Talk:List of female action heroes and villains/Archive 1

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

question regarding content removal and citations

Citations are nice but in uncontroversial situations when there is a wikipedia article supporting the claims it is not perfect but I oppose the removal of such. See this article/list I work on List of Serbs - removing all uncited redlinks and let the rest go - dubious ones are tagged as citation required and removed if not supported after some time - this article is really about characters, not living people - I am not seeing any need to strip it of three quarters or more of its current content - especially during an AFD discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  • First, who declared them uncontroversial? For example, I'd absolutely contest calling Lt. Uhura an "action hero" or "Cagney and Lacey" action heroes. Second, you keep working under the asssumption that the artitcles about the person/character says "action hero". Show the evidence. Fine, you think it's notable, then then topic is notable, but WP:V and WP:RS still apply here. I could have stripped them out before the AfD, what's the difference? The fact here is that the entries removed show no reliable source calling them an "action hero". If you want to change WP:V, then have at it. Until it changes, it still applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, I've tried tagging entries before, like you suggested. Then, after the tedious work, some IP editor will come along and just revert and call it "tag bombing". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have gone down that road also - at list of serbs one user won't discuss and just add redlinks without a cite - I just go there every week and remove the new ones now. I originally requested citations but it was a waste of time - the list has a value 6000 people are looking at it every month.
It doesn't complicate it that you are the nominator at AFD but I think its better to either do it before or after than during but its not something I see as hard and fast.. It does matter that two experienced contributors in good faith have reverted you. I don't think I see anything controversial - if you do see anything specific lets have a look at it and see about either citing it or removing it. Lets have a look at the names you have issues and worries about. Is it that you feel that the specific words "action hero" should be in the parent articles? Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
First off, I am an "experienced contributor" too. So please let's not play that game. As "experienced contributors", I'm sure you are familiar with the requirement (not suggestion) that encyclopedic information be verifiable via a reliable source. You are suggesting that we ignore that. Second, I just gave you 3 specific examples off the top of my head that are on the list and that I would absolutely contest. Did you address them? Nope. And yes, somewhere on wikipedia, the "title" of "action hero" has to be recorded from a reliable source. Simply appearing in an action movie doesn't make you an "action hero". Simply being a character in an ancient poem doesn't make you an "action hero". Yes, I nominated it for deletion. It appears that you and the rest of the ARS have managed to save it. Fine, if it is going to be kept, it need to follow the policies. Policy #1: WP:V. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yawn - I was discussing not playing games - and I voted to delete and then moved to neutral, so I am not some supporter of the list either. keep your attacks - bye - Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Attacks? While it might seem appropriate that if we're going to fabricate "action hero" status, please refrain from extending fabrication to imagined offenses. Keep your fiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
At least your position of unnecessary defensiveness - discussion is something different - your peek at the article being supported after you nominated it for deletion is amusing to say the least. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Well which is it? Defensive or attack? Or did you just start getting a little defensive yourself? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever , take your pick, its definitely not colloquial discussion as we know it Spock - you're clearly not a simpleton, I will defer to your heightened intellect. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • All the other stuff aside, can we agree that WP:V is important here? If we don't have a source (either in the parent article or here) that calls them an "action hero", then how are they getting on the list? Is it then someone's judgement? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, lets agree that WP:V is quite important here, currently/historically the inclusion criteria is completely vague. Your deletion has been accepted and a user is attempting to improve the list - so its all good. I appreciate your position and as it was I was a delete/neutral , never a support, if the lists focus and inclusion criteria is improved through your trimming that will be great - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It would seem like the next logical step here would be to determine what the list is going to cover and what the criteria for inclusion would be. Much as some of you might think I'm being a pain about this, Aircraft in fiction was once nothing more than a mostly unsourced list of Transformer toys and OR and we gutted it. Now, it is longer, more comprehensive list, with a solid criteria and everything in it is sourced with a reliable source. New additions get fact tagged until Fridays and someone cleans up all the unsourced on Friday. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I see I am wasting my time if the film Charlies Angels fail the Action hero test when the cite from rotten tomatoes list it as action /adventure. I have only a limited magazine source from the 2000/2001 and some British books from before that. I have been trying by looking on the actual character pages to use the same cites. if someone has the books mentioned in the further reading then they can cite those. You can have a field day on every list on wikepedia.REVUpminster (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You act like everything has been removed. The Rotten Tomatoes review said it was an action movie. That doesn't make them action heroes. There probably is a reliable source that calls them action heroes (althought you might want to search for heroine), but that source wasn't it. Like I said above, other lists have been gutted and came back longer than before and all well sourced. Pleaese don't act like actually sourcing something and NOT using a bunch of assumptions is something I am inventing. WP:V with a WP:RS is a well-established rule. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • An action hero is "a character, usually a protagonist, in an action-adventure novel, film, television show, or game." They don't have to be called a hero or heroine. Are Charlies' Angels not protagonists? Dream Focus 10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That is the definition used on the very short wikipedia article about the term (somethign that looks almost wiktionary material). That doesn't make it the only one.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Form a consensus. Niteshift36 nominates both articles for deletion, and then goes and removes most of the content of this article. [1] Two editors have reverted him so far. I agree with both of them. You do NOT need a source for every single entry on a list. Do not remove unless you sincerely doubt the information there. Dream Focus 10:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said, and you have ignored, if their parent article says it, then it obviously doesn't need sourced again. However, it has to be sourced SOMEPLACE. Otherwise, it's just your subjective view that that are an "action hero".Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Rev, does it matter? How many other places do you want to ask this? Maybe you can answer the question that everyone else is ignoring: Why should this article be exempt from WP:V? Why should the directive that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." not apply to this list? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Any suggestions for the criteria for inclusion on the list? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • This book looks like a good source looking at the Contents page: Female Action Heroes: A Guide to Women in Comics, Video Games, Film, and Television ISBN 13: 978-0313376122[2]

REVUpminster (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • What about the criteria for inclusion? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Third party publications titled as above for enties that would lead to an article (Blue wikilink) or a possible article (red wikilink). REVUpminster (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • So let me be clear: You think that if any third party that passes RS ever said they are an "action hero", then it gets included? Is that correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". Not that I agree with all of that but I would not confess to be an expert on wikipedia policies because like the Bible, Wikiapedia can be interpreted in many ways by editors to support their assertions. Sorry if I am rambling.REVUpminster (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you please just answer the question I asked? I didn't ask what sources should be used. I haven't asked about verifiability. Every list is supposed to have a criteria defining what gets included on the list. This list has no criteria for inclusion. I am asking for suggestions to make a criteria. THAT is the question. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • An action hero is a character, usually a protagonist, in an action-adventure novel, film, television show,[1] or game. This is from the Action hero article that the male and female articles were split from. I think it should all be retitled Fictional action hero as an editor has already suggested.REVUpminster (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that doesn't really work. For example, Snake Plissken in Escape from NY is the protagonist of an action movie, yet is used as an example of being an antihero. The same would apply to Dirty Harry. Tough to call someone a hero and antihero at the same time. Further, that definition just says a character. That's it, just a character. That would make Perry White an action hero because he is a character in the Superman films. Does that sound right to you? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Shimpach, Shawn (2010.) "Television in Transition: The Life and Afterlife of the Narrative Action Hero." Wiley-Blackwell. Accessed September 2011.
  • Try An Action hero is a lead character etc, etc, to negate the Perry Whites of this world being included. As for police characters I wonder if they should be there as the detective genre should not be blurred with action adventure even though in modern film such as Die Hard it has become blurred. PS. Dirty Harry to a conservative is a hero to a liberal an anti hero.REVUpminster (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article about antihero uses Dirty Harry as an example, without adding political opinions into the mix. I really think that the "a lead character" is still a little to open. Just being A lead character still leaves us with say Bosley from Charlie's Angels. Main character, there every week, even had an episode or two center around him, still not an action hero. Before you start thinking "what a dick", I'm trying to get the criteria straight so that 6 months from now, when things like this come up, the criteria will prevent the addition of characters that don't really work. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Bosley is not a very good example as he was male and not a Charlies Angel. In fact, was the TV series action adventure? the film was. I agree Lt Uhura should not be included as she was a secondary character. Protagonist also means lead character. If the genre on its wikipage calls a film or tv show action adventure is that good enough for inclusion?. I only put three entires on the article because I only came across the article recently and wanted to link articles but I see the male section has gone so I epect this one to go. Ironically Action hero requires expansion so the cycle will begin again. My brain is not big enough for all this.REVUpminster (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a good example. Charlie's Angels was probably more of an action adeventure show than Kim Possible or Neuromancer, both of which are in the article. Instead of worrying about Bosely's gender, look at what I'm saying: a main character, but not an action hero. I know what protagonist means and I find it fairly insulting that you want to act like I don't. Look at your suggested criteria; it says usually the protagonist. It's those little details that make a difference. How about if we don't get lazy and just try to copy a flawed definition? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I see the male action heroes page was deleted(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_male_action_heroes), but this one wasn't. I smell a feminist agenda. Either delete this page or restore the male one. Wouldn't that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.27.245 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • First off, I nominated both and actively worked on having it deleted. A few people from the ARS decided to claim this was worth saving and, as I predicted, most haven't put any work into improving this. That said, just demanding the other one be restored isn't how thing work. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There was absolutely no reason to delete either. Nothing gained by destroying this sort of content. Dream Focus 13:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no reason for the mass deletion of content. [3] An editor who wanted to destroy the entire article, fails, so just destroys most of it. Anyone other than that one person object to all content being restored? Dream Focus 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So now WP:ILIKEIT trumps WP:RS and WP:V? We're going to call "Erin Esurance from Esurance television commercials" an "action hero" just because someone says so without any source or any criteria? That's absurd and you know it. Look at the list as it was......minor characters in cartoons, sci-fi and horror movies being called an "action hero" solely because they did something action related in a movie/show/cartoon or.....insurance commercial. RS and V my friend. BTW, what editor wanted to destroy it? I nominated it for deletion, not destruction. It didn't get deleted. Fine. It still has to comply with policy and just because I was the nominator for deletion doesn't preclude me from helping get the article into compliance with policy, guidelines and common sense.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Common sense would say Hit-Girl from the comic book series Kick Ass is an action hero. She does most of the action in the series, and kills a lot of bad guys. Instead of mass deleting things, the list should only be pruned of things we are certain are not action heroes. You do NOT need a reference for every single entry onto a list. Never have, never will. That's just ridiculous. Dream Focus 16:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is better to remove them and add back on a case by case than argue with fanboys over every single removal. And no, every one wouldn't need a source. For example, it is pretty obvious that Lara Croft was an action hero, however Dr. Crusher from TNG will require a source . Again, simply having a role in an action movie or a single action sequence in something doesn't make you an action hero. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, I see......since you "personally" checked all the animation section, everything goes back because you alone are the arbitor of what an action hero is apparently.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You can read their character articles or series articles. All of these are female characters, that fought enemies regularly, as the good guys of the story. Thus action heroes. Do you have any sincere doubt for any of the entries? Does the linked to Wikipedia article for them not convince you? Dream Focus 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do have doubts. Simply being in fights or shooting doesn't make you an "action hero". Some of the removals you complained about included silliness like Esurance etc. How is you simply deciding "I've watched it and she is an action hero" NOT original research? Why is your personal opinion about what an action hero is more relevant than my opinion about what an action hero is not? As I said long ago, the first thing a list like this needs is a criteria for inclusion. How can you populate a list without deciding what the list truly includes? But you're so fired up about about forcing entries in that fit your personal definition of action hero that you've just blown that off. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not add in the Esurance bit. I looked over the animation list, and only re-added things I knew about, or first read about in Wikipedia articles dedicated to them. Everyone knows what "action" is, it basically fighting. And "hero" is well defined as well, they the good guy in the series, fighting the bad guys. Dream Focus 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You may not have added it (and I never said you did), but it was in the deletion you used in your example as being "destructive". As for hero being easy because it is the one fighting the bad guys......is that a hero? Snake Plissken fought bad guys in an action movie, but it used as an example of being an anti-hero. So which would he be, hero or anti-hero? Can't really be both. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It was destructive to eliminate everything, instead of selective pruning. Do you see anyone on the list that is an anti-hero? If not, then no sense debating semantics here. Dream Focus 09:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Semantics? Yeah, imagine someone thinking that words should actually mean something in an encyclopedia. What kind of craziness is that? At this point, I haven't reviewed every entry on the list because, unlike you, I'm trying to focus on a bigger issue: The lack of inclusion criteria. Stop being such a fanboy for a minute and look at the good of the entire list, not just the cartoons you watch. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The characters must be more selective. Detectives like Dana Scully or Captain Janaway just because of an odd punch up in an episode should not be included. There could be a case for Chin Ho from Hawaii 50 but the new series is so far removed from its original premis that it is more action than detective. Just shooting a gun is not action. The best examples are heros like Zena, the Queen of Swords, Max from Dark Angel, and the film Charley's Angels (not sure about the tv), where there is a real physical presence.REVUpminster (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Scully isn't an action hero. I removed Captain Janeway. Cameron (Terminator) is an action hero, since if you click on the link to her article it says "In the same year, she was also nominated for two Teen Choice Awards for her work on Terminator, in the categories of favorite action adventure television actress and favorite female breakout television star.[28]" When the actress gets nominated for "favorite action adventure television actress" then obviously that proves that fictional character is an action character. Dream Focus 23:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So just being an actress in an action show makes you an "action hero" according to what you just said. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Her character is a cyborg that runs around kicking the crap out of the bad guys. Yes, she is an action hero. That's just common sense. Do you honestly doubt she is an action hero, or are you just arguing to prove a point? Dream Focus 09:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In your quest to include her, you are missing the larger point. You're talking about a single character or a couple of them.....I'm talking about the list as a whole. There needs to be a criteria for inclusion. Period. This subjective "well, I saw the cartoon" stuff isn't in compliance with the applicable policies and you know it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you read it? So far, I don't see the consensus that says we should NOT be selective and that we should ignore WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. So far, it has been you complaining that I am actually following those policies and you don't like it. You have failed to present a policy based reason. Do you even have a policy based reason? Or will all following arguments be WP:ILIKEIT based? To quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." THAT is policy, not my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged," Challenged by someone who sincerely doubts the information, obviously. Do you see anyone on the list you don't believe should be there? Have you checked the Wikipedia articles for them or their series and read about them before making that conclusion? Most list articles do not have a reference for every single entry because common sense says, if no one is likely to sincere doubt the information and challenge it for that reason, then there is no possible reason to bother with that. And it isn't original research, its common sense. Find someone on the list you really don't believe is an action hero and discuss it here. Dream Focus 02:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to wonder if this ignorance is willful. The policy doesn't say "if you think it's common sense, then it doesn't need a source". It doesn't say "if you saw the cartoon, then you can decide". It does say exactly what I am stating. Again, I haven't said every single entry needs a source. Stop pretending I have. But this article is without a criteria for inclusion, which is an issue and some of the entries in the article, past or present, have been questionable, if not downright laughable. Whether it is "common sense" in your personal opinion means exactly zero. WP:V does not appoint you the arbitor of common sense. It says that any challenged material must be sourced. Period. Check and mate. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That might work if the fanboy editor wanted to actually operate in good faith. At this point, when policies are completely dismissed without any justification and relies on "I watched it and this is what I say", then I stop assuming good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't watch most of it, I read the articles for the characters or the series. It clearly establishes them as action heroes. Pick one name on the list where you disagree with me on that. Dream Focus 15:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Watched it, read it, had it beamed directly into your brain....it doesn't matter. It still comes back to you, a non-expert and not a reliable source, making an arbitrary decision based on your personal opinion as to what an action hero is or is not because we have no criteria for inclusion and no reliable source saying so. Spin the rest of it anyway you want. Repeat "show me an example" all you want. You can't deny the policy truth. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Once again, I'm going to ask for discussion about what the criteria for inclusion is and what additions need to be made to the woefully short lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I love the lack of cooperation by people who claim to be improving the article. Too busy for the basics I guess. No time between adding every cartoon around and conducting OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is what the TVIV uses as a definition for action genre but they don't cite where they got it from.

Genre: A type of story in which the plot is advanced almost primarily through actions rather than through dialogue. Further, as distinguished from many slapstick comedies, action almost invariably involves some level of significant violence, danger or destruction, be it violence by or against humans, nature or objects. Contemporary action stories may involve explosions, gun fights, fistfights, car chases or natural disasters.

do you think we could adapt it here as the lead?REVUpminster (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested material

You know, this is getting old. WP:OR is OR. Period. If something gets contested a couple of times, then the person adding it needs to provide a source. WP:PROVEIT is a policy and it applies here. Telling people to "watch it on Youtube" or your personal list of "she runs and fight" is not a WP:RS and it's not going to fly. Yeah, I'm ok with some obvious ones. I'm ok with letting a few questionable ones slide by from time to time, but when material is challenged, it gets properly sourced or it gets removed. That is a basic tenant of Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Two editors want it there, one person wants it removed and has reverted both of them. [4] Why do you contest this? Do you sincerely doubt she is an action hero? Its not original research to actually watch part of an episode and see her running around shooting psychic lightning at her enemies, and clearly plenty of action. The show is listed as Genres: action, comedy, drama, fantasy, science fiction [5]. She is one of the main characters of the series. Why do you doubt she is an action hero? Dream Focus 00:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't a popularity contest. WP:V is a policy and 1.5 editors doesn't negate that policy. I have let a number of them go without demanding proof, so I don't see why you fight having to actually follow policy once in a while. Your answer to "watch youtube" is the very essence of OR. If you can't see that, I've been giving you too much credit. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 1.5? So the other editor only counts as half a person to you? Kindly answer my question. Do you sincerely doubt this person is an action hero? You do NOT need a reference for every single thing on a list. You should only remove things because you sincerely doubt them. Dream Focus 02:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm generally unimpressed with IP editors. While you chant about not needing a source for EVERY entry, you ignore the fact that I've let many go uncontested and unsourced. But when one is contested, you have to source it. Period. OR won't get you by that. Yes, I doubt your little cartoon girl is an "action hero". There. Now drop the fanboy act and show a reliable source. The fact that you fight so much over every single entry is telling, as is your refusal to source even the occassional one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't fight over every single entry, only the obvious ones. And you keep mentioning how you so graciously let many go uncontested and unsourced as though you were doing all of us a favor somehow. Dream Focus 07:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not doing you a favor, I'm correcting the inaccurate way you are portraying this. You repeatedly say 'not every entry needs sourced', as if I am demanding that, thus creating a false impression. However, just because some are allowed, that doesn't totally throw the need to source out the window. Bottom line here is that you are REQUIRED to source contested material. If it is so obvious, finding a reliable source shouldn't be a problem, should it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed tags for obvious video game cases

Seriously? Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, in case you didn't catch on by the name, are in fact action games, and these characters are the heroes in those games. Chun-Li has her own article, listing her roles of going undercover, and being the action hero. The other playable female characters are also going up against the bad guy in various games, as well as the animation series. Mortal Kombat involves the playable characters fighting demons to save Earth. Thus they are heroes, or legendary heroes to be more specific, and are clearly involved in action since fighting is basically all they do. Dream Focus 16:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, seriously. Just because they are a character in an action game, they don't become an action HERO. Once upon a time, somone suggested part of a criteria is that they would be the protagonist. Obviously the whole list can't be the protagonist. Simply being in an action game, movie or film doesn't make you are hero. "Fighting bad guys" doesn't actually accomplish it either. If one character has her own article, then it should be pretty easy to source her, shouldn't it? Again, a lot of entries were made, only a couple were actually contested. Why do you complain every time you are actually asked to follow policy? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A hero is a good guy who fights the bad guy. What other definition do you need? This is just plain ridiculous. I'll ask for more input from the video game project for this one. Dream Focus 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A hero is anyone who fights bad guys, huh? So every character in "The Longest Day" was a hero because they fought the Nazis, right? What other definiotn do I need? How about a real one and not just one you made up on your own. What is ridiculous? That I won't just accept your personal opinion as fact or that you repeatedly fail to follow policy? My vote is for the latter. Video game project? Great....let's WP:CANVASS a little. No matter how many fanboys come to say "I think she is a hero", the policy still applies. Actually, have you ever read the policy? "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." What part of that confuses you. The material IS being challenged. It doesn't say "unless one editor thinks it's obvious". It doesn't say "unless a bunch of gamers say that they agree"....it says if challenged, is MUST (not should) be sourced. And, I'm doing EXACTLY what the policy suggests: "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." I'm taking the interim step, which is less extreme, and you are STILL COMPLAINING. What could I do? Well, the policy is clear: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source". Did I do that? No, I took the interim step and you are still complaining about it. Maybe I shouldn't even bother. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A hero is a main character who fights the bad guys. How about that? And its not canvassing to seek the opinions of a relevant wikiproject. Dream Focus 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • So now it is a main character? So Mortal Kombat has a dozen (yes, 12) "main characters" just from females? Presuming at least an equal number for men, that's 24 "main" characters and that is a little difficult to accept just on your say so. No, seeking other input isn't canvassing. Going there and posting a notice asking for sources to support your particular POV while asking for input is canvassing. Your wording is hardly neutral. On top of it, you solicit for a primary source. what ever happened to secondary sources? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • They are all main characters. You play them after all in the game. Perhaps I should say "major" or "relevantly significant" instead of "main". And there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for things like this. If they call them heroes in the game, then it counts. I think you are just arguing nonsense really. I'm hoping more people chime in with their opinions on whether or not you are just being ridiculous here, or if someone else actually agrees with you. Dream Focus 17:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but just being able to play them doesn't sound like being "main" to me. This isn't nonsense, it's policy. To be blunt, it doesn't matter how many people come here and say "I think she is an action hero"........."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." That is black and white policy. there is no line after it that says, "unless it's popular". I love this one: "If they call them heroes in the game, then it counts." Really? I'd love to see you add that source. Let me ask you an honest question: Have you even tried to source these things? A good, reliable source, would end this, wouldn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • End it? No, you'd find something else to argue about. And WP:PRIMARY sources are fine in situations like this. Dream Focus 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You actually avoided the question with your sarcastic response. Again I ask: Have you even tried to source these entries? And why are you still yammering about primary being acceptable? I didn't say that they would be prohibited. I said that you were soliciting for primary. Primary is not the preferred source, secondary is. Why wouldn't you look for the preferred one first? Is it because you doubt (as I do) that you will find one? BTW, primary sources still have to be cited. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Preferred? It doesn't matter whether you have one or the other. And I read the article on Mortal Kombat which said they were "legendary heroes". Someone who owns a copy of one of those games can tell me what the box or manual said, as I did ask for over at the Wikiproject for people who know about video games. Dream Focus 18:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you read the source guidelines? Secondary sources are preferred. Do you need the quote? I know what you asked for over there....., which is exactly why I said your wording isn't neutral, thus falling into canvassing. You still, however, have failed to answer the direct question that has been put to you twice. Will the third time be a charm? Have you even tried to source these entries? (maybe the bold print will he;p you notice it). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you tried to think for a moment and realize how unbelievably obvious it is that it doesn't require any sources? A video game series like Mortal Kombat where you play one of the characters mentioned and save the entire world(thus making you a hero beyond any reasonable doubt) by fighting it out(action) makes that character an action hero. Dream Focus 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Still unwilling to admit that you haven't even tried to look? I didn't even remove the material, I simply fact tagged it. That's all. You complain when things get removed. You complain when things get left in place and just tagged. You won't answer a direct question. Yet you want to pretend like I'm the one not being cooperative. Check your own actions my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not cooperative? No. You are being ridiculous. I complain about pointless tagging or removing, both just a waste of everyone's time. If you doubt the information and think it needs a reference, then go search for that yourself to add. This is about common sense versus wikilawyering basically. Dream Focus 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Do it myself? In your rush to complain, I guess you missed the policy that says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." BTW, the bold print isn't mine, the policy itself believed that was important enough to put in bold type. Following a black and white policy isn't "wikilawyering" sunshine, trying to figure out how to circumvent the plain-as-day policy IS wikilawyering. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't the one to add that information nor has anyone tried to restore anything other than the pointless tags. I simply stated that if doubt something, instead of just tagging it, you should search yourself, not complain that others won't do it for you. And I do not believe you doubt these are action heroes, but are instead just doing pointless arguing. Dream Focus 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't say you added it. I said it is NOT my burden to source it. Regardless of your opinion about what I should or shouldn't do, the policy is crystal clear and it says you are wrong. Actually, I haven't complained that others wouldn't do it for me. I simply provided the opportunity to do it, rather than simply deleting the info, which would be completely in line with the policy. I also asked if you even tried to source them and your repeated avoidance of the question sure looks like that answer would be a no. Further, I don't care if you believe the objection or not. Whether or not you believe it isn't a factor in the policy. What is actually pointless here sport? I'd submit that your repeated attempts to circumvent (even disregard) the policy just because you have an affection for animated women is the pointless part. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "An action hero is a character, usually a protagonist, in an action-adventure novel, film, television show, or game."[1] - In the case of an ensemble cast (where all/most characters are about equally protagonists), I believe all characters that combat the "bad guys" can be considered "heroes", and in the case of an game where action is the foremost gameplay mechanic, as "action heroes". Unless there is a debate as to whether the characters delineated above were "fighting the bad guys" (which I believe is an agreed fact), then I believe the "action hero" (and by extension "action heroine") classification to be correct. In addition, in the case of lists, contents are often considered as implicitly sourced from the articles being linked to, in this case the Lists of Mortal Kombat, Guilty Gear & Street Fighter characters; these three articles should be linked to somehow from the listings on this page. The current wikilinks only send to the articles about specific games which do not discuss the characters in general, and that may indeed constitute insufficient sourcing. Salvidrim! 22:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I am familiar with the definition from the book that almost nobody read. Establishing the criteria for inclusion is a separate discussion. This discussion is about whether or not we can arbitrairily label every character in an action game/film/show/book/cartoon to be an "action hero" simply because they are there. While I appreciate your balanced approach, a simple fact remains: It doesn't matter if I think they are a hero. It doesn't matter if you or Dream Focus thinks so. What matters it the clearly written policy that says if it is challenged, it must be sourced with a reliable source. Am I asking for every single entry to have it's own source? No. Am I fact-tagging every unsourced entry? No. Am I immediately removing all unsourced material (which the policy would allow)? No. Why there is such resistance to sourcing anything is beyond me. Dream Focus won't even TRY to source a fact tagged item. Instead, he's willing to spend ridiculous amounts of time griping and complaining about my asking for a source, rather than simply doing what the policy requires (not suggests). Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll say again, most items in a list are considered implicitly sourced from the articles being linked to; the lack of sourcing on this list is not cause for concern for me. However there is no reason to discourage sourcing, and adding references (even if "doubling" them from the relevant articles) can only be beneficial to all. If it is sourced in the relevant article, the source can simply be copied onto the list to get rid of the concerns; if the character's existence as part of an ensemble cast is not appropriately sourced in the linked article, then a {cn} tag is needed and warranted. As for your argument that "every character in an action game/film/show/book/cartoon to be an action hero simply because they are there", I have neither claimed that nor agree with that statement. In cases where there is a protagonist and "other characters", say for example Spider-Man: supporting and secondary characters are not action heroes. But in the case of ensemble casts, like Justice Leage or The Avengers, all characters are equally protagonists; I believe the same principle applies to the above-mentioned fighting games. I'm not expressing an opinion on the debated characters themselves; but on the principle behind their proposed inclusion. :) Salvidrim! 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, it doesn't matter if the lack of sourcing does or does not concern you. It concerns me on some entries, I challanged it and policy clearly states that it must be sourced. Keep in mind that this whole discussion isn't even about info being removed, it's because an editor objects to an item even being fact tagged. And no, I don't believe that every member of the Avengers would be an equal protagonist. The Avengers even had "reserve members", which strongly implies a "second-string" (ie not as equal). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to Niteshift36. We aren't arbitrarily declaring them "heroes", we are working through things in a logical manner, since you can think for yourself, and not just rely on sources that use specifically words to label them as "action" "heroes". What would happen if no sources confirmed the character was "female?" And you did in fact remove every single item from the list previously [6] reverting back and forth with other editors. You tried to destroy the list in AFD, failed, tried to remove everything from it, and failed, and now just keep finding one thing after another to pick away at. Dream Focus 00:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • While I applaud thinking for yourself, that isn't Wikipedia policy. "Working through things" is called original research and that isn't allowed. Now you can go back and complain about some removal I made months and months ago, or you can move on to the present and see that I have not demanded sources for everything and haven't removed everything that is unsourced. I haven't even tagged everything that is unsourced. But when someone, even me, challenges info, you MUST source it. End of story. BTW, don't give me silly edit summaries like "don't be a hater" when it's you that is whining about old news from months ago. Grow up, catch up to the present and learn the policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine bit of distortion that solicitation is. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'm a member of the ARS that came through that posting, and I agree that disputed entries have to be sourced; this is clear policy. The reference should not necessarily be cited inline, though; but it should be included in this article. For disputed entries the "impicit sourcing from a linked article" doesn't cut it. Diego (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that policy is clear, it has been disputed and therefore needs s cite; however for something so unbelievably obvious Dream Focus wont have any issue finding a reliable and independent source. Mtking (edits) 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I too have suggested that if it is so obvous, sourcing with a reliable source shouldn't be a problem. Dream Focus, however, refuses to even attempt to source them. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree that sourcing will be beneficial. However I think the problem lies more with the definition of an action hero (the inclusion criteria); obvious sources can be found citing the characters' existence, the fact they're female, the fact they're "fighting the bad guys" and the fact they're equally protagonists. The issue lies with whether that qualifies them for the title "Female action hero" or not. Salvidrim! 02:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As you can see above, I started a discussion about criteria for inclusion and it has been ignored by those claiming they want to improve the article. As I've stated all along, you can't have a list without deciding what it takes to get on it. A specific line has been thrown around as a definition, however I have concernes. It is an overly simple single line from a single book written by a non-notable author who wrote only this book. If this is so obvious and mainstream, why can't we find a more comprehensive definition from a more mainstream source? The definition is flawed. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a repeat of what I put in criteria section a few days ago:

This is what the TVIV uses as a definition for action genre but they don't cite where they got it from;

Genre: A type of story in which the plot is advanced almost primarily through actions rather than through dialogue. Further, as distinguished from many slapstick comedies, action almost invariably involves some level of significant violence, danger or destruction, be it violence by or against humans, nature or objects. Contemporary action stories may involve explosions, gun fights, fistfights, car chases or natural disasters.

do you think we could adapt it here as the lead? Nobody has commented and I have been looking for a dictionary definition of action hero but cannot find it yet. REVUpminster (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I think that's a step in the right direction. I know there will always be some ambiguity, but we can cut a lot of it out. Take the movie "Stripes" for example. There was part of the movie that involved action, but it was essentially a comedy. The simple fact that 2 of the female stars fired some shots or kicked a guy in the nuts probably doesn't make them an "action hero". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Female Heroines not Female Heroes

Tiny error.

"Female Action Heroes" should read "Female Action Heroines"

Or perhaps I'm wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.221.239 (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the expression "action hero" takes any genre. Salvidrim! 08:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is another dubious area when actresses are known as actors. It is best left alone.REVUpminster (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I suspect you are correct about it being "heroine" and I've considered mentioning it before, but decided that was a can of worms that didn't need opened until some other issues got settled. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This was a subsection of Action hero with Male action hero, since deleted. Also you can't have gramatically a female heroine as both convey the same gender. It would have to be Action heroines and Action heros then your back with women ending up in the action heros from the feminists. Action hero is also where the proper criteria shoud be and repeated here if felt really neccesssaryREVUpminster (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is providing that we are going to accept the definition from the fairly obscure book, written by the non-notable author, as being the end-all definition. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
My vote goes to Action Heroine. It's gramatically correct and no variation is typically widely used. We might as well use the term that conforms with the well-established rules of our language.78.86.61.94 (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be more than random lists of names

It's been brought up before on this talk page, but there needs to be a definition in the introduction as to what, exactly, defines a female action hero. What are the criteria for being noteworthy enough to be included on this list? The list of action-based movies, novels and literature from around the world are vast and almost all of them have female characters of one degree or another of action hero-ness. How do we know who should go here? Beag maclir (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Working on tidying the list

Hi, the lists are all a bit messy, with people just adding new characters to the end of the list. So I'm try and tidy them up, and turn them into sortable tables. Is there a preference for the default sort order? At the moment I'm using character name as the default order. -- TenguTech(Talk) 05:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed the Television list to a the list I've been working on. More to come (as I get through them). -- TenguTech(Talk) 05:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Changed the Animation list to a sortable table. Sorted by name. Added links. -- TenguTech(Talk) 10:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Changed the Film list to a sortable table. Sorted by character name. Where a character is know more by their surname I sorted by that. Added links. --TenguTech(Talk) 07:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This article would be better truned from a list into an article discussing the concept

And the examples of characters would be features only if the sources used as references are actually discussing them as "female action heroes". --LKAvn (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, the action hero article is shit. --LKAvn (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced listings

Moved from mainspace per AfD discussion

Animation

Film

Literature

Television

Video games

listing once

Lara Croft is a good example of this. She appears in the video games and the movies, but she is only one character, so she shouldn't be listed twice. I propose that we list them in their original category. In Croft's case, the character started in a video game that got made into movies, so she'd be in video games. Katniss Everdeen was a literary character that became a movie character, so she belongs in literature. Others may start in film and end up in a video game. Discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm alright with this. But what would you do about Buffy? Put her in film only? You'll have a legion of angry Buffy fans who will edit war indefinitely to move her to TV. It might be better to reverse this. Instead of listing them by medium, just list them alphabetically and then list in which medium they appeared. For example:
Name Medium Ref
Batgirl Comics, television, film
Buffy Film, television
Lara Croft Video games, film
Katniss Everdeen Book, film
Or checkboxes for film, comics, television, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: 👍 Like This would work, but I recommend linking to the various articles for comics, television, film, books, video games, etc., rather than listing generic categories as in your example above. For example, see below. North America1000 05:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Name Mediums Ref
Batgirl Batman and Robin TV series, Batman and Robin (film)
I prefer that, but for highly franchised characters who've appeared in dozens of different media spin-offs, it'd be a long list. Don't forget that Batgirl appears in many different video games, cartoons, and other adaptations. I suppose the easy solution is to just link to the appropriate franchise articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's not all that complicated. If the reliable sources don't mention Super Friends, then I guess we don't have to, either. So, I'm probably just overthinking it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd honestly say pick one category and if someone disagrees, that's what this page is for. Chances are, most won't be challenged once it's stated in an edit summary. In Buffy's case, I'd venture to say that more people are familiar with the TV role than the movie one, so I'd probably opt with movie first. It doesn't necessarily have to be the first role, just the most well known. I'm not terribly in favor of wikilinking the movie and series separately. Especially when scrolling on a mobile device, too many links become a pain. If someone is interested, when they go to the Batgirl article, they'll see the different appearences, linked in a larger format. Also, we know that tables can become an issue for inexperienced editors to add to or edit. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actors as a source

I'm not sold on the idea of using the actress opinion of the character as the source for calling them an action hero. If the character truly is, shouldn't we be able to find something independent? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this an article?

??? 128.6.36.228 (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Because enough fans have voted to make it an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
No, because this topic has been covered by reliable third-party sources, and Wikipedia follows such sources. Denigrating editors who made this case based on policies and guidelines as merely "fans" is not appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The topic has been covered, but if you look at most of the sources used for this list, it's slideshows and single paragraph stuff. Oh, sometimes the actress calling their own character an action hero. There is a disconnect between the coverage of the topic and the sources being used. But we're here, let's do it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The topic passes WP:LISTN. This was further confirmed at this recent deletion discussion. North America1000 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of female action heroes. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_female_action_heroes_and_villains/Archive_1&oldid=1090567403"