Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?

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

weird but important questions

[edit]

i have been following this situation for the better portion of a year, and a few things should be answered .

1. if battle for dream island got reliable sources on something that didn’t exactly aim for the show itself, but something expressly bfdi (like for example the live tour/the scholastic guide book), would it mean that the thing itself still be rejected as its not significant coverage? (of the show), or would the thing itself be able to get a wikipedia article only about itself.

1b. and if it would be rejected, does that mean that bfdi is required to have its own article (for the show) for there to be any articles relating to bfdi?

2. what about object shows? (bfdi’s main example) like itft, inanimate insanity, or obsolete battle show, these shows take (both full/partial) inspiration from bfdi, but most are unrelated, but this is not talking about a single confined object show, it’s about the whole community as a thing, but how could you even make an article (with sources), on such a wide concept, as the osc?

2b. what about any singular object show?, like what if lots of sources made news coverage on any particular object show, would it need to conform to its unique identity as an object show?, or would it only be classified as a webshow? (if both a bfdi and osc article didn’t exist)

[cw roblox mention]

3. what about find the markers? the original game creator was the one to come up with marker, so he has the ownership of the character, so he made a game on roblox that wasn’t directly tied to bfdi or anything other than the character marker, this game is popular with alot of people (bfdi fans and non bfdi fans alike) and could have it’s own article (with sources), does that mean you couldn’t mention bfdi along with this article? (as find the markers’ development didn’t have direct influence from bfdi, so mentions of bfdi aren’t needed)

[roblox mention over]

4. how many sources do we need on bfdi?, what is the number of reliable sources needed until bfdi is notable?, because does wikipedia allow any wikipedia page aslong as it has atleast 1 source? or does it need lots?

5. do we exactly need all mentions of bfdi in regular known pages deleted?, as its blacklisted (for now), because there’s lots of places where bfdi could be used as a passing mention, but what if the (wikipedia) article is based on an news article that has only a slight mention of bfdi in it?

(heh 5b) 5b. how about general places that don’t need bfdi references?, but the topic in question mentions it to the point where it is applicable to the article, but technically you could reference bfdi in it as it was in article that was a reliable source?

5c. are mentions of bfdi banned?


so that’s alot of the questions i had, thanks for reading (if you read them all) and have a good day!. Led lore (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. That would depend on how much context on BFDI the source provides. The article about BFDI would be pretty confusing to read without information about itself.
1b. Technically not, but that would perhaps be for an exceptional case in which something from BFDI has made some impact outside the OSC.
2. By waiting for reliable, independent and in-depth sources the article would base upon, I suppose. As for the OSC, there are some articles about specific fandoms, so an article about the OSC could base its structure on some of them.
2b. Depends on how reliable coverage describes it.
3. It would again require reliable coverage, and of course it can mention BFDI when relevant and noted by sources.
4. The general notability guideline mentions "sources" in plural, but the reliability and depth of the sources count more than the quantity. The practical minimum could be two sources if they are very in-depth, or three moderately in-depth ones; it should be evaluated case-by-case.
5. Would depend on the context and relevance to the article in question.
5b. Couldn't understand this question, sorry.
5c. No, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia", but the blacklist prevents it from being mentioned in the title of a page created by a non-admin. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is going to be another wierd question but it will be more specific.
how about yoylecake itself getting a wp article..
battle for dream island has been brought up for sources from a Comic con food truck for its food item yoyle cake.
and those sources don’t specifically fit as sources for bfdi, but my question is could yoylecake have its own wp article?
understandably yoylecake is an important thing in the bfdi universe, but not exactly a real food item.
yoyle cake isn’t strictly a food item though as its also a catchprase from one of the characters in the show.. and this broadness of being both a phrase and a (fictional) food item, is something they could put on a page.
(catchphrases aren’t always articles [execptions eg. D'oh!] but rather sections/redirections of characters [eg Did i do that, Bazinga] and could be possible for a redirection/section of a hypothetical yoyle cake article)
the reason i ask this is because my questions from last month were too broad/and or specific Led lore (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are sources providing detail on what the yoylecake is? I see that, in practice, only really well known food/drinks from movies or television have articles, like Duff Beer or the Krabby Patty (see Category:Fictional food and drink), so its notability seems unlikely, even if BFDI gets notable. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)~[reply]
[edit]

You should exlplain why SML has no wikipedia page, they have a retail merch store in Pensacola, is 10x bigger than BFDI, and appeared on Good Morning America and The Sun, albeit for bad reasons, Jeffy alone could have a Wikipedia page, maybe even Jeffy's Tantrum could have a wikipedia since that is what started the whole controversy (please make it a shorter essay unlike the anti-BFDI page essay) AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SML (YouTube channel). An essay about that would have essentially the same points as the BFDI one. ObserveOwl (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try searching for sources talking about SML in more detail that weren't mentioned in the deletion discussion, though. Try asking someone experienced with notability about them, and then open a deletion review if appropriate. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
except SML fans are 10x worse with vandalism then bfdi fans, so even if it met all the criteria, it probably wouldnt have one AmericanAccount704 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AmericanAccount704, that's not how WP works. If SML had was notable, had an article, and fans were frequently vandalizing it, it would just get protected. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A half-decent point

[edit]

Something I have never managed to understand is how Battle For Dream Island doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, and yet Epic Rap Battles of History does. What does ERB have that BFDI doesn’t? I’d argue that BFDI has more, what with merchandise, an active fan base of all ages, countless series inspired by it and a lot more! 86.13.247.51 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the page? It explains this. ERB has sufficient sourcing for an article while BFDI doesn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think anyone complaining here actually read the page? λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are complaining because the rules clearly don’t help anything as something that should clearly have a page can’t 2007GabrielT (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If BFDI "should clearly have a page", then why haven't any significant publications discussed the show in-depth? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one? 86.13.247.51 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island. It is republishing this Hindustan Times aricle, which states on its disclaimer at the end: "This article is a paid publication and does not have journalistic/editorial involvement of Hindustan Times." This and other BFDI articles by Business Today are part of the publication's "Impact Feature" section, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations advises that this section from India Today (owned by the same company as Business Today) is mostly sponsored content. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would significant publications ever talk about it? 2007GabrielT (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the people that have not actually read the page. λ NegativeMP1 18:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, has anyone actually read Arguments to avoid 2601:98B:4480:2040:CCAF:A2C4:65BD:2543 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ addresses this. Stop beating a dead horse. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia forbid BFDI only as its own page on the English Wikipedia, or all object show content on all Wikipedias of all languages?

[edit]

Although all other Wikimedia projects of all languages still allow object show content. (see wiktionary:objectsona, commons:Category:Battle for Dream Island, wikidata:Q66121500 for example) 67.209.130.4 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other WMF-projects will deal with whatever per their own policies and guidelines when noticed by the editors there. en-WP has no special authority over other WMF-projects. For example, ja-WP had a BFDI-article for a while:[1]. Fwiw, this page exists on ko-WP:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is bigger than its sister projects and is more likely to be used as a source so it needs to be stricter. RmationYT (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(possibly) reliable source

[edit]

keep in mind one source is not enough to make an article, but the article in question appears to be independent the author is listed, and thank goodness, it's not Peter ruette. [source] 2601:98B:4480:2040:CCAF:A2C4:65BD:2543 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are many assessed sources that feature BFDI. I did add the source in question at the bottom of the table (for now). AlphaBeta135talk 02:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title of that source is similar to the URL of one of the MSN links on the source assessment table, but the MSN link is broken and I can't seem to find an archived version of it. If the Under30CEO writer just changed a few things from the MSN article, which is supposedly paid, it seems like that kind of "churnalism" that Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases warns about (although technically the MSN source is not a press release, it is not independent). I can also see that the article maintains a very promotional tone. I cannot find any page about Under30CEO's editorial standards or independent reliable sources citing the website. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually...

[edit]

In the eventuality that an article on BFDI gets created after it has been proven worthy of creation (when enough independent, reliable, SIGCOV sources exist), what would we do with this Wikiessay? Ramkarlo82 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said here, it could probably be marked as {{historical}} or something similar. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Why_is_BFDI_not_on_Wikipedia%3F&oldid=1258985696"