Talk:List of The Adventures of Tintin characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism ?

I suspect that some sneaky vandalism is in this page, therefore someone who knows Tintin better than me should look at the names and remove falsely added characters please. --Conti|✉ 23:26, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• I agree, there are some names I haven't seen before, but I read the series in French, so some name may have been strangely translated. I will put a list of strange names, so people can check them. Glaurung 09:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well in fact it seems that all the names really appear in Tintin's adventures. (I've added a link at the bottom of the page) But some of the characters are unimportant. Some of them are not even real characters, but are only mentioned. Do those really belong to this list? Glaurung 10:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Benkalish.gif

Image:Benkalish.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jorgen.gif

Image:Jorgen.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JolyonWagg.jpg

Image:JolyonWagg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pablo.gif

Image:Pablo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oliveira.gif

Image:Oliveira.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colonel Sponz 1.jpg

Image:Colonel Sponz 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colonel Sponz 1.jpg

Image:Colonel Sponz 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Adventures of Tintin Cast.png

The image Image:The Adventures of Tintin Cast.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The majority of The Adventures of Tintin characters are not sufficiently independently notable to justify their own articles on Wikipedia. Notability within a media franchise is only a sufficient criterion for inclusion in a list, not an individual article. As such, I have suggested that a number of individual character articles be merged into this list. Namely, Sir Francis Haddock, Red Rackham, Kûrvi-Tasch, Jolyon Wagg, Oliveira de Figueira, Pablo (Tintin character), Zorrino, Endaddine Akass, Bab El Ehr, Mohammed Ben Kalish Ezab and Abdullah, Chang Chong-Chen, Doctor Müller, Colonel Jorgen, Frank Wolff (Tintin character), General Tapioca, General Alcazar, Allan Thompson, Mitsuhirato, Colonel Sponsz and Bianca Castafiore. Neelix (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• This idea is ludicrous, restricting the number of articles on a subject in this manner is appropriate only in printed encyclopedia where they consume paper and clutter the primary alphabetical order manually searched by the readers of such tomes. In some individual cases there might be a need to rename articles from "John Doe" to "John Doe (Tintin Character)" to avoid name clash with an article of greater prominence, but removing articles or changing a list of articles into a cluttered hybrid of links and short descriptions is a bad idea in almost any media. 77.215.46.17 (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In order to justify an article's existence on Wikipedia, the topic must pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It does no harm is not an acceptable argument for maintaining separate articles. Neelix (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support except for Bianca Castafiore (who has become an archetype for the opera diva, at least in France and Belgium), and Chang Chong-Chen, based on a real person and of major importance to Tintin and Hergé. The others are noteworthy characters who don't need a separate article. Fram (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the "restricting the number of articles on a subject in this manner is appropriate only in printed encyclopedia where they consume paper" argument. The "less is best" attitude that has featured in some parts of wikipedia recently has struck me as silly and restrictive.--Marktreut (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the results of the merge would be the reduction of unnecessary detail, where all such articles do is retelling the plot of the books and adding fair use images, like with the 5 FU images in Colonel Jorgen or the 4 of Wang Chen-Yee. Unlike Castafiore, such characters have no independent notability, and everything that needs to be said about e.g. Wang is said in The Blue Lotus. Fram (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The position that "restricting the number of articles on a subject in this manner is appropriate only in printed encyclopedia where they consume paper" goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see guidelines about what Wikipedia is not: specifically, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a "plot-only description of fictional works". Neelix (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Lists are for navigation, not for compilations of non-notable material. If topics are not notable then they should not be included at all. If there is not much to say about a particular character then we will have a short article but this is not a problem as we are not paid by the word. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. The majority of these characters (excepting Bianca Castafiore and Chang Chong-Chen which I withdraw from the merge suggestion) are not independently notable. By saying that "If topics are not notable then they should not be included at all," are you suggesting that the articles be deleted? We are not dealing with short articles on notable topics; we are dealing with an overarching topic which is notable (ie. The Adventures of Tintin characters) and a large number of articles about individual characters who are not individually notable. Neelix (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I do not see anything wrong with "retelling the plot of the books" if it is from that particular character's point-of-view. It adds dimension to him, shows that they were well developed. Characters like Doctor Müller, Colonel Jorgen and Pablo (Tintin character) appear in more than one book, play important parts in the stories and Pablo in particular had a rather complex publishing history which Tintin fans may find of interest. If you do not like the articles written about individual characters then it's simple: ignore them, and let others who are interested enjoy them.--Marktreut (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Which goes directly against WP:NOTPLOT, which is a policy. Most, if not all, of these articles have a very short introduction (X is a character in Tintin and appeared in books 1 and 2) and then nothing but plot summary. Retelling a story from different in-universe viewpoints is exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to be doing, no matter how many fans like it this way. The limited out-of-universe info (like on Pablo (Tintin character)) can be kept in the merge, but the rest has to go. Colonel Jorgen is a pure in-universe NOTPLOT violation (with way too many fair use images). POlicy is more important than whether you or other fans like it. Fram (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And policy is getting too restrictive, curbing the right to inform and the right to know. Compromise? We include the names in the list with a brief description, but a link to a more detailed article. Take General Alcazar: his story is too detailed, complex and his inspirations vary from the stereotype tinpot dictators to Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. To suggest that he should be narrowed down to just a couple of paragraphs would be nonsense.--Marktreut (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a comprmise, that's keeping the status quo. And policy is not becoming, it has been thus for a very long time. That it is not always applied consistently is a different problem. If there are other articles with sufficient out-of-universe info to warrant a separate article, make a case for these. But the general merge should continue. Fram (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "general merge should continue"? Are you considering this as a fait accomplie? Policy or not, I'm still not convinced that this is the right thing to do. If you do not like the detailed articles on the supporting characters, nobody is forcing you to look at them. Let those who like them enjoy them, and just ignore them yourself.--Marktreut (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, please start a discussion on the appropriate policy talk page. If you are unable to justify your argument against the merge by application of existing Wikipedia policy, please allow the merge to proceed and then request the splitting of the main list once your discussion on the policy talk page results in a change in policy. Neelix (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't think the discussion is over is it? For me the separate articles are still relevant, so please keep them unmerged. And if you don't like them, ignore them. Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless sufficient reliable third person information comes to justify individual articles for certain characters in the future I fully support the merge as long as its well organised. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed: so, all that work and all that effort goes to absolute, ultimate waste. Thank you very much. Makes you wonder why Wikipedia is even worth editing.--Marktreut (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed: in the case of many of these, there is a lot more than just in which books they appeared. Doctor Müller for example has a rather complex history in his own right, and Bab El Ehr's motivations in Land of Black Gold varied from one edition to the other.--Marktreut (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: a "large number of articles about individual characters who are not individually notable": many of them played major parts in several adventures, most notably General Alcazar and Colonel Jorgen and aspects of their characters developed accordingly. Alcazar in particular developed a great deal in the adventures he featured in: from tin-pot dictator to Castro-like revolutionary (or at least he gave the appearance). The same could be said for Pablo (Tintin character), especially with his double-crossing nature.--Marktreut (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Marktreut, please follow guidelines in your edits on Wikipedia. This merge took place before your last three "opposes". It is deceptive to include multiple entries all introduced with a bolded "oppose". It is also considered inappropriate to make a major change to an article with no edit summary and to mark the edit minor. This discussion was moved to the "Request for comment" section below almost a week ago now; consensus has favoured the merge, and sufficient time elapsed without further comment before the merge took place. If you wish to resplit the articles, please start a new discussion. Neelix (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

The discussion preceding this one on this talk page pertains to a proposed merge of several individual The Adventures of Tintin characters into List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. The discussion has gone on for more than a week now, however discussion has reached an impass as the principal editors supporting the merge are arguing solely based on Wikipedia's guidelines while the principal editor opposing the merge is arguing solely based on the usefulness of the individual articles. The principal editors supporting the merge have stated that they do not recognize usefulness as an appropriate criterion for keeping the articles separate. Similarly, the principal editor opposing the merge has stated that he does not recognize Wikipedia's guidelines as appropriate criteria for merging the articles. Because the editors on either side of the discussion are basing their arguments on grounds not recognized as valid by the editors on the other side, there is no possibility of resolution simply between the editors currently engaged in the discussion. For this reason, I am submitting this request for comment. Neelix (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wellllll it is worth restating the general position from someone who has not be involved in the above:

• Characters not meeting WP:N criteria should be merged into a general article on the characters - true and the guidelines are pretty clear on this, you can't just chose not to accept them, see e.g. WP:WAF.
• Merging character articles into a list isn't a good idea - also true as an actual list holds very little information and, as mentioned is a navigation tool, not a page for holding content.

There is a pretty easy solution though - this article isn't technically a list. It is in fact exactly the kind of article minor characters should be merged to (following WP:WAF and the excellent examples there). What needs to be done is:

• Move this article to Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin and strip out anything linking to an article with {{main}} - this is the article that will act as the target for merging character articles to, making sure that the redirects remain properly categorised. We have done this with Characters of Watchmen and it is something we've been discussing within the Comics Project as a way to deal with minor characters, when the alternative is deletion.
• Here create an actual list - one designed as a navigational aid which holds bulleted lists of links (possibly with a quick one sentence description to aid navigation), as can be seen with List of Marvel Comics characters and List of DC Comics characters (I am working on the minor character articles to go with these lists in my sandbox).

So you end up with a list as a navigational tool and a minor characters article holding information on characters who couldn't sustain their own articles.

This is in line with the advice on WP:WAF and offers the opportunity to have a useful character overview (when the alternative would be just deleting the information). It is a useful compromise (because everyone must admit you can't have an article on every character so there must be a way to deal with that) and one I'd be prepared to support. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

(I corrected your move targetn I hope you don't mind) Fram (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - that is where the problem stems from: this article should be simply a list of all the characters with stable outgoing links that either go to articles or are redirected (with proper categorisation) to the relevant section in Minor characters in The Adventures of Tintin. This article is trying to be two articles and not currently succeeding as either a navigational aid or a place for information on minor characetrs who can't justify their own article. Sort that out and you'll resolve this issue. (Emperor (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for taking such a thorough look into this issue, Emperor. I am with you on almost all points. The only aspect of the plan you suggest which I would change is the restriction of the character article to minor characters. Creating an article about The Adventures of Tintin characters is a great idea; it has been done with great success in the cases of Final Fantasy VIII and Carnivàle. Devoting an article expressly to minor characters, however, violates notability guidelines. Why not simply turn the list about The Adventures of Tintin characters into an article about The Adventures of Tintin characters? A franchise which has an article about its characters does not also have a list of its characters; Carnivàle has its own featured series, meaning that no pages have been deemed missing from within its scope, and it only has the article about its characters and not a list as well. Would you consider this an acceptable solution? Neelix (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd still recommend going for a list as a navigational aide and an article as home for the minor characters, especially when (as here) you have a lot of characters, a number of whom have their own articles (which isn't the case on, for example, Carnivale) as there just isn't the space to provide a couple of paragraph summaries on Tintin and all the other characters who have their own articles, while hoping to give decent coverage to the minor characters too. Notability shouldn't be a concern as there are clearly books in Tintin which can be used as secondary sources and I can't see anyone raising an eyebrow over such an article. However, if your solution is the one that gets a consensus which will break the deadlock then, you have my complete support (I'm not going to hold that back on a very minor difference in approach to the answer that results in a similar outcome).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor (talk • contribs)

I absolutely Support the merger there are too many characters which regurgitate plot summaries and don't have reliable third person sources to support the character info. None of the articles proposed have sources to support themselves so it should be merged. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to mention at this point that I put some substantial efforts in tidying this article last summer by shortening the endless rehashing of plots, but was reverted systematically. Furthermore, the discussion about it on the talk page appears to have disappeared when this page was merged with another similar one. This page is long overdue for improvement but it has been impossible to do it until now. Mezigue (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction, the old talk page has curiously remained here: Talk:Characters_of_The_Adventures_of_Tintin even though the corresponding page was merged into this one. Mezigue (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely Oppose the mergers. Many of these characters were developed not just in their adventure of origin but also in the course of other stories. Furthermore, there is the fact that Tintin's adventures were often redrawn and rewritten over the years and some of the characters changed accordingly. Doctor Müller, for instance, is more than just a villain who appears in "Black Island": he becomes a spy in "Black Gold" and a mercenary in "Red Sea Sharks" (in fact it is only recently that I connected Müller to Mull Pasha and often wondered where Herge got such a odd Arabic-like name. Müller's article answers these points). What we should have is a list of the characters with the option to allow the user to proceed to a more detailed account of that's characters background and publication history. Like that, those who want to can, and those who don't won't.--Marktreut (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, the merge took place before the "oppose" was added to this discussion. At this point, the discussion is about splitting the page rather than not merging. I'm having difficulty understanding the logic behind the suggestion that characters that are not individually notable be both listed on the list and given their own articles so that "those who want to" know more about the characters "can, and those who don't won't". The problem with giving characters their own articles when they are not independently notable is not that it bothers people who don't want to know much information about the characters. The problem is that it goes against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles must pass notability guidelines because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps you would be more interested in editing the Tintin Wiki. That wiki does not require that individual characters be notable outside the franchise, therefore you can feel free to write as much as you like about The Adventures of Tintin characters there. Neelix (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm having difficulty understanding the logic behind the suggestion that people who do enjoy Tintin are being denied knowing more about the characters involved and most "notably" about how they developed over the years, the books and the various editions. Tintinologist like Michael Farr have delved on that in books and articles. Furthermore there is your handling of this merger which leaves a lot to be desired: simply putting in the opening paragraphs of the individual characters is simply not enough. It's like saying that Jimmy Olsen is just a character who appears in Superman a couple of times. I'm for the solution in which the user is given the option to go to the main articles in order to find out more.--Marktreut (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Character articles are no different than any other articles, if they aren't demonstrated to be notable through non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources then they stand to be deleted or merged (depending on the subject). Merging here is the best solution, it leaves the door open for anyone to find sources and restore individual articles if they can be shown to be notable. If there are problems with this list as it stands then they can be edited out, if characters need more information (that is information on the characters themselves, not just plot repetition) then it can be taken from the original character articles or edited in. The information's still there for readers, the opportunity is there for editors to improve and cite, there shouldn't be an issue here. Someoneanother 01:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

...Which isn't to say that the merge is perfect and that further work and discussion here isn't necessary, but minor characters without non-trivial coverage from secondary sources can't exist as articles indefinitely. I would like to see Jolyon Wagg restored for now, as the article does have some out-of-universe perspective and sourcing. Someoneanother 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Jolyon Wagg back to its original state, since nobody has responded for more than a week. Someoneanother 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1