Jump to content

Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Talk page archived through 01 December 2007.


Production notes

Per WP:Television: Any behind the scenes information is encouraged. This includes things like Running gags and important Trivia, but also Emmy, Golden Globe, and similar nominations and awards. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that where possible you should use prose instead of creating long lists of trivia.

There are many running gags on Firefly.... It also spawned catch phrases amongst the fans such as "Shiny".

GA passed

Meets all criteria Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Well, I've set this article to be peer reviewed, which means that Wikipedia editors from all over will come in and help us to improve this article. It might involve some changes, but it will help to get this article to FA status. Tuvas 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tuvas!plange 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast history

See peer review for the reason I redid that section into prose which just got reverted back into basically a list again, just without bullets. If chronological is better, that's cool, but still think it needs to be written with prose. Each country does not need its own paragraph. -plange 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I didn't revert, I added extra references and info for SA, at which point the English paragraph seemed too big; but I guess if the country name is in the 1st few words of the 1st sentence discussing that country, we can have larger paragraphs again. By first airing year? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-16t19:36z
Perfect! plange 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead or Alive?

ive read on some pages about a script for an unmade episode titles Dead or Alive... does anyone have any links to where i can find this script? -Xornok 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of one...Let us know what you find out -plange 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fireflyfans.net/feature.asp?f=45 script for Dead or alive..... 20:06 21 July 2006

Someone put the script up in the article, but I don't see it anywhere. Why was it removed? Drewboy64 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really want to find if this script is official, it is used for references on other wiki pages about firefly, and the alleged writers (theyre names are on the script, but anyone can write names)are people that worked on the filmed firefly episodes—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.184.222 (talk • contribs)

I have a long audio file of a Firefly cast and crew interview at a comic book convention (I think) some time after Firefly was cancelled but before Serenity had begun. Someone in the audience asked about Dead or Alive after reading a script online. Joss answered that it was indeed an episode idea but it wasn't as polished or useful to the overall story as he'd like so they didn't go ahead with it. I'll try find a link to that audio recording. Choinkees 07:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Theme/Element missed?

its been a while since i've seen the series, but... doesn't mal get hurt in just about every episode, if not every episode? if so, should this be in the 'theme' or 'elements' section at all? JoeSmack Talk 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Serenity: shot in the arm in the Patient shootout.
Ttj: bar fight, bleeding knuckles.
Bushw: ?
Shin: stabbed.
Safe: ?
OMR: drugged, falls over.
JT: ?
Oog: shot in the belly.
Ariel: ?
Ws: tortured something nasty.
Trash: bloody nose from Yolanda.
Tm: ?stuff falls on him in flashback?
Hog: ?broken heart?
Ois: gets knocked out by Jubal.
Those left behind: Book punches him, hard.
Serenity movie: Tussles with the operative.
See also gloomy Joe's Firefly injury scorecard ;)
That said, even if he was injured in all the episodes, that would just show that he's putting himself in dangerous situtions, which is pretty common for TV shows. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-18t20:20z
I don't really see it as any kind of thematic thing-- persistent plot device maybe? It's more like trivia, which is not encyclopedic, right? -plange 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Kaylee

Thanks Josiah-- that actually is a direct quote from the DVD that I had in there, so perhaps adding your disclaimer in front adds more authority to that. -plange 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Hey everyone-- I've been begging and pleading on various projects (Television, MOS (Writing Fiction), etc) for peer reviews and we have some more in... wanted to have you guys take a look at the feedback and see what you thought, etc., I've never participated in a peer review so wasn't sure if we're supposed to do all or if they're just suggestions, etc. -plange 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone had a chance to look at it yet? I'd like to address these, but wasn't sure if they were just suggestions. Also, does anyone have the "Space hookers" book as perhaps it has some stuff to help flesh out the Themes section.... plange 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a copy of finding Serenity, but most of it's painful to read - poorly written and lots of mistakes. I've read better essays and criticism on fff. Here's the contents:
  1. Introduction
  2. The Reward, the Details, the Devils, the Due
  3. The Heirs of Sawney Beane
  4. Asian Objects in Space
  5. The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Firefly
  6. Who Killed Firefly?
  7. "The Train Job" Didn't Do the Job
  8. Serenity and Bobby McGee
  9. Firefly vs. The Tick
  10. We're All Just Floating in Space
  11. More Than a Marriage of Convenience
  12. "Thanks for the reenactment, sir"
  13. Whores and Goddesses
  14. The Captain May Wear the Tight Pants, but It's the Gals Who Make Serenity Soar
  15. I Want Your Sex
  16. Just Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry in Joss Whedon's Firefly
  17. Mirror/Mirror: A Parody
  18. Star Truck
  19. Chinese Words in the Verse
  20. Listening to Firefly
  21. Kaylee Speaks: Jewel Staite on Firefly
  22. Unofficial Glossary of Firefly Chinese [1] -- Jeandré, 2006-08-02t20:26z
Wookie, Barnas, and the rest of the crew-- can you guys take a look at the comments we got back from the peer review? plange 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I'm just busy getting back from holiday at the moment, should be able to in the next day or so. Barnas 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Being released in HD

Just ran across this, but gotta run out. Would make a great addition to the article http://www.tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=212 plange 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "UHD"? "UHD" gets me "University of Houston–Downtown". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brief The Onion mention

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 where it'll be for a month until the archive page goes pay-only.

Since Firefly is capitalised and italicised, I think they're referring to the spunky TV show and not the insect. I'd mention it at the top of the talk page with one of those websitemention boxes, but I don't know if an appropriate one exists. It wasn't linked directly by a high-traffic website. Nor is The Onion a news source in this dimension. TransUtopian 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the meaning of "Firefly" here, but this really isn't something worth posting a note about at the top of the talk page. The primary purpose for this page is to discuss article content, and the Onion reference, even if it were verified as a reference to the Whedon show, is not worth adding to the article. (Thanks for the notice about the amusing article, though.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Point of interest, Jeandre notified us about this last week on our project talk page :-) plange 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, and cool. I've been shying away from any project because I edit teensy things on anything I happen to land upon, but I might stop by and get sucked in. :) TransUtopian 22:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Some little things that might need attention?

The show explores what happens to people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer/frontier culture that exists on the fringes of their solar system.

The fandom seems entirely mixed on the issue of whether or not the 'verse is one system or mulitiple, mostly thanks to the fact that the canon is thoroughly confusing on the matter. The introduction by the teacher in Serenity (the movie, of course, not the episode) is usually cited as evidence for the 'verse all being one system - but technically, it says almost nothing about it, because of course, it's a history lesson, not an astronomy or geography lesson. It says they moved to a system with multiple planets and moons and what have you, but what it doesn't say is whether or not they stayed in that system or expanded into neighboring systems. The fact that Joss never did seem able to publicly decide whether or not ships in the 'verse could reach light speed (they just move, as one person put it, "at the Speed of Plot") does nothing to help matters (if he had chosen one, it would make it relatively easy - thanks to a handful of noted travel times - to determine if the planets were more likely in the same system. Unfortunately, though, we don't have that luxury). The map shown on the com screen in Serenity does not, as a point of fact, help either, because (having talked to a few folks who actually know a thing or two about physics and astronomy) either it's a.) the most beautifully stylized map EVER, e.g. not accurate unless you interact with it (as River does when she points out a certain planet *ahem*) and/or with distances that are more than a little "off" as far as scale, and/or with more star-like objects than there are actual stars, b.) depicting a system that will probably collapse under its own gravity within a few thousand years (one guy I talked to - whose scientific judgment I very truly do not doubt - said "5,000 years, tops"), or c.) "it's a really pretty picture" (same guy who said 5,000 years), and is almost completely meaningless - artistic, more than scientific in nature. Of course, exact distances between planets are never mentioned, even when travel times or arrival times are. And, of course, the characters never refer to where they live and work as "the solar system" or, IIRC, "the system"(though I could swear that somewhere, there's a mention of "galaxy", though that could have been hyperbole in the dialogue, and can't be trusted either). Furthermore, I have a copy of the Serenity Visual Companion. The SVC says absolutely nothing concrete about whether or not the current setting of the 'verse is or is not one system.

In short, from what I can tell, it simply hasn't been proven, nor is it even at this point proveable one way or the other that it's still only one solar system. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have missed something, but I don't think I have.

However, barring my being mistaken and there being truly concrete information on it, this is easily remedied by changing solar system to "'verse". After all, that's the word the creator and characters actually use, and putting it in quotation makes that clear and avoids OR issues of any kind completely. :)

If I find any other things that bug me, I'll bring 'em up here. :) Runa27 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The one place I can recall the word "galaxy" used was in the voiceover done by the character Malcolm Reynolds at the beginning of a couple of episodes when they were originally aired. These voiceovers were not present on the DVDs, making it annoying to confirm their exact wording. However he said something like "a whole new galaxy of planets to colonize" I could find the exact wording, but it was pretty obviously hyperbole. Occasional Reader 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I was never ever under the impression it was only one system. I'm not sure I know anyone who is. But if you try to apply any kind of logic to it, no system could have enough planets in the right temperature range to support life, terraforming or not. I'm pretty sure that the Serenity RPG also explicitly mentions systems. If only I had the energy to scan the DVDs, the Comic and the RPG book to look for exact evidence. :P - BalthCat 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I was never, ever under the impression that it was more than one system. It's something that's simply never adressed solidly in canon- the brief mentions and map in the movie seem to imply one system, but really. Who knows? Barnas 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Editors attempting to apply logic to theorize details not explicitly given by reliable sources are engaging in original research. But if you insist, here is the most relevant logical argument about the number of systems:
  • Joss Whedon is on record as refusing to let technical details get in the way of telling his stories.
  • The canonical material in Firefly/Serenity is at best ambiguous on this subject.
  • Astrophysicists have repeatedly had to acknowledge that that there is much about the universe that they still don't know, so Wikipedia editors attempting to argue that something "must be" or "is impossible" is patently absurd.
Must we be hit in the head with a hammer to get past this debate? In short, as Mystery Science Theater 3000 likes to point out, "repeat to yourself, 'it's just a show, I should really just relax'", and not reach beyond the sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Serenity RPG, all of the inhabited planets and moons are in a single system, and there is no FTL. UncreativeNameMaker 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, well... colour me stupid. - BalthCat 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, as an aside, that there is only one "Solar System" in the universe. That is the star system with the star Sol, which has the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. All other systems are "star system". "Solar" is a proper name, like saying "Lunar" in reference to the moon's other name "Luna". And, by the way, there is only one Moon in the universe too. All others are "natural satellites". The name of our natural satellite is "Moon" or "Luna" if using the other name. Earth's other name is "Terra", and so on. There aren't "other moons" or "other solar systems" - unless a New Yorker could tell me that my town is "another New York". --Daniel 20:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the Solar System, but "moon" can refer to any natural satellite orbiting a planet. UncreativeNameMaker 08:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i all ways took it to be a single system, with multiple stars. Like Alpha Centauri. That should solve any disparities right? 

 Joeyjojo 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have always seen it as one star system. Yes, having that many habitable planets that all look like California is highly implausible, but FTL travel is probably impossible. As I understand it, the movie prologue makes it pretty clear that humanity colonized the new star system using generation ships, and any uses of the word "galaxy" seem colloquial. The only inconsistency is that scenes in space have no visible sun, so this is either careless science or evidence that it's a star cluster. Sure, it might be that the entire galaxy is colonized, but both the in-show evidence and the show's aesthetic suggest a single system, possibly with multiple stars. Also, why don't we ever see Mars or Europa? 144.89.185.163 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving Film to Own Section

Prompted by one of the comments from the peer review, I was thinking that the discussion of Serenity should be relocated it's own section, in front of the general spin-off section. In the Alternative, the film could be given a subsection in the spin-off section. The film is unique in its importance as a spin-off and should get at least a header setting it off from other spin-offs. I would appreciate any input or commentary on this proposal.-- danntm T C 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that suggestion from the peer review made sense too... plange 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Those left behind is really a spin-off of the movie - while taking place before the events in the movie, and published before the movie was released, it was specifically written to bridge the gap from the series, and written after the movie script. Same with the R. Tam sessions, the RPG (tho Out in the black was published after), and KRAD's novelization. Maybe all these spin-offs should go to the movie article.
The only series spin-offs are Finding Serenity, the 2 Firefly companions (not yet published), the original novels (not yet announced with any real info), and the "Critical Studies in Television" book (not yet announced with any real info). -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t19:40z
  • Jeandré, that is a most interesting point. I might be getting too technical, but should not the spin-offs the pure spin-offs of the film be handled in Serenity (film) article. I, however, favor mentioning the R. Tam Sessions and comics in this article because they were released before the film, occur in the fictional chronologically before the film, and I believe they are considered canon. But I think something can be written in the article in the article to the effect of what you said, to note that the comics and R. Tam Sessions were designed to bridge between the series and the film.-- danntm T C 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Book's name

ok, i was just watching Serenity's extra features and it does say his name is Meria. its on Re-lighting the Firefly on the extra Features... pause the movie and youll see it DOES say Meria... -Xornok 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pause the movie and his tombstone says DERRIA. I think evidence in the actuall movie is to be counted over special features, especially since the special features have been know to be wrong (Calling the Millenium Falcon the Millenium Vulcan is one of the more well-known mistakes). JBK405 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

actually, the most you can 100% make out is ERRIA... the D does not even match the D in Shepherd as it does not fully close at the bottom... not to mention there is another line that could make it an M... granted, it wouldnt look like N or W from Hoban Washburne, but it could still be an M nonetheless.... I say we just call him Shepherd Book and make a note on his page that there is a debate about his first name citing different sources for Derrial, Meria, and/or Derria.... -Xornok 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the Book talk page, Meria was an early version of his name and changed prior to the final version of the film, just as an early version of Zoë's name was Warrren. By the time the film came out, Whedon had changed both and in all official published sources (the novel, the RPG, the Serenity Companion and Firefly Companion (both written by Whedon), the name is given as Derrial.Shsilver 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statement removed

"Whedon himself maintains that the series' trademark splash (featuring Reynolds' ship Serenity soaring over a corral of unshod horses) was intended to serve as a readily digested five-second condensation or representative summary of the show."

This was removed for being uncited. (I didn't add it.) I thought having it here might prompt someone to remember where it might've been said or written down. TransUtopian 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like that's from the DVD commentary on the pilot episode? I'd be willing to give it a look-see and find out. (Oh, an excuse to rewatch Firefly!) -- Merope 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be great-- I remember it from somewhere too, but I removed the statement so that we can encourage contributors to provide sources first instead of leaving it all up to us in one big mammoth search for sources like we had to do to get our GA nom. --plange 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the back of my mind says that this is a Joss comment from the pilot. EVula 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

just letting you guys know, whedon does say that that scene represents the show, in the commentary of the first episode.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.184.222 (talk • contribs)

I thought that the logo looked somewhat unclear, so I changed it to a scanned copy of the DVD cover. Is this okay with everyone? ChunkySoup 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My change was reverted with the following comment: "rv back to opening titles logo as is standard on Wikipedia."

Although it's generally standard to use the logo from the title sequence, I don't feel as though the animated logo translates very well into a still image. The image from the DVD cover seems as though it would be what Whedon would have used had the logo been a still shot.

ChunkySoup 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer your change, I say you change it back unless some one explains why (or where it is said) that the opening credits logo is standard (?) - BalthCat 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the opening logo looks better as the main image. The Wookieepedian 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Shall we have a vote then? Here's one for the DVD cover ChunkySoup 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

you dont know thats what Whedon wouldve wanted, but if we're voting, i say the opening logo stays... -Xornok 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that it might be what Whedon used, had it been a stationary logo, as it is on this page. I've never seen any site use a screenshot of the opening for promos. [2] [3] Note that the Fox site uses the same as the DVD cover, just slightly different saturation.ChunkySoup 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the DVD cover, designed as a still image. The other logo is designed to be animated, and doesn't look quite right as a still. Barnas 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of the DVD cover logo, it's clear and easy to read. Kingpin1055 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the DVD cover logo, which is crisper then the TV screenshot, is the better image. Thus, absent any guideline to the contrary, I favor that image on the page.-- danntm T C 01:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that WP:IAR is relevant here if there is a guideline. ;) EVula 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're trying to establish consensus... I like the DVD logo better. -- Merope Talk to me/Review me 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD cover, totally. EVula 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the DVD cover crop would even pass fair use, it is a set in stone standard to use a cap from the television show intro, few people would recognise that unless they actually owned the dvd. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In looking over WP:FAIR, I don't see anything that outright states we can't use a scan of the DVD cover. The DVD cover is clearer than the screen capture, which is why we're using it instead (which fits into fair use). You'll have to cite the policy about the "set in stone" rule about intro captures before I can actually address it. EVula 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thatsthe proble,. it's not the dvd cover it's self it is a cropped bit of the DVD cover, a DVD cover would likely constitute fair use. Also being better quality then the previous does not constiute fair use. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
DVD covers really only used to illustrate the DVD. ed g2s • talk 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is tough. It is unestablished territory whether a DVD cover is acceptable fair use on Wikipedia to illustrate a television show, although it is accepted to use screenshots. Therefore, to play it safe, I am reversing my self and now recommending to switch back to the TV screenshot logo, albeit of inferior quality.-- danntm T C 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone could retake it from a HDTV source then that would be peachy (or a DVD source) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
An HDTV screencap won't make a difference. For starters, if the source isn't "HD", the resulting screencap won't be "HD". Secondly, it is an animated image; that's part of the problem. There just isn't a clear image of it... aside from the DVD case (and is the reason that a DVD scan could work under Fair Use). EVula 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I took my DVD and went frame by frame in the entire opening sequence and could not find a better image. Even if someone broke the encryption on the DVD and exported the VOB as frame by frame stills, what you have there is as good as it gets. - Trysha (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Genre introduction

I think we should just leave it as "Science fiction", since the other genres the show could be called are in the infobox right next to the discussion anyway. I certainly don't think it should be introduced as a comedy-drama, because it's -in my mind- not. It's got a few gags in it, but it's a pretty fair hop away from being a comedy of any sort, to me. Barnas 10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone one step further — I've removed the comedy-drama tag from the infobox, too. Firefly does not belong to the comedy-drama genre. Is it dramatic? Of course. Is it funny? It's quite witty and often hilarious. But that doesn't make it a comedy-drama series. IMDb backs this up by failing to include "comedy-drama" in its genre list for the show. (Although I'm not sure I would trust it too far, anyway, as it lists Firefly as "fantasy" — where the hell does that come from?) M*A*S*H is a comedy-drama. Firefly is science fiction, adventure, action, space western, etc. — it is not comedy-drama. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychic River = fantasy. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-28t19:47z
Psychic abilities are considered legitimate elements of science fiction, too. Fantasy usually involves magic and/or supernatural beings, without the Clarkian advanced-science POV, which would appear to be where psychic abilities come from in the Firefly universe, as opposed to the Buffy universe. (Contrast Spider and Jeanne Robinsons's Stardance SF novels, Katherine Kurtz's Deryni fantasy novels, and Julian May's deliberate mixing of the two genres in her Pliocene Exile saga, which is still considered SF.) There is nothing in Firefly that suggests the traditional aspects of the fantasy genre. In fact, Whedon seems to have deliberately cast this world as an easily recognizable combination of the Old West and the Space/Technology Age, without any trace of spells, Hobbits, or vampires. I suspect the "fantasy" label comes largely from a misapprehension by someone at IMDb that anything the creator of Buffy does must have a fantasy element to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there are no fantasy aspects to Firefly... --plange 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Plange and Jeffq insofar as it will not be wise not to call Firefly as "Fantasy" show. IMDb, albeit comprehensive, often includes a lot of questionable information.-- danntm T C 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychic abilities are, to people who use the scientific method, supernatural; and until there are reasonable and falsifiable theories for FTL and psychic ability it'll be fantasy to them.
Most people (you woudn't find consensus including it here for instance) think soft SF is still SF. Some people see any fiction with elements indistinguishable from the supernatural in it as fantasy - such a person probably OKed the fantasy classification on the IMDb page. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-29t18:31z
Until Wash is brought back by a level 8 wizard, Firefly isn't Fantasy. EVula 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeandré, "science fiction" includes both hard and soft SF, and those divisions are hardly concrete, as Hard science fiction makes clear. Would you consider FTL travel "fantasy" just because we have no clear path to it? One cannot read our Fantasy article and reasonably include Firefly in that genre. I happen to agree that psychic powers, at least in the real world thus far, are solidly in the realm of the supernatural (i.e., not scientifically demonstrated — let alone proven — in nature), but neither your nor my beliefs are relevant. We're talking about fiction genres, not application to the real world. Firefly's approach to psychic powers is not magical, and is thus not "fantasy", even though it is every bit as fantastical as FTL, mind-melding, or intelligent energy beings, from today's perspective. Of course, we're arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway, as "fantasy" isn't and hasn't been included in this article's genres. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

unproduced episodes

should we add stuff about the 8 unproduced episodes in the episode section? the scripts will be released next year with the firefly visual companion part 2... -Xornok 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

oooh, didn't know there were any! drool-da-rule! Anyway, back to WP, I guess it depends on the source we use before we get our hands on part 2. It needs to be a RS as I'd hate to think we'd accidentally posted fanfiction --plange 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
well, the very last page of the OVC (official visual companion) volume 1 says that in volume two, it will have the 8 unproduced scripts, so im pretty sure its a reliable source...
no doubting the existence of the 8, but I want to make sure that if we link to any that we say are the 8, that they are indeed the 8 that will be in part 2 --plange 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
or are you just asking that we mention that there are 8? If so, yes, and source the OVC:1 --plange 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
eh, sourcing gives me a headache. i just didnt want to mention the other 8 and have someone revert it like what happened when someone added the link to the Dead Or Alive script... -Xornok 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are okay with copy and paste, I've already ref'ed OVC in the Malcolm Reynolds article which you can grab... --plange 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
ok, cool... -Xornok 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just looked at back page and it doesn't say there will be scripts to unproduced episodes, rather that there will be the uncut shooting scripts of the 8 remaining shows, meaning the last ones not included in vol 1 (which ends at Our Mrs. Reynolds), so, unfortunately, no new scripts :-( --plange 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

guess i read wrong... oh well... -Xornok 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was all excited-- I sure wish you had been right! --plange 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
yeah, me too... -Xornok 20:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced comparisons (again)

I have twice removed a new section called "Shows with similar themes" that is yet another attempt to draw original, unsourced comparisons between Firefly and other shows like Cowboy Bebop. This has been discussed extensively in the following talk page topics:

Note that, as this article moved toward good-article status, we've managed to lose these comparisons and even the "See also" section. I see no reason to risk de-listing from GA just because someone simply must make these comparisons. Magic Pickle made the argument, in restoring the section, that "Intro claims the show is 'atypical' - this is OR as well." This is not a justification for adding more original research. If we really feel "atypical" is OR, it should be removed, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, I will try to dig out some references for the comparisons, and will not add it back until I do. In the meantime can we do something about - " It presents an atypical science fiction narrative" - this is POV. The comparisons show that Firefly is not necessarily 'atypical'. This type of POV is surely a problem in GA terms as well. Magic Pickle 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly true...

"The show also features slang not used in contemporary culture (e.g. "shiny" as a synonym of "cool")." I'm probably being really pedantic, but shiny has been commonly used that way in my area for about as long as i can remember, back at least to early 80s i think.. 81.153.253.32 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

  • I'm curious - where are you? I've never heard "shiny" used that way, and was struck by it on Firefly. Not throwing down a gauntlet or anything, but I'd be interested to hear where it's in use. - Corporal Tunnel 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I was a teenager in the UK in the 80's and it was never used here. I'd never heard it before Firefly so I too am curious to know where "here" is. Sophia 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been state-side for my entire life (Tennessee and 23, respectively), and I'd never heard shiny used in the same manner before. It did of course exist as a word, but not as an alternative to "cool" EVula 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
shiny was used mid to late-80's and 90's or so in reference to the idea the some people are attracted to shiny objects, much like racoons. it's been around a long time. i wouldn't say it means cool as much as 'wow' or 'bling'. it was started on a television show, maybe on fox, perhaps married with children, but certainly one that dimunized certain human's intelligence. here for me at the time would have been northern p.a. then washington d.c.--Buridan 17:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I know "shiny" as a joke about distraction: "I have no attention span to speak of, and -- ooo, shiny!" (In fact, I'm pretty sure Oz says something like this in Buffy, since we're in the Whedonverse.) That's very different from the use in Firefly, though. And I've never heard it used as in Firefly in my stints in New York, Boston, and Dallas. - Corporal Tunnel 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the "ooh, shiny!" bit too. Firefly's use of the word is totally different. EVula 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm with EVula, Corporal Tunnel, etc. here. I've never hears "shiny" used as a synonym of cool. If you could provide verification to the contrary, that would be great.-- danntm T C 19:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm clearly in the minority here so i guess it must just be a local or subculture thing then. I'm (UK) but it could just be a local surfer thing maybe. Best forget about it :S heh like i said just being really pedantic :P viva la coincidence! 81.153.253.32 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

It's been used in Phoenix, Arizona since at least the 80's as well. Rihk 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD Release section

Should the DVD Release section be moved to List of Firefly episodes? Most other shows have the DVD info on the episode page, so I'm wondering if the whole section should be moved, or just add the basics of the DVD release to the episodes page. JQF 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting ready for WP:FAC

I think we're close! I wanted to see if we could put our shoulders to the wheel and get the article ready for WP:FAC, what do you guys think? Here's some things I thought of, what else needs doing?

  • finish incorporating any valid suggestions from our peer review. I think I got most, but here are some open issues:
    • Did we decide what to do here about Serenity film having its own section? I think the original point from the peer review is still valid. Here's what the reviewer said: "I cannot wrap my head around having the movie, which is clearly the most important spin-off, relegated after the books and comics. I'm not even sure the movie deserves to be called a spin-off - it seems rather more than that, and it seems to me like an expansion of the movie section would be reasonable - things like how it did and what plot threads it picked up on"
    • Whether or not it's really needed to get into where it aired everywhere and in what order. Perhaps this could go on the new List of episodes page instead?
    • Mentioning unique dialog in Signature show elements. I think we can find sourced info on this in Finding Serenity. I left my copy at work, so can't add until tomorrow.
  • Since we moved the list of episodes to an article, we need to have a summary section here I think. I took a stab, but I think it still needs work.

What else? --plange 06:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll support Serenity having its own section, before the spin-offs. I also think that the airing order could go into the List of episodes page. And I'll take a look at list of episodes summary and see what I can do.-- danntm T C 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I everyone okay with the change Wookiepedian just made which is different than what was suggested in the peer review (having film outside of spin-off?) --plange 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


International section

Can we please remove / drastically rewrite the International section? Seems to me it's dull as dishwater and supplies information of little interest (what's the point listing every country in the world and when it first aired, and in what order?) --Oscarthecat 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, so did a reviewer (see my note in section just above this). I think it should either be moved to the List of episodes or deleted. I know someone went to a lot of work, but am wondering if it's encyclopedic? --plange 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it might have some use, but it only has any context in List of episodes, and thus I support moving it there.-- danntm T C 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I, too, think it would be better served on List of Firefly episodes. EVula 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, am moving it now... --plange 18:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Done, this had the added benefit of helping to flesh out the Episodes section... What about the suggestion above about moving the DVD release to the Episode page? If we do that, we should just make a short mention of the DVD release in the Episodes and broadcast history section. --plange 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Asian characters

The theme of a merging of east and west in human culture, with Chinese being spoken along with English, and some of the core worlds apparently being based on eastern asian culture, why then are none of the main characters in Firefly asian, and, indeed none of the supporting characters are asian? I think this might be grounds for a brief mention in the article. It was always something that bothered me. What do others think? Magic Pickle 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't mention our own commentary, though you could if you could source it to a source that meets WP:V. I remember reading somewhere that it was that there were two core planets, with Asia controlling one, and the US the other and so presumably we're following the folks spread out from that one. Kaylee was supposed to be Asian I think, but they cast Jewel instead. Presumably Simon and River have Asian ancestry (last name of Tam). In the end, we're speculating, and speculation cannot go into the article. See WP:OR. --plange 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I remember hearing something about the whole China/America thing in the Train Job commentary (my DVDs are still loaned out, though, so I can't verify if the episode even has a commentary track or not). I also remember Joss saying something about the melding of the two worlds in the Serenity commentary (dunno the chapter, but its when they land on the planet where they are going to leave the Tams). EVula 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I listened to the commentary on the DVDs. Personally I find it strange that you would have, in the far future, an 'asian planet' and a 'Western' planet - there would surely be a melding of the two cultures (and more) whenever you find humanity. Instead of people talking English and then oddly switching to Chinese, the language would also meld, with Anglicised versions of Chinese words entering the language and vice versa. We would probably find it hard to understand at all. The idea that the characters we follow in the show are from the 'western' planets seems a bit silly - has multiculturalism stopped happening? So, as Evula mentions, the two worlds have melded later on, why are we not seeing any asian characters? This is a problem I have with the idea that Firefly is a believable version of the future. It may have benefits as a theme for drama, but isn't very believable. But obviously this is my lowly opinion only. If I can find a source for Kayleigh's character originally being asian, that might be worth adding? Magic Pickle 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it comes down to, unfortunately, the fact that it had to air to American audiences. You'll have to ask Joss. Maybe FOX nixed having Asian characters? Who knows. You do see the melding and fusion when they land on planets (Asian characters are all over), it's just not the main ones. There's several essays in Finding Serenity about this very topic, one a criticism, and the other an explanation... --plange 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay lets be serious here... Fox didn't "nix the asian characters" that's kind of a rediculous thing to say without some kind of evidence. Despite fireflys popularity and fan base, and the fact yeah it's cancellation was just borderline on disfunctionally retarded, it was still a show that ran for only a damn few episdoes in the grand scope of most any series (less then 20, comapre that to Babylon 5, or Stargate SG1, or ST:anything). It had a small cast of core characters and a tiny few reoccuring characters. The fact Asian characters despite the backstory didn't play a more predominate roll probably had a hell of a lot more to do with there wasn't alot of 'show' for them to appear in anyway. Just look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That show ran for how many seasons? It's set in California which is what percentage black and hispanic? Yet how many seasons was it before a predominant black character appeared in the show. Did it ever feature a hispanic character? So people are kind of reading too much into this. The reason more Asians didn't appear is likely quite simple... the show was only shot for a trial season, and when it died in the ratings compared to whatever measure was used to judge it, it killed any chance for Josh to flush out his background. More characters didn't appear because with fewer then 20 episodes ever made, the opportunity likely just never arose for them to appear anyway. When you get the greenlight for a new series you get your cast and go with what you got to try and get the funding for a second season, and when that doesn't happen visions are limited. [Wednesday, 2007-01-10 T 04:45 UTC]

{{quotation}}

I missed that the quotation template I'd inserted had been removed when I added more later. Sorry!; as such, I reverted myself. However, where in the MoS does it say we aren't allowed to use wiki quotation templates, but we can use html (basically just indention)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Direct quotations is what you're looking for. EVula 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, the only time you should use that style (or some of the others that place them in boxes and colors them) are when doing "pull quotes" like magazines do: the quote isn't part of the flow of the article, but is instead used as a highlight outside of the flow of the prose to highlight that section. Sort of like how images illustrate that section, but are not part of the flow of the prose. For a good example, see Demosthenes (they use blue ones). --plange 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Variety cite

A little while ago I added a {{Fact}} tag to the section on how the ratings suffered due to episodes being shown out of order. That tag's gone and the section now reads: "Variety magazine cited several actions by the FOX network that contributed to the low ratings, most notably the fact that FOX aired the episodes out of chronological order" Only... the Variety piece doesn't actually mention that at all. It talks of sporting pre-emption, but nothing on reordering or delaying of the pilot. S'why I added the citation tag.--Nalvage 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right-- confusion ensued when the original sentence was changed from saying Browncoats/fans attributed it to... to the one that took out saying it was fans, see [4], from someone reviewing for FAC. Will look up cites; I'm just coming off a week-long wikibreak... --plange 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And I managed to add to the confusion by accidentally removing the Variety ref when reverting the removal of my cite tag. Somehow it'll all work itself out...--Nalvage 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

...Or not. As it stands the article still claims that Variety cited reordering of episodes as a cause of low ratings. I've been looking for a source, but haven't been able to find one. I'm kinda loathe to cut that section though if there's an article out there I'm missing. --Nalvage 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

should we request it to be a "Today's featured article"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JQF (talk • contribs)

Hell yeah. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm good with that.-- danntm T C 18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Me three! Who wants to take a stab at writing the condensed lead? --plange 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A very, very brief and basic attempt to hash together and shortern the lead into one paragraph:

"Firefly is an American science fiction cult television series that premiered in the United States and Canada on September 20, 2002. Its naturalistic future setting, modeled after traditional Western movie motifs and featuring a fusion of western and Chinese culture, presents an atypical science fiction backdrop for the narrative. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, under his production tag, Mutant Enemy. The series is set in 2517 AD and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a Firefly-class spaceship. The show explores the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. Firefly was originally broadcast on the FOX network but was cancelled after only eleven of the fourteen produced episodes were aired. Strong fan support and DVD sales convinced Universal Pictures to create a film based on the series, titled Serenity after the fictional spaceship featured in the show."

Feel free to pick apart and the like. It's basically just what we have already in the text, with my really cursory edits and shortenings. Barnas 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this more concise version, with formatting and links, that should fit into a main-page summary box:

Firefly is a science fiction TV series that premiered in the U.S. and Canada in 2002. Its naturalistic future setting is modeled after Western movies and features a fusion of western and Chinese cultures. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Firefly follows the adventures of the renegades of spaceship Serenity, exploring the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture on the fringes of their star system. Firefly aired on the FOX network but was cancelled after only 11 of 14 episodes. Strong fan support led to a film based on the series.

It says pretty much the same things, but without unnecessary detail and verbiage for a tight, attention-grabbing paragraph. (Or so I hope. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shiny! The only part I'd like to tweak is how it makes the spaceship sound like it's exploring people a la Fantastic Voyage (I also change US to United States per MoS)... How about:

Firefly is a science fiction TV series that premiered in the United States and Canada in 2002. Set 500 years in the future, it blends a naturalistic future with the Western genre, as well as a fusion of Occidental and Chinese cultures. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Firefly follows the adventures of the renegades of spaceship Serenity, and explores the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture on the fringes of their star system. Firefly aired on the FOX network but was cancelled after only 11 of 14 episodes. Strong fan support led to a film based on the series.

--plange 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Serenity may be a character, but I guess she's not quite that interpersonal. ☺ Seriously, this sounds fine. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick change, adding a definate article to "spaceship Serenity"

Firefly is a science fiction TV series that premiered in the United States and Canada in 2002. Set 500 years in the future, it blends a naturalistic future with the Western genre, as well as a fusion of Occidental and Chinese cultures. It was conceived by writer and director Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Firefly follows the adventures of the renegades of the spaceship Serenity, and explores the vicissitudes of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war, as well as the pioneer culture on the fringes of their star system. Firefly aired on the FOX network but was cancelled after only 11 of 14 episodes. Strong fan support led to a film based on the series.

--Barnas 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dropping that particular definite article is acceptable grammar in English, and I'd consciously done it as part of my effort to keep the word and character count down. But it doesn't matter that much; either way is fine. Just to head off the potential argument, this is not the same thing as saying "the Serenity", which we all know is incorrect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Okey dokey, I've added it! --plange 02:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

sad violin

in the music it talks about a song called "sad violin" and it being used at the end of "the message" but the song at the end is "the funeral", track 6, not "sad violin"... is the name just wrong or are they 2 different songs? -Xornok 05:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

is/was

87.112.0.120 (talk · contribs) has changed the article to use the past tense in the intro paragraph. I maintain that we're supposed to use the present tense, as the show still exists, and the status of its production is irrelevant to the fact that it is still a television show.

Similar examples would be Mystery Science Theater 3000, Star Trek: The Original Series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel, all of which mention the show in the present-tense. Other media examples include Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Moulin Rouge!, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and Pong, all mentioned in the present-tense, regardless of their age.

I can't readily find any guidelines on this, though; can someone else? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a few minutes of checking, I could not readily find any explicit guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) uses the "is" in an example of the proper way to write about a fictional character, but that is far short of adopting the "is" to describe a whole television series. I personally would favor "is," if only to maintain consistency with other articles. However, ultimately, I caution all to avoid creating needless and imprudent conflict over verb tense.-- danntm T C 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not just a TV-show issue. The use of present tense applies to all extant creative works. Please note that "The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke is a tragedy by William Shakespeare and is one of his best-known and most-quoted plays", as the first sentence of Hamlet reads. We would not say that this work was a tragedy. It has not been lost, and continues to exist to this day. Likewise, TV shows are, not were, unless they were destroyed in a film warehouse fire, never to be seen again. This does not change the appropriate past tense of production and airing history (e.g., it was filmed somewhere, it aired on such-and-such a network). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I was thinking that but was not sure that I remembers secondary school English correctly :)-- danntm T C 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that out of the examples given, Star Wars III, Moulin Rouge, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Hamlet are correctly described using the present tense - these are articles about standalone pieces of work and in some cases (like Moulin Rouge) not a piece of work intended to have a collection of follow-ups. I'd maintain Firefly (and Star Trek: The Original Series) ought to be described in past tense; they are pieces of work that have (or in Firefly's case, meant to have) a lifespan of more than just one series but have a definitive end in its production and storytelling. In addition, since they are no longer being developed, I'd say by definition that puts the context of the series as a whole in the past. It's easy to say "this article uses past/ present tense" because as noted above, there's no clear guidelines. The article on Red Dwarf describes the series using past tense, and that's still (officially at least) in production. 87.113.26.153 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If we used the past tense and then the series was repeated on television, we'd have to change the article, every time! That should ring alarm bells. Its nature doesn't change just because it's being repeated. It clearly exists, and is a series of programmes. It was produced over a finite period; it was initially broadcast at a certain time; but it is a series. – Kieran T (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see why would we 'have' to change the article if the series was repeated? It would still be the same series with the same finite life-span. I still stand by my suggestion that past tense be used for articles about works (or a collective series of works) that have definitively ended/ officially ceased production. It "is" indeed a series (I'm not arguing against that), but using "was" makes it clear that the series has officially ended. For example, I'd say Quantum Leap, Six Feet Under and Alias "were" all TV series (since they have officially ceased production and reached a conclusion); Futurama, Curb Your Enthusiasm and 24 "are" all TV series; since their respective storylines haven't reached a final conclusion and/ or have not been cancelled. 87.113.71.163 22:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"using "was" makes it clear that the series has officially ended." - so does saying "...the series has officially ended." - without the ambiguity.
In any case, Joss Whedon says on the DVD extras that he will (not might) be back with more of it, so it's arguable whether it really has "ended" anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.134.16.183 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
But you wouldn't write "the series has officially ended" in the intro paragraph (let alone the opening sentence), would you? As for suggesting that using past tense to explain the series has ended is ambiguous; I completely disagree - if anything, I'd say it's more accurate in describing the show. Using "was" explains that it "is" a series (of course it is), but is no longer in active development, hence the past tense. As for Whedon being "back with more of it", that may or may not be a TV series. 87.112.1.180 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You folks are continuing to miss the point. It's not a question of material difference between standalone films and TV shows, current TV shows and completed ones, or difficulty in maintaining currency in Wikipedia articles. Creative works are treated as existing, not having existed. They are available for all to observe, not were-available-but-gone-now. You can find examples of improper past-tense use in WP articles, just like you can find examples of inarguable illiteracy in WP articles, because Wikipedia can be and is edited by anyone, including people with less command of English than a 10-year-old. But please don't create your own novel interpretations of English grammar or publishing styles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a dead issue now, but for future reference, here is the link to the guideline about using present tense when writing about fiction: Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction --plange 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


There should be a general policy as many musical acts who have broken up, are considered past tense, even though their music is still able to be listened to

i have asked if a fiction work should be written in past or present tense on the manual of style (writing in fiction) talk page. it is located here if you are interested.

peace out-Threewaysround 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2006-12-xx Sales

I've been watching the top DVD sales at Amazon.com this December and have always seen Firefly in the top 10 (This morning it was number 9). Does anyone know where the public can acquire total sales? --Neilrieck 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The only places I've found useful in the past are videobusiness.com and BoxOfficeMojo.com, but they are of limited use. VideoBusiness maintains several free lists of top sellers, but they only have the current top 20 in any category, so the information is quite ephemeral and rarely helpful for anything that isn't a recent release. (They may have much more detail for-fee, but that's not especially helpful for Wikipedia:Verifiability.) BoxOfficeMojo is exclusively for films, I think. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Note, videobusiness.com is now a spam redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
www.fireflyfans.net have listed firefly and serenity's rank from amazon ever since theyve been released... -Xornok 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why cancelled?

I can't see an explanation as to why Fox cancelled the series; I'm sure there was one! If anyone knows a little section explaning why would be good. Dan100 (Talk) 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The show did very poorly in the ratings. That is pretty much the obvious reason, and it's about all you could put in the article. Anything else is speculation or debate, which isn't proper in a wikipedia article. Basically while fans generally feel this was due to Foxes mismanagment of it {airing it out of order, changing it's day/time in some regions, putting it up against incredibly popular shows on other networks, and generally just not treating it like a series they wanted to blossum}, it was also a known Josh Whedon franchise and other sci-fi and regular shows have faced similiar challenges and still prospered... so it becomes a real debate as to why. Josh did make the show pretty costly, usually sci-fi shows their first season try and be reasonable on their budget. So your simple answer is, it did poorly in the ratings which is what really matters. Beyond that, nothing else can be put in since it's all open to point of view and neither side, or at least no formal source that can be linked to wikipedia, has ever proven further either way. [Wednesday, 2007-01-10 T 04:55 UTC]


I know there's a link to the series' IMDb page in the infobox at the top of the page, but I've added one to the External Links section as well, my reasoning being that anyone reading the bottom of the page might not have seen the link in the infobox and/or might expect to find such a link in the External Links section.

Hyperflux 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Source 404

The link to the boston globe article is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.193.225 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

True. Boston Globe has moved the article to their archive space, where it can only by viewed after payment. 213.7.102.171 10:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

14 or 15 episodes?

Hi all, again, I apologize for my splitting up this article without talking about it on discussion page.. Anyway, do you think that Firefly has 14 or 15 episodes? I count the 2-hour long pilot as two, because it can be split up into two in syndication.. Anyway, I will not change it again, unless there's a consensus somehow here... Thanks, Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

there are 15...serenity is 2 episodes... -Xornok 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

14 episodes, since Serenity is simply one, two-part episode. On the DVD there's only one title selection on the menu, and the lists on the box say "14 episodes." It might be the length of two episodes, but it's just one really long one. JBK405 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 15 hours in 14 episodes, per the show's production numbering ("Serenity" has the single production number "1AGE79") and the DVDs (as JBK405 points out). This has already been discussed at Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Archive 2#Missing 15th Episode?. Sci Fi Channel and other syndication outlets are not more reliable sources than the producers. Please do not make changes based on perception rather than documented, reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article

If you wanted to get this article (and the show) some real acclaim, you could get this article put as the front page featured article. But you need an image that can be displayed on the front page to do that, and that means no fair use. Do we have any such images related to firefly? --causa sui talk 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? That didn't seem to be the case as recently as February 21 (Avatar: The Last Airbender), February 12 (Make Way for Ducklings), and February 1 (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace). They each featured fair use images. Travisl 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images can be used on the main page, that's a benefit of it being in the main space. Matthew 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm wrong then. I'll nominate it. --causa sui talk 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
How would putting this article on the main page provide the Firefly series with "real" acclaim? This article is already "Featured Status," and should only be monitored to ensure that it stays that way from this point forth. It would be much more productive to try elevating other articles to featured quality rather than wasting time trying to get certain articles plastered on the main page. Not only is it entirely pointless, but such a thing brings a massive influx of anonymous editors and vandals who'll only ruin everything that's already been done. What possible purpose could such an objective serve? Gamer Junkie 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you don't agree, but I'm nominating it. --causa sui talk 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gamer Junkie, I've never really seen a benefit from being taped on the main page, e.g. Lost used to be in a good condition prior to it being on the main page. Matthew 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You know... all you have to do is revert it. The Wookieepedian 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars never solve anything. It simply seems that getting this article onto the Main Page is a fairly pointless goal, and it would be good if those in favour of this would explain the positive ramifications of such an achievement. Gamer Junkie 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The main benefit to being on the front page is increased exposure. That will help bring many new people to see the article about Firefly. I don't check every day, but I do fairly often, and have learned alot about alot from these articles. As to vandalism, well, absolute worst case we could always revert it back to the point where it was before being featured. Tuvas 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Flop?

I know you're all going to be up in arms about this. If the show got cancelled because of low ratings, even if it was all the network's fault, doesn't that make it a flop? And thus earns a category in TV flops. Yadda yadda yadda it was successful on DVD and almost sort of in the cinema. Still a flop on television though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Witw (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

well, i consider flops like being cancelled after 1 or 2 episodes... -Xornok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.134.67.3 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Great, so Street Hawk was a rampaging success then. I'll remove it from the Flops list.Witw 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was turned into a feature length film because it was a flop. I'm sorry, but something that has quite notably garnered a following of fans is hardly a flop. This isn't people "up in arms" - this isn't a defensive or personal reaction, it's the facts of the matter. The show, despite its cancellation, has been acclaimed by fans and critics alike. Cancellation from network TV is not (necessarily) the same as being a flop. Cheeser1 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the very reason I removed it from the article. A show that premiers and disappears quietly would count as a flop (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

arn't we suppposed to be talking about how to help the article get better. not about weather or not the show was a flop, without a solid definition of a flop we can't put it on wikipedia anyway, so why are we argueing?!?

peace out-Threewaysround 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussing whether an article should be classified in a category or not (in this case, Category:Television flops) is well within the bounds of what article talk pages are for. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for a better understanding of what is and isn't acceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the large fanbase for this show indicates that it wasn't a flop. LeinadSpoon 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Flop can refer to:

An instance of failure; in the entertainment world, usually referring to a movie or tv show that doesn't do well or is expected to do well and falls short. From the flop page on Wiki.

flop (plural flops)

1. An incident of a certain type of fall; a plopping down. 2. A failure, especially in the entertainment industry. From Wikidictionary.

Had a fanbase alright. But not large enough.Witw 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Firefly meets the definition of "flop" you presented above. Matthew 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Wow. I didn't think there was actually a category for television flops, sorry bout that. Well anyway, i'll give my input.

Really both's sides are good arguments, but any TV show that had DVD sales that high, and a movie made out of it isn't a flop per-say. It didn't do well on TV (at all), but overall the series itself isn't a flop. It may have flopped it's television debut, but it isn't a flop in total.

peace out-Threewaysround 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Television flops is about to be deleted, after a discussion at categories for discussion, so this point is now moot. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. No doubt there are Firefly discussion boards out there in cyberspace where one can debate the alleged flophood of the show until the cows come home. This isn't one of them.  RGTraynor  16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

original run

when and why was the original run dates changed? the original run was from sept 20. to dec. 20 of 2002... the other 3 episodes that aired are not considered part of the original run because.. um.. they didnt actually air when it was originally on tv... i believe skiffy aired them to promote the release of the dvds... -Xornok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.134.67.3 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

First air date is the first airing of an original air date, last is the last airing of an original episode. Thus it's correct. Matthew 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
but that wasn't its ORIGINAL run... it originally ran on Fox and left out The Message, Trash, and Heart of Gold... those weren't aired till later... in the second run... because the aired on Sci Fi... -Xornok 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems very original to me. Matthew 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between 'cast' section and Jewel Staite's page

This article says Jewel Staite has acted since age nine. Her own page says she's acted since age six. Any possibility of clarifying that one?IxK85 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure but i would go with her page, and switch this page. her article deals with her spesifically, this article might not have gotten as deep info.-Threewaysround 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't go with one Wikipedia article's statement or another's. We go with sourced information. In this situation, Firefly (TV series) cites a specific source (Firefly Companion, Vol. 1), and Jewel Staite cites no source for its claim. However, I would add an interesting note that may explain the discrepancy.
Staite's main IMDb page shows her first role as "Jennifer Lanahan" in Posing: Inspired by Three Real Stories (1991). As Staite was born in 1982 (also according to IMDb), this would have made her about 9 (give or take a few months) when the TV-movie was aired. Of course, she had to act well before the actual release of the show. But all of this is drawing conclusions from unspecific material, which is forbidden original research.
For the other figure, Staite's IMDb "Mini Biography" includes the cryptic statement, "Started out modeling, was recommened [sic] to act at age 6." This doesn't exactly say whether she actually did act at 6, only that someone recommended she should.
I don't have a copy of Companion v1 handy, so perhaps someone can check that work for a clearer statement. If there remains a discrepancy, it should be described as unclear in the article text and the different ages given specific citations. That's how we decide what information to use. The text must always follow the sources, not the opinions of us editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"...began her screen acting career aged nine in the telefilm Posing" - The Firefly Companion. --Nalvage 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done a bit of research into this matter, it seems her first job of any kind acting was being in a commercial at age 6. It seems later she appeared on TV at age 9. I'm not 100% sure of that yet, but I'm working on finding more out... But if that's true, it would explain the source of the discrepancy. Tuvas 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's a few online sources

[5] [6] [7] [8] It's kind of difficult to tell exactly since most of the sources are either copied from Wikipedia, or some other source that seems to have the same wording, but it does look like her premeire was at age 6. Tuvas 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent detective work, Tuvas. The key to your results (per your links from Moviefone and Yahoo!) is that the "other source" is All Movie Guide, which is a well-established web publication with an editorial board; i.e., a reliable source. Therefore, what we have, from the original AMG page, is that "Jewel Staite began her career at age six when she was discovered at a Sears photography studio". (Note that the AMG article isn't clear about what "career" she was starting. Other sources suggest it was modelling, so we don't yet have a source for her actual acting start. We shouldn't draw inferences.) The AMG citation is:
  • Albertson, Cammila. "Jewel Staite: Biography". All Movie Guide. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
I leave it to others to add or edit the existing text in the two articles and add the citation. (Edit this section to copy the templated citation for easier use.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry

Seriously, I am very so sorry about this. It was an accident, I think I accidently selected all when I was trying to undo that spam link. I do not vandalise Wikipedia, and I want everyone to know this! I will be more careful next time. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it happens. By the way, if it happens again, you'll be banned forever.

I'm joking. Gamer Junkie 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that's a relief. I double check every time now to be safe.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

'movie makes it clear there's only one star system'?

There's only one star system. All the planets that they visit and discuss are all around the same star? -Gomm 19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. It's one star system with several gas giants with many planets (moons) around them terraformed to moderately earth standard. That's why you get references to the edge of the system in the series (where the browncoats etc were from) and the inner planets (those closer in nearer the star that were better terraformed or may even have been earth like in the first place being in the habitable zone. Also why a lot of the worlds they visit are referred to as moons. Ben W Bell talk 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The system may also be a multiple star system. The difficulty people have with the idea of the Firefly universe as one system is that people tend to take our solar system as the model for other solar systems, when it has now been determined that our solar system is in fact unusual. The majority of systems out there that we know of that have planets have 2 or 3 stars orbiting a central point (usually another star) with planets round them. In real life they reckon there are planetary systems out there with dozens of planets and possibly then many hundreds of moons. In addition there is plenty of evidence in the show itself that there is no faster than light travel as any time they are travelling they can pass other ships that they can interact with in real space. Ben W Bell talk 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I have added a link from that statement to the supporting discussion, so the next baffled reader will have an easier time. Cheers, Gomm 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article fails FA criterium #3

This article fails the FA criterium #3. The image Image:Serenity BSG.jpg doesn't have a fair use rationale. Please add {{Non-free media rationale}} for this image, or remove the image from the article. – Ilse@ 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale provided. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI it's criterion. Cheeser1 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the rationale for this article.
Good to know it is "criterion", although criterium would also have the plural criteria :-) – Ilse@ 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's why we don't speak Latin anymore. Too confusing. :P Cheeser1 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd Point of View

This whole article has an odd point of view focusing on the production side rather than the content. For example, the Character section has very little about each character* and quite a bit about what the actor portraying the character has said about why he/she joined the cast. It seems a really odd focus for the entire article -much more like a 'fan behind the scenes' look than an encyclopedia article.
*admittedly, since it only ran for less than one season there wont be as much about each character as a series like ST:TNG

Notice anything about an article like Bender (Futurama)? It's tagged as being written from an in-universe perspective. The whole point is that the way this article should be the rule, not the exception. Due to lax (if not nonexistant) enforcement of policy, alot of in-universe perspective gets stuck into articles. The ship, the show, the characters are not real. The only information and analysis that should be included in our articles are the ones that are about a TV show, not those that are about people, places, or things (as if they were not from a TV show). --Cheeser1 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My bad, I had only read as far as 'Casting' and not read the actual 'Cast' references.

Signature show elements - Japanese Katakana

From what I've read from the link to Katakana, it seems to be a written language. If we're talking about pure writing, I don't think Japanese Katakana is used prominently in the show, if it is used at all. I believe that the writings are Chinese characters.

As for spoken language, it should be all mandarin (although there are times the pronunciations are too far off the mark that I can't understand it, even with English subtitles). Basically, I don't see why there's a mention of Japanese Katakana - and without citation. Bockbockchicken 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Request

I have been attempting to update the links on this page. In particular, I suggest that Fireflyfans.net be added.

I have no prior experience in editing, and would like to know how to do this without having my editing changes removed.

Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You should read WP:EL to see what links would be suitable. Generally only links that add encyclopaedic content will be allowed. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links related to a subject but an encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell talk 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have reviewed WP:EL. I understand that Wikipedia does not seek to generate exensive non-encyclopedic external links. My rationale for Frieflyfans.net is that it is actively maintained and an effective and reliable aggregator of news on this topic, very similar to Browncoats.com, and perhaps superior in its breadth and timeliness. This would possibly meet criteria for inclusion 3 & 4. Please let me know if there are other factors I should be considering. Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Table

Firstly, the table of release dates, which is specific to the US, doesn't mention it as being so. Secondly, if the last three episodes were never shown in the US (which is what that table is based on) why are they there? That just further obfuscates things, I feel. 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)~

The point of this table is to show how the Fox network released the show - out of order and without airing several episodes. The episodes that went unaired are listed in the order that they would have aired, had the show not been canceled. The show has been shown on other networks on other occasions, but the original showing on its primary network are listed in that table to show how the Fox network permuted the show. That should clearly be the intent of the table, and the label "in order of release date" makes that pretty hard not to get. It being rerun on another network or overseas is not the "release" date. --Cheeser1 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Beat me to it. The table compares the order of the episodes when aired to their "proper" order in the DVD set. -Fnlayson 04:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivial little change

Just removed "on his phone", from a sentence; "received a call on his phone". Redundancy, etc. etc. FinalDeity 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding an entry to the Fandom section...

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2005/10/16/serenity-fan-purchases-320-tickets-and-gives-them-away/

My friend Mike Alward was the Browncoat mentioned in this article. I think it's a shining example of Browncoat loyalty and I think it would really add to the Firefly page if it were included. I can provide further information if desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be OK with seeing a line included referencing this, should you be able to prove notability by uncovering a second reference from a more well-known site than sliceofscifi.com - Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 10:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can provide plenty of links, but the source article came from my local paper, The Columbian (columbian.com), and they archive old articles so that you have to pay to read them. In other words, it's not available. There are plenty of sites that linked to it, including Whedonesque and several others. Here's one that's probably the most reliable, and it actually has the content of the article reprinted:

http://www.serenitymovie.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=1463&highlight=&sid=0b33e2eae18ddfe68968216f18b1f9da —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No such luck. --Captain Impulse 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A properly cited reference to a print article does not have to have a weblink. The latter is merely a convenience. Cite the article as you would any newspaper article, then add parenthetically "(available online at [URL here]])". --Orange Mike 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I may need some help with the formatting of the reference information, but I'll add a summary of the article to the page very soon. If someone could help me with the reference link/data, I would appreciate it. I'm still new to this Wiki-nonsense. ;) --Captain Impulse 08:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode running time

Each normal-length episode consisted of approximately 40 or 45 minutes of footage, broadcast over an hour on TV with commercials. The pilot episode is 2 hours long without commercials, so presumably must have had a longer running time when shown on TV. The article says "Firefly consists of one two-hour pilot and thirteen one-hour episodes." That sentence must be wrong. It should either be a 2 hour pilot and thirteen 45-minute episodes, or a longer than 2 hour pilot and 13 one hour episodes. I've edited it twice and been reverted each time, and I don't intend to start an edit war, but you can't leave the sentence as it presently stands. It's misleading. Richard75 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard, for that clear explanation of what you meant by your edits; as one of those who reverted your edit, this makes it much easier to understand what you intended to convey. As to the details, I will defer to others more expert on this minutia. --Orange Mike 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Can't stop the signal!
That seems right about the actual running time. I haven't checked my DVDs. However, it's referring to TV episodes, so I don't see the need to state actual times like that. It's going to confuse some people as to whether those are regular TV lengths or what. The approximate running time would fit in better where the DVDs are mentioned later in the article, imo. -Fnlayson 19:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No aliens ... so don't call Reavers a "race"?

I think this line (from the Synopsis section) is misleading: "In addition, the outlying areas are rife with Reavers, a roving cannibalistic race." They're not a separate race. Perhaps also debatable whether they're "roving". Just trying to sharpen up a little detail, though I'm not sure how to correct it. Ian McKinney 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They're the same species as human, but they're their own race. Just like Black, White, Arab, Iranian, [Insert Current PC Phrase for Pre-European Inhabiants of the Americas] and every other identification we've got for people (I happen to think it's idiotic to clasify people like this, we are, as you pointed out, all the same race, but since we're not the same race of race, we're all different races. And yes, I do realize the complete idiocy and self-contradiction of that sentence, but hey, I never claimed to be logical). Roving means they...well, it means they rove (Is "rove" itself a word? Now that I think about it, all I ever hear is "roving," never without the "ing." Great, now I'm gonna be stuck on that for I don't know how long). They keep moving, they're nomadic. They roam. Perhaps an expansion of the sentence to explain where, exactly, they rove (That might very well mean they rove outlying areas on the surface of planets). JBK405 05:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Race is incorrect. The term refers to a group of people with common ancestry - something Reavers do not share. Roving is a perfectly good (and in this case, applicable) word, and is the present participial form of "to rove." Let's leave the armchair sociology/race-politics out of this. It's just not the right word. Besides, it's already been changed. --Cheeser1 07:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

killer angels and the other unnamed book

The article currently has this sentence After reading The Killer Angels, Whedon read a book about Jewish partisan fighters in World War II that also influenced him.[6] citing to Serenity: The Official Visual Companion. Can we actually get the name of the book? Even if it's only in the footnote it would be better than the current mysteriously unnamed book. --Lquilter 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge to form Characters of Firefly

I'm closing this discussion as having no consensus to merge. It appears all parties agree that the individual articles can be better edited to comply with our guidance, and that seems to be the best focus for editors, bearing in mind that we discuss rather than edit war and achieve conensus through discussion and editing. Hiding T 10:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • An editor has expressed a preference to continue discussing the underlying issues raised in this debate, so I am re-opening debate until a time when a consensus forms. It is not policy on Wikipedia that debate should be stifled, and that was not my intent here. Hiding T 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Note, this discussion has been moved here from Talk:Firefly#Merge to form Characters of Firefly, where it was (presumably) misplaced. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Within the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book it was proposed that Derrial Book, Zoe Washburne, Hoban Washburne, Inara Serra, Jayne Cobb, Kaylee Frye and Simon Tam all be merged to form a new article at Characters of Firefly. Please discuss below, bearing in mind Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia is not a plot summariser. Hiding T 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't see a particular reason to merge. These articles are of substantial length, these are major characters, and a merge would only be necessary if the articles were perma-stubs, which (upon examination) I don't think they are. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion here showed no consensus to keep the articles in their current form. The most obvious solution, proposed by most of the contributers to the AfD would be to merge. The articles may appear to be substantial at the moment but very little - if any - of the informstion within them is sourced or verifyable. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Verifiability requires a source only for contested information. What information do you contest from these articles? Once again, it is not a requirement of WP:N that every bit of information in every article be "notable" and WP:V requires that we source information that could/would be contested (it's verifiable, not verified). Furthermore, there is no consensus required to keep things in their current form. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I won't list everything I contest, just one sentence as a start. I contest the statement in Derrial Book "He is a Shepherd — a kind of holy man or preacher — and provides frequent spiritual advice and perspectives for the crew of Serenity." - personally I would not say he frequently gives advice, I'd also question whether the word spiritual is really an accurate description of said advice. I'm not sure if the concept of a Shepherd is really elaborated on enough to classify it as like a holy man or preacher. Just my opinion though. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]
You're seriously going to nit-pick word-choice, and consider that a WP:V question? How about frequently→often? Or sometimes? Or just omit the qualifier? That is not a WP:V question. The show makes clear that he is a holy man of some sort, who is celibate, who blesses people, who reads from the Bible, and who gives sermons. All of this is blatantly and easily verifiable in the show itself. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that was a terrible example and wasn't meant to constructive. A better example might be the section Derrial Book#Past whioch starts "One of the most debated aspects of the show is Shepherd Book's secret past." a lot of the section is viewer interpreation/speculation based on limited evidence from the television show. I would also poitn out that this is one of several articles which currently has no reliable independent sources and so shows no evidence of notability. The article can't simply be a summary of character details mentioned in the series - that would be a plot summary. There is a complete absence of real world information as required by WP:FICT, WP:WAF reccomends that articles on fiction should be based around such information. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]
And if you'd like to improve the article, you're welcome to. You can even remove information if it's blatantly irrelevant. However, it's not so blatant as I see it, and if you'd like to work to improve the article feel free. I don't see the purpose in merging articles of substantial length, even if they require improvement (especially since some/all of them have sources out there that can be/have been integrated properly already). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. This isn't some sort of minor book that nobody's ever heard of. This is a notable work of fiction and as such, should follow the standards of other such works, which is what it is now: pages for major characters, one for minor. 71.115.86.64 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is ridiculous. The precedent on Wikipedia for major character pages is undeniable. Arguments against such pages based on semantics ("frequently") or the inclusion of some original research is desperate at best. If one thinks the article shouldn't say "frequently" or "spiritual", then rephrase the line. If there's original research, find a citation for it or edit it out. This entire discussion is pointless. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book, which demonstrates this discussion is neither pointless nor ridiculous. The consensus may still be that these articles should remain separate, but the discussion there made it clear that it was possible that consensus could change. Rather than dismiss the discussion, please participate in building a consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. I'll keep an eye on the debate, and per WP:MERGE, after 7-10 days or so I'll see if a rough consensus has emerged to merge. If not, I'll remove the tags. Please help to build a consensus by keeping comments civil and assuming good faith in the process. Hiding T 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - 1) notability for the characters may not have been sufficiently demonstrated. 2) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:PLOT), and one article will serve them better than the current content. Best regards, Steve T • C 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how one article is better than many? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Briefly, there's no scope for a separate article on any of these characters, at least where notability is concerned. There is perhaps just enough scope under Summary Style for one spin-off Characters article, though the existing Cast and Characters section is already reasonably comprehensive (it could use some additional real-world commentary, casting information and the like, but still...) I repeat, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and for these articles to justify their existence we need to see some real-world commentary, coverage and analysis from a notable-enough source. Best regards, Steve T • C 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, ridiculous. Check the precedent. This is not non-notable. Anyone with half a brain would call that ridiculous, given that they are the protagonists of the show, and this is a featured article. Notability, you'll notice, is a guideline. It specifically mentions the application of common sense, as I recall... Would you rather we put a notice at the top of every page saying "this article is notable"? It's ridiculous. Besides. Precedent for fiction is clear. There's a page for each major character. There's a page for each major character in other Joss Wheedon shows (see Buffy, for instance), there's a page for every major character in movies, books, games, the whole nine yards. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but neither do you decide what is "indiscriminate". This isn't a print encyclopedia. Just because it's a TV show doesn't change a thing. Maratanos (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all into Characters of Firefly. I've already stated my opinion in detail in the AfD and direct anyone there if he wishes to read more elaborate answers. In short: None of these articles demonstrate significant or substancial coverage in (secondary) sources and therefore lack proof of individual notability. (If you disagree, take it up with WP:FICT.) These articles are long but certainly not because of encyclopedic treatment per the policies/guidelines that Hiding listed above. (If you disagree, prove it.) The burden of evidence lies on the people wishing to keep these article. (If you disagree, take it up with WP:V.) If no secondary sources and sourced real-world content are added after a reasonable period (may be a few days to four weeks), this is a sign that either no sources exist or that no-one is willing to improve the articles to the Heymann Standard anytime soon. Neither one is sufficient with keeping this article for much longer. (If you disagree, cite a guideline that states that articles may violate policies and guidelines forever.) – sgeureka t•c 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, you should speak for yourself, instead of setting up your opinion as unquestionable ("take it up with ____"). Those are just policies. You aren't in charge, and neither is your interpretation of policy in this matter. None of us are here to violate policy in some free-for-all until you catch us and give us a talking-to. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not stating my opinion, I did not interpret anything, I was citing policies and guidelines. So should you instead of linking to an essay that doesn't even apply here. It's been two weeks. Practically nothing has changed to show that these articles have improved. The policies and guidelines still say the same as before. (Except WP:NOT#PLOT, which now explicitly states that Summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings may only be appropriate when paired with such real-world information but not when they are the sole content of an article.) It's becoming increasingly harder to believe you (or anyone) that these articles will improve anytime. Wikilayering may save you sometime but you really need to actually do something to prevent a merge. – sgeureka t•c 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per the argument that Steve put forth with no qualms about individual character articles as long as they can be fully explored with real-world context such as conception, intended evolution of the character (OOU), reception of the character. Not all characters will have this kind of information, so their stand-alone articles may not be more than just in-universe information. That would be more appropriate on a Wikia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You DO know that the proper thing to do in this case would be to IMPROVE the articles in question, rather than take a leap of faith and dump them all in the scrapyard where they're not likely to be? Maratanos (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No Merge Just 9 character articles, I believe. The articles are not stubs. Combining them won't automatically fix all real or preceived problems. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No Merge Each article has enough information to stand on its own and would require removal of a great deal of information to make a manageable combined article. Merging would almost certainly result in notices that the combined article was too long and should be split into separate articles.Shsilver (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Write an encyclopedia, follow the guidelines. - Let's face it, folks. Most of our Firefly-related content probably needs to go away. Sure, there may be room for different ideas on how best to accomplish this, but hopefully we can all agree that this kind of original-research-laden fanboyish cruft is not what we want on Wikipedia. Most of what we've got here is perfectly at home on a Firefly-specific wiki like this one. Let's move it there, and leave what's encyclopedic here at Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You do realize you're saying this on the talk page for the main article on the show, which is a featured article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course. And we're using this page for centralized discussion of what to do with some of the more problematic content around the edges. Friday (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Although there is very little OR on the pages in question and when OR does appear, it is generally reverted quite quickly. So, specific examples of "original-research-laden fanboyish cruft," please? Shsilver (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Individually the articles do not show evidence of meeting the general criteria for inclusion set out in WP:NN, WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:NOT - there are few or no independent secondary sources and no real world information - which according to WP:WAF, articles on fictional topics are meant to be based around. Whilst I do not think that merging the articles will immediately solve these problems it would help as all of the information about each character would be put under scrutiny - identifying that which is really encyclopaedic and that which is not - and it is more likely that sources can be found discussing the cast/characters of the show as a whole rather than individually. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • No Merge Doesn't seem overly necessary or desirable. Boiling down nine articles into one would reduce content and quality. The articles themselves are in fairly good shape and I don't see improvements arising from a merger. Merger would more than likely produce a frankenstarticle monster, with ensuing calls for a split. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No Merge I've said a couple things now, but I just re-read the AfD discussion and I have to say that any and all decisions based on non-notability are... interesting. Sshsilver brought up an interesting point. Finding Serenity. Read the table of contents and tell me "non-notable" one more time. Maratanos (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean this table of contents [9], which title is meant to tell me that the individual characters are notable? Also I don't think that one collection of essays edited by a friend of the series creator confers notability for seven individual articles. [[Guest9999 14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Also despite this source being mentioned several times none of the articles make use of it. To me this would seem to indicates that it may not actually be a suitable source for the articles as they are. [[Guest9999 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Doesn't matter. If you'll look, the sources do NOT need to actually be in place in the article for it to fulfill the notability guideline. Maratanos 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I realise that, what I am saying is that I do not belive that either collection should count as a suitable rleiable, independent source that could confer notability to the individual characters articles. No one has shown any providence or content that would seem to indicate that they are. Even if they were suitable sources I do not think that two collections of essaysequals significant coverage. [[Guest9999 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]
You keep saying that, as if repeating your opinion makes it fact. Having read one of the books and currently reading the second (which I doubt you've done), I could also keep repeating that these are suitable sources and offer significant coverage. And no matter how many times I repeated it, it would still only be my opinion. Shsilver 13:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You replied to my comments above by saying that the existence of sources fulfilled the notability criteria - with or without inclusion of said sources (which I agree with to a point). I simply wanted to make clear that I wasn't questioning the existence of the sources I was questioning their suitability. My opinion is based on the fact that none of the essays seem to be directly about individual characters (from the table of contents listed) and that even though the books in question have been mentioned many times both here and in the original AfD, nobody has added any content from them - indicating to me that they may contain no suitable content. Also I think the fact that they may not be completely independent of the subject and that it is questionable as to whether they offer significant coverage – mean that they do not confer notability. This is only my opinion, if I have repeated it, it is only because I have been replying to counter arguments that have been put forward by other users - which I feel is reasonable. [[Guest9999 14:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]
I would find it much more reasonable if you actually read the essays before commenting on their suitability. Especially since I've pointed out at least two of the articles in previous posts that are on specific charaters (one on Book, one on the marriage of Zoe and Wash), which can be gleaned from their titles. As I've mentioned before, I could easily go through and update all the articles with the information, and will most likely do so if/after this argument is closed, but I won't do it while a merge or delete debate is going on because a) I feel that merge and delete arguments before requesting sources is inherently hostile and b) I don't want to put in work if there is a chance of the article being deleted.Shsilver 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - Since the debate seems to be slowing down I have placed notice of the debate on the talk pages of those who contributed to the original AfD and the Firefly Wikiproject page in order to try and gauge the opinions of a wider section of the community in order to try and reach a consensus. [[Guest9999 15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

  • Suggestion I strongly suggest that interested editors consider a transwiki to the firefly wikia, which has pages on every character, episode, etc... without brushing up against the policies on notability and real-world information that matter here. The wikia, at http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Derrial_Book, is specifically designed to encourage this kind of information, which Wikipedia is not. Eusebeus 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I re-removed the unsourced information fromt he reformed article - the consensus to not have unsourced, contested information in Wikipedia is established in WP:V. [[Guest9999 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]
  • No Merge I see no reason to merge. --Knulclunk 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • When editors who are opposed to a merge read our injunctions against an in-universe perspective, our requirements for the assertion of real-world notability backed up by reliable independent sources and the guiding principle behind articles on fictional characters which requires that the focus be on their real-world significance, all of which are the product of project-wide consensus, I am at a loss to understand how they can conclude that these articles can be considered acceptable. Shall we simply ignore our criteria at WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and so on? And if so, on what grounds? Eusebeus 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No. We shall not. But you're missing the point. It is always preferable to improve an article than to demote it based on its quality. It is completely possible to improve these articles. There are interviews with actors, essays by third parties, all sorts of things. Besides. If you really think that there is a problem with real-world notability, reliable independant sources, and guiding principles about fictional characters, then why merge? Merging them all into one mega-article won't solve that problem. It won't even come close. You might as well delete them, except if you try, I would very strongly argue on the basis of WP:IAR. They're major characters of a major series. The main article's already too long. Maratanos 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree that article improvement should be the main goal. However, that suggests that there is real world notability which accrues to these characters, backed up by reliable sources. You do realise that per our guidelines, about 90% of the existing content needs to be expunged? It is fine for these characters to have articles, but the focus must be on their larger real-world significance, not the details of their in-universe existence, which should only be long enough to offer reasonable context for their real-world notability. That view is the product of long-standing consensus. I see no evidence of this notability; instead I see a continuing interest to include a level of character detail that is inappropriate to this project. That is why there are sites like wikia. Eusebeus 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd said something, but I guess I didn't. Anyway, this is somewhat related to my comment at the bottom of the page, so read that. In summary, it says that the level of character detail compared to real-world analysis in this article is comparable to that of the vast majority of articles on fictional characters. It's not "inappropriate to this project". Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it's not a competition. Your opinion as to the importance of Firefly does not have relevance in this debate. Maratanos 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - There's precious little scholarship or research on the individual characters. We can base lots of individual character articles on cites from fan databases and short-lived, poorly-sourced, entertainment-news/fan publications, but we shouldn't. Speaking as a diehard Firefly & Whedon fan, the encyclopedia does not need and cannot maintain at a high level of scholarship multiple separate articles on each individual character. For the ordinary purposes of an encyclopedia -- an introduction to a topic, basic information about a subject -- not only is a single page of character information sufficient, it is necessary and better. The overview-level necessitates a page about characterization, which could include relevant quotes and cites about each individual character. Detailed information about characters -- including in-universe and highly detailed information about characterization -- is best served and maintained at a topic-specific resource that has standards of inclusion based on Whedon/Firefly, specifically. Again, people will come to wikipedia for an overview of the show -- its arc, its critical reception, real-world influences on and of. Those people will be poorly served by having to go to each individual article simply to get the summary, encyclopedia-level information, they should expect from WP. --Lquilter 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No merge - There are significant articles in reliable sources about each of these characters including scholarly works, popular publications, and essay collections. You could argue that any group of individual articles could be merged into a list of executive summaries but Wikipedia would be no better served by a single "Countries of Europe" or "Presidents of the United States" no matter how unimportant a few editors might consider Belgium or Howard Taft. The standard is notability, not some unquantifiable extreme notability. - Dravecky 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Comparing fictional characters that made a total of fewer than 20 appearances in individual works, to presidents of the US and countries of Europe, reflects the lack of sense of proportion and real-world relevance that Wikipedia as a whole demonstrates. I would very much hope that wikipedia would reflect the amount of real-world scholarship in these issues in roughly proportionate ways, but it doesn't, and that's why we have WP:CSB and other projects to try to remedy the imbalance between "Super Ultimate FanCyclopedia" and "encyclopedia of all knowledge". --Lquilter 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia is not a notability competition where only the most notable articles are deemed somehow "worthy". - Dravecky 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or let them get deleted. Per the TV MOS and Wikipedia naming conventions, the new article should be List of characters in Firefly, and include only major and significant characters. I strongly suggest those who feel that the individual articles should stay read the original AfD, read the TV MOS, WP:FICT, and WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a complete guide to every show in the world. It is based on real-world verifiability and notability. As another editor already mentioned, for all the minute details of the show, consider a transwiki. AnmaFinotera 20:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in case you didn't notice, it IS a guide to almost every show in the world. Remember: not a paper encyclopedia. And we're not holding a deletion discussion, so can people please stop bringing it up?
  • When all the information from primary sources is removed you can see how little there is from secondary (or tertiary sources) sources. None of the secondary sources are third party (so cannot be considered both independent as required to establish notability in WP:NN). If you read WP:V you will find it says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - so far no reliable, third party sources seem to have been found. [[Guest9999 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]
And so far, you're still deliberately ignoring the truth. I've said it already. Finding Serenity. So what if you think it doesn't count? The rules specifically state it is an objective assessment, not a subjective opinion. And god damn it, but you can't tell me all 21 authors were directly associated with the production of Firefly and keep a straight face. Unless you're completely and utterly insane. Plus, the definition of "reliable" in this context is essentially equivalent to "edited by someone other than the original author". Besides. Once again you're arguing that we DELETE the articles and then concluding from that argument that we should merge them. If they're really as you say, then they SHOULD be deleted. But there was no consensus to delete, and so you'd better start using arguments that are relevant to merging and stop arguing that they should be deleted. IT's the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi. It's like me saying "All humans die. Socrates is a human. Therefore, I have a million dollars buried in my back yard. There's a logical conclusion that can be reached from your argument, but it's not the one you're proposing. And I'd like to point out at this time that just because you're argument is logical doesn't mean it is meaningful. I think your premisses are false, which undermines the soundness of your argument. Maratanos 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What actual purpose would be served by a merge? If the articles do not have sufficient real-world commentary separately, they still won't if you paste them together into one article; they'll just be harder for our readers to navigate. (Remember our readers? The people we're writing an encyclopedia for? The ones who don't want to have to dig into the guts of a 28-page general article or go offsite to a for-profit ad-supported wiki to get the information they're after?) —Cryptic 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the arguements that I have made support the idea that the individual articles should not exist. A merged article would be under a different title and on a different topic about which there may be more real world information available. I would imagine that more has been written about the Characters or Cast of the series as a whole than the individual characters. [[Guest9999 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Also it has been proposed that Finding Serenity could act as a single source for three of the seven characters mentioned, I do not think one source counts as significant coverage even if the source does meet the WP:RS criteria for a secondary source. [[Guest9999 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]
There is nothing saying that a single source cannot be used in seven different articles. This is a red herring. --Cheeser1 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose our views on what the "average" reader is looking for are different. IMO, a reader who turns to wikipedia is most likely looking for an overview, and having to go to ~10 pages for individual characters is a problem. In your view, apparently, the average reader will be looking for detailed information on a single particular character. Is that right? --Lquilter 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We already have an overview in this article. What is being proposed is to remove everything except the overview. Not everyone is looking for the same thing. Why can't we serve both kinds of readers? —Cryptic 23:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in all likelyhood, the average reader won't even visit ANY Firefly pages unless Random Article dumps them there. Many of the more pop-culture-related articles are not designed for the average reader, but rather those readers who have a basic interest in the topic and/or are fans of the topic. There's a delicate balance, of course, and we do strive to avoid cruft. But catering to the average reader and them alone means Firefly (TV series) probably shouldn't exist. It means ignoring Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Maratanos 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that you weigh in, but I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't vote anymore. A vote that doesn't support itself is essentially useless and probably will be ignored. Maratanos 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Maratanos, your reference to Wikipolicy above supports seperate articles, not a merge: "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic." This is not a paper encyclopedia and thus we have the luxury of having these articles separate. You are also wrong to say that we don't vote; we absolutely vote, the non-democracy is in that a hyper-self-important admin can wholly ignore the vast consensus (vote) and unilaterally make a decision without any sort of cohesive explanation. In that respect, you're right that there is no democracy (read: consensus), but there is absolutely voting. VigilancePrime 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Invert everything VigilancePrime has said and it is correct. We don't vote, which is why VfD was switched to AfD. And we do ask that editors who contribute to a debate provide their rationale and reasoning, grounded in the policy or guideline they feel is relevant. And we operate according to consensus, which is helpfully defined: it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. This is why I suggest editors who feel strongly about this topic weigh in on the debate at WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:RS & WP:NOT, which are the relevant policies that make it clear the content of these articles do not aspire to the standards that consensus has elaborated. Eusebeus 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That is naive thinking. Admins have overridden consensus before. Even recently. To think that it's not voting is ignorant. Sometimes, I think that's best that it is not based on a vote, but more often than not, it is counter-productive. Suddenly there seems to be some huge push toward deletionism on Wikipedia, and that's a shame. Things in articles are being contested for the sole purpose of contesting them. I looked through some histories and agree that man edits done under he guise of WikiPolicy were solely for the purpose of being disruptive. This aggressive deletionist "movement" is just as bad to Wikipedia as vandalism, and it is more subversive because it purports to be backed up by policy. These deletionists will change their arguments each time their point is countered and continue fighting against articles that are well-referenced or common information. But this is all academic and fruitless as those vehement deletionists are manically dedicated to victory, even to the detriment of the very articles they claim to support. VigilancePrime 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, hope then that our vehemence will eventually lead us evil-doers to delete the policies that we currently have in place. That'll show us. Eusebeus 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Couple things need to be said. If you READ what I SAID, you'd notice that I am agreeing that there should be no merge. I merely pointed out that no indeed, we don't vote. Even though I agree with Spaceriqui, it doesn't change the situation that their vote without any sort of justification is likely to be completely ignored. Eusebeus is right, we don't vote. However, Eusebeus is also tragically mistaken in several key regards. WP:FICT and WP:N do not mention anything about articles on fictional characters, and indeed, there has been a completely different de facto standard for quite some time. I had thought I had said this already, but I don't see it anywhere, so here it goes again. Look at other fictional universes. Buffy. Discworld. The Ender's game universe. I would wager that the majority of articles on fictional characters fall into exactly the same category as the Firefly characters: mostly in-universe information. Maybe that should change. Maybe not. But I don't see a huge amount of evidence that this whole shebang is consensus anymore. You can't argue that it is because of your definition of consensus because neither of those pages are "policies". So in the context, consensus must be determined from practice. I've shown you practice. Next up is reliable sources. You cite WP:RS. Fine. But Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples brings up an interesting point, despite it being only an essay. The general standard for reliable sources is that they are academic and peer-reviewed. This simply doesn't work for most of popular culture, though. So we end up using primary source material and the occasional essay. This is rampant within articles on fictional characters. Consensus is once again defined by practice (remember that WP:RS is not a policy). And since Verifiability has never really been in question, I don't see how you can logically pull that in, even though it IS a policy. I would also like to see what you mean by WP:NOT. As I said, I think the most useful item on that page is the part about it not being a paper encyclopedia. Maratanos 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I'd question your statement that WP:FICT does "not mention anything about articles on fictional characters" - as it cites several example cases of character pages such as Superman and Prince Hamlet and states:"Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of characters... within a work of fiction.". WP:NOT#PAPER which you mentioned states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines. These guidelines and policies include the ones discussed above and WP:NOT#PLOT which says :Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis. I have highlighted some parts in order to try and better illustrate my point. [[Guest9999 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Maybe you're right. But you're still arguing that we should delete the articles, which we've already proven there's no consensus to do. Irrelevant conclusion. Doesn't really help your case. Can we please start having arguments about flaws that a merger would help? There's one thing you could possibly explain to me, though. Why do guidelines take precedence over de facto standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maratanos (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I am arguing that the individual articles should be removed, this can be done by merging them. The article that would result from a merge would be under a different title and about a different topic which may meet all appropriate polcies/guidelines as it likely that there has been greater coverage of the characters/cast as a whole rather than individually. [[Guest9999 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Great. Can we see some numbers on that? Comparing the number of articles on the cast as a whole over the characters individually? That's your idea, so burden of proof is on you. Maratanos 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
And I will once again remind you that there is nothing telling us we can't use the same source for several separate articles. The fact that such a source supports them all in no way tells us that such a source can only support a merged version. Take the obvious example of several articles of related academic material, all supported by a textbook that covers a larger portion of the relevant subject matter. (e.g. Product rule, Quotient rule, Power rule, Derivative, Antiderivative, etc; all can be supported by a single calculus text - some subset of those even by a single section of a text - and yet they clearly merit their own articles.) --Cheeser1 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the same source can be used in several different articles in order to verify information within the articles, however a sources (or even multiple sources) about the cast/characters as a whole could not be used to establish notability of the charcacters individually, notability is not inherited.[[Guest9999 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Well, yes. And no. Because as Sshsilver has established, we have evidence to support the idea of Derrial Book being notable at the very least, given his article dedicated to him specifically in the aforementioned book "Finding Serenity". But we could also argue, based on this evidence, to have only one article for both Zoe and Wash, given the fact that there is one article for both of them in the same book. We couold also have no articles for the rest of the characters, or even clump them all in a merger like you suggest. But how stupid do you want to go here? Maybe we should have no article at all for Kaylee, and a stub for Mal? Consistency is important. It's more important that notable subjects have their own article than that non-notable ones don't. So consistency argues that since Book is notable, all by himself, we should probably have an article each.Maratanos 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Once more, for posterity. I see you brandishing the "not inherited" stick quite a lot. Tell me, then. Why is it only an essay? If this actually represents some sort of meaningful interpretation, if your cherished consensus is so, why isn't it a guideline or a policy? Where is it said that I should listen to what this dude who wrote the essay said? Why should I CARE what he thinks? ... And I quote: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged " Maratanos 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've only linked to WP:ATA once in this essay. The example directly above. Every other link that I've given has been to a guideline, policy or fundamental principle. The reason I linked to an essay was, in a word, laziness. I belive that notability is not inherited and that this view is supported by the core polcies and guidelines for inclusion. However rather than explaning why I think that this is the case it was easier to link to an essay which gave an explanation for me which roughly matches my own views. [[Guest9999 07:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument: "Lately, those who seek deletion of various articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion have become quite aggressive in posting rebuttals to those who disagree with their arguments. These rebuttals are frequently buttressed with reference to various policies or guidelines, which are wielded with the zeal associated with Bible-waving preachers." (But then again, like many of the so-called policy references, "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." VigilancePrime 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-opened

Moving Forward

Ok, we need to find some kind of a solution here to bring this content up to standard. Let's review:

  • It is true that a cabal of evil-doers are intent on ruining Wikipedia for everyone, and particularly for beleaguered Firefly fans who are in dire need of an encyclopedic repository for in-universe details to cover the minutiae of character and plot development.

  • It is further true, that these same editors seem blindly to insist upon the use of policies and guidelines to maintain encyclopedic standards, without regard to the larger need for fans to have a place for checking why Jayne dropped all that money, or the intricacies of Inara's Buddhism. People this stuff matters.

  • It is further true that many committed fans have stood up to the crass wikilawyering of those who insist that sitewide policies and guidelines be applied to these articles. They make the case that a merge would serve no purpose, that merges are being forced upon people by Admins with God-complexes, that we might as well delete Presidents of the US, that consensus simply doesn't exist to merge, or that there are thousands of quality secondary sources that exist but time is needed for improvement, or that 9 individual articles are just fine and that we need this content and could we just like please stop ruining wikipedia for everybody, please? or simply no case at all.
  • It is finally true that reviewing the discussion, there is clear consensus to merge. Per this, that, the other, some more crap, I don't know what this is and any other policies and guidelines that VigilancePrime reminds us not to link to, there is overwhelming consensus that fictional articles should focus primarily on the real-world significance of the subject. The question was whether that real-world significance exists and, if so, was it substantiated. Numerous editors have noted above that it simply does not, that such significance has not been demonstrated. As a result, a merge to a list of major characters article is the best-practice solution as determined by consensus at Wikipedia.
  • Thus, per consensus, the character articles shall be merged into a single article per our conventions. There are two basic choices.
    1. Determine the best way to carry out such a merge, or
    2. Take this to dispute resolution.
  • I will note, by way of conclusion, that the dispute resolution process makes paramount the existence of sitewide policy and guidelines so the net result will almost certainly be the same. But it is may be an appropriate avenue when objections to our consensus-driven sitewide policies & guidelines remain steadfast. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahem...in the future might I also remind you of WP:Civility as your name calling is unnecessary, inappropriate, and, if continued, will get you banned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You do not have to call a specific editor a name to still be considered being uncivil behavior. Even if you were actually just attempting to be sarcastic, it was unnecessary and served no actual purpose in furthering the conversation. And sorry, I meant blocked not banned. Usually you'd get a short block when you are uncivil to let you cool down and take a step back (though with your current history, it might be possible that you would get a longer ban). I'm not threatening to request you get banned, I'm trying to remind you to remember there are policies about behavior and trying to get you to think before you tirade. I am firmly on the side of merging these character and episode articles, so I'd hate to have someone who is doing the same get temp banned because of a momentary loss of temper. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Another point, too. If there still is unreconcilable differences after further discussion, the appropriate thing to do is dispute resolution or possibly a deletion review. I would like to point out, though, that neither is likely to make much ground unless you can first prove that you genuinely attempted to resolve the differences through more standard means. This may be difficult indeed, given the fact that your first attempt at resolution is a threat. An ultimatum. --Maratanos (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that the purpose of this reopening is to establish consensus. Whatever the heck you seem to think about it already having been established, Hiding, the admin running this thing, disagrees. He's the opinion that counts. There is no consensus yet. As such, the only way I forsee consensus being formed is by the addition of new information. I can endeavor to find new information to support my opinion, but in the absence of new information from your perspective, I doubt we'll make much progress. Resolutions to arguments are not reached by repeating the same things over and over. --Maratanos (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't respond, but since I was personally called out, I'll point out the obvious fallacies. Firstly, I wouldn't call you an idiot for your writing above (because that would violate Wikipedia's civility guidelines), but I do question your assertion that there was consensus for a merge; I counted 7 in favor of merging and 8 opposed to merging. That, to me, seems like the clearest form of non-consensus. The point of my note to which I believe you refer was that simply listing a littany of policy acronyms is insufficient to demonstrate your case (or anyone else's). This discussion was closed, rightfully so, but because one side couldn't accept the answer, it was reopened. I'm pretty sure that if the discussion had been closed the other way it would not have been reopened; just a guess. This whole "discussion" has turned into a group of staunch deletionists hell-bent on merging articles regardless of other users or consensus, and this is most starkly evidenced by the re-opening of the discussion and your unbelievably ridiculous post above. The persuasion attempt is a transparent attempt to belittle anyone who might oppose you and is not only offensive but irresponsible, damaging those others who would agree that the articles should be merged because it makes the entire group look stupid (and the entire group is not). Ultimately, you've damaged your own case with your tirade. This issue has already been concluded and any further discussion (under the guise of reopening) is irrelevant. Accept it. I've accepted the opposite result in other articles. You win some and you lose some. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I am an idiot, intent on ruining wikipedia for everybody, part of the deletionist cabal that is hell bent on looking as stupid as possible sure, but consensus is global, not local - even my hellbent, deletionist idiocy can figure that out. So I suggest this go to dispute resolution to find out the best way to bring about the merge. Eusebeus (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, good luck. You reopen the discussion with bad faith (you assume that we think you're an idiot) and threats (do it my way or I'll make you, essentially). Indeed, you reopen the discussion, only to discuss something you weren't supposed to (the discussion was reopened to discuss how to improve the individual articles, not whether to merge them). And then you say you're gonna get it done through dispute resolution. I say good luck. I doubt they'll touch your case with a ten-foot pole, the way you handled it. And I am deeply, deeply sorry to others who agree with you. I am sorry that you have ruined their position as thoroughly as you have, due to your handling of it. I am sorry. Maratanos (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • These articles have been "threatened" to be merged for close to three weeks now. Little to nothing has changed in the articles. It's possible to wait for another one or two weeks (as an act of good faith) for interested editors to improve the articles to wikistandard. If nothing happens, the policies and guidelines make the result pretty clear. No opinion against dispute resolution if there is still disagreement. – sgeureka t•c 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must protest. Hiding has said that the discussion was reopened so that people could discuss ways to clean up the articles. It was reopened to continue discussing the underlying issues raised in this debate (emphasis mine). It was reopened, in short, to make the articles, still individual, conform to the policies mentioned by the pro-merge faction. This trust has been violated. This discussion was NOT reopened to continue the discussion of whether or not to merge the characters. But this is exactly what Eusebeus has done. Please prove me wrong. I don't want to assume bad faith, but that's exactly what this reeks of. Maratanos (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That is exactly correct. My dear Maratanos, you are appealing to authority where none exists. Admins are as bound by consensus as anyone else, and as such cannot arbitrarily close off a debate which leaves in place an open problem with respect to our policies and guidelines. Hiding made an error in closing this discussion as "no consensus" by mistakenly reading consensus as local not global, even though global consensus leaves little room for any other possibility than a merge of these articles. You might consider arguing at WP:FICT to change the terms of our existing guidelines (and why not), but as it stands, the opinions of 20 editors on an individual talk page will never outweigh the consensus of the community at large. That consensus requires that the focus of articles on fictional subjects be their real world significance.

      I cannot understand why you and others are having such a hard time understanding that. This is what I was trying to state above, in my own idiotic fashion. But let me be even clearer: this content will be merged per our policies and guidelines unless that global consensus changes. If we cannot work out the terms of a merge here, then the best remedy is for a merge to be imposed via dispute resolution. I would have already been bold and merged them if I didn't know ahead of time that it would lead to an edit war. So the purpose of this discussion is not to work out how to improve the articles, since it has been fairly conclusively demonstrated that there is little to no real-world significance here. Instead it is to determine the best way to merge the content to a character list article.

All that said, none of this precludes any improvement to these articles to bring them up to the required standard by demonstrating clear real-world significance backed up by independent reliable sources that are verifiable. If editors are so convinced that these should stand, why has no effort been made to do so. When that happens, this debate ends immediately since no-one disputes that fictional characters with demonstrable out-of-universe significance merit individual articles. Eusebeus (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you lied. Here's why. The lie began when Hiding made this comment to your talk page. He asserts that "the consensus in the debate was that the articles could be improved". The lie continues when you say "I don't disagree with any of that" in response. And now the lie is straight out in the open, when you just said "it has been fairly conclusively demonstrated that there is little to no real-world significance".
You also deliberately manipulated this debate's reopening. You knew that you wanted it reopened so that you could propone a merge. Hiding reopened it because "You just want to open the debate to continue discussing the issues?". Yet you abused his misunderstanding of your intent to further your position.
But enough of that. You may have committed some errors previously in the debate, but that is no reason that you cannot continue to argue in a reasonable fashion. Therefore, here is my proposal to you, all of that aside. You say that global consensus supports a merger. The logic I have seen that supports this is that the cast is notable as a whole but not individually. Here it is. Find a reliable, third-party source that establishes the notability of the cast as a whole. Then agree to look at mine that support notability individually.
If you can't do that, then the notability argument is null. If it is null, then you must have another. I expect you do have another, too. Thus, the alternative to my original proposal is to tell me what this other is, bearing in mind that this argument cannot be a reason for deletion. Reasons for deletion may include "this, that, the other, some more crap, and I don't know what this is". Reasons for a merger must make it abundantly clear how the situation is changed by decreasing the number of articles. Bear in mind that "changed" must refer to how the decreased number of articles resolves your so-called issues with, again, "this, that, the other, some more crap, and I don't know what this is".
Of course, it would be entirely valid at this point to continue to use these arguments in favor of deletion, so long as they are labeled as such. You are perfectly within your right to argue that the character pages should be deleted. Don't expect me to agree with you, though. But the real argument can only begin when the fake argument ends. When the logic is no longer flawed. Maratanos (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Merging articles has the same effect as deletion in that it removes the article from Wikipedia. The only difference is that with merging there is some guarantee that a certain amount of the content of article(s) will remain - ableit in a different location (although this can happen following a deletion). The policies/guidelines mentioned say that Wikipedia should not have articles on certain topics due to their content or lack of notability. By merging these articles Wikipedia would no longer have articles on these topics - meaning that the action of merging would satisfy the requirement of the guidelines and policies mentioned. Since deletion and merging have the one common outcome - the removal of the article - the same arguements may apply for both. The real question here is whether the merged article that would be created would meet the polcies/guidelines mentioned; if not then deletion may have been a more suitable route. However even if this was thought to be the case going from having seven articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria to one article that does not meet the inclusion criteria would still seem to be a positive step and reason enough to proceed with the merge. It should also be noted that the result of the original AfD that lead to this discussion was that there was no consensus to delete and that there was no consensus to keep the articles in their current form - there is an impetus for change.[[Guest9999 (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. The number of articles isn't the relevant point, it's the amount of content. Surely you can see that. And surely you can also see that if you're gonna respect the "no consensus to delete" and use it in your argument, you'd better respect the "no consensus to merge". Remember: this discussion was not reopened to continue arguing on whether or not to perform a merge. Maratanos (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to improve character articles?

[Sorry to jump in] I've been taking a long hiatus from WP in general and thought I'd get my toes wet again and just saw this discussion. As someone who worked very hard on this article to bring it to FA and also started WP:FIREFLY can I ask an indulgence to give me time to read all of the above before any mergers or deletions happen? I just started skimming it and wanted to post this link: Style guide, more specifically the guide on writing a character article. I started trying to clean the articles of cruft over a year ago and took a stab at having Malcolm Reynolds conform to this (but a quick glance at that page right now shows that some stuff has been added since I last saw it that seems crufty). Thanks! --plange (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your time; no merge is impending. The result was "having no consensus to merge", despite what anyone else seems to think. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool. And just as a background, here's where I left off on working on improving the articles (from over a year ago): http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Guidelines -- maybe since I'm trying to get re-involved in a minimal way (baby steps) I'll try and work on improving the articles to conform to the guidelines we hammered out back then. --plange (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can add content to the articles such that they conform to our guidelines and policies, then that would be most desirable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's always been the intention of WP:FIREFLY (see our own guidelines that I hammered out with WAF) it's just slow-going.... I worked on Book last nite. --plange (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Very good job. If the other character articles were even half (or one third) as good, or if two of the remaining characters would demonstrate the same kind of kickass treatment, this whole merge discussion would probably swing the other direction immediately. – sgeureka t•c 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there agreement to hold off on applying the rules while we try to get the character pages to be encyclopedic and conform to WP:V and WP:FICT? How about we start with Book and Inara, and if by 2007-12-15 they're not up to scratch their info gets merged into Firefly (TV series) and Serenity (film). Then onto Jayne and Kaylee, Mal, River and Simon, and Wash and Zoe? The character articles that end up encyclopedic stay individual articles, the stubs can either stay in the series and movie articles, or go to List of characters in the Firefly universe which incorporates sourced encyclopedic info from List of minor characters in the Firefly universe (which is up for deletion)? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-08t17:07z

Mal was never up for debate as his article has already been fine. Book is (I think) also no longer up for the merge, as his article was significantly improved. If some non-trivial progress in the other articles is obvious (in whatever way), the current merge debate becomes moot, at least for me. – sgeureka t•c 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeandré, I think you're missing the point. I appreciate your intent, but the articles have already survived a deletion and a merge movement. There is no discussion on whether to delete or merge, only on how to improve. The outcomes already have been "No Delete" and "No Merge". That's the point. The sooner everyone stops trying to rehash these already-completed debates, the sooner we can collectively begin article improvement. Having looked at a couple, I don't see the problem at all; if one wants to "improve" Wikipedia by removing stubby articles, this is not the place to start by any means. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur - the lack of consensus to delete/merge was established. In such a case, we should be looking to improve the article as we can. We spent enough time on the deletion/merge discussions - it's time to put that effort into fixing the articles. Dragging out the debate (in good faith or bad) about whether or not to delete the articles is simply drawing everyone's effort and attention away from the improvements that can/should be made to the articles, the references we know we have to add, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, Jeandré. Doesn't work like that. There's no deadline. Wikipedia can and will take its time. The so-called "deadline" only comes into play in that if there is no evidence that improvement is possible after a period of time, then we act. But we have evidence that there is improvement, so it doesn't really matter if the improvement takes 2 years. Except, of course, that that's not terribly preferable.
I am kindof intrigued, however. I posed the question "how stupid do you want to go" toward the end of the original merge discussion, precisely because I expected that nobody would dream of making half of the characters have their own article and the other half not. It appears, therefore, that I was calling you stupid. For that I will apologize. Now, please get the point? Maratanos (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to refer people to Characters of Carnivàle for an example of a well-written article that sums up the individual characters in a way that is very helpful to Wikipedia readers seeking an encyclopedic overview of the show. Rather than including a lot of in-universe information, and dispersing the core of the real-world informatio over multiple articles, this article condenses the informatio and avoids the problem of too much in-universe stuff. Carnivàle presents similar issues to Firefly since it was a relatively short-lived but critically-acclaimed show with an avid cult following. What do people think of this article? --Lquilter (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent article, and should serve as the Gold standard to which all other character articles from short-lived-but-critically-acclaimed television shows should aspire. Surely looking at that, those editors against a merge can see it serves the characters far better than individual articles. Best regards, Steve T • C 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Have any of othe anti-mergists looked at it and have an opinion? --Lquilter (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yo. I may look at it at some point, however I do not feel it is appropriate that it should be brought up in this manner, given the fact that despite anyone's beliefs, merge discussion is over. Maratanos (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Maratanos, I am relieved to hear that the merge discussion is over thanks to the changes you have achieved to our consensus policies and guidelines over at WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N to allow the resplendence of fancruft.... Now if you could just point me to the revisions in our core policies that allow this cruft to persist, we'll be on our way. Eusebeus (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you plan on participating constructively here, or will you just be sarcastically berating Maratanos? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't really blame the guy; no-one appears to be presenting an argument to the points raised, preferring instead to invoke WP:ILIKEIT. Best regards, Steve T • C 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Those points were all addressed (or not addressed) in a discussion that is closed. The outcome: no merge. Continually bringing up the point smacks of disregarding WP:CONS, and perhaps people should learn to be patient about changes coming about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when was it closed and by whom? Wikipedia:Merge doesn't give any fixed timeline for this, and it does give a specific procedure for closing (which wasn't followed). At any rate there doesn't seem to be consensus, so it seems to me to be still an open discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You're going to tell me that discussion is still going? It's over. There is no consensus. If you want to cite "no timeline, we will discuss this merge forever" fine, but how can you then tell me how frustrating or unfair it is when the "anti-mergists" cite the room for improvement and simply ask that "no timeline for improvement" will give them plenty of time to improve these articles??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, please. I didn't propose "forever"; I said that it seems to still be open and I gave two reasons for that. ... Instead of asserting that it's closed, perhaps you could help to close it by responding substantively to the open points? --Lquilter (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The only open point I see is "these articles don't meet all of the guidelines or essays or whatever." Fine, people will fix it. There are many editors who don't support the merge, and so the merge won't happen. I'm perfectly calm, I'm just astounded that "no timetable" and "this is very frustrating" are being used as a defense for dragging out this issue, when "no timetable" and "this is very frustrating" are exactly why we should move past the merge discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If the past is any indicator, there is little hope that people will "fix it". This discussion will be "dragged out" until people fix the articles to meet WP:FICT (and all the other mentioned policies and guidelines), or until at least singificant improvement is shown. Merge consensus is not formed in this discussion here, but has already been formed in policies and guidelines. User:Plange did a start with Book, but the other articles will need to be improved somehow or merged, if necessary by backup from dispute resolution. If someone wants to avoid the latter, he'll have to make sure the former is met soon (and not just promise it). – sgeureka t•c 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Cheeser, you are a better Wikipedian than your above comments would give you credit for. You know as well as anyone that consensus is global, not local and you as well as anyone know that the accumulation of local sentiment never supercedes global policies and guidelines and you also know that if there is no demonstrable ability to bring articles into conformity with those guidelines then remedial measures should be taken in order to uphold the standards of the project, standards which you yourself are actively involved in maintaining in other areas. I expect churlish ostrichisms from Maratonos, but not from you. Eusebeus (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the point I make of consensus. Surely, we can respect the policies and guidelines formed by a general consensus, but their application in every single case isn't automatically what you say it is. In the end, you've already decided that you speak for consensus, and that you know the articles will never be fixed (and that you'll drag out the argument until they are - delaying progress indefinitely). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser is correct that the application of policies is subject to dispute. If Cheeser is correct that we were not able to reach consensus on this issue, such that some editors still feel strongly that policy is not being followed, then we go to the next step in dispute resolution. Personally I prefer to keep talking about it on the talk pages. (Especially since I've been largely a reader of these pages and only lately a commentator.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hoped that my editing of Mal and Book would prove that it is possible that the articles could be fancruft free and so can stand-alone as articles. I've been extremely busy with the holidays so have not been able to devote time to the others, but I will. My understanding of merge is that articles need to be shown that they can't stand-alone ever, and so should be merged, not that since they aren't completely conforming to WP standards they need to be merged. There are tons of articles that don't and editors are slowly but surely devoting their energy to improving them. However, it should not be used as a blunt-force tool to force people to improve the articles or else. Many merge debates do force improvement (which is great!) but if it's shown they can be improved and can stand alone, isn't that enough? --plange (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really enough (see WP:FICT#Notable topics). The problem isn't so much possible article improvement, but that (except for Mal and Book) these character articles neither meet WP:NOT#PLOT nor establish WP:NOTABILITY, i.e. WP:FICT, and therefore shouldn't have been created in the first place (per the "new" WP:FICT updated in summer). The plot, quotes and trivia should be trimmed/cut independent of the outcome of this debate, leaving stubs that can/should be merged per WP:FICT. The other option is improvement, or to show that people are seriously working on them. Most merge discussions end in fans promising improvement which never happens. There's little point in counting the number of weeks where a merge threat was upon these articles with little happening (except for Book, thanks to your work), but I hope you get the idea why some people (non-fans) here recommend a (temporary) merge instead of waiting for something that may never come. The merge can be undone anytime as soon as people wish to work on them. – sgeureka t•c 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting ready to merge

Seeing that these articles have been under a constant threat of merging, little has happened in 7 weeks except for User:Plange's work on Book.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Waiting any longer for the improvement promises to be fulfilled obviously achieves little to nothing, so I'll merge the fictional biography sections and the bits of real-world information of everyone but Mal and Book next week. If someone doesn't agree with that and is prepared to getting into revert wars, please read WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters#Final decision and think again. Otherwise, we can start a dispute resolution next week, but without someone improving the articles to meet WP:FICT and co, the result is pretty much set for a merge. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. If you intend to move forward with this, I AM taking this to dispute resolution. Per User talk: Hiding and User talk:Eusebeus, it is clear that there has been no justification for continued debate over a merger for quite some time now, and indeed the debate was reopened in bad faith. Furthermore, precedent clearly differs from your suggestion. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and policies and guidelines are intended to document precedent rather than define it. Precedent as shown by other television shows and fictional universes is overwhelmingly in favor of individual articles for major characters. In addition, WP:FICT is a policy on notability and as such only requires that it be possible to document notability within the article, not that such documentation is in fact in place at any given point in time. There is no rule set in stone that requires notability qualifications to be written into the article at any particular schedule and existing commentary by contributors places this much closer to an issue of limited time to dedicate to the pages than to non-notability. And finally, allow me to say, what in the god damn hell are you thinking? "but Mal and Book"? Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world, picking a quarter of the cast to have individual articles and 3/4 not to. Next, let's merge these two articles and then keep them separate from this. I bet we could find evidence to support the belief that there's more written analysis of the Return of the King than the first two novels. And odds are, this evidence would be just as biased as the evidence that Mal and Book are more important than the other seven cast members. I mean, seriously. What would you call it, anyway? Non-notable Characters of Firefly? Major Characters of Firefly except for Mal and Book? Merging only seven of the articles without coming up with a better name is something I will make every effort to show as patently ridiculous. Let's not be stupid. Besides, we've already established that Zoe and Wash have analysis on them, and there's not much to show that it's any less than there already is on Mal and Book. And a cursory check of the other articles reveals a feminist perspective of Inara. So you're really not doing to well here. If you're gonna go ahead with this, I'm taking it to dispute resolution. Maratanos (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Re "possible to document notability within the article, not that such documentation is in fact in place at any given point in time.", see WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
As for the Lord of the rings books, nobody's sugegsting they're not notable or that there isn't lots of secondary sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-10t20:54z
Er, I'm not seeing any actual reason (or consensus) to merge the articles... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec w/EVula) I'm not particularly interested in escalating this dispute, but I am going to agree with Maratanos in the sense that you, Sguereka, are not the Herald of Fiction Policy on Wikipedia. The result of the merge discussion was no consensus, and you've declared otherwise because apparently your interpretation of policy vetoes consensus. I find this troubling. I support keeping the articles separate, even though they need some work, because sources and improvements seem possible. I wouldn't mind a merge, but I feel like that will discourage (or at least not help) the appropriate expansion that we know is at least possible. You can argue Wiki-philosophy all day about local vs. global consensus, but we still have discussions for a reason. That reason is to apply global consensus, precedent, guidelines, and policy to a specific situation. The fact that your interpretation is not the one reached by the discussion is not, prima facie, invitation for you to invoke some higher power and rule in your own favor. While I would not question your intent, I would agree that this process has been dubious - the discussion ended with no consensus and was reopened on the condition that the provisional decision "keep, no consensus to merge" was not to be immediately disregarded/ignored (which is what happened). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(response to several) Read WP:FICT#Notable topics closely. In-universe importance is completely unimportant, real-world coverage matters. The articles for Mal and Book have some real-world coverage and are/should be allowed to stay, the other characters don't. A recent arbcom case confirmed that I could redirect these article and get away with it, so wikiwide consensus is also clear. The only bad faith I'm seeing is that people did not believe that these articles would be fixed. Two months passed, the perceived bad faith was justified.
Now, to make WP:FICT more obvious, read below (bolded means false). (And no, WP:FICT is not disputed for its definition of notability, but for the deletion-minded actions it seems to encourage. But we're not talking about deletion (or redirection) here but long-debated merging, so WP:FICT is valid.)
Cover_characters_in_main_article;
if(character==notable && article==encyclopedic_treatment) { split; }
else {
if(article==too_long && article==real_world_information) { split; }
else { don't_split or merge; }
}
}
Obviously, now is the time for dispute resolution as local fan consensus should not "win" against wikiwide guideline consensus.– sgeureka t•c 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarcastic pseudocode? "Bad faith was justified"? Let's try to keep this discussion reasonable, please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What is sarcastic about illustrating WP:FICT to those who don't understand it / ignore it? And it's C, not pseudocode. (Okay, the variables and functions are, so strike that.) I never said there was bad faith, but if people misinterpret good faith for allowing time for improvement as bad faith when this time is not used, okay. I'm all for keeping this debate reasonable, but I see others not giving the same courtesy and instead wikilayering about something where WP:FICT is clear. If someone can show where WP:FICT doesn't apply here, I'll happily let this go. If someone doesn't like WP:FICT, then please change consensus there, not here. – sgeureka t•c 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, what tells us that consensus could possibly outweigh our unbreakable rules... nothing I suppose, especially not a discussion that ends with "keep, no consensus to merge." Gosh, I guess there's nothing that indicates that you are not the Grand Interpreter of Fiction Notability Policy Disputed Guideline on Wikipeida. Face it, there are several people questioning your reasoning here, and the only thing you can do is insist that you are right and that your interpretation of policy is absolute truth. There is room for improvement, these characters can/do easily merit their own articles, and there are examples of these characters whose articles have been brought up to meet even your standards. This continued merge discussion, like a merge itself, draws time and energy away from those (admittedly, not I, I have no expertise in this area) who could improve the other articles, and ignores the local consensus, which can easily be understood to overrule your interpretation of a guideline. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly universe. Explaining guidelines in good faith to people not interested in following them is wasted time. – sgeureka t•c 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It remains mysterious why editors insists upon interpreting consensus locally instead of globally, despite clear indication to the contrary. Anyway, given the degree of entrenched resistance by fans to local contention over the implementation of policies, mediation is the way to go and I encourage all editors to share their viewpoints. I would, however, suggest that comments like "X is the Herald of Fiction Policy on Wikipedia" as grounds for not implementing policy/guidelines are not always constructive in shaping a course of action; editors should address their concerns to the cabal with specific reference to wikipedia policies that indicate the merge that I and sgeureka have recommended are/are not appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that neither of you can comment on anything without slipping in some objectively-worded comment as if you are already automatically right? Why do you label your opposition as "entrenched fans"? I'm not going to participate in mediation if you've already declared yourselves victors, as if you speak for consensus (despite, gosh, consensus to the contrary). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I can see how that could be read as a jab; I have retracted it and replaced it by what I hope will be considered fairer wording. Eusebeus (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firefly_(TV_series)/Archive_3&oldid=1259585605"