show itself! As I said before: And it cites numerous specific episodes, so it is not actually unsourced.

Furthermore, the section did not have a cleanup template before I tried to restore the text and add one, but you reverted that edit of mine.

Given all of this, your argument is quite literally WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Modernponderer (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see what they're suggesting we use to source programs on Talk:Cartoon Network (Canada). MP wants us to use this site of CRTC program logs to source programming to create a list-of for that network. First of all; they're .CSV files you open in Excel. No; it should be on the web and easily accessible. I open one of the files; they're 1 GIGABYTE! Each! Which means I have to hunt and peck to find information and download a large file to my computer. Absolutely not happening, Modernponderer. Please be realistic and use common sense with your sourcing; as for this, I agree with Drmies. Wikia exists. We don't need a long character list here, so I oppose the addition of it here. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrschimpf, you have never made a single contribution to this article or its talk page before now, and it is not directly related to the dispute you are referring to. Wikipedia:Hounding is an extremely serious matter, and I would highly suggest that you should read that page. Modernponderer (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted to a whole bunch of talk pages involving Canadian kidvid topics trying to make a point that 'the show/network itself is a source', when we definitely don't allow that. If we did, we'd still have countless articles for however many Pokemon now exist because 'it's on the show/there's a card with its drawing on it', and generally on AfD, 'List of plot devices on a show', 'List of winners on (game show)' and 'List of various logo variations on Disney Junior' (yes, that's real) are universally deleted because 'it's on the show' fails as a source beyond a doubt. I have a right to comment where I want as long as it's not harassment, and me pointing out that you want us to hunt and peck through the red tape of Canadian government programming log Excel files to source an article is part of me making a case that your editing is tenuous. Drmies removed paragraphs full of WP:SYNTH about the characters on this show and was well within their rights to do so because it tells me literally nothing about the characters besides what someone wants us to know. Find something else to do. We have many topics you can contribute to here. Nate • (chatter) 07:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we absolutely do allow such things, as evidenced by the existence and size of Template:Lists of TV programs by country. But I am not continuing this discussion here beyond that simple statement, as it is still not relevant to this specific page. Modernponderer (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernponderer, if you can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources, and if you don't understand WP:RS, and if you think that we really are here to write up trivia about ****ing cartoon characters... Nate's comments are valuable, and rather then dismissing comments as "literally IDONTLIKEIT" you should maybe pay attention to them. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, as the other contributor has taken this discussion off-topic it might not be clear anymore, but I agree with you that some of it is trivia. The problem is, in this specific case it's extremely difficult to separate the trivia from the valuable info, because it's not like some other pages I've worked on where there are some basic facts and then someone came along and added a bunch of fluff – there is core info in there.

My concern, and why I feel the text should be restored with a cleanup tag, is that I cannot (at least as far as I can tell) fix it myself, and almost nobody else seems to care about this article in general. Thus, if the material remains removed, it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will even attempt to fix it. (I've personally seen pages get cleaned up by editors, usually anonymous ones, who just happen to be reading the article one day.)

If your goal is to keep this article devoid of any character info: congratulations on your success. Otherwise, I urge you to reconsider your stance.

(And by the way, WP:PRIMARY explicitly states that primary sources are allowed, with caveats sure but all Wikipedia sources come with those.) Modernponderer (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY doesn't say that content becomes noteworthy if it is verified by primary sources. You're missing the point: secondary sourcing isn't important just because of fact checking, but also to prove that it's of encyclopedic value. If secondary sources haven't written on something, it's obviously not that important. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying this article shouldn't have any character info at all?

If not, then yes I agree but I'm not sure how that is relevant here, as it does not in any way help to determine which information should be kept. Modernponderer (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is saying that if only the company and networks behind the show talk about the characters at all outside of the extreme fan community, what's the point of having a character list here that doesn't go beyond 'this is the lead character, these are her parents, relatives and siblings, these are her friends and here are the antagonists'? As quoted in PRIMARY; For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The existing character list was a large WP:SYNTH violation working off the primary source (the show), and had no secondary backing in another piece of media, thus it shouldn't be allowed. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrschimpf, now we are getting somewhere that I can agree on, as you're pointing out what specifically you think should be removed. It makes a lot more sense now, and it is certainly true that interpretation should not be provided without an additional citation.

However, I'm looking at the text again and there's still a lot of stuff that just basically lists important character plot points from various episodes, without any interpretation at all. Wikipedia actually has standalone articles for that kind of thing on some shows, so it's clearly allowed.

So it would still be very difficult for me to trim the text myself, although I could certainly try again. But I still think it should be restored with a cleanup tag, and any obvious analysis/evaluation/interpretation removed. Modernponderer (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three recent edits should be reverted

Wanted to point out how the 3 recent edits that were made adds stuff such as “30 seasons” and “Crime” as one of the genres. It should be reverted although it’s only able to be done manually 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 10:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]