This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
The contents of the Olag Gan page were merged into Characters of Blake's 7. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (29 December 2016)
The contents of the Servalan page were merged into Characters of Blake's 7. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (29 December 2016)
The contents of the Soolin page were merged into Characters of Blake's 7. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (29 December 2016)
Many of these Blake's 7 characters have little or no third person sources such as Roj Blake and Del Tarrant and should be merged.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally/policy correct. But it's this kind of thing that makes people get fed up with Wikipedia. Stephenb(Talk) 09:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pro keeping characters articles so long as it has good sources to support the article otherwise wikipedia is cluttered with poorly written and unrefined articles. If someone can take the time to write an article they can take time to find sources for it.Dwanyewest (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose then, and give people time to refine the articles. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned if this takes years to happen, as there is no hurry and there is no driving reason to merge them now (they've been in existence for some years). As I say, this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia drives people away, sadly. Stephenb(Talk) 17:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say "its been years, so give us more years to get it done". That is counter logic. It has already been years, and the articles still look like trash. Wikipedia has standards, and these articles don't meet them. Articles need to meet notability standards. Lists on the other hand, don't need to meet guidelines as strictly, and so merging is a better alternative then deleting the articles. Blake(Talk·Edits) 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per StephenB. Yet another drive-by by an editor with a vast interest in anime (baseball / rap / monster trucks) and an insistence that anyone else's fandom should be merged into one article or deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The character articles of this series are terrible. There are no sources, and only inuniverse descriptions, nothing else. As such, a list format would be better. Blake(Talk·Edits) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I am in no way meaning to be a bad guy here. I love character articles, and they have been one of my primary focuses in Wikipedia. While I would love Wikipedia to have articles on literally everything, rules have been set, and I intend to abide by them. These character "articles" are not Wikipedia articles. They are short fictional biographies, which would be more appropriate in a list. However, even lists can be written badly, in which case they shouldn't exist. For a good fictional character coverage, it should generally have a description of the character's character(their personality, looks, etc.) in a way where readers can understand without having seen the fiction itself before. Then, their actions, or importance in the plot should be shown in a way that does not simply tell the reader the exact plot, but more so the character's involvement in it. Additionally, for stuff like this to be notable, we need literary analysis on the characters. See here for example of really good articles. If you have faith that characters from Blake's 7 can have articles written as good as those(yes, even in the future, but progress needs to be shown as possible to happen), then the articles can be kept separate. Blake(Talk·Edits) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again I concur with Blake statement the only half decent character profile related to Blake 7 is Cally (Blake's 7). At least it has some good sourcing why can't inclusionists who are arguing to keep the current profiles working to find good sources so this discussion is irrelevant. If they spent as much time finding good sources to improve articles rather than wasting time arguing to keep poor articles. Many Wikipedia articles would be in a better state.Dwanyewest (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just looked through the articles, and did see that. Cally has pretty good content from "Bacon-Smith". If more of that could be found, I think it would be a fine article. Generally, sources to establish notability don't have to say "this was the best character ever", but simply acknowledge and discuss them in a way that isn't a straight up retelling of the plot, but rather an analysis of it from a third party reliable source. Blake(Talk·Edits) 00:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "Done", you mean using a three-year stale merge discussion with no consensus to merge, without even bumping it for some more recent discussion. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last 2 comments were in support of merge (from Dwanyewest and Blake), giving what I think are valid arguments for the lack of independent notability of all of the pages (except Cally (Blake's 7), which hasn't been merged) and considering WP:SILENCE I feel that consensus was reached, noting that this need not be unanimous. I note that you (Andy Dingley) were one of the two people to oppose the proposal. Not also that there was significant duplication, with a distinct biographies already at Characters of Blake's 7, so we had content forking in addition to lack of independent notability. Should the characters' independent notability grow, then no doubt a split proposal could be considered. Klbrain (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So only the last two comments count, and the two oppositions beforehand are ignored? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states that "Blake's body was to be sold to Servalan along with Avon and the rest of the Scorpio crew. When the Scorpio crew wouldn't fit, they were dumped in a river and only Blake's body was stored. It was later destroyed in the destruction of Gaius 6 when the lightning bomb exploded on the surface, destroying Blake and the planet completely." However there is no indication of where this comes from and it certainly is not shown on the TV series. I am assuming that it is from the Paul Darrow novels, but I think this needs to be made clear and equally that this was not shown on screen. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"as Avon is escaping he doesn't spare a glance at (crewmember)'s body or any of the others however he is captured and taken with the bodies of the Scorpio crew they were later dumped in a river and were later hauled out of their watery graves by troopers and were cremated effectively destroying all evidence of the shootout on Gauda Prime"[edit]
The above text occurs four times in the course of this article, presumably as a result of article merging. Can anyone think of a rewrite for three of these four? 165.225.81.100 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Klbrain (talk · contribs) 17:12, 29 December 2016