Jump to content

Talk:Q-Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex 21 (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 27 June 2021 (Requested move 25 June 2021: Split to separate discussion section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2021.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with Netoholic, this request is wrongheaded and should be withdrawn.Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was referring to your comment of course, not Netoholics. Lennart97 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, we will see how this discussion concludes, but if no one else comments, which is definitely possible, the consensus will be for the status quo. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]