Jump to content

Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources

[edit]

Per WP:WPNOTRS, Wikipedia articles are user-generated content and are not considered to be reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I have removed all Wikipedia articles cited as sources in the article. If these are relevant to the information being discussed, then they should added as simple Wikilinks and not inline citations. Since these Wikipedia articles were the only "sources" being cited, the article is now not supported by a single reliable source. Therefore, I have also added a {{Unreferenced}} to the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centric episode(s)

[edit]

A discussion regarding the meaning and value of listing "Centric episode(s)" in the character infobox has been started at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Character page infoboxes - "Centric episode(s)". Please feel free to join discussion if interested. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article

[edit]

Thelonggoneblues, regarding this, the article should be moved back; it should be moved back per WP:Common name. She is not primarily known by her full name; she is mainly known as "Sasha"; her full name can go in the WP:Lead, however. You can see a similar discussion at Talk:Andrea (The Walking Dead). If you still want to move the article after what I've stated, you can take the matter to WP:Requested moves. I'll give you and others some time to reply. But I will be moving the article back unless a solid rationale can be made for keeping this article at the full name. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, Andrea is different. Harrison is not her confirmed last name. Williams was confirmed as Sasha and Tyreese's last names, most fans identify their last names as Williams anyway and have for quite a while, the releases for action figures identify Tyreese's last name as "Williams", etc. Carol Peletier and Glenn Rhee are not primarily known by her full names either, yet their names are fully recognized as the article name, because that's what people recognize to distinguish her from other Carols or Glenns (it brings uniqueness). Andrea's name is not listed as "Harrison" because we really don't know. Kirkman has even dissociated himself from that game where the name is mentioned as a random Easter Egg. The point being, it's a selling point within marketing and fans know them as this. thelonggoneblues (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not different as far as WP:Common name goes, and the fact that you are adding the name "Williams" based on season 5 DVD commentary. That is not an aspect of the show. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is Glenn "Rhee". That's just something Mazzara's said on Twitter. thelonggoneblues (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Rhee is supported by the official website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Sasha is supported by the actual DVD commentary for the 5th season. That's my point. That was officially renamed from "Glenn" to "Glenn Rhee" after Glen Mazzara made that tweet (although the site does post erroneous plot information regardless but it's still true). The same will be for Sasha once promotional character images for next season appear now that the info is out. But Glenn's name has never, ever been officially stated on the TV series, yet the article of the character on Wikipedia is "Glenn Rhee". There's no reason why Sasha Williams should be removed unless Glenn Rhee is removed as well. Nevertheless, I think both should stay for distinction. thelonggoneblues (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated, WP:Common name is what matters here. The Glenn Rhee article also shouldn't be titled "Glenn Rhee" if he is only known as "Glenn Rhee" in the television series and yet we never hear any character refer to him as "Glenn Rhee" in that television series. I will be starting WP:Requested move discussions for this article and the Glenn Rhee article. If you want to state anything else on the matter to try to convince me that we should have these articles titled by names the characters are not usually known by, then feel free. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with Flyer22 at this time, unless we can come up with some reliable sources that identify her last name as Williams. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been meaning to mention that the Carol Peletier article should be titled Carol (The Walking Dead). I'll start a WP:Requested moves discussion about that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 ^^That one I would disagree with. Changing Sasha (The Walking Dead) to Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead) was premature on the other users part, I agree, and Glenn Rhee being changed to Glenn (The Walking Dead), I'm sort of indifferent towards but, I do think Carol Peletier is definitely the character's common name at this point, regardless of whether it's appeared in the comics or not.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(started a discussion at the Carol talk page).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Carol Peletier" Carol's common name when not only is she not referred to as that in the comics, but also is not referred to that in the television show, and when the general audience doesn't even call her by her full name? I'm certain that the general audience doesn't know her full name, considering that it's barely used. And by "general audience," I mean the ones who don't research the characters/actively discuss the characters online. I'll reiterate this at the discussion you started. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Flyer22. Jim does say "Ed Peletier" in season 1, episode 4, but he says it very passively, and it's very easy to miss. Daryl Dixon, Rick Grimes, the Greenes and maybe Bob Stookey are the only surnames really emphasized. thelonggoneblues (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least with Daryl Dixon, his name has been used within the series more than once and a lot fans use his full name in a "more than just in passing" way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would add about Carol is that in one first season episode, one character (I think Shane) definitely does call her husband "Ed Peletier" by his full name. BOZ (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit, after I made this edit earlier on, motivated me to go ahead and start the move discussion below. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something I had never noticed until now that I'm getting myself prepared for your 24 hour clock to expire is that "that edit" of yours (the one you felt the need to point out was made before "that edit" of mine) was actually made after this edit of mine. Immediately after. The edit I made after yours was a whole 6 days later (and had 5 other edits made by someone else in between). I wonder why you left that part out, Flyer? I wonder why you felt the need to state I had edited after you but, never bothered to point out that you had also (not only) edited after me (but... also immediately after me)? Hmm.............Cebr1979 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning not moved. The OP actually makes a reasonable case in my judgement, but it has been nearly unanimously objected to here and those objecting have also made a decent case. Clearly there is not a consensus to move and arguably there is a consensus against the move, either way these articles aren't going anywhere in the near future. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Per the #Title of this article section above, these characters are mostly known by their first names, not by their full names, and the full names have barely been used. In a few of these cases, as you can see, the articles are already disambiguated; so disambiguating further with a name they are barely known by is overkill. Similar to what I argued at Talk:Andrea (The Walking Dead)#Move article title back to Andrea (The Walking Dead)?, the current titles do not adhere to the WP:Common name policy. And I don't think we should be giving WP:Undue weight to what a character is occasionally known by. From what I can see, these articles should follow the same path as the Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article. Faith's last name was revealed in a role-playing game and has been used for subsequent material relating to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, but she is most commonly simply known as Faith and therefore that is the title of her Wikipedia article. Also take note that, in contrast to Sasha Williams, Tyreese's Wikipedia article is still titled Tyreese instead of Tyreese Williams. I will alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics and Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series) to this discussion. I will also leave a note about it at the talk pages of the aforementioned articles I am proposing to move. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that a bot has already left a note about this move discussion at the talk pages of the character articles in question. Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added Sophia Peletier to the list after my "07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If characters have last names, they should be used. Being more specific is more encyclopedia-like then having things in brackets. There are redirects so it's not like someone could get lost if looking for simply "Carol (The Walking Dead)." There are more sources that refer to these characters with both their first and last names than simply their first name and then the name of the show in brackets (with the exception of Sasha and Tyreese who only got last names a few weeks ago). In the case of Tyreese, the only reason that page wasn't moved is because you created a redirect before someone else could move it and then reverted all the edits mentioning his last name.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia titles work based on what the WP:Article titles policy states; WP:Common name is a part of that. These characters are not generally know by their last names; that's a fact. And the reason that the Tyreese article wasn't moved seems to be because Thelonggoneblues stopped to listen to what I had to state above. My creating a redirect after this edit stopped no one from moving that article. And I retained his last name in his Wikipedia article. That is what the lead is for, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"These characters are not generally know by their last names; that's a fact." I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "fact." Just because you believe something, does not a fact make. Also, you didn't "retain" his last name, you put it back the next day.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done discussing this matter with you. I await other opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion that took a detour from the discussion at hand.
I'm only responding again because you made this addition after I made this addition. Pay better attention to the edit history. This edit indeed shows me retaining his last name. This, this, this and this edit followed, and nowhere in any of these edits did I completely remove his last name. And even if I had reverted all mentions of his last name and added mention of it the next day, that still would have been me retaining it. I am attempting to end this discussion with you because you and I do not mesh well (you know that), and there is no need for this discussion to go off-topic or become WP:Too long; didn't read before others weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good to see you now agree on not making things too long. Have a good day.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly what I mean. Anyone wanting backstory can see this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The collapsing was fine where I had it and you clearly don't really believe in keeping things from getting too long.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was fine where I had it as well. This was uncalled for. Are you really going to WP:Edit war over this now, and just because you view my statement as the last word when it's not covered by the template? All it states is "I'm done discussing this matter with you. I await other opinions." It shows that I responded to you on that assertion. It's also a statement you thanked me for via WP:Echo, presumably because I was dropping the matter (my discussion with you). If people want to read more, they know how to click on the template. You unnecessarily continued this discussion, and with WP:Baiting to boot. You are unnecessarily being difficult. I would rather never discuss anything with you, and that won't change. And if I have to get a WP:Interaction ban, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do whatever it is you need to do. I'm not going to fix your collapsing thing again, but I will remind you that your whole point in doing it was to hide unnecessary comments that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand (and you saying you were done with a conversation you clearly aren't done with has nothing to do with the topic at hand but, long conversations are your thing so, I'll let you have this one - anyone who wants to see what I mean can look at this conversation). Lastly, there was no baiting.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you are incorrect on all accounts. For example, your statement of "Well, it's good to see you now agree on not making things too long." is indeed baiting. You soured this discussion the moment you stated "I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'fact.'" What you should do is avoid me instead of go out of your way to join discussions I'm involved in. And I don't mean this discussion; I mean ones like this one, which you no doubt saw from my talk page that you so clearly watch. But go ahead and get the WP:last word, like you always seek to do. You'll be wrong anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't say others are wrong because that's what you are right now. You also really shouldn't use words like "clearly" or terms like "no doubt" when you have nothing to back them up. I don't follow your talk page, Flyer. I saw conversations because I'm a fan of The Walking Dead, not you. I couldn't care less who or what you talk to or about on your talk page. The Emily Kinney conversation I joined in on was because I join in a lot of WD-related conversations. Off the top of my head, I even remember starting one that you were quick to be the first commenter on. I'm logging off now, you can enjoy your last word when you come here and make it. Goodnight.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late note: Try to excuse the bickering going on between me and Cebr1979, if you can. As noted above with links to the tumultuous past, we do not interact well. And as expected, this thread has gotten derailed and any participation that might have resulted has been stunted, which in turn helps to keep these articles titled the way they are. Only recently have the two of us been interacting more. This is because it's only recently that Cebr197 has been editing topics that I edit more and more. For example, Cebr1979 wasn't editing The Walking Dead articles at all that long ago. So Cebr197's assertion that he has edited "a lot of WD-related conversations" on Wikipedia is a stretch. And I certainly did not join in on any such thread Cebr197 started. Again, sorry for this mess. Lend a vote or not. I stated below that "I'm thinking more and more that I'm not hard-pressed on this matter anyway." But I might revisit this matter in the future with a new, clean thread that will not get derailed. If Michonne's last name were to be revealed, for example, and editors insisted on including it in her title, and cited this thread as precedent for including it, I'd be very much against it. And if a move discussion resulted from that, I'm certain that the article would stay titled Michonne. That might also cause me to again propose that these other articles be moved to their common names. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you are absolutely ridiculous. Stop implying my world revolves around you! You are not that important. I do edit a lot of WD-related pages and I have been doing so for some time. I also join in on a lot of WD-related conversations and none of those things are because of or have anything to do with you so, rather than telling others to "excuse the bickering," why don't you just stop with the phony insinuations and coded-accusations. You're whining and attempting to create drama where there just shouldn't be any. Hope you enjoyed your last word, I knew you'd come make it and I knew it'd be... well... I knew it'd be you. Oh, and look at this! A WD-thread that I started and you were the first commenter on.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to check a person's edit history, such as your talk page where editors complain again and again about your disruptive behavior, including your WP:Civil violations. You cause the unnecessary drama each and every time. You were confined to daytime soap opera articles only. Only recently have you been active at The Walking Dead articles. And it's easy for me to tell when someone follows me. I have enough stalkers for someone who is supposedly "not that important." As for that Carol discussion, that discussion technically started here; it continued there because you took it there. And as for the last word, I wasn't replying to you. Either way, I have let you get the last word times over, including on my own talk page when I could have just reported you to WP:ANI for harassment, and at this talk page. So you complaining about not getting the last word here is silly. Anyway, go ahead and get it again; I'm ignoring you now for the duration of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That whole post, Flyer, is lies and paranoia. You also need to look up the meaning of the word "confined." I've never been confined anywhere on wikipedia. I don't even know of a case where anyone has been confined anywhere on wikipedia. And you were replying to me. I'm the only other person in this collapsed thread you made. This "boo hoo everyone is out to get me and only pretends to like things because I do" bit of yours has long since grown stale. I'm also going to point out that when you think you're winning, making a conversation "too long" with off-topic remarks is not a problem but, when it looks like you're losing, suddenly conversations need to be "re-started at a later date because they're too long and being stunted." *sigh*Cebr1979 (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go responding with more nonsense, I will point out that, although I do edit a lot of soap opera-related pages, my very first edit ever was comics-related (just like The Walking Dead is). It wasn't until 10 months later that I made my first soap opera edit. So, before you try to discredit me again in the future, get your facts straight. I hardly went through 5 television seasons worth of my life just so I could have an excuse to edit a few of the same pages on wikipedia that you do.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they have last names, I think last names should be provided. Even if they're commonly known by their first name only, it's unlikely a reader looking for something about Sasha won't realize Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead) is the same thing. Plus, it pre-emptively prepares for when a new character named Sasha Smith (or whatever) shows up. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argento Surfer, despite the outcome seen at Talk:Andrea (The Walking Dead)#Move article title back to Andrea (The Walking Dead)?, you feel this way in the case of Andrea and Amy as well? Why should we include these last names despite the WP:Common name policy? Why should these The Walking Dead character articles be the exception to the rule, when cases like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) adhere to the rule? The only benefit I can see in having these articles use the last names is that it will make the last names more popular due to Wikipedia's popularity; the last names turn up in all these search results because of Wikipedia and sites following Wikipedia's lead. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promotional purposes such as that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:Common name, I don't think it supports using first names only for fictional characters. All the examples listed there either include surnames (Bill Clinton) or they're aliases (Bono). It's a stretch to say these characters are commmonly known by their first name only. That's true of pretty much everybody. Citing Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is just an WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS arguement with lots of counter examples. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argento Surfer, if WP:Common name didn't support using first names only for fictional characters, very experienced Wikipedia editors would not have supported the Talk:Andrea (The Walking Dead)#Move article title back to Andrea (The Walking Dead)? matter based on WP:Common name. Furthermore, there wouldn't be other cases like that on Wikipedia. And citing such cases or the Faith case is fine, per precedent and the WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS WP:Essay being very clear that "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid. I've given a policy-based reason for my rationale on this matter. WP:Disambiguation is also a factor, as there is no need to further disambiguate something that is already sufficiently disambiguated. I'm not seeing any valid reason given for keeping these last names; all I'm seeing so far in support of these last names is WP:ILIKEIT. Stating that "It's a stretch to say these characters are commmonly known by their first name only. That's true of pretty much everybody." is an odd argument, given that these characters' last names are barely ever mentioned in the television show and/or in the comics, unlike many other characters. Various other characters are known to the general public by their first and last names because of the consistent use of those names in their mediums. The average The Walking Dead viewer knows that Rick Grimes's last name is Grimes. Can it be stated that the average The Walking Dead viewer knows that Carol Peletier's last name is Peletier? I highly doubt it, since she isn't referred to by that name in the comics, and the one way she is referred to by it at all in the medium is, according BOZ, "in one first season episode [where a character, possibly Shane calls] her husband 'Ed Peletier' by his full name." That is an indirect reference, and shouldn't even be counted for support. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the names aren't reliably sourced, that's a different issue and they shouldn't be used. When they are well documented, I think they should be included in the article title (see: Hermione Granger, Michelle Tanner, and Ross Geller). So, yes, I think the article should be Rick Grimes. If other editors want to avoid surnames for the sake of consistancy, that's fine. I'm willing to abide by consensus, even when I disagree with it. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm thinking more and more that I'm not hard-pressed on this matter anyway. For example, although Carol is generally known by her first name only, and her last name of Peletier is not used in the comics (from what I've been led to believe) nor in the television show except for a reference to Ed Peletier in the first season, there are WP:Reliable sources that use her full name. I think that the Wikipedia articles using these characters' relatively unknown last names helped significantly popularize these last names on the Internet. I don't see that we should use the last names for these articles simply because the names are official. WP:Common name goes over the official name aspect. But anyway, I'll abide by WP:Consensus on this matter as well; it's not like I could go against it anyway if spotted violating it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rick's last name is used frequently in the series, as is Daryl's. As far as I can recall, the rest of the main characters throughout the series never or hardly ever have their last name mentioned. Mostly their names are used on the internet, including AMC's website. I would say that if AMC uses the name in their own materials, then we can retain it. Otherwise, the article title is unofficial and should be moved to a version with no last name. BOZ (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Rhee is supported by the official website, as is Peletier for both Carol and Sophia. Walsh is confirmed for Shane just like Horvath has been confirmed for Dale. Sasha and Tyreese are both Williams from the show's DVD set. These are reliable sources and definitely help to make both first and last names common for these characters. The Andrea argument above is different in that the only source to reveal Harrison... is a toy made by a licensed company unaffiliated with AMC or Robert Kirkman. The majority of fans do not own that toy. Harrison isn't common (or even confirmed). These other characters are confirmed and common (except for, as I've mentioned earlier, possibly Sasha and Tyreese as those last names are new but, as ArgentoSurfer mentioned earlier, the page names would be pre-emptive and it's not like their last names are going anywhere).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out the official name aspect. But like WP:Common states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Yes, these characters are generally referred to solely by their first names in WP:Reliable sources and on merchandising. These last names being a part of their official names doesn't mean that we should use these last names as part of their article titles. Editors on this talk page have been in agreement that these last names are not their common names. And that includes you, as seen here and here. With the exception of Carol Peletier, you made it seem like you wouldn't care one way or the other if these titles included the last names. And now you're insisting that we go by these last names that these characters generally are not known by. The Internet is not the general public, except for in the loosest sense. And even in the Carol Peletier case you're not sure. For what seems to be a purely WP:ILIKEIT/fanboy reason, you want these articles to use these last names when this is not how things are generally done on Wikipedia. If someone were to propose that the Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article be moved to Faith Lehane, I'd oppose because she is known simply as "Faith" throughout the series and only as "Faith Lehane" for a role-playing game and subsequent material. That is not enough to trump her common name and state that we should add her surname to her Wikipedia article title. WP:Principle of least astonishment is a factor here. But I've already made my case on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those conversations weren't had yesterday, Flyer. Much like the "internet is not the general public," editors are allowed to change their minds. Based on comments made by others (both here and at other WD-wiki sites), I've changed my mind since our last interaction on this subject. You, however, do seem to be flip-flopping (one way, the other way, and back again) in a relatively short amount of time. Oh, and I'm not "insisting" on anything. I'm merely voicing my opinion on matters that interest me. You really do need to look into choosing your words better.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking Argento Surfer for his "18:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)" post, where we somewhat came to an understanding/agreement, and stating that "I'm thinking more and more that I'm not hard-pressed on this matter anyway." is not me changing my mind on whether or not last names should be used for the titles of these character articles. My mind won't be changing on that topic, just like ArgentoSurfer's mind didn't change on his preferring that the last names are used for the article titles. Responding to you or anyone else about what the WP:Common name policy states and how Wikipedia is supposed to work is a different matter than caring a lot about which titles these articles have. I respond that way in various Wikipedia policy and guidelines discussions, for example, whether I care a lot about the topic at hand or not. This is because I know the rules and I cite them. As for the rest of your "23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)" post, which was altered to add more bait, if I need to choose my words better, you need to comprehend better (that includes edit history matters, as already noted earlier on). Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Flyer: there's no baiting. You linked to former words of mine as a tactic to try and prove your point, and I followed suit. If you don't like tactics, don't use them.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For more feedback, since this WP:RfC has become stunted, I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) about this discussion. I also left an extra note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television about it. That is seen with this, this, this and this post. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose in all cases. As long as it is not digging through elements that aren't in the primary work to guess the last name, we should include it, particularly if it avoids having a disambiguation title. Consider how a reader will get to the resulting article particularly for many of these names which are common first names. Glenn is a general disambiguation page, leading them to Glenn (name) and where "Glenn" from the Walking Dead is listed under fictional characters (presently that list doesn't contain Rhee but that should be included). In either case, it doesn't matter what the final article is titled since they will have to walk those steps if they search on Glenn. If they know the full name, they will land on the right page to start. If they only know it's "Glenn" from TWD and search on "Glenn The Walking Dead" the first hit is the right page. So the best case is to avoid the disambiguation here even if CN suggests that more just know him as Glenn rather than Glenn Rhys. And because nearly all these characters from TWD have first and last names, it should be consistent between them when disambiguation is required (ala the Sasha Williams case) --MASEM (t) 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, thanks for weighing in. I always appreciate your opinion. Regarding your points, my point is that these disambiguation aspects help readers. Think of the readers logging onto their computers and wanting to search for Sasha from this series, for example; that reader is most likely going to type "Sasha Walking Dead," and then the Wikipedia page for that will show up. WP:Common name is partly about helping our readers find our articles as easily as possible. If the reader were to type "Sasha Williams" into the Google search bar, our Wikipedia article for this character isn't even on the first page of the Google search; not yet anyway. And in the "Sasha Walking Dead" Google link, it doesn't show up as high as it would if it were titled "Sasha (The Walking Dead)", like it used to be. Readers on Wikipedia familiar with the show will also likely type "Sasha the walking dead," and then the name will easily pop up in our search bar; they are unlikely to type her full name. Similar can be stated of the other characters, unless it's, for example, Rick Grimes. So I don't see why we need the surnames in the article titles. And like I posted at the pages noted in my "17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)" post above, what does this mean for character articles like "Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)?" What about characters whose last names have only been mentioned once and don't even appear in reliable sources? Are we to title their Wikipedia articles by their full names when that weakens the Google search in the case of those characters? How are we to police this? I'll leave one more note about this discussion -- this time at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per this, our Wikipedia article for this character is now on the first page of the Google search.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. What I see is "Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue - Wikipedia, the free ...", "Sasha Williams - Walking Dead Wiki" and "Sasha Williams - the Super Sentai and Power Rangers wiki." And commenting in between older comments like this is not helpful. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. You listed four of ten links that appear there (all ten of which are on the first page). What would be "helpful" is if you would be more thorough and accurate.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the Google link you cited is "Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)" on the first page. What is on the first page is the Sasha Williams redirect, which, as already noted in this discussion, currently points to the "Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue" article. Either your Google search is completely different than mine, or your comprehension skills are working against you again. Either way, you are wasting my time, like you usually do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know anyone else with at least one working eyeball can click the link and see what you're saying is false, right?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time, the only link to this Wikipedia article that I see via the link you pointed to, which, by the way, is also the link I pointed to in this discussion, is the "See results about Sasha Williams (Fictional Character)" link that is at the right. And that link only shows an image taken from this Wikipedia article; clicking on it does not directly take a person to this Wikipedia article. So, yes, your Google link must be different than mine. Yeaaaaah, that's it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, anyone can click the link and see what you're saying is false.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of less bickering, let's assume everyone'e Google search is not the same. For instance, the first 5 things that come up for me are, in order: "Sasha Craig - IMDb", "Sasha Williams Profiles - Facebook", "Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue - Wikipedia", "Sasha Williams - the Super Sentai and Power Rangers wiki", and "Sasha Williams - Walking Dead Wiki". BOZ (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, BOZ, you, just like me, see no direct link to this Wikipedia article on the first page? If so, that is exactly what I mean. Either Cebr1979's Google search is somehow different than ours, he misread the search and is now sticking to his story despite being wrong, or he knew he was wrong all along. Either way, this Wikipedia article will be on the first page once it's simply called "Sasha Williams" instead of "Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)." Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you list the first 10 links you see? 'Cause the first page of a google search is more than 4 or 5 links... and you both know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Google side, we should not be editing to try to satisfy google results because all it takes a change by them and that fubars our system. We care about making the reader's experience as direct as possible when they are on en.wiki, but we can't cater when they are off en.wiki. For Faith, the fact that the last name only came out well after the primary source had completed, I would say that we cannot expect that to be reasonably obvious to a viewer of the primary source, so the current naming is fine. We have to dig hard (well beyond the original primary work) to find that out. For other cases, I don't know, but I would say that "avoid disambiguations" and "self-consistency across characters from the same work" should be guiding principles, both which point to using full names for characters if these are readily sourced to the primary work they appear in. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I'll propose something else (I touched on this above): What about further disambiguating something that is already disambiguated? Why should this article be titled "Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)" instead of "Sasha (The Walking Dead)." Similar goes for "Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead)." I understand consistency with last names when appropriate, but that doesn't mean that disambiguating something that is already disambiguated is appropriate. We need to figure out where Sasha Williams should redirect to, though. And in a case like Michonne's, if her last name is ever revealed, I don't feel that we should add it to her Wikipedia article title for consistency's sake. It's a unique name and it's her common name; unless another Michonne Wikipedia page pops up, it needs no disambiguation. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary disadvantage of the using a full name with a parenthetical disambiugation is that editors linking to it have to type more characters, but that's primarily it. Readers searching on the first name and TWD will find it easily either way. It does nothing to the content of the article, and it is consistent with all other characters. (Also I will note for Sasha here, I would readily think that the TWD character far exceeds the notability of the Power Rangers character and thus this should be at the non-disambiguated "Sasha Williams" page. As for Michonne, it really again depends how the name comes up, but again, as long as it doesn't require excessive digging to find, it should be okay to include. (I would suspect that with TWD and how many sources recap it, that if her name got revealed, we'd have clear secondary coverage of that.) --MASEM (t) 22:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what source you want to standardize names against: the comics or the television series? If it's the comics series, then what are the characters' last names there? If they never mention the names in any of the 24 volumes or the creator's interviews, then the case can be made to drop the last name in the article title but maintain redirects and use the last names in articles concerning the TV series. If the television series is the standard, then the website for now supports all the last names except for Sasha. If the last name (or full name) is an obscure mention in passing, then don't count that as it wouldn't be a common name. Comics articles then use the common name for the character's appearance in the comics, and the television articles do the same for the television character's common name. Exceptions should also be noted. This is how we've been doing character lists such as List of One Piece characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, nice to see you commenting here as well. I just asked Masem above how we are to police this, before I saw your comment (even though I'm replying to both of you now at the same time; by that, I mean the same time stamp), and your comment touches on that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the comics, hardly any character is given a surname, including all of those which are part of this discussion (Sasha is not a character in the comics, but her brother Tyreese is). They were all given last names for the TV show (although, again, most are never referenced on the show itself). BOZ (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Glenn, the comics character is listed as Glenn although the website link mentions Rhee [1] The television series lists him as Glenn Rhee and the link mentions Rhee as well TheWalkingDead.com AMC So this is a case where the last name is probably acceptable for both versions and for the title of the individual article, although the articles that involve the comic should not mention the last name. Sasha is not listed with a last name: [2] Neither is Tyreese. [3] [4] so their last names aren't considered notable. If Tyreese introduces himself as "Tyreese Williams" in the comic right away, then that's notable for a last name. (I don't think he does that, at least from what I remember in the comic) Anyway, that's how I would scrub the characters list to determine whether last names are relevant and then get consensus on names going forward. Notice Maggie Greene is listed as such in both versions, even after she married Glenn. [5] [6]. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, AngusWOOF, this is where it gets tricky because we're sort of giving the television show priority when it comes to the names, granted I'd wager that the television show is significantly more well-known/popular. These last names having become proliferated online (primarily due to Wikipedia and Wikia no doubt) makes it so that editors will have a tendency to refer to these characters by their full names in context of the comic book material when they are not known by those names in the comic books at all. And as reiterated by BOZ above, they are not known in the television show by these names either...except for in one or two cases (of course, I'm not referring to cases like Rick Grimes). So these last names are primarily an online thing, shed from creators of the television show agreeing to a last name for the characters. And this is why, as noted on the pages seen in my "17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated that "we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed." This last name aspect for the characters with single names seems to have started with Glenn and/or Carol, as indicated in the #Title of this article section above. And Tyreese's/Sasha's last name was recently revealed, so it's barely been proliferated. But I think that Masem feels that we should still have this article titled "Sasha Williams" not only because it's better than the disambiguated options, but because this character's last name will soon get a lot more attention. That's why this article was moved, after all; again, see the Title of this article discussion above. And, Masem, sorry for repeatedly WP:Pinging you; I'm not sure if you're watching this discussion. I know that AngusWOOF is. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Sasha is slated to be a starring character in season 6, but since she is a television-only character and given a surname from a DVD extra, it may be the case where Williams will be legitimized into the common name like how Gabby Douglas became the common nickname for gymnast Gabrielle Douglas even though prior to the Olympics she had never referred to herself as such. Here's a WSJ blog that uses her last name in a review's caption of a season 5 episode. [7] Also, characters sometimes receive last names in adaptations so they can be trademarked better in related merchandise. I'd like to hear feedback from the regular editors of the series as to how they want to standardize this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 30 September 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article

[edit]

Regarding this involving Thelonggoneblues, it's clear that The Walking Dead character is the WP:Primary topic. This article should be moved to "Sasha Williams," and we need to figure something else out for the Power Rangers aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sasha Williams (actress) link exists because of Thelonggoneblues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Flyer22 Reborn thelonggoneblues 02:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sasha_Williams_(The_Walking_Dead)&oldid=1210229080"