Jump to content

Talk:Helena G. Wells

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

Article redirect

[edit]

Please add your thoughts to this discussion on whether or not Helena G. Wells should receive a character article. Below is the history of the page dispute:

--- The article associated to this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helena_G._Wells&oldid=504236310 was deleted in its entirety by this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AussieLegend#Deleted_an_entire_article_that_was_just_published.3F with the comment of:

"Not a main character so shouldn't have a character article."

There was no discussion prior to the deletion. I left a comment on that person's page about the deletion that read:

May I ask why you deleted an entire article regarding Helena G. Wells that was JUST published tonight? I can understand the argument that her not being a regular is why you wouldn't want to have her listed as a main one in the character list page, but to delete the entire article itself without even approaching the author (me) about it before you did so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the response I received:

To date, character articles have been created only for the main characters in the series. While I understand that you put some work into the article, perhaps you should have asked whether its creation was appropriate at Talk:List of Warehouse 13 characters before putting in the effort. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This was my response:

Hey Aussie, I appreciate your comment on that. This was my first article so I wasn't entirely aware of the etiquette to discuss prior to creation. That said, I would have appreciated the courtesy of discussion before just deleting it. I don't feel that trying to work this out on your talk page is the best way to resolve this. I'm going to see if we can find a better page for this. I'd appreciate your thoughts and will be glad to explain why I think this particular character actually deserves an article (along with the recommendation from another person on a different character page).Electprogeny (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article can be reverted to its original state, but I would like to have an open discussion and hear any objections out to see if we can find resolution before any further action is taken. Please leave your comments here.

I believe Helena G. Wells should have a character article despite not being a regular cast member on the show of Warehouse 13. My reasoning for this is that she has had an enormous impact on both the other characters as well as the main show's story-arc since her arrival in the first episode of Season 2. She plays the main antagonist for the entirety of Season 2; is instrumental in both causing a main character's exit from the Warehouse as well as that character's return; and serves in an overwhelming capacity as the savior of three of the main characters with the season 3 finale - and has been reinstated to the show as of the Season 4 premiere. No other recurring character has had so much of an impact on the show. Her importance to the overarching story arcs, to so many of the main characters, and to the development of one of the main characters (Myka Bering) is incontestable. Additionally, conversations with others on the Myka Bering page suggested much information that had been gathering there for that character truly belonged on an article dedicated to Helena G. Wells. I was in complete agreement with that recommendation. If there are no objections I intend to reinstate this article. If there are objections, I would like to discuss them here. Any other opinions relevant to this discussion topic are welcome. Electprogeny (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend's reasoning isn't sufficient for deleting the article, if the reasoning was really as follows:

To date, character articles have been created only for the main characters in the series.

Nothing on Wikipedia would ever have been written if the general logic here was a Wikipedia guideline (i.e. an article can't exist unless it or something like it has existed before). Furthermore, this goes against the spirit of WP:BB. Anyone deleting any article must cite a reason from WP:DEL-REASON. Since AussieLegend hasn't done so, there's no reason the article should have been deleted. 72.21.131.202 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helena_G._Wells&oldid=504236310. Thanks for posting the valid reasons for deletion! It seems the article in dispute does not meet those reasons.Electprogeny (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple issues. First, your article wasn't deleted. It was redirected back to the main article, which was a perfectly appropriate action given Aussie's concerns about the article. Critical to the life of any article is establishing the notability of its topic. You've cobbled together a lot of fancrufty material, too many lists, a lot of weasel/peacock words, and nothing that establishes the notability of the character aside from her having had a lengthy story arc one season. You make an argument above for the article to be retained, but the article itself doesn't reflect the notability of the character you claim exists. In its current state, I'd have done the same thing with the article Aussie did. --Drmargi (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page reinstated after determination deletion was not in keeping with rules for speedy deletion

[edit]

After speaking with members of the live chat help area, it was recommended by Theopolisme to reinstate the page. If there are any others who object to the creation of this article - please refer to the rules for speedy deletion as mentioned in the previous entry on this talk page. If you still believe the article should be deleted in its entirety please follow the proper channels to nominate it for deletion. Electprogeny (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't speedily deleted, it was merely redirected. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality article

[edit]

This is a very well thought out and comprehensive article. I find the citations throughout to be very helpful. I had been hoping that someone would create a Helena Wells complete article and this definitely is everything I had hoped it would be. This will be very useful when referencing the character in other online discussions. Major kudos to the author on their brilliant work.

Also, the impact that Helena G. Wells had on the characters and on the story arcs should entitle her to a wikipedia entry. She may not have been a "main" character but her influence far exceeds her title of "guest". To not have a Helena G. Wells page would be a major oversight on wikipedia's behalf and would be the equivalent of burning down a library with a friend inside. (Mynameisme91 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

This is a long way from comprehensive. It's brief, need major copy-editing, consists of too much content in list form that will mean nothing to someone who doesn't watch the show (the antithesis of the job of an encyclopedia) and generally reads like it belongs on a fan site, not in this project. The article at The Warehouse 13 Wiki is far superior in detail and writing, and it's on a fan wiki! --Drmargi (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

As it's watched by more people, I've started a discussion at Talk:Warehouse 13#Helena G. Wells regarding this article, prior to a formal merge proposal or AfD nomination. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who choose not to visit that discussion, basically the argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to create a character article unless it's for a main character and that it should have more external references and not be written "in-universe". I've pointed out that NONE of the main character articles meet this criteria, nor even does the article from which the argument was launched. In point of fact only THIS article has ANY references outside of Wikipedia and contains more non-episode references than any other article in question. It is also written with the same "in-universe" writing as the other articles. As such, it is in complete keeping with what I am seeing elsewhere, though I do hope to improve on this article as much as possible.Electprogeny (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". What you've posted is justification for deletion of all of the articles, not retention of this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was my POINT. Glad you got it. If THIS article is somehow inappropriate, then they all are. For you to go on a crusade against THIS article and not against ALL THE OTHERS tells me your issue is less about the content, style, or quality of the article and more about the fact that it is not in keeping with your personal belief that articles should or should not exist based upon your own subjective criteria. That tells me your motivating reason for all of this is not about wanting quality, but about wanting control. I'm interested in quality. It is my intention to make this article, which is my first article, one of utmost quality and I will be taking suggestions and criticisms to heart in order to incorporate them to the best of my ability. I then intend on doing that exact same thing for all the other articles. Your assistance in that would be appreciated.Electprogeny (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're completely wrong. It's not unusual to have articles on main characters, it is to have them on recurring characters. What attracted me to this article originally was your addition of HG Wells to the main article, when that article only lists the main characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you believe I am wrong, does not mean I am. Whether it is or is not unusual to have such articles for main vs. recurring characters CONTINUES TO BE IRRELEVANT. There is NO RULE that says this cannot happen, therefore it's just another article. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept what the rules are as well as what they are NOT. Actually, I think what attracted you to this article was your desire to see it deleted. :) Electprogeny (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just believe you are wrong, I know it. Please don't tell me why I came here and please familiarise yourself with WP:AGF. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tell you why you came here, I told you why I think you came here. And my comment had nothing to do about good faith - I was referring to your OWN STATEMENTS that you think the article should not exist at all. Why on earth would you think I meant anything else? Talk about a need for good faith! LOL In any regard, pretty much every single one of your objections is being handled right now - and I am being told by multiple people in the help areas that provided there are sufficient secondary sources the notability won't be an issue. I have already included twelve, and will be adding more until one of the help folks advises me that things are good. If you have any actual helpful advice beyond the flinging of complaints I'd REALLY appreciate it. My goal is to make this the best written wiki article on anything relating to Warehouse 13!Electprogeny (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To use your own words,[1] this isn't a matter of semantics. This is a matter of you alleging that I did something that has no basis in fact. Instead of attacking editors who have concerns with the content that you have added (you've really been on the offensive from the beginning[2]) you should be concentrating on improving the article in accordance with our policies, guidelines and established consensus. While you may have added 12 references, notability is not about quantity, it's about quality. WP:N says that "significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Episode recaps don't establish notability of the subject any more than travel guides establish notability of hotels. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really going to try to say you have NOT REPEATEDLY been saying this article should not exist because it's not about a main character? Really? You have been saying that, and you have done so in multiple places. Period. I'm not going to sit here and argue over that. As for notability the new secondary resources should take care of that.Electprogeny (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with the allegation "For you to go on a crusade against THIS article and not against ALL THE OTHERS tells me your issue is less about the content, style, or quality of the article and more about the fact that it is not in keeping with your personal belief that articles should or should not exist based upon your own subjective criteria. That tells me your motivating reason for all of this is not about wanting quality, but about wanting control." Claims of a "crusade" and the allegations that you've made about why I redirected this article are inappropriate. As I've said, this article only came to light because you added H.G. Wells as a major character in the main article.[3] There was no crusade at all. You need to assume good faith. And no, I don't believe that notability is established, for the reasons explained in my last post. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not arguing a semantics issue with you. You have stated your objection to a perceived allegation and I will provide you the same level of courtesy as you are showing me for the one I raised to you. We can both, then, just assume good faith. If we can now please move on from the bickering into the substantial effort of article improvement, I'd appreciate it. Your constant need to assail everything and anything I do here is seriously harassing me to the point of wondering why anyone ever bothers to contribute on Wikipedia if this is how they are treated. I'm a generally easy going person, I am a die-hard fan of the show and have been since its inception, I interact with some members of the cast socially, even, and yet right about now my love for wanting to help improve the information about Warehouse 13 available on Wikipedia is getting seriously stunted by the negativity inherent to how you initiated our contact. Something about an arbitrary action that was met with dismissal when I tried to talk with you about it just did not set well - and everything you have done and written to date has only continued that feeling. I am going to stop any personal interaction at this point, and request that you do the same, and keep this just about article improvement. Electprogeny (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and btw... YOU may want to read the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS page. You wrote: "It's not unusual to have articles on main characters, it is to have them on recurring characters" when CLEARLY, that very argument itself is covered by the passage you so graciously quoted for me previously: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist".Electprogeny (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at articles like Ben Linus for a solid article about a fictional TV character. You can't just have references to episodes and to the SyFy network. You need to find articles, reviews, etc in respectable media (not blogs or forums) that discuss the character, and quote from them. This is what you need to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement for articles, otherwise it will eventually be deleted or merged. Barsoomian (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I will be providing a great deal of references within the next 24 hours. I have 2 that are already there (which are 2 more than any of the other Warehouse 13 articles) to independent articles, and the rest of the references are made for the names of the episode only. I can update those to use wikilinks, but I think that would make the page a bit busy. 70.123.222.109 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone better get some sources in here fast, because this article is doomed as it stands. It's a lazy fancrufty article, regardless of how notable the character may be, written on the assumption fans, not encyclopedia readers will be its primary readers. For example, if the editor writing or some other interested editor it can't be bothered to explain all the stuff (such as the inventions) that the character invented, it doesn't belong in the article. --Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how fast you were asking for, but as I said - I'll be adding quite a lot over the next day. I've just added about 12, in fact. Good point on the inventions. I will take care of that right now.Electprogeny (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my comments here. IShadowed (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

The primary source referenced (which were added for both the purpose of citing the character history - which is acceptable - as well as for simply relaying episode titles) were never the only sources referenced, but I have added twelve secondary sources as of this writing. These are all independent resources and are meant to augment the primary resource references. I will continue to add such secondary references. I will be also updating the primary references where they were made for the purpose of providing the name of the episode with the wikilink to the episode list article as I was not aware of how to do that until just recently. Some primary references may remain as a result, but the majority will be removed. Electprogeny (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't, in and of themselves, establish notability; they help make the case for notability. You need to discuss how the article is notable here before removing the notability tag. I've also restore the list and trivia tags. You've elaborated the inventions a bit, but there is still too much trivia and too much content in list form. --Drmargi (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was just left on the discussion for this article on the main Warehouse 13 article's talk page: Based on the independent references that the author of the article has added, I think it's fair to say that the article meets WP:GNG. The character is that of a notable TV production, and while she is not a main character, it appears as though there is enough media coverage/reception/criticism to merit a standalone page. There's way too much relevant content to merge the character with the article on the show. That being said, there is quite a substantial bit of cleanup that needs to take place. Namely, the repeated use of references in-line when one citation can simply be added at the end of a paragraph or several sentences. I've discussed this issue with Electprogeny and it will be corrected. IShadowed (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) and the tag was removed by that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny (talk • contribs)

Taken from the talk page from Drmargi:

::To answer your question about "WHY is this character so important" - there are a lot of reasons, but primarily it's because I think the influence of H.G. on the show has been monumental. She's not, by any means, a trivial character. She completely changes the way Myka responds to the world around her in severely meaningful ways. Joanne, Jack, Jaime, and Saul have all talked about that. Additionally, her role in shaping the way things played out at the end of the last season is huge, and Syfy IS in the middle of creating an entire series around her (which has been well-documented all over the place and is even brought up on the DVD commentaries). It may be that some feel this character does not deserve to be given an independent article because she's not a principle on Warehouse 13, but she is not "just" a recurring character and is not, by any means, a minor one. Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate them. Electprogeny (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As for the notability, it was categorically stated by a helper/admin-type that the article has established notability" - That's simply an opinion of one editor (who isn't an admin by the way, not that being an admin makes any difference) Having reviewed the sources that were added, I agree with Drmargi, notability doesn't appear to be established. WP:N requires significant coverage, i.e. more than a mention in a recap for example. As for in-universe perspective, this is addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that I needed at least 4 secondary sources that fit the bill, and multiple folks in the helper area agreed this had been met. Was told to contact them again if this came up for issue. I will continue to add references in any case.

In-Universe

[edit]

I have re-written the article to more closely match the guidelines relating to objective writing vs. in-universe writing. I believe the new wording result sin the article no longer being an in-universe article. If you disagree, please provide an example of what you believe is still in-universe and provide a suggestion for how a rewording would make it not in-universe. That will help me improve the article much faster than not providing any clarification or suggestions. Thanks! Electprogeny (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the User talk page for Drmargi

To answer your question about "WHY is this character so important" - there are a lot of reasons, but primarily it's because I think the influence of H.G. on the show has been monumental. She's not, by any means, a trivial character. She completely changes the way Myka responds to the world around her in severely meaningful ways. Joanne, Jack, Jaime, and Saul have all talked about that. Additionally, her role in shaping the way things played out at the end of the last season is huge, and Syfy IS in the middle of creating an entire series around her (which has been well-documented all over the place and is even brought up on the DVD commentaries). It may be that some feel this character does not deserve to be given an independent article because she's not a principle on Warehouse 13, but she is not "just" a recurring character and is not, by any means, a minor one. Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate them. Electprogeny (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As for the notability, it was categorically stated by a helper/admin-type that the article has established notability" - That's simply an opinion of one editor (who isn't an admin by the way, not that being an admin makes any difference) Having reviewed the sources that were added, I agree with Drmargi, notability doesn't appear to be established. WP:N requires significant coverage, i.e. more than a mention in a recap for example. As for in-universe perspective, this is addressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I've viewed it multiple times and feel as if the article is in keeping with that guideline. No one seems to have any actual example of just WHAT they think is still in-universe, nor any suggestion on what a re-written example from the article would look like. Until someone can assist me with that, I am unable to determine if the concern is valid.

Deletion of content does not make the article any more or any less in-universe. It simply reduces content. In-universe is about style, per the guideline, and not about content. To make something less in-universe it must be written less from the fictional character's point of view and must refer to real-world perspective. To quote the manual of style for wikipedia article: An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

Deletion of content does not accomplish this task. It merely reduces the content on a page. Electprogeny (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. AussieLegend is a highly experienced editor, and his revision made considerable improvements to the in-universe content. Having reverted all that, the article is again badly in-universe and needs major, major copy-editing. This still reads like it belongs on a fan wiki. You're increasingly owning the article, and taking edits far too personally. --Drmargi (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very few people who actually did true revisions - and I do consider you to be one of them. I think those people have all made very valid changes most of the time. Deletion in and of itself, however, is not a re-write of an article - and even the tag for "in-universe" asks editors to assist in improving the article by way of re-writing in an "out of universe" perspective. I'm curious that with the adamant insistence on the article being so "in-universe" that not one single person has been able to offer an example of what within the article is still "in-universe" and then suggest an alternative wording to make it less-so. The lack of ability for anyone to do this leaves me thinking that even those advocating for the position that the content needs further editing to reduce the "in-universe" feel are as unsure as I am about what still needs to be changed to satisfy the objection. I will say that a very recent edit someone else did which eliminated nearly the same amount of content as had been done previously was an edit I thought made sense. The removal of select content, re-ordering of content, and re-writing of content all served to vastly improve the article.
I take nothing about the edits, themselves, personally. I am no more invested in seeing this article become an extraordinarily well-written article as some people are to see it removed or merged elsewhere. The only thing I do not understand is the bizarre double-standard, but that isn't really important when it comes to the question of how well-written this article is. Electprogeny (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia/Lists

[edit]

I have removed all list formats and reworded sections as well as condensed and deleted extraneous data points. I have subsequently removed the List and Trivia tags as I believe this no longer qualifies under the stated objection reasons. Electprogeny (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helena G. Wells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helena G. Wells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helena_G._Wells&oldid=1200671666"