Talk:Viking Quest

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge?

I added a merge proposal tag to this article, because user 88.109.229.4 would like to merge it, but I would like it as a separate artcile. Steve 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should stay as its own article Flexxx 21:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fictional show within a show, how many links are there going to be to this page except from the Entourage pages? This article is pretty short and the Entourage episode descriptions are quite short too, so it might be good to merge more of this information into places like the Comic Con episode. Merging sure beats having pages removed for not being significant enough or of low quality. The Johnny Chase article isn't too short but it isn't huge either and could easily fit all the details of this article. +1 for merging. -- Horkana 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the merge tag back in. I agree with Horkana: the info is interesting but it doesn't deserve it's own article. As the leader says, it's a "a fictional sci-fi / fantasy series mentioned in the TV series Entourage". Lots of things are mentioned in lots of shows but that doesn't mean they deserve entire articles. "Ugly Naked Guy" is a recurring character mentioned several times in one of the most popular sitcoms of all time, yet he doesn't get his own article. Instead you can find info about him at List of recurring characters in Friends. We should do something similar with this info. -- Hux 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a creative plot detail, but is nowhere near deserving an entry of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.252.74 (talk) 11:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping this a separate page. I searched the term looking for more background information about the fictional series, and this was the best match. I would rather not have had to search the Entourage page for it.Cyphine 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote merge as well. 24.27.141.96 (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate: see below. chocolateboy (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD

When will Viking Quest be released on DVD???

response: It's not a real show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.76.95 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:VQ comicon.jpg

Image:VQ comicon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge II?

[How i]s this notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.141.193 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is (17,900) (cf. The Itchy & Scratchy Show (17,500)). Doctorfluffy, please try to establish consensus (or take the article to AfD) before making a unilateral decision. chocolateboy (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're BRDing which is the proper process. Google searches are of minimal use. Please provide reliable, independent sources that talk directly about Viking Quest in depth - not random hits on a search engine that happen to contain the string or pieces about the larger work with a line or two about it - or I'm going to revert again. Did you even look at the hits in that search? Official site, t-shirt ads, and youtube; nothing to establish notability or to be the basis for an article. The sources currently on the article are junk too. Lines from the show and the official websites do not establish notability, especially when the article is contains no substance beyond plot details and a blurb about how to buy the DVD. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

We're BRDing which is the proper process.

What "we"? And, no, the "proper process" is always to read prior discussions and discuss before unilaterally deleting a whole article (you didn't actually merge this article into Entourage; or update the Entourage template; you simply deleted it).

I'm going to revert again

Without a consensus to delete this article, doing so will certainly be construed as disruption.

Did you even look at the hits in that search?

Yes, of course. The fact that some of them are merchandising is hardly a proof of the show's non-notability. If you feel the article contains an insufficient number of third-party references, then the solution is to flag it with Template:Primary_sources so that it can be improved, rather than unilaterally deleting it.

chocolateboy (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of merging anything anywhere as the content has no place on Wikipedia. I made the redirect as that is common practice for possible search terms that don't deserve a standalone article. A redirect is not deletion, nor is merging content a requirement of creating a redirect. I don't even the have the power to delete an article. Please actually read WP:AFD before linking to it again, so you can use the term correctly in the future. POINT has no application here as well as you nor anyone else has discredited my claim that this content isn't notable. Please read up on policy before trying to intimidate editors who are more experienced than you.

The sources you're adding do not establish notability for Viking Quest. There are all passing reference (read: single lines) in larger articles that focus on Entourage itself or the actors. Can you produce any sources that satisfy the first bullet under WP:GNG? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an editor who claims to be "more experienced" than another editor, as though that's relevant, you seem to be remarkably unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies and Wikipedia:Equality. As for your other points, I repeat: if you believe the article is unworthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, take it to WP:AfD.

chocolateboy (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doctorfluffy - below are the ofiicial Wikipedia actions to take when you feel that an article does not satisfy notabilty guidelines. Why did you not do any of this? WP:BRD is not the "proper process" - it is in fact "not a policy or guideline" (from the header on WP:BRD). I am sure you are aware of all this.

From WP:FAILN#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines:

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject^[1] for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.^[2] Otherwise, if deleting:^[3]

If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.

Steve (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is perfectly acceptable for non-notable topics that may plausible search terms related to a broader subject. This happens all the time in AFDs. Please add sources that discuss this topic both directly and in detail if you undo the redirect again. Specifically, sources that mention Viking Quest only in passing while discussing Entourage or the actors in Entourage are not sufficient to establish notability for the subject of this article. If you wish to perform a merge, all necessary information can be pulled from the history. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but redirecting is not the correct course of action according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see above information. Steve (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Copypasta'ing guideline after guideline is all well and good, but it doesn't help much when you don't participate enough to know standard practice. Presumably you're going to keep undoing the redirect indefinitely? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please follow the above guidelines from Wikipedia. Thanks. Steve (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being non-responsive. This can be construed as incivility. Are you going to make any meaningful reply? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to tell you - Wikipedia's guidelines above are clear about what to do in this situation. Steve (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources on the article demonstrate the topic's notability. Do you have have sources that establish notability? This would be the time to add them.

Redirects are commonly used for plausible search terms for non-notable items; in fact, this happens every time a merge is performed. Do you think I am lying about this? You can merge material to the main article if you like.

Are you pushing me to take this to AFD for any specific reason? It's unclear to me why you are being so stubborn about something that should be non-controversial. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am not trying to push the article to AFD, however that is actually one of the actions recommended above by the guidelines. I am also not arguing about the notability. I am just arguing with the action of redirecting articles you consider non-notable, which is clearly not the correct action according to the guidelines. I am additionaly not arguing about the commoness of redirects - I believe you that it happens all the time. The question is not how common something is, but what are the guidelines. You mentioned that redirecting is "standard practice" - is there a standard about this that I am not aware of? If so please attach a link. Thanks. --Steve (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT used to be an active guideline and it indicated that a redirect was suitable for non-notable topics. Then in the past year or two there was a big dispute over the whole concept of FICT and inclusion principles for the material it governed, which eventually ground to a standstill, and it was marked historical. However, the practice of redirecting non-notable topics remains alive and generally non-disputed and it's pretty commonplace. WP:MERGE still mentions WP:FICT in fact, under point 4. Procedurally, I suppose it's a WP:SMERGE where there is no content that needs to be moved because none of the content satisfies inclusion standards. Regarding Viking Quest, based on the available sources, it doesn't appear that this fictional show meets WP:GNG, so I don't think this requires any coverage in any article on the encyclopedia. There just really doesn't seem to be anything to say about such a minor plot element that isn't already covered in the one line about it in the parent article or the few lines in the character articles. That said, I can see people potentially searching for the term, so a redirect to the show itself makes sense. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the above info. However I don't think it contradicts the above guidelines I mentioned. WP:FICT, as, you mentioned is not an active guideline. WP:SMERGE/WP:SMERGE describe how/why to merge 2 articles (take content from one article and put it into another), which you are not doing (you are eliminating content and replacing it with a redirect). Please correct me if I am wrong. Addtionally, this particular article has an open merge/don't merge discussion (see top of this page).

Regarding WP:GNG, if you believe the article does not meet this guideline, then please follow the Wikipedia guidelines I mentioned above about what to do in this situation.

I completely understand your position, which I have been in myself, where you are trying to convince someone that something is commonplace, standard, acceptable, non-disputed, etc. on Wikipedia, and then that person "hits" you with a contradicting Wikipedia guideline. For example, early on I would create very trivial articles which were promptly deleted. I would then argue something like, "What??? Articles like this are common!!! For example, (list of dozens of articles)!" I was then hit with speedy-delete or similar Wikipedia guideline. I was really unable to do anything at that point since I was unable to produce any contradicting guideline..--Steve (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples and oranges and you seem to think you are the more experienced editor when I actually have several thousand more edits than you including 100 (not a typo) times as many to the projectspace. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't talk down to me as if I were some newbie editor. I am unable to determine if your slavish adherence to guidelines is serious or not, so, simply put, I'm going to AFD this unless you add sources. Do you have any sources or not? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

"I actually have several thousand more edits than you"

For an editor who claims to be "more experienced" than another editor, as though that's relevant, you seem to be remarkably unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies and Wikipedia:Equality. As for your other points, I repeat: if you believe the article is unworthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, take it to WP:AfD.

chocolateboy (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break. I was merely pointing out my experience so he would stop talking to me like a newbie - referencing to policy over and over like a robot, telling parables about how his early articles were speedied, etc. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there.
^ For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.
^ Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

"Fictional"

A question about this page, since it's not clear what "fictional" means in context.

Was this show ever produced? Or was this show an example a "show within a show" - a show that never existed, except within another story's continuity?

( Standard rant about the abuse of the adjective 'fictional' on Wikipedia leading to confusing pages like this one... )

Almafeta (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viking Quest. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100128011525/http://www.fuelindustries.com:80/casestudies/vikingquest to http://www.fuelindustries.com/casestudies/vikingquest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there.

[2] For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.

[3] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[1]

[2]

[3]