Talk:Firefly

Regional Note

Should there be some mention of lightning bug v. firefly as the common name for these insects, based on regional influences?

Life Span

What is the life span of a firefly ranging from? In novels/movies (Chinese/Asian), it has been depicted that Fireflies have really short life spans and would usually die soon after "glowing"

Request for sources...

The following facts have been added:

• "Unlike a light bulb, all of a firefly's light is used as light, none as heat.A light bulb is only 50% light and 50% heat."

This is done via a chemical reaction, but it will still generate some heat, I think.

• ",and 136 of them can light up. "

Again, just need a source. I suspect more than 136 can light up.

Thanks. Wikibofh 15:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

there are more then one kind of lightning bug, Photinus pyralis is the one I am more familiar with. Perhaps the thing on the side should be removed and have it's own page

Also: in the Biology section: "A few days after mating, the male firefly explodes." - really?

Going to disambigation

I believe that this age hould go to disambgation due to items such as the TV show Firefly.

• Agree Fosnez 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Gceomer 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) I think you are underestimating the number of people looking for Firefly the show. There is no reason why this should not immediately go to disambigation.

• We already have the DAB link at the top, and I think this is the most common usage. I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Scarlet 14:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC) That's silly, the TV show was named after the creature, thus it has a lesser claim to the name. I'm a fan and have seen every episode more than once, but it was hardly a huge force in human development. After all, it lasted only a season because so few people watched it. It was a hit for a short amount of time for a narrow audience. This creature has existed for millions of years, has been watched at some point by almost every human on earth and is beatiful enough to have everything on the disambiguation list named after it, you just can't compare them.
• Disagree Per above two. --Planetary 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree and I typed in "firefly" looking for the show - see "dab" below. ENeville 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Per much the same arguments made by Scarlet.--Auger Martel 09:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree What Scarlet said makes total sense. Jhml 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree I'm a huge fan of the show, but we do not base disambiguation off of popularity, but rather off of encyclopedic merit. While I would personally prefer this to direct to a disambiguation page, it makes more sense encyclopedically for it to direct here instead. -  Ennuified  talk   12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

fireflies

But where do they live?

Evolution of light

I have heard counter evolutionarry calims regarding these creatures. Such as :

• their ligh being a way to attract predator ,even when hey are not toxic.
• A wasste of energy.
• They do not need it for sight or communication(coudl've used chemicals that are less fleshy and more conservative in energy)

Can any one help me debunk these calims?--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Colloquial Terms

Anyone know the common names? I've heard that the Southern US says lightning bugs, and Northern US says fire flies. Any one heard something similar?

Zidel333 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in the south and always heard "lightning bug" except from a few people - all of them adults who had moved in from the north.

Plus, the common name "firefly" doesn't allow for Twain's famous line about the almost right word to work. teucer 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Very clever -- we now know what common name reigns supreme. :)

Zidel333 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Yankee from New Jersey (i.e. the North), but I've always called them lightning bugs like you guys. Though I admit, I do hear both terms from other ppl on a 50/50 basis.

I'm from Pennsylvania, and I use both, though firefly probably more frequently than lightning bug. --SodiumBenzoate 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Species in picture

Whoever IDed the picture, are you SURE that's the real species? If you search for "Lampyris noctiluca" in google images, you get black glow worms that don't look all that much like the one on the picture. Are they in different instars or something? I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there. --TheAlphaWolf 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I made this photo just in front of my house in Maxdorf, Germany. It is quite sure that the identification is correct, for there are only three species of Lampyridae in Germany. The other two species are smaller, moreover the female of Lamprohiza splendidula has small wings and Phosphaenus hemipterus does rarely glow. The color might be partial an artifact of the photographic technique: I used a long exposure time (10 sec.) with brightening the scene by waving a torch for a few seconds. The yellow light might have caused a color cast, as you can see in comparison with a daylight picture like this. --89.56.221.135 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (de:User:Wofl)

The picture is of a larva, not an adult, right? Lunch 04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely an adult female Lampyris noctiluca. Actually, I think it would be better to have a photo of a true firefly here, that is, one that glows while flying. L.noctiluca males do not glow significantly, so are more usually referred to as glowworms. Robin Scagell 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fireflies

4/15/06 Tonight I watched fireflies in my back yard do something I have never seen before. I don't know for sure how many fireflies were in the yard, but I have never seen them flash like this before. They were flashing in a very accelerated fashion. Usually they flash in a sedated manner, but these were going crazy. Has anyone seen something like this before? I also don't remember them being out at this time of year before. Email me at jdwjr54@yahoo.com

do they reside in all 50 states??--65.185.185.51 00:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I know that in the part of Florida I grew up in (Panhandle, Pensacola to be specific) as well as Gainesville, FL (northern part of the penninsula), there were no fireflies, but I don't know if they lived elsewhere in the state Nik42 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in California and lived in Southern and Northern CA, as well as 18 years in the deserts of AZ. No fireflies. Just seen my first ones in NJ.

page movie

I think this page should be moved to Firefly (insect) and that the Firefly (disambiguation) page should be just Firefly. Seeing as how the Firefly tv show has gained in popularity, most people searching for Firefly are actually looking for the tv show, not the insect... -Xornok 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The show, awesome as it was, was named after the insect, not the other way around. —Keenan Pepper 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

well duh. but still, more people are searching for the show then the insect... and why should they have to go here, then go to the disambiguation page then the series page... when you type in a generic term like Firefly you should first go to the disambiguation page then go the page you want... -Xornok 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with Keenan. The insect is far more common and more well known than the show or the 22 other items on the disambiguation page. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

but you have no way for certain to know that when people look up firefly, that they want the insect. it would be easier to just switch the pages around... -Xornok 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO this is a case that falls under the Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic guideline - the family of beetles is by far the most generally recognized and prominent thing called "firefly", with the rest being relatively minor subjects by comparison. And I, too, am a fan of the series so this isn't personal bias speaking. Bryan 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• We don't have to be certain, we make an educated guess, and so far everyone (except Xornok) agrees that the beetle is the more likely case. Take the example given in Bryan's link. Should Rome not point to the city because people interested in the popular TV show might have to click two extra links? Wikibofh_(talk) 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I know it seems like we're beating this to death, but shows like Scrubs and Entourage immediately go to disambiguation even though the nouns are more generally recognized. The insect may be more well known in a general sense, but more people are looking for information on the show when they come to the site. Firefly has a massive fan base (millions) and I would not consider this "relatively minor". The reason people keep bringing it up is because they don't think Wikibofh realistically understands the popularity of the show. The fanbase of the show Rome is extremely small when compared to Firefly, and the town of Rome is also much more popular than the firefly insect. Oz is much more popular as the fictional town in the Wizard of Oz than a TV show, but even it goes to disambiguation first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.107.105 (talk • contribs)

• I'm a massive fan of the TV show, but I agree that though there's a significant fanbase for it, especially as represented on Wikipedia, it's not enough to reverse the two. I'm going to add the TV show to the dab link at the top of the article page (it's only been 2 days, but there doesn't seem to be dissent or reason for it, as it's only a small phrase), so it's the same thing in the eyes of someone looking for Joss Whedon's show as if Firefly was a dab page only. (Edit: Ah, looks like you beat me to it. :) TransUtopian 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

can fireflies overwinter in warmer climates?

As far as I know there are no fireflies in warm dry areas (like on the west coast of the united states). Is this because fireflies prefer more humid climates or is temperature a factor?

Yes, exactly. They need humid climates. They can be found for example during the summer months in New York but not in dry areas like the San Francisco Bay Area. -- Jtpaladin 01:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

dab

Would For the TV show, see Firefly. For other uses, see Firefly (disambiguation). be acceptable? I think there's sufficient people looking for the TV show where saving a click wouldn't be bad, as long as y'all don't mind. TransUtopian 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I have an opinion either way yet, but I do have a comment. The TV show had about 3 to 4 million viewers. See for instance [1]. The movie only broke even on its budget, about $40 million (worldwide). That's about 5 or 6 million in ticket sales? Repeat views by diehard fans would bring that number down. On the other hand, there's half a billion English speakers worldwide, right? Certainly, though, Firefly fans are over-represented among Wikipedia users. Lunch 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that last sentence is key. :) Yeah, I'm not claiming it's as popular as Doctor Who or X-Files at its height, but a significant number searching here are looking for the TV show. TransUtopian 00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't have a problem with that dab wording and linking. Wikibofh_(talk) 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I typed in "firefly" looking for the TV show, and expected to get a page on the insect with a dab link to a disambiguation page. I was actually surprised to see two the dab links. I came here to the Talk page to suggest removing the additional link. After reading the comments here I feel like being accepting of it, but when I think about the likely fact that in a few years there will be another cultural phenomenon known as "firefly", I believe that wise counsel advises having only the one dab link, lest we esablish a norm of sub-primary topics for disambiguation and the inevitable attending debates about selecting one. ENeville 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Opps, I made a revert not seeing this debate, but it seems the consensus backs me up. Per above, both are acceptable. -b 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was on the verge of removing the second disambig too, but seeing as it has been discussed I think I'll just leave well enough alone. I will add a comment for future editors to see Talk before changing, though. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the second dab-link because there is enough of other users who feel it is inapropriate, and it is breaking with the MoS. Just look at the dab-page for firefly to see all the things that are named so. I absolutely love the show, and infact I came to the article looking for it (expecting to have to go to a dab-page), but on wikipedia we have to put or own personal preferences below what is right for the encyclopedia. Oskar 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It had been readded, and I just removed it again. It's inappropriate to have a link to another article and then to the disambig page, when the article is already on the disambig page. Readers searching for the show will find it easily enough; if anyone thinks the show should be considered the primary use of "firefly" and therefore moved here, it should be taken up at requested moves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Onion

This article was mentioned in the Wednesday 26th July 2006 edition of The Onion.

Actually, judging by the fact that they italicized the word "Firefly" in the article, I suspect they were referring to the Firefly (TV series) article. Alethiareg 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Just thought I'd explain some changes I made in the External Links section, to avoid any confusion. I deleted "Facts about Lampyridae" because it contained no information that the Wikipedia article didn't already have, and it contributed no further references, etc. Second, I removed "Nitric oxide and firefly flashing" because it probably fits better in the luciferase article, as the editor who contributed it in this article suggested. I will be adding that link to the luciferase article in a bit here. Finally, I renamed the "Lighning bugs" link to "Bioluminescence in insects," which I think better describes the link. Thanks all, --Jhml 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The External Links need to be editet. The first few links don't have any description why to follow them. Also i would like to add a link to my own site (http://www.flowinguniverse.com/alife_fireflystudio_e/), but i do not know if it is welcome. It would be Wikipedia-exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.87.125 (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Molluscophagy?

How in god's name do fireflies (tiny) eat slugs and snails (large)?? Are they like parasites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:08, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Rarity of the Firefly

I've been travelling aournd the world for years and I have never seen a firefly in my life. How rare are they? 194.46.232.25 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends where and when you look. The adults of all the species are seasonal, of course, so you may just be in the right place at the wrong time. When in the right place and the right time, there may be fireflies there and you wouldn't even know - some are diurnal and completely lack the ability to light up. The most common firefly in my home area is Ellychnia corrusca, one of those that flies during the day and lacks light organs; most people here don't even know we have fireflies because of that! The time of night you're looking for them during makes a difference too. Some species only flash at dusk, some later, and some flash in shadows during the day! Short answer: I think they're more common that what people might initially think. Jhml 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Philadelphia-area, they're extremely common during the summer. It would be rare to not see them at dusk/early night in July. --SodiumBenzoate 07:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In Milford, Pennsylvania, they were everywhere on summer nights when I was growing up (call it the middle of the 1960's.) Today, there isn't a single one to be seen even if you sit outside all evening. There are certainly none in Montana where I live today, but it is dry here, and if they need humidity, that'd be the end of that. I do miss them; they're a beautiful and interesting sight. Once, as a child, I was trying to get out of having to go to our barn for something, and my mother asked me why I didn't want to go, I (according to her) told her that I "might be struck by lightning bugs." --fyngyrz

Merge to form Characters of Firefly

The following discussion was misplaced and has been copied to Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Merge to form Characters of Firefly for those who wish to contribute. Pleae do not edit this section [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Within the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book it was proposed that Derrial Book, Zoe Washburne, Hoban Washburne, Inara Serra, Jayne Cobb, Kaylee Frye and Simon Tam all be merged to form a new article at Characters of Firefly. Please discuss below, bearing in mind Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia is not a plot summariser. Hiding T 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't see a particular reason to merge. These articles are of substantial length, these are major characters, and a merge would only be necessary if the articles were perma-stubs, which (upon examination) I don't think they are. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion here showed no consensus to keep the articles in their current form. The most obvious solution, proposed by most of the contributers to the AfD would be to merge. The articles may appear to be substantial at the moment but very little - if any - of the informstion within them is sourced or verifyable. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Verifiability requires a source only for contested information. What information do you contest from these articles? Once again, it is not a requirement of WP:N that every bit of information in every article be "notable" and WP:V requires that we source information that could/would be contested (it's verifiable, not verified). Furthermore, there is no consensus required to keep things in their current form. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Why is this on the page Firefly?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Merge to form Characters of Firefly. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Other Uses

If somebody would like to remove the television show from the "other uses" template at the top, I would expect them to explain their rationale when reverted instead of violating the consensus building process and edit warring. And no, "a show that didn't even last a season does not merit a note here" is not a reasonable rationale (nor is it a reasonable assessment of the show's notability - not that WP:N has anything to do with disambiguation links). --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no justifiable exemption for a television show for having a rationale that it be included. I would like the actual rationale for why the exemption is included based on WP:N. There are not *that* many who are searching for the television show, and this is what disambiguation pages are for. Please observe WP:NPOV and not add your personal entertainment preferences to articles without consensus. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, WP:N is not the relevant policy. Regardless, the television show is highly notable, and you deleted perfectly good content without establishing a consensus to do so. I will not engage in your edit war, however I will seek to resolve this appropriately. Also, keep in mind that this edit summary is patently incorrect. Administrators are not granted special privilege to ask you to watch the 3RR - any user can ask that you respect our policies. Furthermore, don't take this as an opportunity to discuss me, instead of the content at hand - that is the definition of a personal attack. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You misread the edit summary, and misportray it on the releveant discussion elsewhere. Additionally, you perpetually gloss over why this is "highly notable" in comparison with other derrivates of Firefly. We can take it case by case if you'd like on the disambiguation page. Reaching a reasonable conclusion, that only you are defending including of the other uses for this particular subject, seems to indicate your preference to the subject at hand.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The television show is highly notable. Until you build a consensus otherwise, you'll have to leave the article as is. Please, and this is the last time I'm going to refer you to this policy, read WP:BRD. You made an edit, and you were reverted. Build a consensus or don't, but you shouldn't be browbeating your almost trivial changes to an article on grounds that, for example, this is my favorite show so my opinion is nonNPOV (that is a gross abuse of WP:NPOV, a policy that has no bearing here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to review this discussion you created elsewhere. At that page, Administrator ERCheck states: "I agree that Netkinetic's user of {{otheruses}} is the most appropriate hatnote use. From WP:Disambiguation: "When there are several articles associated with the same ambiguous term, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there is a disambiguation page for the topic and its name consists of the generic topic name with " (disambiguation)" added to it, use the {{Otheruses}} template."

It would seem that a gross abuse is ignoring WP:Disambiguation. And you perpetually refer to a consensus of 1...please provide evidence of the consensus beyond simply yourself. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with User:Netkinetic here. With a word as heavily loaded as firefly, WP:Disambiguation (and not to mention WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE) preclude choosing one article over the dozens of others to use in an {{two other uses}} template. The popularity or perceived notability of Firefly (TV series) should not be a deciding factor one way or the other. The most important firefly is the bug with the luminous derrière, the others have to share second billing together. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  I'm curious - you believe that Firefly (TV series) is as notable/relevant as Tiny (Rob Zombie) or Firefly (novel)? Could you also explain why the clearly relevant secondary article cannot be linked to? Are you asserting that this use of the {{two other uses template is never possible? Why then does the template work this way? This template is designed specifically for a case like this. --Cheeser1 (talk)

  I believe that any Wikipedia article that fulfills the requirements is clearly relevant. My argument isn't that Firefly (TV series) isn't relevant, rather I'm asserting that the TV series is no more relevant then the other 35 blue links on Firefly (disambiguation). As others have stated here and on the ANI thread, notability isn't mentioned in the hatnote guidelines, but that doesn't mean we go the other way and open the door to using WP:GOOGLE and WP:ILIKEIT to elevate one legitimate article over another. {{two other uses}} is still a useful template, and is used very effectively in many places, such as Chernobyl, but in that case you'll note that there are only 6 links on the disambiguation page, and all of them relate to the town of Chernobyl in some way. In this case, we have 35 bluelinks in the Firefly (disambiguation) article, spanning many different topics, so its a matter of personal opinion which one deserves top billing. True, many people would probably say that Firefly (TV series) has special relevance, but tell that to Faith Hill fans that kept Fireflies (Faith Hill album) on the country chart for 100 weeks, or veterans that used the Sherman Firefly in combat in World War II. My point is - there isn't any fair or reasonable way to choose one of these 35 articles to spotlight, so common sense dictates that we not spotlight any of them. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  But you've taken the primacy of Firefly (bug) and used that to disregard the otherwise primacy of other articles. Why not have Firefly go straight to disambig? Because it was determined that the bug was more relevant/primary than the TV show. And yet now the TV show is automatically "the same" as every other one? I don't appreciate you conjuring up examples of WP:ILIKEIT in some attempt to assert that I am making such an argument (that or WP:GOOGLE). A google test is perfectly fine to demonstrate, perhaps not WP:V-conclusively, that the show is popular. It is critically acclaimed, won many awards, has tremendous and remarkable DVD sales, a large cult following, and spawned a film. That's not ILIKEIT, that's INDEPENDENTRELIABLETHIRDPARTIESLIKEIT. On the other hand, Bob Smith who loves Faith Hill and used a Sherman Firefly in combat clearly has a personal attachment to the album and the gun, one not supported by independent, reliable third parties that could assert the primacy of the Sherman Firefly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: There is a parallel discussion on-going at WP:ANI#Edit warring at Firefly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking, Cheeser1, that your "consensus" never truly existed among established Wikipedians. As mentioned above, WP:NPOV clearly applies whether a persistent editor is willing to accept that or not. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article, in its status quo state, is supported by a de facto consensus. The fact that you refuse to follow the consensus building process is not validated by mixed opinions that come up after the fact when I start a discussion about it. Furthermore, I am going to ask that you do not insinuate things about my status as a Wikipedian by making statements regarding "established Wikipedians," "persistent editor[s]," and my "willing[ness] to accept" something. Your behavior has been inappropriate, not mine. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the history, there never was a "status quo" wherein "other uses" is concerned. Check the box above, it shows more than a casual interest on your part as to the TV show. Check the consensus here and now, it concurs that other uses should only point to the disambiguation page. Check the name of this page: "Talk: Firefly". Not talk editor conduct. Shifting the discussion of topic won't shift opinion back to your version of "other uses". Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I just asked you not to make comments regarding contributors instead of comments regarding content. How am I the one "shifting the discussion of [sic] topic"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• When there are numerous other uses, we have a disambiguation page. We do that because (a) it keeps the hatnotes form sprawling to fill up the entire page and (b) it prevents ridiculous arguments over how likely it is that someone coming to the main topic will be looking for this, that or the other of its multiple other meanings. That is what disambiguation pages are for. I note that the TV series fans have the TV series first in the list on the dab page, I say leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Please keep in mind that you should not be assuming that "TV fans" have some agenda here. If there is a primary meaning and a preeminent secondary meaning, then such use of the two other meanings template is correct. The question is whether or not a highly notable, critically acclaimed, award winning television show has preeminence over other topics like Sherman Firefly and My Little Pony (pilot episode). To be frank, that should be obvious. The point of disambiguation pages and hatenotes is to get readers where they need to go. The only thing "ridiculous" about these discussions is that people refuse to acknowledge that in terms of primacy, the bug may come first, but that doesn't preclude an obvious second. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's hardly "obvious" to those outside the TV show's fanbase that a short-lived TV show deserves preeminence over a World War II tank or a Uriah Heep album or a Malaysian airline or a subcompact car. FCYTravis (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  I would once again that these baseless accusations of "you're a fan, what would you know" stop. I'm casually familiar with the show. I like it. So do millions of other people. That's not a conflict of interest. I've explained how this show (despite being short-lived) has been the subject of a great deal of critical acclaim, media attention, etc. If a Malaysian airline wins awards for "best airline" and garners other indicators of high notability, then maybe they measure up. If you want to engage in a good faith discussion as to how the television series is or is not preeminent, be my guest, but don't start off on the wrong foot by hurling out accusations of who's a "fan," implying some sort of bias or agenda. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Non sequitur. Whether or not something has won "awards" is irrelevant. You have not established that from a worldwide and encyclopedic perspective, the TV show is so predominant in the use of the name as to deserve special mention. You have not even attempted to argue that it is - you simply said "it should be obvious" that the show is preeminent. Well, to be frank, no, it's not obvious. FCYTravis (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Non-paying-attenion editor. I made my case only a few paragraphs above this comment. Please read the entire discussion. Furthermore "it's not obvious" does not lead one to conclue "Cheeser1 is a fanboy who's got a pro-Firefly agenda," or even that my conclusions are incorrect. Are you interested in addressing my points, or would you rather argue over my use of the term "obvious"? Oh and, uh, last time I checked, awards, critical acclaim, and media coverage were exactly how we establish things like notability, preeminence, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Also note that preeminance is related not just to "notability" (and not in the WP:N sense), but in use and navigation. Hatnotes are here to redirect users to the appropriate place as smoothly as possible. If there is a secondary article (second to the bug) that gets alot of traffic, is highly notable (compared to many, if not all, other members of the dab page), long (not to mention well written) as opposed to a stub or short, and can be reasonably argued as preeminant in notability, usage, and wiki-traffic, why oppose it on the grounds of "You are a fan" or "WP:ILIKEIT means I'm going to delete the hatnote because you like it" - ILIKEIT of course being an argument to avoid in AfDs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would also expect more from an administrator than reverting a revert when this issue is clearly under discussion and the status quo version should remain until a firm consensus is reached. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which is functionally equivalent to "how dare an administrator of all people disagree with me!" - admins are just editors with extra tools, and are as entitled to their opinions as you are. Additionally, most admins I would say are rather less enthusiastic about the TV show than you are, so may be better placed to judge the policy and guideline basis for an edit. So we come back to the standard Wikipedia answer: the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion. Your arguments thus far amount to a reversal of this, demanding that others justify removal. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You need to demonstrate, in some tangible and unequivocal way, that your TV show is uniquely likely to be the target of searches, over and above all other possible alternative uses of the term. As noted above, you haven't even atempted to do that so far. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I'll thank you not to rephrase my comments to suit you. What I said is functionally equivalent to: "Gosh, I'm surprised that an administrator doesn't understand the basics of the consensus building process, since he certainly ought to." Leave things the way they were until the issue is settled. That's what it tells us. I know what an administrator is, you don't have to explain it to me. I'm dismayed that you would actually assert that you are an admin, and admins don't like the show as much as I do (apparently), and therefore they are more qualified to contribute to this discussion. Can you people please stop rehashing the inappropriate argument "you like the show, so pipe down and do what we say" please? Since you refuse to even consider the fact that I've made a good faith effort to participate in this discussion and make valid points (and have apparently made up your mind decided what the consensus here is), I'm just going to be the bigger man and let you have it your way. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Finished digging yet, or can I offer you a bigger spade? Your failure to convince people is nobody's fault but your own. You could have made a difference by actually justifying your edit, as I said, rather than simply challenging all comers to a fight but you have made no effort at all yet to show why this one out of the dozens of uses of the word deserves special mention. You are the major cause of what little edit war exists here, and you are the one failing to follow standard Wikipedia practice. The onus is firmly on you to justify inclusion, and you have not even tried, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  Guy, I conceded the point since I'll obviously never be able to convince you of anything, since you refuse to even consider that I was ever willing to discuss this in good faith (despite the fact that I was and Netkinetic wasn't). With all due respect, I've run into you three places on WP today and each time you've basically spat in my face, refusing to assume an iota of good faith, so why don't you just leave it alone after I've conceded the issue? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying you've been forum-shopping? I hope not. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like the TV show but it does not deserve special prominence. The WW2 tank is at least as important in my experience. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, I knew about that from boyhood. Actually "firefly" was a colloquial name for the 17pdr itself. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the sheer quantity of "What links here" into the Firefly (TV series) page (just over 1000) compared to any other firefly related pages (300 for this one, 100-150 for several others, most around 2-6) might be used as one possible justification for the {{Two other uses}} tag on this page. It is by far the most commonly linked firefly page on Wikipedia, and its inclusion as a second hatnote on this article will not slow down anyone who might be looking for the article about the tank, or any of the other disambiguated articles. (Disclosure: Not recently involved, but I readded the second hatnote to this article in Sept '06) --Onorem♠Dil 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• So all I need to do to get my favourite article at the top of another article is spam it everywhere? Has anyone reviewed those links to see how appropriate they are? And anyway, they link to the correct article so have no real impact here. It's people coming here to look for firefly that is the issue, and how many of those are likely to be looking for a short-lived TV series versus a tank or anything else. No figures advanced thus far. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a perfect justification. I was just pointing it out for another perspective. Go ahead and spam whatever you'd like. It's my opinion that a good percentage of the people that type in Firefly are hoping to get to the article about the series. That those articles currently link to the correct page is not the issue. The fact that you don't like it, might as well ignore AGF in both directions, doesn't mean that the majority of people that end up here aren't looking for info about the show. Unless we can somehow embed counters to see which articles people most frequently click through to out of a disambiguation page, I'm not sure how figures can be provided on exactly how many of those are likely to be looking for a short-lived TV series versus a tank or anything else, so I guess I'll never be able to come up with an answer that satisfies you. Good enough for me. I don't care enough about the issue to fight over it. I'm not going to add it back myself. I just think it's a net negative to the average reader to have to click through twice to get to where they wanted to be in the first place. --Onorem♠Dil 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps useful to this conversation:

Out of first twenty web pages on Google for "firefly":

60% television series

15% restaurant

10% media bridge

5% mobile phone

5% insect

5% game studios

Out of the first twenty images on Google for "firefly":

55% television series

35% insect

10% squid

Neitherday (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion so many times, and everytime a consensus is met: we think it's better to have a Firefly (TV show) link at the top of this article. -b (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not synonomous with Google, they operate under different criteria. The question is notability here. Second, this discussion on other uses including Firefly (TV show) has been discussed "many times"? Really? Please refer to those previous discussions and where a "consensus" was reached supporting it? Because even Cheeser1 never referred to a consensus beyond "status quo". I'm thinking all 5 people who loved the show are trying to resurrect it here since the show had an abbreviate existence and its movie was a box office failure.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, our article on Firefly was visited 30955 times in 2007[2]. Our article on Firefly_(TV_series) was visited 91075 times in the same period[3]. Hiding T 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the statistics, Steve Block. That said, it still doesn't solidify notability and a consensus here agree that adding [[Firefly {TV series)]] to other uses would not conform with Wikipedia policies mentioned above. Also, your statement "our article on Firefly" smacks of WP:OWN. Hope that isn't the case. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our article" because it's in Wikipedia, not Britannica. Learn to WP:AGF please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should a direct link to Firefly (tv series) be included at the top of the article, in addition to the generic disam.?

Would it be proper to include a direct link to to Firefly (TV series) at the top of the article? This is an issue that is not going away anytime soon, and as such, can we PLEASE keep it clean The two options are:

For other uses, see Talk:Firefly (disambiguation).

Discussion

I believe the template should be reverted to include the link: a template exists to suit this need, Firefly (TV series) appears first on Google, it does no harm to the existing Firefly article and would merely act to streamline the user experience. -b (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the template should be left as directing only to the Firefly disambiguation, as this adequately serves the needs for all concerned and there is no notable reason that the TV series should have special exemption from this excepted standard. The majority of individuals on this page and elsewhere have formed a consensus that this is acceptable at this time. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

False. There is no such consensus. Furthermore, WP:N has no bearing here whatsoever. Hatnotes are to aid navigation. Primacy is the issue, and there are clear indicators that in terms of navigation, most of the traffic for the search term "Firefly" goes to the TV show (even more than this page, which even gets double-counts due to it being the most primary term). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with above. The template for two other uses obviously exists for this reason. -b (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)