Talk:John de Lancie

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

Roles mentioned in first paragraph: Q/Discord[edit]

little support, OP indef'ed

@FlightTime, Meters, Daniel Case, and Dennis Brown: Hello, I made an edit (my change can be found here) that was deputed and has been reverted. Before my edit De Lancie's role as Discord in the lead was listed in the 2nd paragraph where it lists his "other television roles". I disagreed with this, due to his Discord role being easily his most popular and known role right beside his Q role. His other roles listed under "other television roles" were all much less well known/popular than his roles as Q & Discord. So I found it to make much more sense to list his Discord role alongside his Q role in the first paragraph as one of the two roles he is most well known for.

And here is some data proving my point. This is a Google Trends page I made measuring the popularity of Q, Discord, as well as the other roles listed under "other television roles" in the 2nd paragraph (with the exception of Allen Shapiro which I couldn't find a topic for and is clearly a more obscure category). I made it so that it searched in just the United States (since both Star Trek & My Little Pony are American shows), and searched for terms ever since the date that the first episode of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic with Discord in it aired.

For most of the characters I put in (all outside of Discord), I had them searched by topic, which means that Google Trends tries to find every possible example of the the topic (in this case character) being searched instead of just the individual term, controlling for different languages, spellings, and related topics. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a topic for Discord (not sure why that is). But even when I just had it search for the search term "discord mlp" (which unlike searching by topic does not take into account anything outside of searches for that individual term), Q was only about 25% more popular than Discord. If I was able to search for a Discord as a topic like with Q, I wouldn't be surprised if its popularity ended up equivalent to or even greater than Q's during this period. And the other 3 roles I searched for listed under "other television roles" were all far below Q & Discord in popularity by orders of magnitude. So I think this proves that the popularity of Q and Discord are comparable to each other and far greater than De Lancie's other roles. So I believe due to this my edit was proper, it is much more accurate to list Discord as one of the two roles De Lancie is far and away most known for, than it is to lump Discord in with those more minor roles. With this information, are there any objections to reinstating my edit? (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object strenuously but I still object. A lot of what you've presented here indicates you want to edit this article in a way that runs afoul of the rule that says we cannot include information in articles sourced to editors' original research. Would you please give a serious, thorough reading of that policy page and let me know if I'm right to any extent?
And I disagree regarding de Lancie's second most notable performance. I believe his story arc on Breaking Bad (he was on camera, it lasted several episodes over two seasons, his character was a major part of a long, long buildup to one of the most shocking twists in TV history) has more cultural presence than any of his voice roles or anything else he's done other than Q. City of Silver 04:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, but I don't see the relevance. Since my change was just to move the statement on his role as Discord from one paragraph to another, no additional sources should need to be added. If you are suggesting the the claim of it being one of his two best known roles would need to be sourced, then the current claim of Q being his most well known role would also need to be sourced, even though it isn't. And I don't know how such a claim (one role being more popular than other roles) would even be proven via non-original research. I believe that the evidence I presented with the google trends shows that I am correct on Discord being comparable in popularity with Q, and that it should be sufficient to move the statement. And if the argument against it is that I can't source the claim, then the same issue would apply to the Q statement.
And I definitely do not think his Breaking Bad character is anywhere near as popular as Discord or Q. As far as online searches go, Discord from MLP is searched far more than Donald Margolis is by about 15 times (a discrepancy that would likely be even greater if I was able to search for Discord as a topic), so I see no evidence that his Breaking Bad character is anywhere near as popular as Discord. While I grant you that Breaking Bad as a whole has more cultural relevance than My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic as a whole, I don't think that's true of these two specific characters. While Donald Margolis was important to one arc in Breaking Bad, he still was a minor character who only appeared in a few episodes. In contrast, Discord is probably the most iconic character in MLP outside of the main cast, and got plenty of episodes to himself throughout the show. So it makes sense why Discord appears to be far more popular and have far more cultural relevance than Donald Margolis. (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expressed my opinion, read your argument against, considered your sourcing, and was not convinced at all. I'm also not convinced at all that sourcing anything like that is in compliance with the original research policy. I'll stand by what I said.
Consensus might form against you citing your claim that Discord is de Lancie's second-most popular character like that. Consensus can indeed result in the removal of sourced text because not everything sourced is worthy of inclusion here. I don't know if you meant it but your message indicates that if that happens, you'll respond by removing text saying that Q his is most popular character, a claim that's so dead-bang obviously true it doesn't need to be sourced. (Just like not everything sourced is worthy of inclusion, not everything worthy of inclusion needs to be sourced, believe it or not.) I hope you don't do that because it would be considered very disruptive. City of Silver 05:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that I would remove the claim that Q is the most popular character. I have no plans of doing so, and I don't even think that edit should be made. I just don't think it's consistent to say that the Q claim requires no sourcing while the Discord claim would. I agree that my google trends source is original research and would not be valid to include as an actual source in the article. I think we both agree that there would be no way to prove either the Q or Discord claim without original research. So our dispute is whether the statement of Discord being one of his two best known characters is a claim that needs to be sourced. You are saying that the claim that Q is his most popular character is "so dead-bang obviously true it doesn't need to be sourced.". I agree with this, but I can argue that it's just as obviously true that Discord is a very popular role of his that is far more significant than any of his other non-Q roles.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was a very popular and well known cartoon in the 2010s that is part of a famous franchise, and Discord is one of the most known characters from that show (the other roles listed were either far more minor, parts of far less popular shows, or both.) And I don't think what I just said is really disputable. When it comes to this type of subjective/not entirely provable claim of what a person is the best known for, Wikipedia generally does allow deferring to common knowledge so that these helpful statements can be made without impossible direct sourcing. People are allowed to use their intuition or evidence that can't be sourced to justify making that type of claim in an article. I think that the popularity of both My Little Pony Friendship is Magic in general & the Discord character is clear enough to show that it is a very well known role of De Lancie's that is far more notable than any of the other listed non-Q roles.
I would be interested in hearing a logically consistent argument that its reasonable to state Q is his most popular role without any direct source but with plenty of non-source evidence, but not reasonable to add Discord to that without a direct source but also plenty of similar non-source evidence. In my view these claims are on the same level. You would justify the Q claim by pointing out the massive popularity of Star Trek: The Next Generation and how significant Q was in the show itself and to fans of it, I would justify the Discord claim by pointing out the massive popularity of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and how significant Discord was in the show itself and to fans of that show. Since we would justify these two claims in near-identical ways, and there is evidence that I gave suggesting that both claims are true, I don't see any significant difference between these claims. Either Q & Discord both have enough evidence to reasonably cite them as his most known roles, or neither have that evidence. His more minor roles, even his Breaking Bad one, would not be able to be reasonably justified as citing on the same level of Q & Discord under the standards I just gave. Since both Q & Discord can be reasonably cited as his two most known roles via non-source evidence and intuition, and there is clear precedent that this type of claim does not necessarily require a direct source, it makes the most sense to list Discord among Q than it is to less accurately put him on the same level as lesser side characters. Thank you. (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime, Meters, Daniel Case, Dennis Brown, Sergecross73, and City of Silver: do any of you find my argument directly above compelling? (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia runs by consensus, and a consensus appears to have formed saying the role is too minor to be in the lede. Bringing it here is perfectly fine, to test that consensus, but I'm unconvinced. Dennis Brown - 04:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but do you have any counterarguments against the evidence I gave? (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As Dennis Brown wrote, "Wikipedia runs by consensus" and the consensus seems to be that the voice role of Discord in My Little Pony cartoon does not warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead. I agree with not including it in the first paragraph. So, since you seem to accept that, there's no need for us to discuss counterarguments. Note that Dennis wrote "in the lede" rather than in the first paragraph of the lede, but I don't believe we were discussing removing the Discord mention completely. Meters (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do accept your point on consensus, so i will not unilaterally make the edit again. But I am still making arguments to try to convert people & change that consensus, as I did above. I think only about 4 people have stated they oppose my change, and there's plenty of room for those people to be convinced otherwise or for more people to speak on this here. And you are right that the Discord mention is currently in the lede (I am assuming Meters just misspoke), my edit was to move it to the first paragraph with Q. I believe that makes much more sense than it's current placement in the 2nd paragraph. (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't misspeak. You mean you assume Dennis Brown did.
    So, if you accept the consensus point, and won't move the material again, there is no need for us to provide counterarguments in an attempt to convince you. The page is currently protected because you kept trying to move it, and when the protection ends it will remain as it currently is (unless there is some new consensus). Meters (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, i used the wrong name, I did mean that Dennis Brown mispoke. When I asked you if you had any counterarguments, i did so with the intention of discussing those arguments with you if i still disagreed, so that i could try to convince or others viewing this page (which is exactly what is happening above in my current discussion with City of Silver). (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you didn't ask me for counterexamples. Meters (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, it was Dennis Brown who I originally asked sorry (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that I'm stepping in late to this, but I've only just stumbled upon it. Honestly, @EpicTiger87, I have to agree with the consensus I'm seeing. I want to add some points of clarification, though.
1) The NOR argument is nonsense since there is no new content being added to the article as a result of the proposed edit, merely a relocation of content that is already present in a different part of the article.
2) The use of Google Trends as evidence is not indicative of broad-base appeal or even awareness. Per Google, 'A spike in a particular topic does not reflect that a topic is somehow “popular” ... only that for some unspecified reason, there appear to be many users performing a search about a topic.' This can be caused by high activity levels from a large, niche online following. Moreover, it's worth noting that when you zoom out to include the full scope of the available data, from 2004-present, the search term "discord mlp" generates results from between 2004 and 2006, when the character did not yet exist, that roughly meet or exceed the average commonality of the term's search frequency since the character was introduced in the show. This raises the concern that at least some of the data included in your original link is capturing searches unrelated to the character, a concern which is further supported by the fact that the height of the trend for the term, in May 2015, coincides with the release of the Discord messaging platform, on May 13, 2015. The search term's second highest peak also coincides with a major event for the Discord platform — its May 2021 branding refresh.
3) Now what I'm about to say is of course up for argument, though I don't think you'll find many opposed, but I would say that inclusion in the lede requires broad-base, mainstream awareness of a role. Based on what I've stated in point 2, you have not demonstrated that here. Without evidence to the contrary, I would be inclined to categorize MLP as a large niche rather than a mainstream phenomenon. I therefore oppose the inclusion of that role in the lede, I don't think there is sufficient evidence that any role other than Q belongs there. Leon Nalle (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stance in this argument, but to point out a couple things to guide the discussion in the right direction:

  • While editors are obviously correct that we dictate things by consensus...there appears to be no standing consensus on the matter. This was a simple back and forth between two editors, the IP and FlightTime, who has disappointingly reverted multiple times but not (yet?) participated in the discussion. The IP does need to get a consensus to move forward with their proposal, but there is not so much a "consensus against them" as much as there is "not a consensus to move forward with their edits". There's a difference, annd the emphasis should be more on building a consensus here.
  • It is not original research to put together evidence of things like "importance". They're not synthesizing content to be added to the article, they're merely providing evidence for their argument as to where already established content should be placed in the article. If thar sort of thing were unacceptable, it'd be impossible to hold discussions like AFDs or move/rename discussions. We're free to disagree with the data, but it's not improper to present it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering ping, nothing more to add really that hasn't been said by my respected collogues. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I'm not sure where anyone has expressed SYNTH concerns; I haven't said anything about that because I don't think this is a SYNTH problem. It's very possible for an edit to both comply with SYNTH and violate NOR.
This is what I'm seeing: the anonymous editor went out and did research themself, attained information and reached a conclusion based on that research, and has tried to add that information while explaining that their source for the information they're adding is their own research. Isn't that what happened? Because if so, they went through the exact step-by-step process that NOR says is not allowed. City of Silver 04:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say I tried to add information, I was just changing where already established information was placed and categorized in the article. The original research I showed was evidence to support my argument that my placement and categorization for the information was preferable to the current version of the article. In my 2nd reply to you on the discussion above, I explained how there is clear precedent for it not necessarily requiring proof/sources to claim something is what a person is "best known for", it's more of a categorization than an objective claim. As I explained, if it is reasonable to claim Q is his most well known role because it's so obvious based on intuition and evidence that can't actually be used as a source, than it's also reasonable to claim that Discord is also significantly more well known than his other roles based on intuition and evidence that can't actually be used as a source. So I don't believe that NOR is an issue here for the Discord claim since there already is a consensus on it not being an issue for the Q claim. I think the question here is whether it is more appropriate to categorize Discord as one of de Lancie's two most known roles, or as one of his more minor roles. For the reasons I gave in my previous responses to you, I think the former makes far more sense. (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what happened. They didn't add any information, they just changed the order in which it was presented. They're just arguing which roles should be discussed first because are more important. Giving evidence to argue why something should be shown earlier in an article isn't OR. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree with this. As I explained earlier when replying to City Of Silver, if it is reasonable to state Q is his most popular role without any direct source but with plenty of non-source evidence, then its also reasonable to add Discord to that without a direct source but also plenty of similar non-source evidence. Due to this, this is just a judgement call on whether his Discord role is closer to Q in popularity, or closer to his other more minor roles in popularity. Between common knowledge on MLP's popularity & my Google Trends data, I believe it is clearly more reasonable and accurate to place Discord alongside Q as one of his two most known roles. (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the user who has been ip editing on I plan to travel soon and therefore be on dynamic ips that aren't this one, so to solve this issue I decided to make this account. Just posting this here in case anybody is interested in responding to my points on this matter. Thank you. EpicTiger87 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is directly about this issue, here is the new discussion on this matter on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. EpicTiger87 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicTiger87: Please quit opening so many discussions on the same topic, damn. WP:DROPTHESTICK - FlightTime (open channel) 22:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with City_of_Silver[edit]

Moving the Discord info to the top is unnecessary and reads like a non-neutral marketing tactic. Separately from this, the article contains a significant amount of original/non-source verifiable and irrelevant information like: "In 1962, de Lancie performed in a high school production of William Shakespeare's Henry V." My inclination would be to significantly edit out all of the superfluous content. Slacker13 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the Henry V thing should be removed from the lede, his performance in a high school play doesn't seem significant enough to have in the lede of the article (though it seems fine to keep in the "Early Life and Education" section). I'd add that his Captains and the Kings role should also probably be removed from the lede as that also doesn't seem significant enough to be there (though it seems fine mentioning in the main part of the article since it is notable as his first role). I disagree with the idea that moving the Discord info to the top reads like a non-neutral marketing tactic, as I believe the popularity of that role relative to the other non-Q roles more than justifies that placement, and is much more accurate than listing Discord with the more minor roles. But I respect your view on the matter, and I appreciate your ideas to clean up the article. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit Proposal for Discord Mention in the Lede[edit]

another try with little support, OP indef'ed

Hello, as the one who made arguments in favor of adding Discord to the lede alongside Q, I accept that the consensus is against me on it, and I think that @Leon Nalle: actually made good points against me on that. So I would like to propose a different edit that I made here. I think this edit is an improvement over the original lede because it separates out the one vocal role mentioned in the lede over the mentions of his live action roles, succinctly mentions the important fact that he has done many several vocal roles, and succinctly mentions that his Discord role was directly inspired by his most well known role. Can I get a consensus in favor of this edit? EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I officially made the edit here EpicTiger87 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And removed. So many things wrong here... you don't get to make a controversial edit to the article, then add a talk page discussion about it, wait a few hours, and claim some sort of consensus for it. This edit was already undone once, so you know itis controversial. If you want to propose what you know is going to be a controversial edit then do so on the talk page first. Meters (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I believe you have mischaracterized my actions here. I originally made a similar edit to the article on January 3rd. I felt comfortable at the time unilaterally making that edit, because none of the controversial aspects that were discussed about my previous proposed edit applied for it. I was no longer trying to move the Discord role to the first paragraph of the lede, and I was no longer trying to claim that it was one of his top 2 most well known roles. As I explained in the edit summary, all the edit did was slightly expanded on the coverage of the role in the lede, by mentioning that John de Lancie has done multiple voice roles (which is an important aspect of his career that is very appropriate to mention in lede), and briefly mention that his Discord role was directly inspired by his most known role (which is a claim already made and sourced in the main body of the article).
I also did not expect that it would be controversial to state that Discord was his most well known voice role. In the current version of the article his Discord role was already both the only voice role mentioned in the lede, and the first and most described voice role mentioned in the "voice acting" section of the article. The article clearly already does treat it as easily his most well known voice role. Secondly, there is no precedent for needing a source to claim that something is the "most well known", as that is a claim that is extremely hard to prove without original research, and it is allowed to put that claim in based off of common knowledge. This article already makes a similar unsourced claim that Q is de Lancie's most well known role in general. So it is clear to me that whether or not to call something "most well known" is a judgement call based on common knowledge and consensus, rather than a claim that needs sourcing. This was an argument I extensively made earlier on this page, and one that both a neutral party (@Sergecross73:) and even a user who opposed my edit (@Leon Nalle:) both agreed with me on. So I do not believe that anything in this edit requires additional sources in the article.
I did not do anything wrong in making that edit on January 3rd. It was a minor edit that I had good reason to (in hindsight wrongly) believe would not be controversial. Wikipedia actively encourages making those types of edits, and once my edit was reversed I respected it. I was busy during the next couple of weeks and therefore did not bring anything up on the talk page. However, a couple of days ago I made this new topic where I explained the edit. I originally had made the edit again so that I would be able to link to it here, and immediately reverted said edits (I ended up doing this 3 times to fix errors I noticed, but each time I did so I immediately reverted so that I could bring it to the talk page before instating it). So I respected the request to bring up the edit on the talk page before permanently making it again. I gave it a full day and a half (which I believed was a reasonable amount of time), and nobody brought any objections at all on the talk page. Since nobody had objected, I then made the edit.
So this sentence of yours "you don't get to make a controversial edit to the article, then add a talk page discussion about it, wait a few hours, and claim some sort of consensus for it. " is not what happened. I had made the talk page discussion before trying to permanently instate the edit, and I waited a day and a half, not "a few hours" before doing so. I never claimed there was a consensus, I just went forward with the edit since there were no points given against. I have no issue with the edit being undone and discussing it since you disagree with it. If you believe I should have waited longer to try to instate the edit after I made this topic, then I would be happy to hear how long I should have waited or how else I could have better handled this. I would also be interested in hearing why you disagree with me, Sergecross73, and Leon Nalle on the issue of it requiring a source to claim something is "the most well known", and to hear any other objections you have to my edit. Thank you. EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to move on. It seems like the community doesn't really agree with your efforts to place more emphasis on his My Little Ponies character. It's still mentioned, and mentioned relatively prominently with a mention in the WP:LEAD, so I don't think it's really worth sinking more time into debating this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My new edit was significantly different from my old proposed one and only one user has objected to it so far, so I'll be interested if seeing if any other users agree or disagree with it. I have fully accepted that the community was against me on my old edit, I just don't see that as being the case for the new edit yet. I'll give it a few days to see if anybody else wants to voice their opinion here, and if nobody else responds, I'll open a Request for Comments to settle this. Thank you. EpicTiger87 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New relevant discussion on this matter can be found here. EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not open a RFC on this. The consensus is already clear. Move on and do something else in a different subject area. Trivial reformulations of the edit are not going to change the result. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to open the Dispute resolution instead of the RFC (I thought a discussion with people involved in discussion over the previous edit would be more useful than getting completely uninvolved editors to comment). I will only open a RFC if no consensus develops in the Dispute resolution, which I doubt will be the case. As for you saying my 2nd edit is a "Trivial reformulation" of the first, this is not true. My two edits are completely different, and there are clear grounds on which my first edit can be opposed but my 2nd edit can be still supported. My first edit claimed that the Discord role has comparable notability to the Q role above all his other roles and moved the Discord mention to a different place. My 2nd edit makes no such claim and keeps the Discord mention in the same place, only claiming that his Discord role is his most well known voice role, and outside of that just sufficiently adds info to the lead about him being a voice actor & his Discord role being based off of his most well known role. And if my claim of Discord being the most well known voice role is problematic to others, the wording there in my edit could just be changed to "De Lancie has also performed several vocal roles, including the Q-inspired Discord in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (2011–2019).", therefore resolving that one issue. Since my two edits change the lede in different ways, the consensus against my first edit does not automatically translate to a consensus against my second edit. We should just let a discussion play out so that a consensus can actually develop on my 2nd edit. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime, Meters, Daniel Case, Dennis Brown, Sergecross73, City of Silver, Leon Nalle, Slacker13, and VQuakr:
I see my DRN discussion was closed, and the closer requested that I instead file a RFC or invite the parties to discuss here. Fair enough. Since I think it's more productive to have discussion with those already involved in the matter of my previous edit, I am electing to invite all the parties from the DRN here to discuss the new proposed edit. If any of you have not read the DRN discussion, please read it here so that you get my explanation for why I want you all here, on top of the stuff I previously said on this section of this page. If any of you are not interested in participating, that is totally fine. I will not bug any of you if you decide not to engage in this discussion, and if no consensus develops than I will make a Request For Comment instead. EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the edit. Move on. All this wasted drama at DRN and on the talk page is not endearing you to the community participating. In fact, you have a lot to learn about collaborating with people. Once you learn that you shot yourself in the foot several times, the key is to stop reloading the gun. Again, move on. Dennis Brown 05:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A consensus has already developed and you are beating a dead horse. You omitted the third option given you in the DRN closure, which was to conclude that you are indeed in a minority. But to recap, the change you are proposing is not an accurate summary of the body as required by WP:LEAD, is unsourced, and in addition is not editorially favored by other editors. In the absence of new and significant reliable sources, I don't think we need any expansion of Discord coverage in the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have extensively explained above and on the previous discussion why the sourcing of the "most well known" statement is not an issue (if it was an issue than the article's current unsourced claim of Q being his most well known role would also need to be removed), and my argument on that was agreed to by both a neutral party and a user who opposed my original edit. But in spite of that, I am easily willing to concede that point since my wording can simply be changed to say "including" instead of "with the most well known being", negating that problem completely. And of the only other two claims of my edit, both were already sourced later in the article. de Lancie being a voice actor & the Discord role being inspired by Q were already stated in the article and sourced in the "Voice Acting" section. Do you think there are any sourcing issues I am missing here? And I don't see how my brief proposed addition to the lede makes it so that the lede no longer accurately summarizes the body. EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of sourcing and establishing the edit lies with you, not with people who disagree with the edit. When people say "drop the stick", you don't seem to understand what that means. It means you probably shouldn't keep beating this dead horse unless you already can provide some source that clearly, cleanly and significantly supports your addition. It isn't up to others to do this for you. Dennis Brown 05:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already showed how both of the factual claims made in the edit I added were already stated and sourced in the Voice Acting section later in the article. EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REHASH. VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that my proposed edit was unsourced, but you have not responded to me explaining and showing that I was repeating already sourced information in the edit. EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed edit is unsourced. It's important to note that verifiability is a minimum requirement, but it's not a guarantee that content will be included. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the reason there were no sources given for the edit is because the same claims it made were already made and sourced in the body of the article. I have explained this repeatably. EpicTiger87 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: I would like it clarified from you; Why does my edit need direct sourcing when the body of the article already has the needed sources for the claims I added? None of the currently existing lede has direct sources either, because the sources for the information it lays out are included in the body instead. Why are you holding the sourcing for my proposed edit to a standard the already existing lede does not fulfill either? EpicTiger87 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're badgering. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sourcing your proposed edit, not handwave that it's "sourced elsewhere" or commence whataboutery. But in the interest of not wasting your time: as I already noted I am opposed to expansion of Discord coverage in this article, broadly construed, in the absence of new and exceptional sourcing. Please stop pinging me. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not engage with the questions I asked. I didn't handwave that there are sources elsewhere, I specifically pointed to the paragraph in the article in which the claims and sources were. A look at the short "Voice Acting" section in the body of the article shows that the exact 2 claims I wanted to add to the lede were already present and sourced in that part of the article. That is the sourcing for my proposed edit, it is right there. Since I specifically pointed to the sourcing, what other sources do I need to provide? In what way is it insufficient? The already present lede has no sourcing because everything there is sourced in the body of the article, why does my proposed edit need to follow a different standard? Do you believe that the article's current lede also needs sourcing directly in it? EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicTiger87: Please stop pinging me, you're wasting a lot of people's time with this unwarranted book. 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)- FlightTime (open channel)[reply]
EpicTiger87. this is fundamentally the same edit as was previously discussed here and at DRN. A minor changing of the wording and moving the claims from one paragraph to another does not make it different. If you don't see that then this may be a case of WP:CIR And no, your claims that Discord is de Lancie's best known vocal role and that Discord is based on Q are not sourced in the body of the article. You have no support for your edit. WP:DROPTHESTICK, and please stop pinging me and posting on my talk page. Meters (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your first point, let's do a quick compare and contrast of my two edits:
Edit 1:
Moves the mention of Discord in the lede from the 2nd to 1st paragraph, claimed that Discord is one of John de Lancie's two most known roles period.
Edit 2:
Maintains the location of the original Discord mention in the lede, claims that he is Q-inspired, that John de Lancie is a voice actor, and that Discord is his most known voice role.
These are not "fundamentally the same edit", as they do entirely different things. My 2nd edit was not just "moving the claims" from the first one, as it flat out made different claims. Beyond the first edit changing the location while the 2nd one doesn't, the first edit makes a claim the 2nd lacks, and the 2nd edit makes 3 whole claims(!) that the first one lacked. The only thing they have in common is both being about Discord and involving expanding his coverage in the lede, but they expanded the coverage in fundamentally different ways. Both edits added specific claims that the other did not. One who disagrees with saying that Discord's popularity is comparable to Q's and disagrees with my first edit, could consistently support my 2nd edit as they agree with the fundamentally different claims that made.
When I stated that the claims in my edit were sourced the in the body of the article, I was specifically referring to the two claims of Discord being Q inspired, and John de Lancie being a voice actor. I had already addressed earlier in this discussion the issue of the other claim you mentioned of Discord being de Lancie's most well known voice role. I stated that I had already explained in discussions on the previous edit why I do not believe that specific type of claim requires sourcing (if it did, than the article's current unsourced claim of Q being his most well known role would also need to be removed for the same reason. Also, both a neutral editor and one whom opposed my edit agreed with my argument on that). But I also stated that I am easily willing to concede that point, and just change the wording of my edit so it no longer makes that specific claim ("with the most well known being" can just be replaced with "including), negating that issue.
You also claimed that the claim of Discord being Q inspired was not sourced in the body. Here is a quote from the "Voice Acting" section of the article: "Discord was inspired by Q as an omnipotent being who embodies mischief and chaos, but is genuinely good-hearted and is occasionally helpful to the heroes of the show". There were two sources given of interviews with John de Lancie, that backed up those claims made in that specific paragraph about his Discord role. So yes, that claim was already stated and sourced in the body of the article (as well as the claim of John de Lancie being a voice actor). EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an unsourced claim in the body of the article. You cannot claim that your statement in the lead is sourced because there is an unsourced claim elsewhere. This is verging on WP:CIR. Read WP:V. This is verging on WP:CIR. And please read WP:BLUDGEON. Meters (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is the claim unsourced? The paragraph with the information on Discord contains two sources (18 and 19), which are interviews with de Lancie on the character backing up the information that paragraph gives. EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll recommend dropping this. There's very little at stake here. I'd understand if people were trying to remove the mention outright or something, but they're not. We're just debating relatively trivial details about placement and emphasis. I understand that you want this, but what I don't understand is what is lost if your proposed change isn't made. The answer, to me, seems to be "very little". Little at stake, little to gain, little to lose. Its best to find someone else to edit about. Based on all these discussions, I'd guess you're a fan of this Discord character. Why not concentrate on improving that article instead or something? Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]