Talk:The Serenity Now

World of Warcraft guild

I removed this item from the trivia section, assuming I was non-controversially removing some miscellaneous cruft, but it was re-added by Tarc with the summary "been talked to death". Curious, I looked here at the talk page, and saw nothing. So I looked at the article history and see now that what he means by "talked to death" is that many, many people have revert warred over it over the years with no actual discussion (approximately half the edits since 2/16/07 have been to add or remove it, with over 20 reverts). So I'd like to gain consensus on whether or not it belongs, so we can refer to this discussion to prevent edit warring in the future.

I'll start with my reasons to remove: It has nothing to do with the TV show, is unimportant to anyone not involved with World of Warcraft, is sourced to a Youtube video that does not prove any of the real-world claims. MMORPG guild-related cruft tries to work it's way into many non-MMORPG Wikipedia articles, and should be removed where found. --barneca (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a guild that simply shares the same name as this episode. Countless articles throughout the Wikipedia have "in popular culture" references such as this, and this is one of the few cases where an entry can be sourced to YouTube (usually frowned upon), as it does not violate the creator's copyright in any way. Perhaps it is unimportant to you, but this was a rather notable event in the MMORPG universe. The suggestion that this guild purposefully named themselves in this manner and used their notoriety to worm their way into the Wikipedia is...bizarre, to put it mildly. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand; they obviously didn't name themselves this way to get on Wikipedia. But I suspect they are behind the repeated efforts to re-add the content.

I dispute the notability of this event, and dispute that the Youtube video somehow confers this notabilty. Even if the event was notable (and I dispute that), the event has nothing to do with this episode. --barneca (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, your musings about the motives of those who have included, and continue to include, this material in the article are not terribly relevant. (assumes a McCarthy pose) I can safely say that I am not now nor never have been a member of the Serenity Now guild.

That's kinda the point of a "Cultural References" section; a list of other places, people, and circumstances that have some sort of connection to the subject matter. It is just as relevant/notable as a phrase describing fanboys of Firefly, or the connection to the Insanity Later album. Each have a tangential connection to the Seinfeld episode, based on usage or alliteration to the title. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote to keep it out. My parents' church once played clips from the episode and I didn't note that in the article.Belasted (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. this is cruft that's non-notable. NoCal100 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To respond to you directly, Belasted, I do not really see the aptness of the comparison. The difference is that people have written about the event at hand, in a variety of MMORPG places, which I would be willing to cite as sources in the article, given an opportunity. Your church has not. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard the contributions of the above user, as he has without a doubt begun to wiki-stalk me across the project. I will find more sources other than the youtube video itself, if the other contributors to this topic would allow the material to remain in the meantime, I would appreciate it. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

accusation of stalking are a pretty serious breach of WP:NPA. This is, in case you have not noticed, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and you don't get to direct that other editors' opinions be disregarded. There is a very clear consensus against your attempt to push this youtube-supported fan-cruft into the article, so please stop your edit warring. NoCal100 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one administrator here who has not gotten back to my last point in a week, and one other one-post user. I do not even take your opinion into consideration on this subject matter, for reasons I laid out quite clearly and demonstrably at AN/I. Feel free to offer a defense there, if you like. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume ANI will deal with the non-content part of this, so getting back to the subject at hand: the reason I think removal is so airtight is:

1. If it isn't true, it shouldn't be there.
2. If it is true, but can't be verified beyond the YouTube video, it fails WP:RS (the YouTube video can't verify the real-world claims).
3. If it is true, and the facts of the paragraph are mentioned in a truly-reliable source, I still feel it doesn't belong, as it gives Undue weight to a minor, unrelated occurance. Just because a clan chose "Serenity Now" as a name, doesn't mean that the clan's actions, even if notable, belong on the article about a Seinfeld episode. If truly notable, perhaps it belongs in the article on World of Warcraft; if not, I have a hard time believing it belongs in an article about a TV show. --barneca (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, point-by-point...

• 1) The truthiness I feel is settled by a simple googling of terms, i.e. "serenity now funeral warcraft", to see where it is posted and re-posted across dozens of sites.
• 2) A lot of these sites are blogs and forums, all non-RS as far as establishing notability of course, but GameSpot, a reliable source, did make mention of the event at the time. I cannot actually see the link right now (work, content filters) but will check it this evening.
• 3) I am bordering on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but many, many articles such as this have similar "In Popular Culture" sections. A band with a song that take the name/subject in tribute, or other such references. e.g. Soup nazi#References has entries for a restaurant and a children's cartoon that have a connection based on the famous "No soup for you!" phrase. Perhaps the whole lot of it borders on WP:TRIVIA, but that would probably be better suited for a larger, centralized discussion. For this, I'd just been following the standard set at other media / pop culture articles such as this. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm obviously much too late to the game; the content under discussion has not been restored since this discussion over 12 years ago, and Tarc was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia 6 years ago. But since no one ever bothered responding to his points, here are the rebuttals for the record:

1) People are just as likely to re-post a false claim as they are to re-post a truth, if not more so (lies are generally much juicier than truth).

2) A promise of a reliable source is of no value. Only an actual reliable source.

3) The counterargument to this is right in the essay Tarc links in his opening sentence. As for "a larger, centralized discussion", that had already taken place; even back in January 2009, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content clearly explained that the notability of "In popular culture" items must be established with secondary sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)