Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jean-Luc Picard


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep.. Normally I wouldn't close a discussion that I initiated, but I think the result is clear and noncontroversial enough in this case. BD2412 T 16:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Picard
Fictional character. Neither the character nor the actor who portrays him is the "author" of any of the quotes on the page, making the page inherently unsourced. No point in merging, since the quotes would immediately need to be removed to the talk page or a subpage for disposal. — BD2412 T 05:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 06:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep — the page is a mess, with little dedicated work on it over the years, but there are a few poorly formatted quotes sourced to episodes on the page, and I might attempt a cleanup on it within the next week or so. I perceive no need to delete it, even if it were to remain sub-standard in many ways. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 07:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a great fictional character, and an extremely notable and quote worthy one. Make it so. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I concede that the character is exceptional, and likely would meet our criteria for being a topic - if there were any quotes about the character. Quotes by the character are merely an extension of the Star Trek media in which he originates. They should be on the page for the series and the films from which the quotes are derived. There is no need for them to appear elsewhere. BD2412 T 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually believe that, like most article pages on authors and works, pages for characters should have sections for BOTH quotes by the character from various works AND quotes ABOUT them. This permits a very convenient form of concentration of quotes from many diverse sources all focused on a subject to be on one page. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but there currently are no quotes about Picard, making this page redundant to Star Trek pages containing the quotes attributed to Picard (though really written by the various authors of the Star Trek franchise). BD2412 T 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as remarked below. Note that this would run counter to the language at WQ:FC agreed a couple years ago by BD2412 and Cirt here for "a theme article for quotes about the principal character" [emphasis in original]. ~ Ningauble 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the principles set out in the draft policy at Fictional characters, which I fully endorse. In a theme article about a fictional character I believe it is appropriate to include character lines in the context of being quoted within a quoteworthy statement about the character, but not otherwise. Furthermore, when creating such theme articles I believe it is better to collect them in an article about the body of work or media franchise than to fork separate articles about individual fictional elements. To duplicate quotes from the work in separate syntheses for individual elements of the work does not do justice to the work. ~ Ningauble 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stricken my vote for the time being because the article is in a state of flux, and is already very different from what that was nominated. I will wait for further developments, but at this point I lean toward !voting to merge the more quoteworthy "quotes about" to Star Trek: The Next Generation or perhaps, with quotes regarding other components of the franchise, a very good Star Trek theme article could be developed.~ Ningauble 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to merging this into Star Trek, which currently has no quotes, and is instead merely a directory of the series. BD2412 T 02:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per BD2412 and Ningauble. I agree with the points they have made. ~ UDScott 18:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep after the improvements made to the page - although, echoing sentiments expressed by others, while this page is fine, I hope this does not result in a plethora of fictional character pages separate from the pages for works in which they appear. ~ UDScott 21:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: In response to the above comments by those advocating to "delete" the page, I have made some significant improvements to the article diff :
 * 1) I moved the subsection titled: "improperly formatted and arranged", to the talk page, so it can be cleaned up over time and hopefully moved back to the main quote page.
 * 2) I read through the comments above, and realized the main issue commented upon was that this "character page" lacked quotes about the character.
 * 3) I performed research, and found that yes, indeed, it was quite easy to find quotes about the character of noteworthy quotability, in reliable secondary sources.
 * 4) I added ten (10) sourced quotes about the character, in a new subsection added to the article.
 * 5) I did some minor formatting, making sure that the image in the article had a properly sourced quote.
 * 6) I hope this is enough for y'all to reconsider and to please not delete this page from Wikiquote.
 * Vote changed to weak keep, due to these improvements. I added authorship for the remaining character lines on the page. I appreciate the work Cirt has put into this, although I remain dubious about the utility of a separate page on a single character from an ensemble cast (although unquestionably the lead character of that cast). I think that this character is close to the bottom edge of what we could have a theme page on in terms of fictional characters, and we need to refine our guidelines to avoid engendering a plethora of fan pages for minor characters from minor works. BD2412 T 18:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cirt, do you have any particular reason why you feel this material should be on a separate page, instead of being merged into Star Trek? After all, nothing would be lost if it were merged in whole. BD2412 T 23:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't feel competent to judge whether the article fits WQ policies. However, the "Space, the final frontier" quote must go, as it is not original to the Picard character.--Collingwood 13:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Compare "no one" for Picard, with older "no man" for Kirk. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I recognize that MANY people will even now not properly understand MUCH of what I am talking about, but this DOES provide me but one more slight opportunity to indicate some of the reasons why I strongly dislike the creation of RESTRICTIVE rules, especially the most absolutist forms of them, when there is little or no clear advantage provided by them, and no clear NEED. I know many people are familiar with my inclination to rebuke, repudiate and refute MANY of the assumptions by which many people have sought to create rules and sought to enforce them. EVEN, if what had been stated WERE true, Picard IS noted for regularly saying those lines, as noted, and what was claimed was not even true of the statement as a whole: it is a variant derived from the original series, as is noted in the comment beneath it, and at any rate credit to Gene Roddenberry, its author is further provided, and the page simply provides one more appropriate place to present a prominent and often used statement.  I am aware there are many people who have moved to create strictures which are removing and proud of removing CITED quotations from secondary employment in other works. To me this seems almost as if many were running amok with the assumptions which imply an imperative: "SHOW LESS INTELLIGENCE! "— and it seems assumed that these shunned  "games", films or other works were not where the quotes originated so they should NOT be permitted to be further showcases of them here, no matter how prominently they might popularize them to many who might not otherwise encounter them.  For YEARS, it was permitted on prominent actors pages to include some of their lines from their promient roles, with proper citations of the work it was used in, and thus encouragement for further crediting of the actual authors, and I believe that this still is desirable, because MANY people might come to their pages seeking some of their most famous lines. I am NOT saying actors pages should become gathering places for extremely large amounts of their rather mundane dialogue from many of their roles, and don't believe there are many who would seek to make them such, but I believe that many of their most notable lines, and especially those they are most famous for delivering should be permitted, and any rules which might have relatively recently been devised to ABSOLUTELY prevent that eventually be rescinded. I am rather patient in letting many forms of the truth of matters become more evident to others before speaking upon things, or insisting that actions be taken, but I do believe I will have MUCH to say in coming months. I would now like to indicate that in my experience, despite much advice by the wisest of the ages to remain humble and liberal and conservative and unique individuals in social harmony aiming to be ever more charitable and tolerant, and to be cautious in making rules and new forms of idolatry, cliques of people regularly develop who are quite confident they understand ALL that needs to be understood about ALL that truly matters in some realm of human affairs— or ALL anyone else needs to understand as well, and often sincerely believe that all will be BEST if people simply AGREE to accept and promote the rules they devise and often seem to love to devise, which quite often are little more than paltry idols of their minds. Many, if not MOST of these people are in MANY ways not very competent in EITHER properly recognizing much of what many rules imply or assume, nor of properly enforcing many rules in fair and equatible ways — and certainly NOT recognizing the proper limits of ALL rules and expressions of rules — and frankly I know I could go on and on and on, because to the most intelligent and mentally active MOST things are plainly connected directly or indirectly in many ways MOST people simply cannot easily see, and OFTEN do NOT WISH to see or be told of — because their minds grow quite weary of considering much more than the shallow cliches, assumptions, presumptions and prejudices they normally bandy about with in rather shallow forms of communication and agreements. I do NOT generally intend to insult people, by making unpleasantly harsh observations of their limitations or errors — or of some my own — but I regularly am struck by how profoundly ignorant and confused and STUPID many people are in wanting to restrict others and themselves in many ways, and sometimes I beiieve it is my ethical duty to point out such impressions as are usually quite obvious to me that  do not always seem obvious to others — WITHOUT actually being inclined at all to demanding that they MUST accept them or be vigorously punished — or not allowed to passionately object to them at all, if they have any passionate inclinations to do so. I accept and welcome HONEST and sincere criticism of any perceived ERRORS of myself and my allies, as well as my adversaries, and do NOT seek to minimize or suppress it without considerately addressing it, as many seem often inclined to do. There are usually MANY reasons for ALL of us to believe and to act as we do — and the wisest are NOT inclined to make simplistic judgments which indulge or promote or even glorify the "will to punish" or constrain and control those who differ or dissent. These are but a few SAMPLINGS of my thoughts somewhat or strongly RELATED to this matter, and these seem enough for me to provide for now, and I am sure more than some would welcome, but So it goes…. (and I will note that I do regularly quote or invoke Kurt Vonnegutt and his wry sense of humor that way without always giving explicit credit to that fact). So it goes…  ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 16:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
 * In reply to Collingwood (sorry if this seems disconnected by a lengthy intervening essay), although the narration is in the voice of the character, one of the bones of contention here is whether a character can be said to "originate" anything. It is a fiction, not a person. ~ Ningauble 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that quote should stay, if only to inform readers that it is derived from an earlier version that does not originate with this character. BD2412 T 02:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep it in a theme page, but I think the opening soliloquies are associated more with the series than with the characters. ~ Ningauble 18:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: The nominator has struck most of his original rationale, changing to "weak keep". There are now 3 editors advocating for some form of "keep", one for "merge", and only one remaining for "delete". Just trying to sort through the large amount of text, above. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update redux: Zero remain advocating to "delete" the page, now with recent switch due to improvements to the page, there are 4 for "keep", and one for "merge". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge "quotes about" to Star Trek and lose the duplication of quotes from works. (New !vote for what is a new article, as discussed above.) I think quotes that focus on fictional elements, such as captains and their ships, are in their essence really quotes about the fictional work. This is particularly so when dealing with a principal character, or anything else that is central to the work. My personal view is that the plethoric tendency so evident at Wikipedia is primarily due to an "in-fiction" perspective that fails to express an appreciation of the work. However much contributors may feel that appreciation, the focus on individual elements does not express it well. This is the bane of compositions about fictional works at Wikipedia but, because Wikiquote does not rely on user compositions, we can do better than that – if we eschew using article structure to do the same thing. ~ Ningauble 18:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This is a dup vote. Ningauble already commented with a bolded "merge" comment, above, see diff. One of the two bolded "merge" comments which are duplicate, should be removed. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a duplicate !vote. If you would care to reread my pervious post, there is no possible ambiguity in saying "I have stricken my vote for the time being.... I will wait for further developments, but at this point I lean toward...." ~ Ningauble 19:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So if we are to understand you correctly, others that already voted, above, can also vote now, again, under your new proposal? -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that part of the reason we have administrators is because we trust that they will sort through the strains of discussions like these and correctly ascertain how many editors favor a given disposition. BD2412 T 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All the more so reason that administrators should not confuse the issue further by voting twice on VFD pages. Unless we are saying that others can do so, as well, below, with regards to Ningauble's idea? -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and unbolded the dup voting, for clarity sake, see diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently this was reverted by Ningauble, diff. He added back his own duplicate bolded voting. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the material on this page, do not merge. The material should remain on a separate page, and should not be merged into Star Trek. The material is inherently specific to commentary about the character, and not the series as a whole. Numerous secondary sources discuss the character and the character's quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The character is an element of the series of whole, is he not? Picard doesn't exist outside of Star Trek. BD2412 T 02:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, the character exists in scholarly and academic analysis outside of Star Trek, as well as in parody and satire. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you miss BD2412's point. There is a sense in which one might say something, even a real person, "exists in" scholarly and academic analysis, but this is not the kind of existence to which he refers. ~ Ningauble 20:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, he even does exist in other genres, for example in crossover fiction with comic books of other subjects. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)