Talk:Rachel Berry

Rachel Berry has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Glee Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Glee task force (assessed as High-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Jewish Women Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Berry (Glee) → Rachel Berry — Relist Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic. I don't think the disambig page is necessary - a hat-note will suffice. This article has averaged 939 views per day this month, compared to Rachel Berry (legislator)'s 12. Frickative 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Relisting Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:RECENTISM, leave the dab in place. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that WP:PT overrules an essay in this instance. It seems clear when this article is receiving upwards of a thousand visits daily, while the other article barely manages a dozen, this is the intended target for the majority of users typing 'Rachel Berry' into the search box. Frickative 05:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Frickative. If nearly 100x times as many people are looking at one article rather than the other, it doesn't make sense to inconvenience them by sending them through the dab page. Propaniac (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's this month. Notability can be measured on much longer timescales than this year's page hits. Searching on Google Books gives significantly more results for the suffragist, unsurprisingly. Knepflerle (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course; one reason would be that people have had about 150 more years to write books giving a passing mention to the legislator compared to the TV character. (And the vast majority of the Google Book hits for the name seem to be genealogical studies not apparently discussing the legislator, either.) I can think of no reason why that should be a factor in this discussion, much less a deciding factor. Per the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, our guiding criteria should be which article users are likely to be seeking when they search for "Rachel Berry." Propaniac (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; no indication this is the primary topic in anything other than the very near future. Knepflerle (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that if, next month, everyone suddenly forgets about one of the top-rated, most influential, and most ardently-adored shows on television, and/or there is a humongous (10,000+%) uptick in interest in this minor politician, pages can be moved again, right? Even taking into account that yes, the show will eventually go off the air and fewer people will be interested in its characters, it seems quite unreasonable to me to suppose that the level of interest in these two articles will be significantly more equal anytime in the next several years. Propaniac (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Somehow I can't bring myself to support a proposal that a fictional character in a television series is the primary topic over a real person. If Glee was set in the fictional town of Leeds, would we also be getting a claim that it was the primary topic over the real city? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

56,000 people viewed the Leeds article last month; 56 people viewed Rachel Berry (legislator). A better comparison would be a very well-known fictional town with the same name as a very small community, in which case the fictional town could very well be the primary topic, and in fact this is already the case for some Wikipedia articles, e.g. Dogpatch, Kings Oak, Walford, Fiddler's Green and Twin Peaks (latter two are slightly different, but they're fictional uses superseding real places as primary topics). Propaniac (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I note that WP:PT says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." A disambiguation page is appropriate. St Anselm (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, however, that Knepflerle's opposition concedes that this subject is the primary topic at present, even if it may not be in the future, while Skinsmoke's opposition is based on the invalid assumption that being fictional and being a primary topic are mutually exclusive states. Frickative 21:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such assumption. I said I couldn't bring myself to support it. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the basis that the subject is fictional. Apologies if I have misconstrued your opposition, but if there's more to it than that then you might wish to clarify? Frickative 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm getting kind of tired of seeing the claim, in move discussions, that disagreement between people heeding the guideline and people ignoring it is the same thing as people disagreeing on how to best meet the guideline, which is what the "extended discussion" is referring to. The beginning of the guideline is clear that the relevant criteria is which topic is most likely to be sought by readers, and it does not distinguish on the basis of topics being fictional or frivolous. Propaniac (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Frickative and 100 times greater or more the Glee character is viewed per day, or at least redirect Rachel Berry to the Glee character with a diambig note at the top linking to the legislature. CTJF83 chat 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Musical Influences: Bernadette Peters

On the "Rachel Berry (Glee)" page it says "Patti LuPone - in Dream On, when Rachel is investigating her past, she suspects Broadway star Patti LuPone is her mother." in the "Musical Influences" section. It should be noted that in Dream On, after explaining to Jesse St. James why LuPone is her mother Rachel comments, "Do you want to hear my investigation on why Bernadette Peters is my mother?" I beleive that Bernadette Peters should be added to Rachel's "Musical Influences" setion, as so: "Patti LuPone and Bernadette Peters - in Dream On, when Rachel is investigating her past, she suspects Broadway star Patti LuPone or Bernadette Peters is her mother" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.121.63 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same episode, I would like to add that Rachel claims she was named after a main character of Friends, which wasn't around until late 1994, while Rachel should have been born in 1993? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.117.61 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus that the Glee character is the primary topic. An appeal to recentism was made in this discussion, which is something to consider, but consensus in this case at least seems to be that the overwhelming likelihood that readers are looking for the Glee character outweighs this concern. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Berry (Glee) → Rachel Berry — Article is a primary topic. It has been viewed 76,489 times in the last 30 days [1] compared to the legislator's 482.[2] I don't see the disambiguation page necessary. A hate note can cover it. --HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the disambiguation page is fine where it is. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there should be a move notice placed on the talk page for the disambiguation page and the politician's talk page. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If anything, the legistator's page could be moved over the disambig. I wouldn't want to see a fictional character prioritized over an elected official; and with 76,489 hits in an avg. month at its current location, the Rachel Berry (Glee) article is doing just fine :) No move needed. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation - Much as I love the thought of hate notes (as opposed to hatnotes) for any glee character, it probably isn't very NPOV. :-) dramatic (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I dislike the idea of making fictional characters a primary topic over real people, whether they get more hits or not. There's something very creepy about it! In any case, Glee is currently flavour of the month, but I doubt if it will be forever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and precedent. The subject of an article being fictional in no way precludes it from also being the primary topic. This is why the Torchwood character is at Jack Harkness, not the footballer; the Neighbours character is at Bridget Parker and not the equestrian; the X-Files character is at John Doggett and not the politician or columnist; the Simpsons character is at Maggie Simpson and not the musician. These are examples from our GA content on fictional characters. For an example of process in action, Twilight character Edward Cullen was moved over the disambiguation page by community consensus, although the features writer, bishop and politician are all real people. As to the recentism argument: almost a full year on from the initial discussion, the disparity in views between the two articles has only grown more pronounced. In April 2010, 'Rachel Berry (Glee)' received 78 times the amount of hits 'Rachel Berry (legislator)' did. That's now grown to 159 times. If that changes in the future, there is no reason the articles cannot be moved again, but it remains that for the vast majority of Wikipedia users searching for Rachel Berry, this is the primary target and should be treated as such. Frickative
Support per Frickative, I also disagree that a fictional character can't be the main topic. CTJF83 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The topic is clearly the more primary subject. The disambiguation page is not necessary. 174.139.114.98 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frickative, There is nothing that states that a fictional character can't be the main topic in any WP:Policy so let it be.--King High 05:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frickative. As other editors said, fictional characters can easily be the main characters. In addition, the politician has been dead for over 60 years, and hasn't really done that much notable things. JDDJS (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frickative. I think it's safe to say that the topic has clearly become the primary topic. Yves (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frickative. Gamaliel (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:TWODABS. Powers ^T 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rachel Berry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]