Talk:Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit

Sources

Many of the sources in this article don't appear to be up to standards, particularly for an article that involved living people. I'm going to start trimming it down to what can be sourced reliably. Any help would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did my best = the problem is that most of the citations were either gone, from message boards (what the?) or did not say what was claimed. I vigourously removed what was unsupported. This doesn't leave much left.TuppenceABag (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth reading the latest LITG (down at the bottom) seems there has been some jiggery pokery and the user mentioned turns out to be a sock puppet of a banned user. I'm going to look into resourcing this. (22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, we've been discussing this... although I should have linked that discussion here, I suppose. Obviously the LiTG article is reporting on what I (and others) already noticed. The article as was, was accurate, if slightly badly sourced, due to lack of reportage. I'll be giving it another look over when I get the time... :o)

...Mr Producer..? ntnon (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask for a bit of background on User:ColScott, as it is his sockpuppets who have been removing material from this page, and what is his link with Don Murphy? If I read this correctly then it would seem to imply there is... a strong connection. Which would cast a whole new light on this issue. If Don Murphy has been removing his own comments on this from the discussion he had with Rich Johnston and someone... closely connected to Don Murphy is removing gutting the article then the timing would be more (less?) than "curious" (as I mentioned on the AfD). Has there been some kind of change in the legal status of this? I am unsure what bearing that would have on this entry even if we can source the bulk of it (and/or add in other material if legal sources present themselves) would it be necessary to cut things out due to broader concerns? This may have some bearing on the AfD. (Emperor (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

OK I have answered my main question (via the links LitG provides). There then is no coincidence in the timing of the two removals, the broader question still stands: Has there been a change in the status of this case? If so would it have any bearing on the AfD and/or the ultimate fate of this entry? (Emperor (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Moving forward

OK drawing a line under the above, we still have to deal with things as they stand - a lot of sources were removed (for whatever reason) and we need to deal with that.

Quick thoughts:

• Remove everything controversial not backed up by reliable sources - we can add things back in when/if they are sourced but they can't be allowed to stay (as WP:BLP issues kick in.

• What can we use as sources? I raised this with the Comic Project a while back. The general consensus was that sites like Comic Book Resources can be used but that the more "gossip"-style columns should be avoided (even though they often have good industry sources) which would rule out Lying in the Gutters as a source here. Equally while blogs and forum comments by notable people can be an exception to the general guidelines as long as they avoid controversy as that brings us back into WP:BLP territory again. So you can pick up a writers blog post on what inspired a storyline or an artist's forum comment about who they based a characters look on, but we can't get bogged down in "he said she said" issues that are just kicked around on blogs/forums.

Obviously the second point impacts on the first one too and suggest more needs to come out.

The sticking point is the AfD as I don't want to prune too much while people are deciding the fate of the article (especially if gets deleted, as I'd be wasting my time) but if it survives that is what I'd suggests needs doing.

Even then we would need look at its longer term viability as a standalone article. If we can't come up with more solid references I am unsure how it'll shape up and we might have to look at merging this back into the LoEG film article.

All this, of course, depends on the AfD but that is my thinking on the issue. (Emperor (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The see also

I think the see also has some validity. I've restored it but am interested in why we should remove it. What's the issue with its inclusion. Hiding T 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, having looked at the article I tend to agree with the removal. My bad, should have looked first. Hiding T 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant

How can you argue it isn't redundant when it is the same sentence repeated again?PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It appears to be a different piece of information you have removed this time. Let me try and work out what is and isn't redundant based on your different edits, and we'll see where we are, okay? Hiding T 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • but of coursePersecutionComplex (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I see what you meant now. I've tried to tweak for better clarity. Hiding T 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirected

Per discussion at the afd, I think it is best if the page is redirected to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) where it is better contextualised, discussed and presented. Hiding T 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)