Talk:Danielle Rousseau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Danielle Rousseau article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Lost.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Redirect 2 Request of mediation 3 Repeated reverts 4 Copyright? 5 Article for Deletion 6 Question section

[edit] Redirect

I am reverting this article back to a redirect to the characters page for many reasons. First, there's a precedent that only main characters have their own articles. There's no need to have a separate article for every character. That would be impossible to maintain. Second, the prose that was migrated to this article was an exact duplicate of the prose on the characters page. Why should we have the same information in two places? Again that would be impossible to maintain. Third, it's polite to discuss major changes you wish to make to an article to gain a consensus about what should be done. This is necessary because as we all know Wikipedia is a group effort, and making these kind of changes without any word or warning easily leads to edit wars. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting it back to its independent form because there is a precedent for non-main characters that have their own articles; see: Laurie Forman, Leo (That '70s Show), Randy Pearson, Casey Kelso, Ned Flanders, Mona Simpson (The Simpsons), Hesh Rabkin, Little Carmine, etc etc. Heck, just read the list of secondary characters on List of characters from The Sopranos.

You need to understand that as long as the character has enough information so that a well-written article can be created, there is no reason why it shouldn't have its own article. The prose was copied because that's how migrations and exports are done in Wikipedia. Remember, the content of Wikipedia is distributed under the GFDL, it can be copied. The article Characters of Lost can provide a summary about the character while this individual article can expand the character in depth. It has been done before, see Flanders family for an example.

And last, nobody needs to ask for permission to make a change on Wikipedia. I urge to read, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. It seems that you have an acute case of overzealousness towards Lost articles. I again suggest that you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. —Joseph | Talk 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked another editor to come here and add his opinion. As an act of civility, and against my better judgement, I will not revert your edits because I do not wish to start an edit war. As a piece of friendly advice I highly recommend that you use talk pages before making major edits in the future because the way you handled the edits on this page could be considered hostile. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I so often tend to do, I do see some merit in both sides of this debate, and would, while I'm at it, like to encourage everyone to keep the dialog at a civil level, and not make personal accusations.

Danielle is indeed starting to become a bit more than the other secondary characters, in that her role is becoming more pivotal to the series. Yet, Jtrost is right: there is a precedent in Lost on Wikipedia that only main characters have their own articles. (Precedent from other shows' articles isn't very compelling, to my mind--there's a lot of cruft out there in our encyclopedia, and I can't speak for articles that I haven't participated in editing). Glancing through your examples, I will say that I find the character lists for The Sopranos excessive in and of themselves (admittedly, I don't watch the show), and then on top of that, to think that the secondary characters actually have their own pages! It's a lot easier to have a bunch of characters (secondary ones) all in one place, rather than click around to fragments scattered around Wikipedia. And, my worry, as with all things related to Lost, is that the articles will proliferate and contain ever more fancruft. (This is already true of the major characters' pages, which require steady vigilance to keep the cruft down to a minimal level). My general slogan for this kind of thing is that "more isn't necessarily better." In many ways, the boldest we can be here is to decide clearly and firmly not to include stuff, rather than continue to just see stuff shoveled in. To my mind, creating ever more receptacles for fan enthusiasm will mean a generally lower quality in what results. Hence, I'd side with Jtrost about secondary characters in general: keep them consolidated on one page. If Rousseau continues to get tons of episode time, we should consider regarding her as a main character at some point.

Lastly, I also agree that it's important (not to mention courteous) to have a dialog in talk pages before making major changes to articles. Boldness alone isn't an excuse not to do this.-- PKtm 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your words, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), specifically this:

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

I will just copy/paste the same arguments that I used on Talk:List of Lost episodes because to be honest, it's the same reason why this article should have its own article and I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over to unfamiliarized contributors:

That's a preference. You would like it to be centralized, even tho individual articles are easier to navigate through. Your proposal is similar to how countries articles were developed years ago, until contributors found out that it was incredibly tiresome to edit and read an enormous article. Contributors then began to create summaries about sections while linking to main articles about a particular subject (example: History of the United States).

Your format requires a user to download say, 50K, when he will only use the last 2K of the whole page. It's unnecessary, but you are forcing them to do so. I highly recommend that you read a book about web design. This kind of discussion has technical implications. It has been researched for years. Most users don't spend time reading long passages of text presented on a screen. A computer screen provides a limited view of a long document. Your first screen capture (1024x768 as of today, moving towards 1280x960) is what makes the user stay on the page. If you don't give them what they want in that space, they will browse something else. Long documents lose people. Links exists so you can create chunks of information that can be presented in a structured form.

Basically, the reason why this characters should be put in an individual article is because we have enough information to make one. For example, we do not have enough information about other characters (such as Rose or Bernard) that make them merit of their own article. Perhaps later when the series develop we get more information such that we can create an individual article about them, but in the meantime it's fine to place them entirely in a list. There is of course a precedent, because we do not have enough information about some secondary characters. We do not want one liners. However, that is not the case for this character.

I have already linked native articles that follow this convention for secondary characters, as well as official guidelines, and I'm again linking an external source that follows this same convention: HBO.com Biography on Gabriella Dante. Gabriella is not even a secondary character, she is a tertiary characters of The Sopranos and has its own page on hbo.com. We have done the same on other TV series, other websites have done the same by their own, but yet we have to force people to browse long pages? It seems to me that you are afraid of fancruft, but fancruft doesn't care about formatting, it will affect individual or centralized articles. Even the official Lost message board has a specific forum for this character.

I recommend that you both browse other articles and external sources similar to these. It seems that you are both unfamiliar with the formats and norms followed by many, including people not affiliated with Wikipedia. —Joseph | Talk 08:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the merits of the particular issue, I'd point out to you that the discourse here will be a lot more effective if we stay away from condescension. Simply because I or any other user has a different viewpoint from you does not mean that we are ignorant or unfamiliar or (!) haven't read books on web design. Let's please stick to the issue, while staying respectful of each other's backgrounds and expertise. Thanks, PKtm 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim expertise on the matter, and if you felt that I'm being disrepectful then I don't even know what to say. Don't mix emotions in written conversations, especially on discussions. It seems to me that both of you and that the below poster didn't even read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) before their judgement. —Joseph | Talk 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but giving us a link to an article on "Mona Simpson" is not indicative of any sort of "policy" here on Wikipedia. In fact, the "Simpsons" pages are notorious for being ubercruft. The consensus in many civil Lost discussions has, and should be, that only main characters receive their own pages. Main characters have been defined as those played by actors in the opening credits, not "guest stars." This policy was created to prohibit the Lost pages from getting out of hand. If we make a page for Danielle, then someone could make a page for Desmond, and then a page for Goodwin, and then a page for "Turbine Man," etc, etc, etc. There has to be a line drawn or else the page devolves into cruft and we end up like the "Simpsons" page with "Mona Simpson" getting her own page. Danflave 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that "Casey Kelso" has his own page on Wikipedia is shameful. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. And I challenge anyone to argue that a page for "Casey Kelso" is encyclopaedic. Danflave 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), if someone wants to create an article about Turbine Man then point them out there. This has already been discussed before, that guideline has existed since March 29, 2004 before Lost first aired. Next time make some research and try to find out if there is a set of guidelines for these type of cases. —Joseph | Talk 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the article once again to redirect. Yes, there was indeed a consensus, and we have two or three new arrivals here who are stomping all over that consensus without having entered into discussion. Until we can reach a new consensus, it makes no sense to get into edit/revert wars, so let's just leave it at the established consensus until we can agree to make a change. --PKtm 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be reverting the article to its individual form. It seems to me that there are indeed some new arrivals who have gone over the consensus reached by other contributors (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters). If you would like to change the conventions followed in these type of articles I suggest that you discuss it in Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), in the meantime, leave it as an individual article unless a different consesus is reached there. —Joseph | Talk 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." Danielle is a minor character. She's only played major roles in two episodes (Sayid's first flashback episode and Maternity Leave). Aside from that she's only made small cameos. If you think that her bio is long then copyedit it. Fans seem to run rampant whenever she makes an appearance and add quite a bit of cruft. I'm sure her bio could use some cleanup. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

Did you even read the whole guideline or what I have already posted? It doesn't matter how many times the character has appeared, but the content that we have about it. If it's enough an individual article is created, if it's not it stays on the list (like Rose and Bernard). —Joseph | Talk 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, if you believe her bio is too long please copyedit it. Remember that we should aim for quality over quantity. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph, I'm afraid that you're massively misreading the guideline you keep quoting. Summary of what it says: 1) Minor characters go in a list. 2) If the list or its containing article gets too long, put the list in a separate article. Nowhere does it actually say what you're reading into it: a justification for a minor character to get his or her own article. And aside from the general precedent, you haven't responded to the point that we have a precedent on the Lost pages, which is to do everything we can to keep the quality high and not just turn articles into shovelpages. Part of that precedent is that minor characters don't get their own pages. People will put up a Rose and Bernard page if it's not squashed actively, full of endless discussion about how one is black and the other white, or what kind of candy bar Rose saved for Bernard, etc. We've seen it. The examples you cite, and the fascinating fact that you proudly refuse to have articles on your watchlist at all, indicate to me that you have very different values for Wikipedia, and quality, than the other editors involved in this dispute. -- PKtm 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, read the last line, I have even bolded it three times: The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles. Capisce now? It seems to me that you have totally ignored previous consesus and guidelines set before you decided to place all the characters in the same page. You have also ignored other examples native to Wikipedia and other examples from outside sources. The fact is that your only argument against this format is fear of fancruft, and fear, my friend, is not a valid argument. —Joseph | Talk 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This article was created as a redirect because it is a plausible search term. There is not enough information available about Danielle for her to have her own article. I cannot see any reason for this article to exist other than to increase the quantity of Lost-related articles. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Joseph, please don't call me Dude. Evidently my requests to keep the discourse civil have fallen on deaf ears. Thanks too for the bolding, but yes, I did read the last line of the guideline. It still doesn't state what you are insistently inferring, that this guideline justifies making a separate article in this case. It just doesn't. And I have "totally ignored previous consensus and guidelines"? And I "decided to place all the characters in the same page"? Please review the edit history (when you do, you'll maybe observe that one or two other editors have participated in this egregious state of affairs, long before either you or I started contributing here). And, please reread the same guideline you keep quoting but obviously aren't reading carefully, because putting the minor characters on the same page actually is the guideline.

This is turning into a bit of a crazy discussion, frankly. And as for fear, please don't label caring about quality as being a fear. The level of fancruft that is constantly inserted into any and all Lost articles is pretty undeniable. But as I noted above, we appear to have very different notions indeed of the importance of quality to Wikipedia. -- PKtm 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but if Rose and Bernard can get their own pages then I don't see why Danielle Rousseau shouldn't. Rousseau is arguably more important a character than both Rose and Bernard, and has appeared in the series a lot more than Bernard and probably just a little less than Rose. On top of that there is more information in Rosseau's bio than in Rose's or Bernard's. I think she is entitled to her own page, I don't see what the big deal is? ~ Unfortunate

It is ridiculous to state that a character is defined as being "major" just because they appear in the main credits. Considerations such as effect on plot, interaction with other characters, and themes should be the major factor. Keep it as is, and use your discretion for the other characters.

--Ng.j 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request of mediation

I have a placed a request for meditation for this discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If you would like to participate please place visit that page for further instructions. —Joseph | Talk 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think mediation is necessary. I would prefer a request for comment first. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Mediation wasn't even discussed or mentioned before it was filed, which is similar to how the article changes were made as well. RfC seems more appropriate at this stage anyway, at least the way I read the tone of the discussion so far. -- PKtm 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've also read over Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and I honestly cannot see how you believe that Danielle warrants her own page at this point. In fact, it seems to me that those folks who created a "Mona Simpson" article also did not read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). For example, from the article: Lionel Hutz from The Simpsons is a minor character, and is covered in a list of minor characters. Lionel Hutz has appeared on The Simpsons many more times than Homer's mother. Yet, there in the article, it clearly states he should not have his own article (even though, he apparently does -- thus completely flying in the face of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)). Danielle is still a minor character (as of now) and her section can fit cleanly into a list of minor characters. There is not enough information about her to warrant an encyclopedia article. If you think her section is too long, I agree with PKtm and JTrost in that it can be edited for quality. Danflave 18:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this character needs their own page. She is integral to the whole story of the island and is an integral part of the show - Shaft121 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if Rose and Bernard can get their own pages, then why not Rosseau, who is arguably a more important character? I dont see what the problem is...its not like its using up too much space or anything... ~ Unfortunate

I agree. This is completely pathetic, it just seems like some weird power trip by these people who have ordained themselves as the official Lost wikipedia editors. Since there is already a Lost Wikipedia, seperate from this, and the editors there have decided to give Danielle her own page, what seems to be the fucking problem? - Shaft121 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated reverts

This article has been ping-ponging back and forth, since at least March 28, from a redirect (to the Characters of Lost page) to a separate article on Rousseau. This is senseless. I'd like to encourage everyone with a "dog in this hunt" to reread the relevant discussion above, and let's have a civil dialog on how to settle the issue, rather than just head to yet another revert action.

Here's my start: the original "status quo", established 6 months ago (12 November 2005) was that Rousseau was included in the Characters of Lost page, and a redirect was established to that article, to accommodate anyone who might search on her name. As of 27 March 2006, an editor decided to make a separate article, and a number of people immediately objected in the talk page here and in Talk:Characters of Lost. Any attempts to reestablish the original status quo (the redirect, in other words) have been repeatedly reverted. My stance is that the status quo needs to prevail until further civil discussion occurs on the relative merits of the two sides in this conflict. -- PKtm 06:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with this being its own article is that Danielle has not had a starring credit in the series yet, and that has been established as a standard for deciding if a character receives his or her own page (Rose and Bernard are a special case though). If Danielle has her own page, then who next? Sooner or later we'll have character pages that only have a few sentences of content because there will be no standard for determining what merits a character having a separate page. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if Rose & Bernard are a special case, then why can't Danielle be a special case? I feel that there is such a large amount of information about Danielle to justify her having her own page. Obviously, if she had only two or three sentences of confirmed information about her, then this point would be academic. But she has a fair amount & I believe that since she is a character that a lot of people may look for information about, she needs her own page. In the end, wouldn't it just be easier to put a small amount of information about her on the list with a link to a seperate article containing all of the information? I feel that since this issue is reaching a stalemate, this would be the best course of action - Shaft121 11:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit stunned at the latest moves in what appears to be, sadly, getting played as a game. Despite the discussion above, and in parallel to it, it appears to me that Shaft121 has created a new Danielle article (different title, so new history) here at Wikipedia, albeit with content taken directly from Lostpedia. So now we will spend time and energy arguing about copyright violation, etc. Again, I'd like to encourage that there be discussion of the issues regarding an article for Danielle, rather than simply taking action to just make that happen even though there's been strong opposition, edit wars, etc. Taking action like creating a new page is uncollaborative and is just perpetuating the conflict, not helping to resolve it.-- PKtm 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well PKtm, I am perfectly willing to have a civil discussion on it as I feel we are doing. All of my past reverts have contained this information from Lostpedia. The information is not solely from that site, it is also from this one. I have created a solution to this discussion. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that these changes can always be removed if a concensus is not reached. As the current concensus is at a stalemate I have taken the appropriate actions. I am in discussions with regards to the possible copyright infringement, but seeing as Lostpedia currently has no copyright guidelines, I agree this may take some time. I apologise if you feel that this solution is creating more problems but it was not my intention to create them. However, I feel that my creation of this new page is an amecable solution with regards to both points of the current discussion - Shaft121 14:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes utterly no sense to me (and it wouldn't to anyone else, I feel) to have someone create a NEW article on the same subject, where there's already been substantial and long-standing disagreement (see above) about having a separate article on this character at all. It doesn't matter to me where the information comes from, per se; it doesn't alter the fact that creating it was a unilateral action, not an "amicable" one, taken despite the stated lack of agreement on this by other editors. Thus, it strikes me as a step in an edit war, no doubt about it. The new article should be submitted to AfD, in fact; the copyright issues are secondary when the raison d'etre of the article itself is suspect. -- PKtm 22:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PKtm, I am sorry that you feel this way but you reading too much into this. I am not attemtping an edit war against you, I am merely attempting to find an amicable solution on both parts. I cannot see a suspect reason for the creation of this article, no matter how many ways I look at it. I merely took action in a way that I felt befitted the situation. You must, of course, take note that I did this for both sides. This way, you get to keep Danielle on the list of secondary characters whilst we get her own seperate article. As I have stated, I feel that this article contains enough information to warrant it's own article. Admittedly, she has not yet had a starring role but surely, since she has such a large amount of information about her, it would be best if the majority of that synoptic information was kept on a seperate page where people can read more about her. Please stop assuming that I am attempting to carry on an edit war when I am not. I am merely trying to solve this matter in a mature & civil manner - Shaft121 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand how creating ANOTHER article about this character resolves this issue. If anything it makes the situation worse. What other information do want you included in Danielle's bio? As far as I am concerned it contains a sufficient amount of information relative to the character's impact on the overall story. We cannot have much more information about her without filling her bio with fancruft. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters to me anymore really. I've just had great news about my family life. Great speaking to you guys & having a challenge of wills as it were but I'm going to be a dad & have to get my priorities in order! Good luck with the whole Lost thing, maybe I'll drop in at one time & add my two cents (as long as it doesn't contrave the regs). Take care guys - Shaft121 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright?

Can you please explain this? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's simple, you have placed a possible copyright infringement notice upon that page.

Having read the information on the Lostpedia site, I found this text... "The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.

To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License."

Since the text used on that site is licensed to the public & Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others, I feel that just placing a link to the original article at the bottom of the page would remedy this. Agreed? - Shaft121 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is why did you create a second page? I would also like to know why you copy and pasted information from Lostpedia onto here when we have our own (i.e. better) information. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Simple, just read above for the reason I created the second page. I included the Lostpedia information due to it's conciseness. The information in the Danielle topic needs cleaning up & rewriting into a less synoptic format. That information does that - Shaft121 17:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

In case you missed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau. --thedemonhog 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question section

I added a relevance tag over it since this section doesn't give any referances (specualative information) and the way it is written, makes it look more like a post on a message board rather than a neutral information section. 129.16.49.2 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed. zeldanum1 February 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.114.207 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)