Talk:Companion (Firefly)

Comment on AFD closure
The AFD closure as Redirect→Firefly (TV series) appears to have not been the consensus outcome. In fact, it appears that there was no clearcut consensus due to low turnout in the discussion and the question of whether to redirect to the series article or Inara Serra was unresolved at closure. I don't want to take this to DRV, though, as I think it is not worth the effort at this time from my point of view. For another closer to this article set, though, it might be well worth the time. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect it wherever you think is better. SolidPlaid 18:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this be redirected?
My only problem with the redirect -- it seems a lot of useful info just got tossed overboard. Would like to see more care taken before wiping out large chunks of info! So why should none of this page's info be kept? Jenolen   speak it!  07:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'd really like to see a bit more effort made here to preserve this information. The "redirect" discards it all, which seems like a very poor way to treat the work done on this article.  Can we leave this article up until we can find a home for all the info that is otherwise lost?  Also - I have to agree with the above poster - there really wasn't a strong consensus one way or another to make this change.  (Three people offering mild opinions - one of them, citing a proposed guideline - does not a consensus make.)  In any case, I think it's better for an project whose stated vision  includes collecting and preserving "the sum of all knowledge" to be so careless in tossing knowledge away.   Jenolen    speak it!  11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain here before redirecting again....
As noted above, "The AFD closure as Redirect→Firefly (TV series) appears to have not been the consensus outcome." If it was a bad decision, these continuing redirects are tainted. So before someone redirects again, go read the previous nomination. And even if you think re-direction was the consensus decision at the time, understand that consensus can change. And please consider keeping this material here.

Also, you could consider putting energy into improving this page, instead of wiping it out through redirection. Remember, there's a whole category for Fictional courtesans and prostitutes on Wikipedia; obviously, this type of material is covered, and it's not appropriate for inclusion on the main "Firefly" page. (This type of detail would be out of place there.) Jenolen   speak it!  07:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The AfD discussion closed as redirect. If you disagree with the decision, then the proper step is to take it to deletion review, not simply to undo it on your own. The material is not "lost"; it exists in the edit history for users to merge elsewhere (provided one adds citations and whatnot -- a main reason this non-notable topic was redirected). Anyhow, I am again restoring the redirect. If you disagree with the AfD closing admin's decision, go to WP:DRV. --EEMIV (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's so lame and procedural and a waste of everyone's time, including yours! What I was asking was for you to use INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AND JUDGEMENT.  Don't simply type out "The AFD discussion closed as redirect," as though that limits your options.  You could, of course, be bold, and ignore that decision, on grounds it was a very lame AFD with no consensus support.  And you'd be right to do so.  So far, there's been exactly no support for the redirection of this page, since a very poorly commented upon deletion review more than a year ago.  But this is, of course, Wikipedia, so, down the bureaucracy rabbit hole we go.  Jenolen    speak it!

DRV results
Please note and discuss whether or not the merge and redirect should stand or if the restoration per the close is best. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing here is properly sourced; the lone source cited is a licensed guide to the series. The article is mostly conjecture; there's lots of "X happening is a trend" derived from "X happened one time in Y series." Any potential sourced content could go in other articles.
 * The only thing the article has going for it is that it's not written from a wholly in-universe perspective, but decent form doesn't save a dearth of content. This should be redirected to Firefly (TV series), with content going into Firefly (TV series), List of characters in the Firefly universe, and Heart of Gold (Firefly). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How 'bout we instead track down some sources, and flesh (pun unavoidable) out this article in to something more akin to Whore of Babylon? I'll start...  Jenolen    speak it!  07:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a start. Could we please let the "make this article better" process work for awhile, before we again redirect it out over a bunch of different places...  Jenolen    speak it!  07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So. It's a month later. What are we doing about this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Two months later, this article remains negligibly sourced in-universe plot summary. Is there any compelling reason not to redirect it to List of characters in the Firefly universe? --EEMIV (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

More info to add to article
No time for me to do it now, but there looks to be a very fascinating article at:

http://whoretoculture.net/2009/02/21/more-than-just-a-whore-sex-work-firefly-and-audience-engagement/

...which could possibly be a source for this article. (I'm putting this here more as a placeholder; when I have time, I'll go back and try to incorporate it in to the article). Jenolen   speak it!  06:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's someone's blog. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the blog entry is from last week and the blog is about two weeks old. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Companion Page
The Companion page should be restored.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_(Firefly)

174.22.11.242 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The topic fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement for inclusion; an article isn't appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)