Talk:Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit

Moving forward
OK drawing a line under the above, we still have to deal with things as they stand - a lot of sources were removed (for whatever reason) and we need to deal with that.

Quick thoughts:


 * Remove everything controversial not backed up by reliable sources - we can add things back in when/if they are sourced but they can't be allowed to stay (as WP:BLP issues kick in.


 * What can we use as sources? I raised this with the Comic Project a while back. The general consensus was that sites like Comic Book Resources can be used but that the more "gossip"-style columns should be avoided (even though they often have good industry sources) which would rule out Lying in the Gutters as a source here. Equally while blogs and forum comments by notable people can be an exception to the general guidelines as long as they avoid controversy as that brings us back into WP:BLP territory again. So you can pick up a writers blog post on what inspired a storyline or an artist's forum comment about who they based a characters look on, but we can't get bogged down in "he said she said" issues that are just kicked around on blogs/forums.

Obviously the second point impacts on the first one too and suggest more needs to come out.

The sticking point is the AfD as I don't want to prune too much while people are deciding the fate of the article (especially if gets deleted, as I'd be wasting my time) but if it survives that is what I'd suggests needs doing.

Even then we would need look at its longer term viability as a standalone article. If we can't come up with more solid references I am unsure how it'll shape up and we might have to look at merging this back into the LoEG film article.

All this, of course, depends on the AfD but that is my thinking on the issue. (Emperor (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The see also
I think the see also has some validity. I've restored it but am interested in why we should remove it. What's the issue with its inclusion. Hiding T 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, having looked at the article I tend to agree with the removal. My bad, should have looked first. Hiding T 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant
How can you argue it isn't redundant when it is the same sentence repeated again?PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a different piece of information you have removed this time. Let me try and work out what is and isn't redundant based on your different edits, and we'll see where we are, okay? Hiding T 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * but of coursePersecutionComplex (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you meant now. I've tried to tweak for better clarity. Hiding T 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirected
Per discussion at the afd, I think it is best if the page is redirected to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) where it is better contextualised, discussed and presented. Hiding T 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)