Talk:Q-Force

Too many citations in lead

The lead currently has too many citations. Facts that are cited in the article's body and are not controversial do not need citations in the lead. The lead should summarize content that appears elsewhere in the article. This like the names of producers and creators should be cited in the body of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Knope7 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, @Knope7, perhaps you have a point. Now there are only four citations in the lead, with everything else moved to the Production and release section. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2021

Q-Force (TV series) → Q-Force – Unnecessary disambiguation. Q Force is an action figure entity passingly mentioned in Action Force and Ratchet & Clank: QForce is an alternate name of Ratchet & Clank: Full Frontal Assault. Both of these uses are relatively obscure and are already taken care of by the hatnote on this article. Q Force should also be retargeted to the TV series article. Lennart97 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support this is the only article known by this name a hatlink can deal with the other possibilities if necessary. I also find the make it clear argument as unconvincing in this case.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• oppose - no criteria established for PRIMARYTOPIC, especially because this is an as-yet unreleased TV series. This request seems to be driven solely by RECENTISM. A better disambiguation page might be in order, until then the hatnotes are all that is needed. -- Netoholic @ 08:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how the observation that there is no other article with the same name, and that disambiguation is thus not necessary, is recentism. Lennart97 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic, this request is wrongheaded and should be withdrawn.Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This particular comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. I've provided a valid rationale and see not the slightest need to withdraw. Lennart97 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it adds something, but I'll let Netoholic speak to its value, since it is their comment. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment of course, not Netoholics. Lennart97 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I was just agreeing with Netoholic, so it was, and is, a legitimate comment. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, there is no actual article titled Q-Force, and thus this article should live there, with hatnotes regarding the action figure. Recentism is not an argument against; see the recent move request for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds as an example. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A change to the page name could lead to further confusion and make it harder for users to distinguish the page from similar names. I still believe that the current name is a good one, but there should be a re-direct to Q-Force. Even so, if the consensus of users on here agrees with this change, then I won't contest it. Historyday01 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you point me to any other article titled "Q-Force"? If not, then no disambiguation is required. It's that simple. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agreement with Netoholic as this series has not been released and is driven by RECENTISM. I agree with them that a better disambiguation page would be a good idea, but that hatnotes are fine at the present. Additionally, changing the name at this current time and place would lead to confusion among users and make the page less accessible, which be a net negative. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the fact it is a TV series is fine. I see no reason to retarget it at this point. I wouldn't mind keeping Q-Force as a redirect, but I think it is important to make clear this is a TV series and not something else, as to avoid confusion. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

But that is very much not the point of disambiguation. The point is to distinguish articles with the same name, but in this case there aren't any other articles called Q-Force or Q Force. It does not have to be inherently clear from the title of the article that it is a TV series, just as, for example, it isn't clear from the titles of Seinfeld or Game of Thrones that those are TV series. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that, but personally I think it would be fine to leave it at its current name, not only because of the other similar names, but the possibility something else will named Q Force in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, the possibility something else may have the same name in the future has no bearing on disambiguation at all. Lennart97 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, we will see how this discussion concludes. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Historyday01, what on Earth was that? "I personally don't think it should change, and nobody else is going to comment, so this should be withdrawn"? That is textbook OWN behaviour, extremely uncollaborative behaviour, and literally defeats the point of opening an RM for a community view. I don't know if you have personal issues with the opening editor, but keep it at the login page, not here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no issues with the editor who started this, and I even revised my comment above to be more clear. I still believe the suggestion should be withdrawn. I don't know why you are getting into histrionics about this, as you are the one who is creating drama where there isn't any. My comments were relatively mild. I never said those words "personally don't think it should change, and nobody else is going to comment, so this should be withdrawn," so it is false for you to put them in my mouth. Historyday01 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And why should this discussion be withdrawn, when the sole purpose of it is to gain a wider array of views from the general community to gain a clear consensus? What section of the latter part of that do you specifically disagree with? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)