Talk:Demona

Untitled

I changed this article a bit, editing the parts about Demona's return to the castle, her deal with Macbeth as the deal with Puck.

Fictional witches

I changed her to fictional magic users instead as she practiced sorcery and was not generally called a witch.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Reception

Re this edit: Yes, we typically include a reception section. However, citing individual critics is frowned upon as it invites two huge problems.

First is cherry picking (whether intentional or not). By selecting individual reviews it is easy to purposefully (or accidentally) slant the article. This is familiar to anyone who has ever seen a movie poster or DVD cover: The movie was "Breathtaking! Amazing!" short for "Breathtaking in its stupidity, its amazing that anyone thought this was a good idea".

Second, as was likely the case with the Nostalgia Critic here, is promotion of the source. The Nostalgia Critic's reviews regularly pop up in movie articles with remarkably similar wording from random IPs, always with several links to our articles on the show, the reviewer, etc.

Our intent in a reception section is to provide an overview of general opinions about the subject. This is typically accomplished in one of two ways: review aggregation sites (rottentomatoes.com, metacritic, etc.) or articles that mention critical reception (while generally not being reviews themselves) "Critics found..." and such. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. --Niemti (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed, policy/guideline-based response. Do you have anything to add to your already in-depth response before I restore my edit based on WP:AGG? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. I am removing the section. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Youy don't understand what Wikipedia priorities are. Without real-world perspective the whole article is to be merged or deleted. And it's not "review aggregators". --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I have a reasonable handle on what our priorities are. This particular section presents a biased view, presenting the views of two fairly minor critics as if they for some sort of consensus. More significant characters obviously get more coverage, but that does not excuse using backwater sources in place of significant ones.

If you believe the whole article should be deleted for lack of real-world perspective, go for it. That is a separate issue. If you believe we should include sources that we otherwise would not in order to have real-world perspective, I cannot agree: A subject is either notable or it isn't.

"And it's not 'review aggregators'." doesn't seem to be a complete thought. I am not sure what you are referring to.

Again, I'll give this a few days for a response. Failing that, I will revert. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What? And "I restore my edit based on WP:AGG" - WP:AGG is about review aggregators and film reviews (I just love people like you linking to the things you didn't even ever read), also it's a Wikipedia essay which means it's nothing. This whole article needs to be rewritten anyway. I tagged the shit out of it long time ago. --Niemti (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140520220754/http://www.ugo.com/tv/cursed-tv-characters-demona-macbeth to http://www.ugo.com/tv/cursed-tv-characters-demona-macbeth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)