Talk:Cleopatra (Rome character)

FICTIONAL
"Cleopatra is a fictional character"??? --sturm (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This version definitely is; the article notes the character is based on the historical figure, but really, any fictional representation must be separated from the original. The casting itself renders any representation fictional due to inescapable visual differences alone. In this case, the character and series diverge from history considerably. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles of "Cleopatra"
In the series "Rome" there are a number of titles often mentioned when saying Cleopatra's name. Something like "Daughter of Sedge and Bee" etc. First, what are they actually saying? Second, are these titles real (historically valid)? Third, what do or would these titles mean (whether accurate or not)? Fourth, would a mention of these titles be useful in this article or perhaps in the article on the historical Cleopatra? .  jg (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC) . Ok, found the answer: "The throne name was also known as the "Lord of Two Lands"-name or the King of Upper and Lower Egypt as it later came to be called. This title, literally, "He of the sedge and bee" or the Dual-aspected King, may have symbolized the dual natures of human and divine resident within the kingship. The sedge plant is the symbol of Upper Egypt and the bee the symbol of Lower Egypt. It was composed at the King’s accession to the throne and by the Fourth dynasty invariably incorporated the name of the sun-god Ra (or Re.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg og 2@yahoo.com (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting
Hunter Kahn and I have each boldly redirected this article because it is nearly entirely composed of plot summary, with a single source for the actress. Cleopatra is a minor character in this series; I doubt there was very much coverage in reliable sources, and I see little potential for this to develop into an article that meets our basic requirements for a TV character article. Feel free to "work on it", but this article should not remain in existence for long if its current state does not evolve. And there is no harm in redirecting this and then reverting when you actually have reliable sources and the time to implement them.— TAnthonyTalk 03:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, my feeling is that if anyone feels inclined to work on this article and improve it to that point that it could be kept, a Redirect would be better because it preserves the edit history, so elements that exist now can be drawn upon and preserved for the future expansion. As it stands now, reverting the redirects has restored the PROD, so the article is back on the timer for deletion, meaning that edit history will be lost if the PROD is successful and working on the article in the future will become significantly harder. — Hunter Kahn 12:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, a "temporary" redirect is better than actual deletion if anyone hopes to improve the article at somepoint. But it has gone unimproved and unnoticed for so many years, so if it is not improved in the next couple of weeks and Mike Miller still resists redirecting, I will take this to AfD. There were once over a dozen articles in Category:Rome (TV series) characters, but most have been eliminated because they were in the same exact shape as this.— TAnthonyTalk 16:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As the author, I really had hoped that the article could remain up long enough to respect the deletion discussion. By guidelines, there is no reason one could not object to the deletion and remove the tag so there was nothing really wrong with the redirect, but my revert was my own objection to a redirect in this particular case. This article is one of the remaining "unsourced" fan cruft articles created in my first year on Wikipedia. had actually discussed this unsourced article with me at one time and I had been collecting sourcing (found a book on the production) to bring it up to some resemblance of Wikipedia standards. But I'm not really wanting a back and forth about redirect. I personally think if the article is so bad it cannot be given actual time to be improved (once a good faith attempt is made) then deletion discussion seems supported by  and  in some small way. So, with respect, yeah, the article sat unimproved by anyone since its creation sometime around 2007. It is currently "fan cruft" with little encyclopedic value. Since I am not the only author I cannot request deletion but in this case I also don't believe a redirect is at all appropriate. I really wish the article to remain up long enough to discuss deletion or improve.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would ultimately like to see this article get improved to meet Wikipedia standard, it is still unclear to me why you seem more opposed to the redirect than you did the PROD. Again, the redirect means the edit history and past versions of the page have been preserved, so if you ever feel inclined to work on the article, all of that will be available to you. If the PROD had stood, it would already be gone by now. If you do decide to revisit it and improve it in the future, I wish you the best. — Hunter Kahn 02:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "If you would ultimately like to see this article get improved..." Uhm no, I added the RS to keep it from being redirected so a community discussion could decide if it ultimately should be deleted. The article is NOT worth a redirect or individuals deciding their decisions should be the end of it. But do what you want. I tried. I added a reliable source and tried to keep the article open for community discussion. Let's just Donald Trump the article. Executive decisions are not in the spirit of the project but giving up because I can't waste time on this any more seems to be so....--Mark Miller (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm... if you wanted to see a community discussion about whether it should be deleted, then why didn't you just nominate it for AFD yourself? That's the exact purpose of AFD. Meanwhile, reverting it and restoring the PROD put it on the path for deletion without any discussion (regardless of the source you added). At least redirecting it like has been done has allowed for this discussion to occur. It doesn't seem like you know what you want, or at least what venue you need to go through to get there... — Hunter Kahn 14:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also a little confused, Mark Miller. Do you want to see the article improved, or deleted? Redirecting it is basically a quiet way to hide the fancrufty draft until someone is ready and able to make it into a valuable character article. I think the three editors who redirected it agree that any discussion with the intent to preserve this article in its current state are futile (even with the source you added). If you think it can be saved, take your time and make improvements in your sandbox, and restore this article when you're ready. I think we all have an open mind and will welcome an improved version, even if it's not "complete". But honestly, If you really want a formal deletion discussion, I'm happy to bring this to AfD, but I can assure you the result will be deletion. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 17:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's crap...and I can say that since I wrote most of it. No...seriously. I just want the deletion discussion to go forward or, I will have no choice but to re-write the whole thing (with sources) and revert again eventually. And that seems odd for a character article from a show that has been out of production for over a decade. This basically forces me to make it a notable article and I do not think the article is worth the effort.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)