Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Shortcut deletion proposal

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:HP -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Referencing the books standard?

Well, earlier yesterday I was came to Chronology of the Harry Potter stories and looked at the bottom at all the references to the books, Some referenced one special book, most a chapter, some with the chapter names etc. I took it on myself to put every book reference in there to the same style that was the most used already. So now later I started looking at the book referencing on other articles and seeing almost each article references the book differently. Examples:

  • Magic in Harry Potter
    • Rowling, J. K. (2005). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (in English). London: Bloomsbury/New York City: Scholastic, et al. UK ISBN 0747581088/U.S. ISBN 0439784549.
    • Rowling, J. K. (2007). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (in English). London: Bloomsbury/New York City: Scholastic, et al. UK ISBN 1551929767/U.S. ISBN 0545010225.
    • Rowling, J.K.: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", page 81. Scholastic, 2003
    • Rowling, J. K.: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", page 311. Scholastic, 1999
  • Places in Harry Potter
    • Rowling, J. K. [1999-07-08] (2001-09-11). "THE DEMENTOR", Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Scholastic. DOI:10.1223/0786222743. ISBN 0-439-13636-9.
    • Rowling, J. K. [2007-07-21] (2007-07-21). "GODRIC'S HOLLOW", Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Bloomsbury. ISBN 0-747-59105-9.
    • Rowling, J. K. (2001-09-11). "THE BOY WHO LIVED", Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Scholastic. ISBN 0-590-35342-X.
    • Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    • [HP2], chapter 18
    • Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. J. K. Rowling. pg. 73. ISBN 1-55192-700-4
    • Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, "Diagon Alley". J. K. Rowling. pg. 86 ISBN 1-55192-700-4
    • Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, "Owls Post". J. K. Rowling. pg.15-16. ISBN 1-55192-704-7
  • Spells in Harry Potter
    • Rowling, J. K. (2007). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Bloomsbury Publishing, 484. ISBN 9780747591061.

Now there are probably many more different ways they have been referenced, but wouldn't a standardization be in order here? I sould suggest some sort of chapter referencing (so it can easily be used multiple times, instead of page references, and less times than just referencing the books), though I don't really have any suggestion for the format of it, though I sorta liked the way it was done on most (and now is) references in the chronology article Chandler ♠ TALK 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates doesnt seem to be used all the time Chandler ♠ TALK 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe use the {{PStone}} {{CS}} {{HP-PA}} {{GF}} {{OP}} {{HBP}} {{DH}} who includes Chapter numbers, but add in the references from HP#ref Chandler ♠ TALK 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual characters pages

I've been looking that there is a great difference between the 6 main characters' pages (Harry, Ron, Hermione, Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Snape), and the secondary, yet really important 6 characters. One of the main differences is that these characters (Hagrid, Sirius, Draco, Ginny, Neville, and Luna) have only a section for character development or background, and appearances (with Hagrid having a section for his pets, and Sirius and Draco for their families), but none of this 6 characters have sections for Attributes (outward appearance, personality, magical abilities, etc.) Should we work on this in order to improve this pages, or shall this Attributes section remain only for the 6 main?? --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I would consider expanding these sections, but as I'm not too clear on WP:FICTION, I don't know if this would work under those guidelines. If there are no problems with huge articles describing fictional characters, then I'm all for it! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should only add information that does indeed improve the article. WP:FICTION says that Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced, I think that we should mostly work with information provided by Rowling and the portrayers. We need to avoid re-telling of whole scenes, and obviously OR. Right now I've been working on Attributes sections for Hagrid, Sirius, and Draco. I also added some information from Rowling about Neville, but I did not find anything useful for Ginny and Luna (Luna's article, however, has an already well-written section for Character development). --Lord Opeth (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice

The article on Rob Knox has been proposed for deletion here. Please comment there if you like. Epson291 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

Would any of you guys know the answer to the question here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#HP3 Film? Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Hey. This is entirely random, so I thought I'd stop by and leave a note. I noticed that, on The Tales of Beedle the Bard, there are publishers listed. Since each book was handwritten by Rowling herself and wasn't published, then there shouldn't be any publishers listed. The problem with the page is that the HPBooks template has the publishers hardcoded. As such, I've been bold and am changing the page from using the HPBooks template to just using the Infobox Book template. You may want to consider changing the HPBooks template, or if you're okay with the infobox one being used, that's okay too. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumbledore gay?

I hadn't realized until just now, but while listining to a recording of a press confrence with J.K. Rowling, JK announced that Dumbledore was meant to be a gay character. This is not a pratical joke. I have not looked for any sources on this but I know it has been anounced. Try finding some sources on the web it will make a good addition to the Dumbledore article(this is not a joke!).Gears Of War 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us, but we've known about this for months, since October last year in fact. Gran2 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

In case you hadn't noticed, the image that has been on the top-of-talk-page template has been deleted. Anyone got any ideas about what could replace it? I don't know if it has to be free/fair use/whatever, so suggestions and instructions are welcome! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If it has to be a free maybe Image:Deathly Hallows Sign.svg, Image:HP books.png or if someone could start up paint and paint a snitch. ← chandler 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that the second one you just suggested is best. Jammy (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I added the HP books.png, at least for now ← chandler 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry's children

Why is Albus Potter in the Weasley family article. Shouldnt they either be talked about in Harry's article or have a Potter family article and mention them there?Gears Of War 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would not look nice if we place Harry's children in his article. Also, there is already an article for the Potter family, and Harry's children are mentioned there. The reason of having James, Al and Lily in the Weasley family article is because, with the Notability issues taking place, the article for the Grandchildren of the Weasley family was merged into the main Weasleys' article. Remember that the 3 of them are not only Harry's, but also Ginny's, thus they are grandchildren of the Weasleys.--Lord Opeth (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom articles

As per my posting above, I am porting over the discussions from the Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom article discussions which speak to (redundantly) the proposed merger of both articles into a third, Dumbledore's Army. As a larger consensus from the wikiproject would seem advisable, I think it best to continue discussion here.

If someone could apply that wiki-magic that allows for the collapsing/hiding of the full text of the section, that would be splendid. It would allow everyone to get up to speed on the prior discussions before moving forward from there.- Arcayne (cast a spell)

Merge proposal

The merge proposal for Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood into Dumbledore's Army is because of Wikipedia's policy of Notability. While Neville and Luna are indeed important characters within the series, they are not Notable in the real world as single topics, they have not been covered by external and reliable sources apart from the HP topic itself, and they seem not to have popular culture impact and references. Help was requested here in the WikiProject to improve not only Neville and Luna's, but also all individual characters' pages, and no one cared about it. Because of this, Neville and Luna's articles are poor if compared to the other characters with individual pages.

I repeat again that this does not mean that Neville and Luna are minor characters, they are major supporting characters, but also other major characters like McGonagall, the Weasley twins, Lupin, Umbridge, etc. are already merged because of the same reason. Importance within the series is not equal to Notability, and this merge is because of Notability.

Here is This draft to give you an idea of how the D.A. article would look like with these changes. --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion from Talk: Luna Lovegood

Merge proposal

I have come with this proposal for both articles about Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood as, since we at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter began with Notability issues, both of this characters have failed to meet the criteria, and there are no third party references and real-world impact of the characters. Apart from this, both Neville and Luna cannot be considered among the 12 more important characters in the series, as it is like placing them in the same level and status as, for example, the trio, Voldemort, Snape or Dumbledore, whose both appearances in the series and Wikipedia articles are much more important and notable. For example, Neville plays an important part only in 2 books, McGonagall and the Weasley twins made much more appearances than Luna (who actually has no great plot involvement in the series), and there have been some other really important characters that have been already merged (Lupin, Umbridge, Bellatrix, Wormtail).

I have made This draft to give you an idea of how it may look like (it is a revision so that it also shows the images). --Lord Opeth (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do it, Luna probably won't be able to become a good article on her own, but as part of the DA, then it might be a featured list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - There's far too much topic-specific content in the Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood articles to be merged into the already long Dumbledore's Army one. An article that "probably won't be able to become a good article" is not grounds for removal by any Wikipedia standard. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the "too much topic-specific content" is mostly fan-cruft and overdetailed scenes not really important for the plot in general. If you take a look at the draft, the sections for both Neville and Luna are trimmed to really important information about the characters and some comments from Rowling. Apart from this, the characters are not neither among the most notable of the HP in real world, nor among the most important characters in the series. --LøЯd ۞pεth 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
They're both very popular, especially Luna Lovegood. There's much more information that can be written beyond the limited scope of your stripped down merged proposal. With another Potter film n the works, the available sources will only become more plentiful. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a popularity contest. I think that Lupin, who is already merged, is much more popular as there are plenty of fanfics and stuff about him. Same with James, or even Pansy Parkinson. But a character is not notable according to the Wikipedia policies only if it is popular, but if it has impact in the real world, popular culture references, and third-party reliable sources. Both Neville and Luna have failed to meet that. My merge proposal's scope is not limited, what is limited is the scope of the articles themselves, only limited to the appearances and character backgrounds, and no more.--LøЯd ۞pεth 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Luna Lovegood easily passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."). Just a google news search alone brings up literally hundreds of secondary sources that Luna Lovegood is the subject of, satisfying the main criteria of WP:NOTABILITY . Sure, not all are primarily about her (not a requirement of WP:NOTABILTY anyway), but the secondary coverage by reliable sources is far beyond WP:NOTABILITY's scope of "passing mentions". A character does not have to be the "most notable" or "most important" to have an article under any Wikipedia guideline. Your "actually has no great plot involvement in the series" is a completely subjective opinion and in fact has no baring in Wikipedia inclusion standards. --Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a deletion discussion but an info presentation discussion, and we have to consider notability, redundancy and undue weight of elements. E.g., there is no question that the Flux capacitor is notable, but it's still only a section in the De Lorean time machine article. Having said that, I'll need a closer look at both character articles and the draft to form an opinion, as both characters seem to be borderline cases for keeping/merging. – sgeureka t•c 05:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
See below. – sgeureka t•c 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose- First Neville. Neville is very important to the story as either him or Harry could have been the person referred to in the prophocey. Also, like Luna, his "text time" only increased as the books progressed. Without Neville the final books would have been far to predicatable. Luna was a indeed a minor character early on, but in the last few books her status was eleveated. I dont think importance should be confussed with time in the series. Also who said there can only be 12 important characters? Why have 12? Why not 20? Why not 5?Skiracer712 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Some thoughts: Evanna Lynch is commonly known as Luna's actress, not an actress on DA, and I think Rowling considers Luna as an important, although "new" character. Interwikis are separate articles. --Thi (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What you people seem not to understand is that no one is saying that Neville and Luna are needless or that they had no importance at all in the series. Of course they are important, but they have failed to meet Notability in the real world, they seem to have little impact in spheres that are not part of the HP fan community, and no reliable third-party citations are given for both of them. Both of they articles focus only on character background and appearances. You should take a look to Harry's or Snape's articles to see what I'm talking about.
The argument about Evana Lynch I think that doesn't fit into this discussion: Maggie Smith's character, Minerva McGonagall (who is much more prominent than Luna), is already merged into Hogwarts staff, and no one thinks that Maggie Smith is an actress on Hogwarts staff. And I can go on with countless actors whose characters are already merged (Imelda/Umbridge, Helena/Bellatrix, Isaacs/Lucius, Broadbent/Slughorn, Walters/Mrs. Weasley, etc.)
Also, no one is saying that there are only 12 main characters, but 12 is the number of characters that have individual articles right now, hwoever keeping Neville and Luna is like placing their level of notability on a level similar to that of Voldemort, Snape, Dumbledore or the trio, which obviously is not the case. --LøЯd ۞pεth 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge I read the draft, and I trust Opeth to already have merged the most notable bits there. However, I'd still say Luna's merged part is 1/3 too long, mostly for the plot details and lack of included real-world info (WP:UNDUE/WP:WAF). This counts against keeping the article and encourages a merger. – sgeureka t•c 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are more opinions favoring the merge and it has been more than 3 days so I have merged the article into Dumbledore's Army. Discussion is still going on Neville. --LøЯd ۞pεth 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2 in favor and 2 against is not in any manner consensus. Three days for a proposal is not at all sufficient amount of time for a merge proposal to be presented for a consensus opinion. A month would be sufficient. --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Lord Opeth has been working on Harry Potter articles every day for as long as I can remember, so he's not just some random person, so let's not treat him that way. Second, consensus is generally weighed by who is the most active, and again Opeth carries a lot of weight there too. We don't need to wait months to merge articles that cannot sustain themselves in terms of notability and real world sources. These articles have been hanging around long enough, and can be safely merged. Unless you can show that these articles have more real world notability, then merging is the natural thing to do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
While i appreciate his hard work, we need many editors, ether what is considered "active" or "non-active" to weigh in on such a major proposal (there is no "active editor" clause anywhere in WP:CONSENSUS, by the way). One month, not months, is sufficient time for editors to weigh in on the subject, not 3 days. --Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oakshade, you should check also Neville's talk page, there are some other opinions in favour of the merge (more for Luna than Neville). And, without those opinions, in this talk page there are still 3 opinions favouring the merge, and only 2 against. Also, you should read the policy Sgeureka mentioned, and also what the Help page says about merging: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument." In this case, I presented a discussion in order to further explain the reasons for merging this. Those who have voted in favour of the merger have understood that, while the characters are important in the series, a couple of interviews with the portrayer and the author are not enough to establish notability. I want to remind everyone again that this is not a popularity contest, this is the normal procedure while working with non-notable elements of a work of fiction. --LøЯd ۞pεth 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Lord Opeth, you conveniently left out what follows the sentence you quoted from Help:Merging and moving pages which states "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.". "You cannot do that without discussion" is fact is a great argument. In fact it is the basis of WP:CONSENSUS, which is the core policy Wikipedia that always needs to be followed. Referring to some opinions on a different page is not establishing consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I proposed the merger 4 days before performing it, I didn't act without reading opinions from other Wikipedians. Referring to some opinions on a different page is not establishing consensus, I agree, but those opinions count too as the proposal was placed for the same reasons at the same time in both talk pages, not only in here. I am not going to debate this further with you, as I'm not interested in making you to change your mind, and you would obviously not going to change mine (you must visit the Harry Potter wikia, EVERY character has an article there). Good luck. --LøЯd ۞pεth 05:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all saying there might not be a consensus for this merge. As a matter of fact, I placed a merge tag on the Dumbledore's Army‎ article (it was never there) and notified the HP project of this proposal in an effort to gain a thorough weigh-in of this subject. After a sufficient amount of time (for controversial merges, most merge discussions go on for about a month), if consensus desires the merge, as always I will respect it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with Oakshade that three/four days was a little short, and propose to leave this merge discussion open for 10 more days at least (2 weeks to 1 month is the generally accepted merge proposal time). I'll also state that the only good reason to not merge is the addition of real-world info, and the extra time allows interested editors to look up sources. We can then tell whether Opeth's assessment was right (I don't doubt it, but I've been positively surprised before). – sgeureka t•c 06:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings, Category:The Chronicles of Narnia characters There exists articles like Mrs Macready Bill Ferny and Grimbold and probably other less important characters (for the series) than Luna and Neville with own articles (and not as good(?)). I don't see why it hurt to have the characters on own articles instead. — chandler — 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a reason to cleanup the articles in this category as well, not to keep other "bad" (in the WP:WAF sense) articles around. – sgeureka t•c 06:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Mrs Macready has been merged into The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe#Character List by another Wikipedian, who probably didn't know about this debate. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Both the articles at the moment are diabolically awful, but as noted above, the potential for improvement is there. We shouldn't focus on what the articles are like now, but what their potential appearance is. Characters like Lupin have, unfortunately, no chance of ever becomming good or featured articles; Luna and Neville, by contrast, have a wealth of reliable sources behind them. They need a lot of cleanup, but they'll get there eventually. Happy‑melon 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some comments here...
Sgeureka: I have performed in the past dozens of mergers and this is the first time someone is doubting they are in good faith and in order to improve the topic. I might say again that I myself looked and added a couple of comments from the author to create more sections (apart from Appearances and brief backgrounds), and I also asked for help in the WikiProject, but no one else helped with it. It was some months ago, and the articles are still in this state.
Improving an article is just that, improving the article, not deleting and merging. Sometimes editors get into an ill-advised "This article is not to my liking (too much fan-cruft) so lets destroy it in order to save it." --Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Chandler: as Sgeureka said, it is not a good argument to have and keep lots of poor articles if other WikiProjects do the same. The LOTR especially is known to be one of the must crufty there, just look at the categories they have (with only 2 articles listed) or articles 3/4 written in Elvish and the rest in poor English.
Happy Melon: how many time has it been since we were debating Notability in the WikiProject, and no one has managed to write down a line to prove the supposed notability of Neville and Luna? I mean, take McGonagall, who was clearly more important than Luna, and as important as Neville, and appears in much more parodies and stuff about HP than both of them; or Lupin and the Weasley twins that appear in much more fanfics, parodies and stuff. I highly doubt that there are indeed reliable secondary sources for Neville and Luna. I think that this sources actually focus in the main characters and most prominent elements of the plot, and I also think that a couple of interviews with the actors are not enough to establish notability. --LøЯd ۞pεth 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This character passing WP:NOTABILITY is directly addressed above. --Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My friend, a bunch of interviews with Evana and some reviews that are not particularily about Luna are not enough. I have seen lots of interviews with Katie (Cho Chang), Robert (Cedric), Clémence (Fleur) or the Phelps twins, and I don't recall their characters have been kept. Not even Umbridge, who was claimed by Stephen King as one of the greatest villains since Hannibal Lecter, and had also some interviews with Imelda Staunton, has her own article.--LøЯd ۞pεth 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
My friend, here's the opening of of WP:NOTABILITY (put in bold as you seemed to have ignored it above, as you did with the Help:Merging and moving pages guideline above):

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

My friend, this topic has received an abundance of significant secondary coverage. My friend, even if you omit the term "Evanna Lynch" from a google news search, there still is HUNDREDS of secondary sources covering Luna Lovegood [1]. If you include "Evanna Lynch", there are hundreds more.[2] As mentioned above, maybe not all of the secondary sources are primarily about Lovegood (not a requirement of WP:NOTABILITY anyway), but the secondary coverage by reliable sources is far beyond WP:NOTABILITY's scope of "passing mentions". My friend, you cannot get around the fact that this character passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY easily.--Oakshade (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely sure if a google search is enough to establish notability, at least the policy has never stated that if the subject of an article appears in google searches, it is automatically notable. Just to prove that it is not 100% accurate (because it is not 100% wrong also), here I have google news searches for other HP characters that have been already merged (each one have HUNDREDS of results too):

It seems like LOT of job to do then, shall we begin to retrieve individual articles for this characters? Shall I begin then to re-create a characters template in order to better organize all this extremely notable articles? --LøЯd ۞pεth 23:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure many of the sec. character could stand on their own, but I might just be better to have them "sorted" in fewer articles, it will make it easier to keep track of them all, so less vandalism can find its way in. And that they are notable, perhaps, but this isnt a proposal to delete any characters, so they will still exist. — chandler — 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a google search or any other type of search that establishes notability, but the coverage by reliable sources that are found on those searches are what demonstrate it and the passing of WP:NOTABILITY (I can't believe I needed to explain that). --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal - arbitrary break 1

Counter proposal: Opeth, just copy-paste the trimmed version of Luna over the existing version, and do an careful extra trim to remove unnecessary detail. Then create empty real-world info sections (Concept and creation, development, reception, themes, personality - I don't know how novel characters are structured) with {{expand}} tags, add a {{notability|fiction}} tag (leave the merge tag in) at the top and wait a month. After the month, the article has either improved so that it can stay, or it's still as bad as to make a merger feasable – either (1) there is no significant usable info to establish WP:NOTABILITY or (2) no one fulfills their WP:BURDEN (which some people here seem to want to push on you, when it's really theirs). – sgeureka t•c 09:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose although Luna Lovegood appears late in the series, her importance to the plot grows as does her importance to the main character Harry Potter. In the final book, if you measure importance by page mentions (just to point out one criteria), Luna actually is more important in DH than Ginny Weasley a far more important than Neville Longbottom. The author also chose to highlight the character by having her take part in the final decisive duel with the leading Death Eater, with the two most important female student characters, Hermione and Ginny. If she was such a "minor" character as some here think she is, I doubt the author would have chosen to highlight her in the climax of the book.--Count Westwest (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Luna is a major character, as is Neville. If Harry and Hermione deserve their own articles, then so do they. Serendipodous 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The criteria is not page mentions or duels (if so, then McGonagall, Kingsley and Slughorn should get back their articles as they did duel Voldemort, who is more important than Bellatrix). Also, in my proposal I never said Luna or Neville are minor characters, indeed there are major characters that have not their own articles (see some examples in the proposal). The criteria is Notability, which this articles have not met. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Lord Opeth, as you are under the incorrect impression that this topic fails WP:NOTABILITY and you don't seem to be building a consensus for this merge, you might as well bring this article to WP:AFD as AfD is meant primarily for topics that fail WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? First of all, consensus is built by several users, not only by a single one. Everyone, including myself, have the right to express points of view, and I am only doing the same thing you are doing: commenting and defending points of view. Several people that have voted here seem to think that a merge proposal is equal to saying a character is not important. Of course not! There are much more major characters in the HP series, but not all of them have their own articles and not all of them have met notability. I say that Neville and Luna are important in the series, but so are McGonagall, Lupin, the twins, and many more, and all of them are already merged into lists of characters. Second, and this is really important, this discussion is not a nomination for deletion. Merging and deleting are very different things: my main proposal is not to delete all information on Neville and Luna. My proposal is only to merge both of this elements of fiction into a major list, in which not big content will be lost. I still don't know why this is such a big deal if other important characters (like those I've previously mentioned) are merged too, especially if both articles are not too long and focus almost entirely on appearances in the series. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, I think that the fact that both Neville and Luna helped Harry in the Department of Mysteries in the fifth book clarifies that they're very important to the series. Jammy (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lupin, Mad-Eye, Kingsley and Tonks appeared in the Department too, and none of them have their own articles. Also, and I will not be tired to repeat it, this merge proposal doesn't mean that Neville or Luna are not important in the series, but some participation in battles is not enough to establish Notability in the real world. --LøЯd ۞pεth 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as well. It's not going to work in the long-term, for the reasons noted below. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal - arbitrary break 2

I had actually tried to stay out of the conversation, as there are too many fans with keyboards, and my metaphorical wiki-bat would metaphorically splinter before I could make sufficient metaphorical impact (read: metaphorically cracked skulls) amongst them regarding actual wiki policies and guidelines.
I sometimes find Lord Opeth to be a little too quick to implement change in articles. While his heart is in the right place, he does tend to seek changes that the rest of the community might not be ready for. However, that doesn't necessarily make the suggested changes a bad thing.
I would submit that, having been able to step outside the series for a time, I have begun to see a pattern in wiki articles about series, be they television programs, movies and books. When initially popular, the wiki will have articles on every facet of a particular subject (ie. Rambaldi Cube, Sorting Hat, or Sonic Screwdriver). This initial popularity is not the same as notability, as notability does not fade; over time, as these various facets are shown to not "shine" as brightly as others in the overall subject, they are merged into relatedly less important articles, so as to avoid the problem of undue weight being given to something that is less important to a particular subject than something else.
The question prior to this merging becomes (at least in this particular discussion) 'what makes them vitally important to the series'? Can the series be accomplished without Neville or Luna? Undoubtedly, yes. They assist those characters who are central to the main story, but their presence or absence doesn't specifically help or hamper the overall story. Therefore, giving them their own articles - when we have the benefit of the full story presented in the novels and are fully aware of their lack of vital importance to the main story - becomes an argument of undue weight.
I favor the proposed merge. Luna and Neville, while being notably important enough to the overall story to warrant mention, they are not notable enough - given our greater understanding of their total actions within the completed series - to warrant their own articles anymore. Merging them into an article with others of less than vital importance is both appropriate and encyclopedic.
On a side note, am I the only one who has noted the discrepancy between the articles? In Luna's, it says she marries Neville. However, in Neville's, it says he marries Hannah Abbot. So, who wants to be a fly on the wall when Neville is found out for the bigamist he apparently becomes? ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge discussion from Talk: Neville Longbottom
Again, Merge the two of them - Unless a lot more information has been found to establish notability, they should be merged, pure and simple. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have come with this proposal for both articles about Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood as, since we at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter began with Notability issues, both of this characters have failed to meet the criteria, and there are no third party references and real-world impact of the characters. Apart from this, both Neville and Luna cannot be considered among the 12 more important characters in the series, as it is like placing them in the same level and status as, for example, the trio, Voldemort, Snape or Dumbledore, whose both appearances in the series and Wikipedia articles are much more important and notable. For example, Neville plays an important part only in 2 books, McGonagall and the Weasley twins made much more appearances than Luna (who actually has no great plot involvement in the series), and there have been some other really important characters that have been already merged (Lupin, Umbridge, Bellatrix, Wormtail).

I have made This draft to give you an idea of how it may look like (it is a revision so that it also shows the images). --Lord Opeth (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I mean, McGonagall (as an example) doesn't even have her own article, so merging Neville's and Luna's into the DA section makes sense. Heck, Luna barely figured in the final battle in Deathly Hallows. If this proposal is given the green light, some content would be removed so the main article isn't excessively long. I agree, let's leave the personal articles for the characters pivotal throughout the entire series (the trio, Snape, Dumbledore, Voldemort). Beemer69 chitchat 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely there is some content that should be removed from both sections, especially cruft and unsourced material. In the draft I made, some content is already cut to have reasonably sized sections.--Lord Opeth (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Trimmed down to their essentials, they would fit into a character list article like the D.A article, but doesn't have enough content in its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I never quite understood how Luna's article survived the earlier merge-spree of HP (aside from the fact that she seems to be quite popular). I would say that Neville deserves his own article; he's certainly the most borderline case, I think, but I'd say the article is warranted. faithless (speak) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Faithlessthewonderboy that this is the most borderline case. However, in the merged draft, I still see a lot of original research in his second paragraph, and too much plot detail in the description of how he got his wand and how he participated in the final fight - i.e. his coverage can be even trimmed further without losing much. He may have slightly too much info for a merge into Dumbledore's Army, but definately too little siginificant info to support his own article in the WP:GA sense. If I had to go for the lesser evil, I'd reluctanty pick the merger. OTOH, if real-world info of two or three paragraphs worth can be dug up against Opeth's expectations, I'd !vote against the merger (but support a trim) in a heartbeat. – sgeureka t•c 12:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometime ago I looked for quotes about Neville in pages like Lexicon and stuff, and added them (for example, that Rowling wanted Neville to do something important in the first book, or that you as a teacher should not bully students, and Neville/Luna's shipping), but apart from that I didn't even could make an Attributes section like those I created in Sirius, Hagrid or Draco's articles. I asked people in the WikiProject for help but no one (except User:The dark lord trombonator) replied, maybe because there is little more for Neville to be said that comes from reliable secondary sources, which proves that he is not that Notable. As for the draft, I also noticed the wand stuff from book six, I think that we shall trim that, but I don't think that the second paragraph is OR: most of it is "explained by Dumbledore" in the fifth book - maybe only the "second only to Hermione" thing is OR, and it shall be removed. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly are the 12 most important characters? The trio, Voldemort, Snape and Dumbledore I can understand - but who are the other 6? By the way I oppose the merger for Neville, though support it for Luna. Neville was a pivotal character for the series and had one of the greatest character developments. As it stands, he doesn't really belong in the DA article as his role in the series extended well beyond that. The only thing he is missing to outright deserve an article of his own is a popular culture reference. Iciac (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Iciac, I didn't intend to make it look like there are precisely 12 main characters in the series, but that there are only 12 characters with individual pages left. Importance in the series is not enough to establish Notability, a policy that has much more weight that any character development. I have given some examples of other pivotal characters like McGonagall or Lupin that are already merged. Lupin's involvement in the series is not only in the Order of the Phoenix, but because he has failed to meet notability, he doesn't deserve his own article and that's why he was merged into the most suitable article. Same applies to Neville and Luna: both of them are more than just D.A. members, but it is the best article to merge them if they have to be merged. --LøЯd ۞pεth 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I've read over the draft, and agree that (as of the article now) he should be merged. However, as sgeureka stated in the Luna Lovegood discussion the actual merger should be delayed by a couple of weeks to allow editors time to attempt to find sources which support his notability, and thus would be weight against the merge. I myself could find none in his Harry Potter wikia article. Iciac (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Dumboldore's Army" only appears in a one or two of the series...so you are telling me that the D.A. is a better article than, say, Students who attend Hogwarts or something similar? (The D.A. would only include students who are on the side of "good". Example: No Crabbe, Goyle, etc.) the_ed17 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an article about "Hogwarts students" previously, but it was over 80 KB and there were still some characters missing, including lots of minor Quidditch players and stuff. The article had not a definitive inclusion criteria because having a section for every single student would give us an article over 120 KB (for example, why wasn't Warrington mentioned at all, Montague was in the "Others" section, and Theodore Nott had his own section if all of them were minor characters?), that's what it was decided to retrieve the article about the D.A., that would include only the D.A. characters, in order to have a definitive inclusion criteria. At that moment, "Dumbledore's Army" was merely a link to a section of the article about the fifth book, which is not the case because the D.A. also appeared in the final book and had some little involvement in the sixth. Other non-D.A. members have sections in the supporting characters article: Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy, Cedric, Oliver.--LøЯd ۞pεth 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, just asking! ...Yeah, I guess that a Hogwarts students article would be awfully long...didn't think of that. =) Cheers, the_ed17 05:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Neville is as important a character in this series as say, Sirius Black. He deserves his own article. Serendipodous 10:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's jsut me, but it seems incredibly wasteful to have the same conversation in two different articles. I suggest that this entire discussion be ported over to WikiProject: Harry Potter for a more complete discussion, which will allow for a more durable consensus. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess no input regarding the matter has been forthcoming. I think we should wait a day and then merge. Silence is consensus, at least unless there is all the screaming and gnashing of teeth at the merging. A week should have brought that out, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have definitely performed the mergers for both articles. Apart from the fact that opinions favor the mergers, this was not the first time that improvement for Neville and Luna's articles was asked, in this same talk page there is a request for everyone to improve and expand the articles and no one did a thing. Then came the proposal, and although several weeks were given to improve these articles to avoid the mergers, again no one cared to help. Also, there were the discussions regarding notability in this WikiProject, and since the mergers of lots of characters took place, both Neville and Luna's articles didn't show any improvement and expansion and remained short and poor. This mergers don't mean that Neville or Luna are not important characters in the series, but the articles didn't meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability. The solution is to apply the same criteria that was applied to the rest of already merged characters. With this I think we are almost done with characters mergers. Ginny's article still needs improvement but I think that, with the release of the sixth film, there would be lots of reviews and material for a strong reception section and more stuff. The rest is OK. --LøЯd ۞pεth 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing even close to consensus for this merge It's been a month and I'll revert this against-consensus move and will remove the merge proposal tags. --Oakshade (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my time calculation is incorrect as it's not been a month yet. The merge proposal tag will stay for at least another week. --Oakshade (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And just we know the numbers here:
Those favor of the merge:
Arcayne
Judgesurreal777
sgeureka
Beemer69
Iciac
Lord Opeth
Count Westwest (Supported Neville Longbottom merger, Opposed Luna Lovegood merger)
Faithlessthewonderboy (Supported Luna Lovegood merger, Opposed Nevill Longbottom merger)
Those Opposed to the merge:
Skiracer712
Serendi
Jammy
Happy‑melon
Oakshade
Count Westwest (Opposed Luna Lovegood merger, Supported Neville Longbottom merger)
Faithlessthewonderboy (Opposed Nevill Longbottom merger, Supported Luna Lovegood merger)
(Chandler didn't "vote" and I'm having trouble understanding his take on this. In one post he says "I don't see why it hurt to have the characters on own articles instead." which seems to indicate opposing the merge, then another post he writes "I'm sure many of the sec. character could stand on their own, but I might just be better to have them "sorted" in fewer articles, it will make it easier to keep track of them all, so less vandalism can find its way in. And that they are notable, perhaps, but this isnt a proposal to delete any characters, so they will still exist." which seems borderline.)
So that's 8 in support and 7 opposed (1supporting the Lovegood merge but opposing the Longbottom merge and 1 opposing the Lovegood merge but supporting the Longbottom merge). That is not Consensus (nor silence either). And I noticed that the debate abruptly halted after the merge debate was incorrectly moved to this talk page. Per WP:MERGE and all the merge templates, it should be moved back. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, if you chose not to contribute to the conversation after it was moved to the larger venue for discussion, why is that our fault? As per qui tacit - contained within the first paragraph of our consensus policy - "silence equals consent." You knew where the link was, and no one responded within that link. No comment posted within the conversation in a reasonable amount of time (in this case, nearly a week) usually means no opposition.
As for the assertion that it was "incorrectly moved" here, I am the one who performed that move, after notifying both pages subject to that possible merge that the discussion was moved here so as to avoid duplicated conversations from taking place and effectively preventing a wasting of time through duple postings, xoss-article discussions, etc. Bringing it to the larger venue allows for the body of the wikiproject to weigh in. I am pretty convinced that it was the smartest move to address the larger concerns, though you are entirely within your rights to disagree with it.
Now, all of the above doesn't mean that the consensus cannot change again. I invite you to initiate discussion regarding the calving off of the two articles into individual articles again. Of course, there will be discussion about it, which is to be considered a Good Thing™. Seek a new consensus, Oakshade. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:MERGE there are specific merge templates to redirect the same discussion to the same talk page, not to a different Wikiproject page. The "discuss" link needs to go to the actual page where there is a discussion, not yet another link to a third page. As for the "silence equals consent," clause, how anyone can interpret six Oppose "votes" as "silence" is bizarre to say the least. You seem to be under the impression that because discussion ended after a certain period of time that magically means that there was no opposition to the proposed move. Sorry, there is heavy opposition to the proposed move. If there was silence after the merge proposal began, you'd have a valid point that there was "silence," but of course that was not the case here. --Oakshade (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oakshade, you are omitting Faithlessthewonderboy's vote, he voted favoring Luna's merger. And Count Westwest voted only against Luna's merger. As there were two discussions, the voting was not the same in both cases. Plus, there was silence for a considerable amount of time (for both articles, and in this talk page), and there was also the absense of any attempt to improve the articles not only since the merger proposals were made, but since the improvement drive and the request to add more sections were made. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The lack of editors improving articles has nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS in a merge proposal. An improvement tag is what's appropriate if you feel the article needs improvement. As for the "voting" stats, thank you for the clarification on the "votes" and the list has been adjusted as such (there's a lot to read so it can be easy to miss something).--Oakshade (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I just want to add that if there becomes a consensus for these big merges, as always I would abide by it. We might not always agree with consensus, but we work with it and that applies to all editors.--Oakshade (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) While it could be argued that the inclusion of these two articles into a third doesn;t necessarily constitute a "large" merge, it is clear that you are upset about the merging. While the "voting" seemed to be tied, there was precisely no movement on the proposal to close the merger discussion, and after it was moved to a single place to sidestep the possibility of duplicated response, there was no activity for six days. As the discussion was about merging the two, and the last arguments argued in favor of performing the merge, it is usually assumed that the last arguments were persuasive in convincing that the merge was useful. You may not have intended that to be the case, but that's what happened.
Now, if you wish to start a discussion that the merge shuld be undone, or that the articles merged were of such value that the merged article deprive the encyclopedia of their intrinsic value, please, go ahead ad do that. Turning back time isn't the best use of our time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

" ... it is usually assumed that the last arguments were persuasive in convincing that the merge was useful."
Sorry, but if people who were against the merger were convinced that the merge was useful, they would've changed their opinions. They didn't. You're tying yourself into knots trying to justify the out of consensus move. Of course I don't like it when actions are done outside of consensus and that's nothing to attack an editor for. --Oakshade (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you are upset, I get that. However, the merge was already performed, in good faith that there were no more dissenting voices. Please AGF that people were doing what they thought was pretty clear to them. As I noted before, if you wish to re-argue that these parts of a larger article deserve their own article, please - discuss that. Going to other venues to forum-shop is a pretty bad way to go about reversing the apparent, silent consensus. And I think you missed my point about that, as you presumed there was knotting and knitting involved: after the last comments in favor of the merge were expressed, there was no further discussion for six days, even after the discussion was moved the larger forum of the wikiproject discussion (and linkage provided at the prior locations). That there were no further responses indicates an approval of those arguments, even if they are of the silent variety.
Now, as I see it, you have two choices. You can either continue to argue that the merge was done unfairly, or you can begin a new discussion proposing that the articles be calved off. I would opt for the latter, but then, I am kind of a neat freak. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that Oakshade made a mistake while counting votes: he counted an editor twice in "Those Opposed to the merge"

Skiracer712
Serendi
Jammy
Count Westwest
Happy‑melon
Oakshade
Count Westwest (Opposed Luna Lovegood merger, Supported Neville Longbottom merger)
Faithlessthewonderboy (Opposed Nevill Longbottom merger, Supported Luna Lovegood merger)

With this, it is 8 in favor and 7 against. Apart from the consensus there's still the fact that the articles remained poor and no improvement was made, a fact that supports the original views of the proposal.--LøЯd ۞pεth 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction (error made in good faith). I've corrected my own comments above.--Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a problem, all of us make mistakes :) However, I suggest us to move on and leave this discussion in the past, it has been completely tiring, and we will never get Unanimity of opinions. I suggest that we better focus on the remaining stuff. There are articles still missing some real-world stuff and expansion in some sections. I began yesterday with Voldemort and Snape adding some popular culture appearances, and I was working in Hagrid's article to change the "Character background" section into "Character development" to include more concept and creation stuff from Rowling rather than an in-universe history of the character. I invite you Oakshade to join the WikiProject as an active participant (in the participants section) and to join the improvement of the remaining articles if you are interested, which it appears.--LøЯd ۞pεth 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It's still an active subject (I see I wasn't the only one to question these merges). There needs to be further outside discussion when merges are made that don't have a clear consensus. An RfC would be helpful. As always, I will go along with consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

8 vs. 7 isn't consensus in any sense. I don't think the merge was done properly at all. Can the two articles be restored until there is actual consensus for merging? Sorry about commenting late, but for the record, I am against Nevill Longbottom merger. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, PeaceNT, you're welcome to revert the merges. I'll support you. --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am utterly opposed to undoing the merge. It's been done already. with good reasoning. If anypne feels that one or both should be unmerged, then create a new discussion to discuss that. This back and forth is a waste of out time, as at least one of the article is going to end up merged, if not both. Start a discussion, as there is no consensus to un-merge. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus to merge. We know you're opposed to undoing the merge. The reasoning was not based on consensus which everyone must follow. Just because "it was done" doesn't mean it was correct, it just means one or two users did it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've pointed out that the merge was performed in good faith, just as I've pointed out at least twice in your talk and elsewhere that your continued blaming me for the merge was incorrect. Maybe you could stop that now, please.
See, the frustrating part of this entire discussion for me is that you are wanting to do (or egging PeaceNT on to do for you, as more edits towards this end would be seen as warring) precisely what you are all over Opeth for doing. You want to undo a merge because you think it was performed incorrectly. Let's look at that "imperfection":
  • you've already admitted that the consensus to merge was a numerical majority;
  • you also acknowledge that no one spoke up or voted in regards to the merge for almost a week;
  • you furthermore have not contradicted the fact that no one posted after arguments in favor of the merge were posted.
I wold submit that the only incorrect thing that happened here is that the merge discussion ddn't go the way some folks wanted it to.
If you are unhappy with the merge that has already taken place, argue anew for the separation of the two articles from the third. Do not seek another bite at the apple, as we don't do that here.
I apologize that the tone of this post seems a bit harsh, but frankly, the seeking to undo a reasonably performed action seems a lot lie sour grapes, and inappropriate in my estimation. The way we do things here is if a decision doesn't go your way, seek a new consensus, with new arguments. You don't seek to call foul when the merge is performed in good faith. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, I'lll take your twisted arguments in order:
  • "you've already admitted that the consensus to merge was a numerical majority"
It was 8 in favor, 7 opposed, (this is not counting the most recent opposed, by the way). That is not a clear consensus to merge.
  • "you also acknowledge that no one spoke up or voted in regards to the merge for almost a week"
That no one "voted" in almost a week in completely irrelevant. I could throw up the same argument and turn it my way by saying "See? After there wasn't a clear consensus to merge, nobody commented. That silence means there was no consensus." The editors preferences stands, despite "almost a week" passing with no comments. If editors changed their mind, they would have written so. They didn't. You have no right to speak for other editors.
  • "you furthermore have not contradicted the fact that no one posted after arguments in favor of the merge were posted."
See response to last claim.
And Arcayne, I will argue against a merge that was done outside of WP:CONSENSUS, not start a anew. Your insulting oft repeated "sour grapes" claim would be true if there was a clear consensus to merge, which there isn't. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: arbitrary break 1

That "the merge was performed in good faith" doesn't mean it was correct. Consensus isn't formed by a majority of one user; I'd call 8 vs. 7 a no-consensus. Putting the numbers aside, I've read the relevant discussions and agree with Oakshade that there is no consensus in favor of a merge. The "silence" period was I assume due to editors who voted oppose not changing their mind and having nothing more to add to the debate. Their original comments still count, though, because they didn't come back to change their !votes to support (meaning they are not convinced by arguments made by merge proposers/supporters). The fact that the discussion died naturally should have meant this was a failed proposal, as no agreement was reached. Per WP:BRD, I'll revert the changes and we should wait for further opinions from other editors to see if there will be consensus for the merge. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
And following BRD, I've reverted your bold edit. Silence equals consensus. That isn't me saying that - it's actual policy. That the merger opposition discussion stopped does not make it a failed proposal, it means that the good folk opposing the merge had no counterpoints to those arguments pin-cushioning theirs, and were thusly silent. Were we to follow that reasoning, no article discussions would ever result in decisions, as we would be waiting forever for one more voice of dissent or approval to entirely change the consensus. When the discussion was ported over to the larger wikiproject, still no words of dissent were raised. NOT ONE.
I submit - again - that the booming voice of silence following the slight majority for merge added considerable weight to that consensus. This decision-making process of acting in the absence of continued opposition happens all the time. Oakshade or PeaceNT could have responded before or after that discussion was ported over, and yet they only raise the issue days after the merge is enacted. It isn't intended as a personal insult, but it is disappointing that those who decided to remain silent only now want to turn back the clock, to get another crack at stopping a merge. Sorry, we don't do things that way. If necessary, let's ask for a neutral request for comment on this issue, and find out what someone without a vested interest in this either way has to say. That would seem to be the pretty clear option at this point, as I am not in favor of undoing that which was done appropriately simply to satisfy a call for recount. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. You do not discount valid opinions just because editors do not comment (again) on a discussion where they have already made their opinions clear. Many users may have been busy, or they simply did not want to continue their engagement in this particular proposal discussion. 8 vs. 7 is not, by any manner of means, a consensus. So yes, you have to wait until there is aprroval coming from more editors. If you feel you have waited long in enough and still no new users support your proposal, then the proposal failed.
I do not understand your point that "This decision-making process of acting in the absence of continued opposition happens all the time." "...absence of continued opposition"!? Surely the opposers haven't modified their !votes yet. That they didn't change to support certainly means they continue their opposition. My question is, if one intends to do the merge regardless of whether there is actual agreement from other editors or not, why on earth would they have to make a proposal? --PeaceNT (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcyane, you're fighting a losing anit-consensus battle here. You're attemting to argue that after you "ported" the disucssion here to HP Project talk page (out of process per [[WP:MERGE by the way) and people stopped disucssiong it, that invalidated all of the opposition. No it didn't. If anything, that "booming voice of silence" indicated there was no consensus for the merge. I've reverted back your out of consensus merges. No please respect consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is, as Arcayne said, getting frustating. The last reverts that PeaceNT and Oakshade have been performing are wrong. No redirects are fixed and new versions of Neville and Luna's articles are appearing (different to the one before the merger was performed). If you are defending the articles but are not interesting in improving them with real-world content, at least you should not harm the articles or remove all infortmaion about them (without the redirects being fixed, and the D.A. article being reverted, all information about the characters is gone).
Apart from that, it seems that you people are waiting to "reach consensus" only if this "consensus" favors your opinions. Otherwise, you shouldn't have revived a discussion that was technically ended not only since the mergers were performed, but before the discussions were moved to this talk page, and you wouldn't have tried to impose a specific time for the discussion to take place. It also seems that you people are confunding consensus with unanimity, which are very different.
I should also add that moving the discussions here was indeed a good decision by Arcayne. It was my mistake to have two discussions separated because it was confusing. Lots of group or massive redirects take place in one single discussion, and sometimes this discussion takes place in the WikiProject of the topic. I recall, for example, som LOTR and Dragon Ball discussions made like that. Arcayne did nothing wrong by joining both discussions here. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I reverted witht the redirects fixed, but you reverted back anyway. Consensus was already reached, the merge proposal failed. I have no problem with the proposal going on for a few more days should you try to gain consensus for the merge. --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted changes because you reverted to a trimmed version posted by another user, instead of reverting to the original article (with this I mean that very last version before the article was redirected). You seem to be only redirecting but are not taking care of the artilces themselves and making sure that no content is lost, which has happened thrice. I encourage you to wait and not to revert again because you are not even caring about the content, you are only reverting for the sake of reverting, and it is more damaging than anything you've been acussing others of doing.
I shall also reply that you are defending opinions against the merge, but at the same time you seem to be ignoring opinions favoring the merge to the point of saying that the proposal failed, as if there were no users favoring it (and I shall remind you that opinions are more favoring than opposing). --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) (Response to Lord Opeth's comment made at 16:47)

Trust me, you're not the only one person finding this whole issue frustrating.

It seems we're having disagreement over whether there was consensus for the merge or not. I should think you'd agree that 8 for / 7 against is not clear consensus whichever way to look at it. I'm not confusing consensus with unanimity. I've had some experience working with (on-wiki) consensus-building discussions. One of the things I learn is that when consensus is unclear, people often invite a neutral third party to jugde & close the debates. You are the proposer; naturally you are biased. But apparently you and user Arcayne (who incidentally seems to be the strongest supporter) together just decided between yourselves that some consensus existed for this proposal. I'm disappointed with this decision-making process, and I don't trust your interpretation of consensus here. I don't agree with your "absence of continued opposition" basis, either, but I already explained my view about that above.

I cannot deny I'm a shamefully inactive member of WPHP and lost this project talk page from my watchlist some time ago; only saw this discussion today because I happen to watchlist DRV. That is to say I wasn't aware of this discussion before; I didn't deliberately ignore the proposal in order to "revive a discussion that was technically ended". I'm not so much worried about things not going my away as concerned about unfair process. Two/three days on Wikipedia isn't that big deal, the bottom line is that, as far as I can gather, you still don't have consensus for this proposal. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with "two/three days", but let me tell you that the merger proposal exists since the beginning of July. Also, the silence mentioned by Arcayne and me was longer than "two/three days", it took almost a week. Another really important issue that we shall not forget is the original reason for the mergers. Even with these proposals, no one cared to improve and expand the articles with reliable secondary sources, real world impact and more stuff. Also let me tell you (because I think that it is somehow tiring and confusing for someone that joined the discussion until this time to read the whole discussion since the proposals were made) that I came with these proposals only after some months of waiting for people to help the improvement (click here to see an addressing to all members of the WikiProject; I myself added some little stuff from Rowling but couldn't find more). I can't recall right now if you were involved in the discussions regarding other important characters in the series like McGonagall, the twins, Lupin, Umbridge, etc. but the same criteria we applied to them is expected to be applied on these two articles rather than proposing AfD. Merging is not damaging and is not a big deal, especially if we consider that both articles are only a short re-tell of plot appearances. This is the first time that a merger proposal is generating this problem, the past dozens, if not hundreds, of mergers have been performed in good faith and without any problem. That's why I suggest that, rather than wasting our time in discussing this fact, we should focus on expanding the articles of the remaining characters and other HP related stuff. --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to make arguments for the merges, but that doesn't mean there was a consensus for them. Silence after most people gave there opinions is just that, silence. Silence doesn't mean there was a magical change of opinion of the people who indicated they were against the merge just because time went on for a couple of weeks with no dicussion. The discussion simply died down and the proposal failed. --Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding sooner. While I do think that the merger is a good idea, what I am most opposed to is the "do-the-hokey-pokey" where we merge and unmerge and (eventually) remerge. The merge was proposed with good, solid reasons, folk weighed in. While it is true that 8-7 is not consensus by itself, the simple numerical majority is compounded by the ensuing silence. And while there seems to be consideration that "silence is just silence", I would remind everyone that silence equals consent. The discussion was ported to hear for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the opening of the discussion to a wider audience. That folk here saw the numerical (and to my reckoning, the reasons for merging) and decided to let the merge happen. That is the way things tend to happen. Someone proposes something and discussion ensues. If all the points opposing the proposal are counterpointed effectively, it stand to reason that those folk originally opposing aren't going to pipe up with 'omg, you were right, and I should be whipped 'round the fleet'. They are going to fall silent, having lost the argument. That happens all the time, both here and in RL. It is the main reason that it is part of our policy that silence equals consent.
I am not saying that the folk who originally opposed the merge cannot explain how the two articles are ever so much more notable than the DA article. They can, and clearly, they are willing to do so. However, we don't have to deconstruct Humpty Dumpty to satisfy a small, good faith mistake that is likely going to happen anyway. Let's instead argue for restoring the articles. As the folk who feel that the articles should be restored are likely to pipe up, let's do this the normal way, not try to Scooby-Doo an alternate ending. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, here is your logic:
Editor Joe: I propose we merge article x to article y because (argument a). Who's with me?
Editor Fred: I'm opposed to that because (argument b).
Editor Joe: You're wrong because (refutation of argument b).
(two weeks pass)
Editor Joe: Well, it's been two weeks and Editor Fred didn't respond, therefore Editor Fred agrees with me! I'm going to merge the articles.
No, Editor Fred does not agree with Editor Joe. Your attempt to argue that no discussions after two weeks fits into WP:CONSENSUS's WP:SILENCE clause demonstrates you have a very misguided understanding of even the basic principles of WP:CONSENSUS. WP:CONSENSUS makes it very clear that "silence implies consent" applies to the editing of pages, not the outcomes of discussions about them. From the first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS
"Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community"
Arcayne, as I'm sure you can comprehend from that paragraph, it applies to pages, not the discussions about the pages (if it does, please show us where). When you and another user preformed the merges to the pages out of consensus, there was no silence. The changes were reverted back. By your own "silence implies consent" mantra, the merge was out of consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
To Lord Opeth. I mentioned "two/three days" because you stated in your edit summary The redirect was performed some time ago. A new discussion regarding if the article should be brought back must be initiated. This I assume implied that your changes enjoyed silent consensus for "some time" and I needed consensus to revert them. The other user made the same implication here. This is false. You don't have consensus for your edits, so I don't need consensus to revert you, per the spirit of WP:BRD (which is not WP:BRRRR....). The burden to seek consensus is on you as the one who makes controversial changes, not on editors who preserve articles the way they have been (silently) accepted for years.
Another point, no comment on Luna, but Neville is a far more important character in this series than McGonagall, the twins, etc... Your comparisons don't help. That the previous merges are non-controversial does not create a precedent for merging more notable characters.
To Arcayne. I couldn't say it clearer than Oakshade. The silence you're referring to is in fact not silence. Many users have opposed; they have made their arguments clear. When it comes to judging consensus, their opinions are not to be disregarded by people who publicly disagree with them. Opposers didn't have to respond to your arguments. They didn't have to try to have the last words. At the end of the day, their opposition still stands. Not sure how things work around you in RL, but Wikipedia is not a one-man business. You can make arguments with all your might, but it's up to other editors to decide for themselves if they are convinced or not. You should have asked other editors to clarify their comments instead of relying on what you think they think. (Where did all this "'omg, you were right..." come from? Mind-reader, you are?) No thanks. Please respect consensus. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the two articles involved and the Dumbledore's Army article until we can either get a consensus or get a clearer consensus. Request unprotection at WP:RFPP when that happens.--chaser - t 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Yes, as the opposing parties did not base their opposition inf wikipedia policy. The articles do not demonstrate enough notability to justify their subject having a whole article, and so the essential information was to be merged into its parent article. Crying about how popular the characters are while ignoring their gaping lack of notability (WP:N), obstructing the implementation of policy, wasting the time of very active contributors with endless discussion about "consensus" is not a welcome development. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777, this is a Request for Comment for outside input in order to resolve the dispute of if the merges were performed with WP:CONSENSUS or not (you might not feel ensuring consensus is followed as a worthwhile discussion, but many editors do as consensus is the pinnacle of Wikipedia). It's not for those who already voted in favor (as you did) or opposed to rehash their arguments. --Oakshade (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see the point of both parties about the correctness of this merger, and I won't play judge (even though I have my opinion what should happen with these articles eventually). Fact is, some real-world info is already present in each article, and chances are reasonably high that some more such info exists that could be added. OTOH, both articles are still in violation of WP:WAF (it's the easiest to read the "Conclusions" section there and see how bad the articles fare) and WP:N as the existance of secondary sources of significant substance is still not proven (I'n not talking about google hits). Solution: (1) expansion with real-world info (and the WP:BURDEN of work falls on those wanting to keep the articles), or (2) merge into a list. If enough people volunteer for option 1, then all the power to them, but any other arguing seems like clutching on the straws of popularity and is just a waste of time; the articles in their current form will be merged eventually, be it now, in six months, or in three years, when popularity has waned. – sgeureka t•c 06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to remind everyone that this is no longer the discussion as to whether we support this proposal or not. Ergo, arguments against/in favor of the proposal, though maybe useful for future reference, are off topic and for now unhelpful. What to do now is to determine whether or not the contentious merge had consensus to be performed. If there was no consensus, then it was a bad merge, and can be reverted by anyone. Just making things clear so there is no confusion about what to discuss. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, part of what we are determining is the value of unmerging that which will likely be remerged because of their glaring faults (which prompted the initial merge proposal). The point that you and Oakshade are trying to make is that the merge was performed incorrectly. Okay, let's presume for a moment that its a valid observation. Calving off the two articles doesn't fix their WAF and content issues, and likely one or both would be renominated for merging. Eventually, they are going to be merged as the article subject fades and the zealotry dies down. Grnated that might take a little while, and maybe that's just going to be one of those 'I told you so' discussions. The main point is, what is the real value of undoing a merge that is likely to find consensus for merging? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a good practice to merge quickly and unilaterally, then force other editors to discuss the "value of undoing a merge". The value is to discourage users from taking the same actions in the future. (I wouldn't mind making three more edits to restore the articles, even if they were to be merged at a later date.) Now seeing as the merges lacked consensual basic, I shall request unprotection so everyone can proceed further with the merge proposal discussion. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for summarizing the point of this RfC again, but still, Arcayne said it nicely. What it all comes down to is whether wikipedia is a bureaucracy or not. (Short answer:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.) Why should we discuss if the merger was performed incorrectly, if it would have been correct if we had waited one week, one month, one year longer before merging? Parties had the opportunity to "fix" the concerns of the articles that led to Opeth's initial merge proposal, but they neither added a single source nor trimmed the excessive plot themselves but instead started revert wars and an RfC when the merge was performed. Yes, the merger may have been performed too early and against the vote count (should I say WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY?), but we're going the wrong direction if those not helping in the cleanup process point to cleanupers as the evildoers because they cleaned up "wrong". – sgeureka t•c 06:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe you're taking it for granted that there will be consensus to merge eventually, that the articles contain excessive plot, that they must have more sources to survive, that a single merge proposal can rightly indicate serious issues of the articles. I respectfully disagree with these views, and I believe, based on several debates above, that they are not very widely-held beliefs. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
PeaceNT, I would like you to remind again past discussions regarding Notability (which is the primary point of the proposals). Since the massive mergers took place according to Notability, since help was request in this talk page to improve both of these articles, and since the merger proposals were made, no one has cared to add a single line to improve the articles. As Sgeureka said, the WP:BURDEN of work falls on those defending the articles. The material is challenged: whether Neville and Luna are important characters within the fictional universe itself, it does not matter if they are not Notable elements of fiction in the outside world. It is not Sgeureka's own view that these articles lack of coverage by realiable secondary sources, have not any popular culture reference and have not any impact on the real world; it is a fact. It is not Sgeureka's own view that these articles are only an in-universe plot re-tells (which is against Wikipedia's policies on fiction); it is a real fact. Take the Elder Wand as an example: it is an extremely important element of fiction within the story (perhaps even more than Neville and Luna, because without it Voldemort would have never been defeated), but with no Notability at all. AfD is used when articles meet no Notability, but I prefer to keep this material merged somewhere else rather than seeing it deleted. Merging is not damaging, is only another way of presenting and working with content. In the case of both of these articles, which lack of stuff making them notable, the best thing is to trim them (removing overdetailed scenes and fan-cruft) and place them in a list. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Seven out of 15 editors who joined the proposal discussion disagreed with your views. I think that's reasonably enough to tell if those are consensual or non-consensual views. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"I believe you're taking it for granted that there will be consensus to merge eventually" - Not exactly. I believe that eventually no-one will care about Luna and Neville to oppose a merger. I must have merged, what, 1000 fiction articles that way in the past year (have you noticed? probably not because waned popularity didn't make you or anyone else care, thus proving my point), and I'd be greatly surprised if the Luna or Neville article can defy WP policies and guidelines through sheer fan popularity forever. – sgeureka t•c 17:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone's WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation as to the future popularity (or lack of) of characters has nothing to do with gauging the the validity of a merge that was performed out of consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, as my good advice here seems to fall on deaf ears, there's nothing left to say but goodbye . – sgeureka t•c 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PeaceNT, while I respect those who voted against, most of them used arguments like "Luna participated in battles", "Neville was the other boy in the prophecy" or "both of them appeared a lot in the final book". These people based their votes according to appearances in the series, not according to Notability. It is not Arcayne's, Sgeureka's or my imagination. I need no more proof of this than the revision history of Neville and Luna's articles. If you take a look at the Table of Contents of both articles, you will see that there is only an introductory section for background, an Appearances section, and the references and external links. I see no sections with reception, discussions, popular culture impact, concept and creation, etc. --LøЯd ۞pεth 18:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand how the articles looked, and have no problem with it, because I don't believe articles must have those materials in order to survive on their own. And Ron Weasley doesn't have "reception, discussions, popular culture impact, concept and creation, etc", either. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter, because wikipedia requires an assertion of notability, and your opinion is in wild variance with policy on this issue. Not that I think Ron doesn't have that material somewhere, it could probably be found and his article improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
All policies and guidelines are open to interpretation of editors. The view that fiction character articles must have "reception, discussions, popular culture impact, concept and creation, etc" has never gained consensus on Wikipedia at large; it is not prescriptive. Characters certainly need to be notable, but articles don't need those "reception" sections to verify their notability. I still don't see the difference between Neville and Ron article; Hagrid or Ginny or Sirius don't have that kind of "reception" materials on their articles, either. This however doesn't mean they are all non-notable characters. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Since we are straying from the point of discussing the basis of the original merges, and have already moved on to the debate about whether to accept/reject the proposal. I have requested unprotection of the three pages in question, so articles can be restored to the state before the controversial changes. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are acting in the same way you are accusing others: "out of consensus". If there are opinions like Arcayne's, Sgeureka's, Judgesurreal's and mine that differ that the mergers were not in consensus, then why did you take it like we all agreed that there was no consensus at all and go and request unprotection to revert to your prefered version? --LøЯd ۞pεth 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No consensus is needed to revert contentious and non-consensual changes. Full stop. You failed to provide evidence for the "consensus" you claimed to have had; instead I only see you (and the other three editors) getting off the subject, despite my reminder way above that everyone should get back to the main point. The dispute concerning the basis of the merges is already settled: the proposal lacked consensus. The discussion can continue after the restorations of Neville and Luna articles, but you don't need to keep three articles fully-protected just because a proposal discussion is on going. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had enough of this, there is no consensus to un-merge, and much more importantly than that, you have not demonstrated the notability of these articles, and if you can't do that, you are using a procedural tool to waste everyone time on two articles that will be merged anyway at some point. So my best advice for you now is please stop, as this is purely disruptive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Please reread the first sentence of the comment right above yours, and don't stray from the point. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring the central issue in order to endlessly wikilawyer and cry about how this doesn't have consensus. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The time is wasted because two merges were made out of consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"All policies and guidelines are open to interpretation of editors." PeaceNT (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I begin now to partially understand this, but I still have one main question: does this apply to all editors, or just to some editors? PeaceNT clearly seems to be one of the editors that can interpretate policies and guidelines the way she likes: Notability does not matter for fiction at all; 8 out of 15 is not majority; one doesn't need to get consensus to revert an edit that was performed according to other Wikipedia policies some time ago. But if some other editors defend the fact that, numerically 8 out of 15 is majority in Wikipedia and everywhere in the real life, and we interpret this plus silence plus the fact that no one improved the articles as consensus and as a strong point to perform the mergers, then we are wrong. What are we playing at? --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all these issues above, if anyone bothered to read. I might say one thing again, though. You're naturally biased as the proposer, I don't have to trust your interpretation of consensus, given the fact that 7/15 users had opposed your proposal and none of them (as of now) has changed their opinion. (I gave you plenty of time to ask them, but you did not, and instead you just insist that they had discontinued their opposition) No, your proposal didn't garner enough support at all; the debate was quite clearly forming an outcome of no-consensus. No-consensus on Wikipedia has always meant maintaining the "status quo" (which is currently messed up because of the protection). You put forward a merge proposal, not a keep proposal, no-consensus to merge should have resulted in no merge. That's how no-consensus works all around Wikipedia, AfDs, MfDs, RfAs, RMs, etc. As a matter of fact, even if there I find no-consensus to un-merge today, I can still do it. I have every right to contest controversial edits. But I did stop after my first reverting (due to Arcayne's request), and wait to see if anyone could reasonably clarify the consensus you said you had. But now you're ignoring what I say, trying to get off the point, and force me to discuss "notability" and "value of unmerge" instead. For the last few days I've been thinking: the fact that the pages are protected at your versions makes you take it for granted that the changes had consensus and I have to gain consensus to reverse them. If I had seen this coming, I wouldn't have stopped reverting to discuss, and I wouldn't have endorsed the request for protection at RFPP so another admin would protect the pages at your non-consensual versions. I feel this is wasting my time too; your notability standard has never gained consensus Wikipedia-wide, as shown rather obviously by the fact that WP:FICT was forever a failed proposal (it failed the last time in June 2008, quite a recent date, I'd think.) Articles don't have to follow your understanding of a non-prescriptive guideline.
I think you know that you're wrong, and that it will not be easy to get consensus for your proposal, which is why you quickly merged then are now afraid of restoring articles and continuing discussion. If your proposal did have cnosensus, you shouldn't be so worried, I never said I would dispute changes that were given clear consensus by the community. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to the above, all the numerical "voting" cited didn't include PeaceNT's opinion against the merger. Just another indication of how out-of-consensus the merges were. --Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong Oakshade, because "this is no longer the discussion as to whether we support this proposal or not. Ergo, arguments against/in favor of the proposal, though maybe useful for future reference, are off topic and for now unhelpful." Then, all votes since the mergers were reverted are indeed off topic and for now unhelpful. And this vote was only for Neville, like some other votes that only included Neville. Perhaps we should try make separated vote countings for both articles instead of taking for granted that all votes are in favor or against the mergers of both articles.
To PeaceNT, I never said that all users that voted against and did not come later changed their minds. Oakshade is a clear example. That's why we all are still refering to "8/15", not to "former-8, now-15 out of 15". Silence comes from all other active participants and users that did not make any opposition to the mergers and that have not either prove the articles' notability. Also, only 1 out of 7 editors who voted against is here still defending the articles and accussing others of acting against consensus, the rest did not revert the changes, and are not taking part of any discussion. On the other hand, half of the supporters of the mergers has been actively participating. I would like to add too that, whether we like it or not, WP:N and WP:FICT are still Wikipedia's guidelines, and if they are not fully respected, is because there are still people defending fan-cruft and that don't still get that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a complete guide on X or Y fictional subject. There are Wikias for this. --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Lord Opeth, thanks for confirming exactly what I said. The point is not only was there no clear consensus for the merges before they were performed, there isn't any consensus after they were performed either. You merged these out of consensus any way you look at it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You opposing the merge does not mean there isn't consensus if your reasons are "I don't want a merge". If it has something to do with policy, such as the two articles have a lot of notability we didn't know about, that's one thing, but otherwise this is just a powertrip. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually my reasons against the merge was because these characters passed WP:NOTABILITY and the articles having too much topic specific content to be merged. But this dispute is about weather the merges were performed out of consensus, not rehash old arguments for or against. --Oakshade (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that rather than being Notable, the characters are only important in the series. And rather than talking about "too much topic specific content to be merged", there is too much overdetailed scenes and fan-cruft. On the other hand I think that the fact that no one but you has supported Luna Lovegood after the merge, and that only you and PeaceNT have supported Neville Longbottom, against the four opinions supporting the mergers is a clear proof that, at least after the mergers were performed, there is consensus for the mergers. --LøЯd ۞pεth 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You're just rehashing your old arguments for the merge that there was no consensus for. After the merges, they were reverted back simply because they were out of consensus. Even PeaceNT, whom you keep repeating had no opinion on the Luna Lovegood merge, reverted both merges. That was because you didn't have consensus for the merge. You keep trying to invent a consensus that never existed. We don't have to agree with consensus, but it always must be respected. --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:FICT is not even a guideline. At least not yet. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to follow it. Also, Warnock's Dilemma could make a good read. I think we're going around in circles here. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, a Request for Comment was asked for, and it has been provided by two different editors, both of whom point out the relevant principles on poin t here. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. If a merge is inevitable, and the merge wasn't performed in gross violation of the guidelines for such,t hen we should leave it alone, not seek to undo it out of fannish devotion to the inflated notability of the subsidiary articles. It isn't a crystal ball issue to assume that, over time, certain subjects are going to fade in importance. This has happened with Star Wars, Doctor Who, Styar Trek, Alias, and tons of other subjects, where only the primary characters have their own articles. Subsidiary articles are merged. This is the way of the world, and the way of Wikipedia. Full stop.
Additionally, I find it comically ironic that PeaceNT chose to unilaterally revert the articles back to their pre-merged status and proceeded to protect the articles, defending his action by claiming that "contentious" edits doesn't require consensus. Clearly, if they were contentious, this would be true. However, the merge notice went unnoticed for almost a week, and there was a numerical superiority to merge, and it is clear that these subsidiary characters are not going to survive as independent articles past their popularity shelf-life. The only thing contentious about this is the absolute insistence by two editors (one of them an admin) demanding that their way is right, and everyone else is wrong. It also bears mentioning that those folk voting against the merge haven't really spoken up in opposition here. So, after all this debate over the bureaucracy, there are still only two people who are arguing against the merge. Now, that is what I would call a lack of consensus.
The natural prescriptive for this matter is to begin a discussion for an un-merging. Again, full stop. The merge was already performed, and no one - I repeat, no one has noted how these two individuals are absolutely vital to the progression of the plot of the series. The reason no one has is because the subsidiary characters aren't vital to the story; anyone else could fulfill these roles. This makes them less than vital. Important, yes, just like the rest of Dumbledore's Army, which is where the two were merged to. I urge the two contributors so resolutely opposed to the merge stop wasting time and initiate an argument as to the "very important" nature of these characters to the plot, and why they deserve their own articles, as opposed to remaining where they have been merged to. Are they notable? Sure. Are they important enough to have their own articles? Nope, not anymore.
As well, the discussion would be assisted by ceasing to make bad faith remarks as to one or the other editors beliefs (PeaceNT's comment to LordOpeth: "I think you know that you're wrong, and that it will not be easy to get consensus for your proposal, which is why you quickly merged then are now afraid of restoring articles and continuing discussion" was made in exceedingly bad faith). My own comments about sour grapes, while likely absolutely accurate, also fall into this category.
Lastly, while notability is an essay/guideline currently undergoing its own little lock due to edit-warring, WP:WAF isn't, and it is a part of our MOS guidelines. The individual articles are crufty, in-universe disasters. Mov ed into the DA article, the crufty bits are removed and replaced by actual good writing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This essay was so full of inaccuracies, I don't know where to begin. (Was this an attempted Chewbacca defense?) Let's take things one section at a time...
  • "Well, a Request for Comment was asked for, and it has been provided by two different editors, both of whom point out the relevant principles on poin t here."
A Request for Comment is for outside input, neutral editors who were not involved in the discussion. The two editors you speak of were not neutral outside input.
  • "It isn't a crystal ball issue to assume that, over time, certain subjects are going to fade in importance. This has happened with Star Wars, Doctor Who, Styar Trek, Alias, and tons of other subjects, where only the primary characters have their own articles."
Actually it is a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue to assume anything in the future. And just to demonstrate the inaccuracies of the of the above statement; We have articles for Wedge Antilles (Star Wars), Pavel Chekov (Star Trek), Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart (Dr. Who), Kelly Peyton (Alias) all minor or supporting characters, not primary ones by any stretch of the imagination.
  • "I find it comically ironic that PeaceNT chose to unilaterally revert the articles back to their pre-merged status and proceeded to protect the articles"
PeacNT didn't protect the articles, administrator Chaser did, and to their merged status to boot.
  • "However, the merge notice went unnoticed for almost a week,"
It was in fact after two days the merges were reverted. [3] [4][5].In fact, the merge requests were not only noticed within 1 day of the notices, but they were already editors opposing the merges within 1 day. [6] [7] [8] [9] I don't know how long a "week" is on your planet, but here on earth using the Gregorian calendar, 2 1 day is not even close to "almost a week."
  • "The natural prescriptive for this matter is to begin a discussion for an un-merging. Again, full stop."
The natural prescriptive for this matter is remove merges that were performed out of consensus. Full stop.
  • "I urge the two contributors so resolutely opposed to the merge stop wasting time and initiate an argument as to the "very important" nature of these characters to the plot, and why they deserve their own articles, as opposed to remaining where they have been merged to. Are they notable? Sure. Are they important enough to have their own articles? Nope, not anymore."
It was wasting time to perform merges out of consensus and then stubbornly twisting themselves into argumentative knots trying to justify their out-of-consensus actions.
The rest is just rehash of old arguments in favor of the merge (Strangely, even Arcayne admits they're "notable" in the last speech). If you want to make a case for merges after the out-of-consensus merges are undone, you are welcome to.--Oakshade (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Oakshade, everyone here has been civil to other editors. I think that using phrases like "in your planet" or "stubbornly twisting themselves" is offensive towards other editors. If you read more carefully, you will notice that Arcayne was not talking about the mergers themselves, but the merge proposal tag, which means that for about a week no one made a single comment about the proposals in any talk page. Also, the Crystalball thing that you have been mentioning speaks only about what Wikipedia is not in terms of the content of the articles (for example, WP:CRYSTALBALL would be someone describing the plot of a series finale even before the finale itself is announced). The fact that finished fictional stuff loses popularity within time is commonly seen. And I would also like to add that the argument that X or Y minor character from other work of fiction has its own article is not that valid: people from the respective wikiprojects should work on Notability issues too and remove overdetailed and especific fan-cruft content. Let's not fall in the game of "because they have an individual article for this minor character, then we shall have articles for our minors too". --LøЯd ۞pεth 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Lord Opeth, you are actually correct in that Arcayne was referring to the merge proposal tag, not the merges themselves and I've struck the incorrect stats and wrote the correct ones. Now that that's been cleared up, the merge tags were noticed within one day of the merge proposal tags, not two, not seven. As far as WP:CRYSTALBALL goes, here's a quote from the first paragraph...
"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis."
An editor's speculation as to the future popularity of characters is their own opinion and analysis. "Stubbornly twisting themselves" is quite mild to the insults that have been heaved at me here: "sour grapes" ,"stop wasting time", "Do not seek another bite at the apple", etc.--Oakshade (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Oakshade, you are again misinterpreting Arcayne's words. When he said that the merge tag was unnoticed for a week, he was refering to that one week period of time prior to the mergers being performed, that what this silence and consensus stuff is all about. Nobody is arguing the presence of opposition since day 1. As for the crystalball, it think that it is not our opinion or analysis, take the whole series as an example: has the final book sold again 11 million books as it did in the first 24 hours? --LøЯd ۞pεth 00:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • external view

I am only going to answer the actual RFC - was there consensus. I would call 8 for, 7 against is a pretty flimsy majority on which to base an action which clearly many of you feel very strongly about. The negative response should have been expected, thus the action to merge was probably incorrect. In my opinion the correct time for an RfC would have been before the merge was made, so you could get some external, completely NPOV assessments of WP:N with regards to the articles. Further, WP:BRD, while it gives a BRD(bold again) breakdown, refers to "agreed upon changes". 8-7 in a do or dont motion is not really "agreed upon changes".

Thus my opinion is there was no consensus and further that, if you felt the 8-7 deadlock over this issue was important enough to wiki to warrant it, you should have initiated an RfC on the issue to break the impasse rather than just go ahead and merge. Arguments that "it would have happened anyway, eventually" are pretty much irrelevant as Wiki has no deadline.

While legitimate arguments exist that Wiki is not a democracy or bureaucracy and that its guidelines are not hard and fast laws, the dispute process (such as RfC) exists precisely to break impasses like this in a manner that will hopefully be satistfactory to all parties. I would say that knowing the likelyhood of initiating an edit war, ignoring all rules and merging anyway was probably the least useful option available here. Jaimaster (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Conclusion There have been two outside views from two different editors since the RfC was requested. Both don't see consensus in the proposal discussion. I believe it's time for unprotection and proper reversion. As user Oakshade said, if anyone wishes to discuss merges after the out-of-consensus merges are undone, s/he is welcome to.--PeaceNT (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okey-doke. I certainly hope the two unmerged articles are significantly improved now that the spotlight of their unmerging has clearly indicated their inherent defects. If not, I suspect this will not be the last time these two articles end up on either the merge ticket or the chopping block.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Harry_Potter_task_force/Archive_12&oldid=1142157318"