Talk:Lilith Sternin/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheers lilith.jpg
Image:Cheers lilith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing scope of this article again without merging?
This is my proposed version. Somehow, this current version talks merely about Lilith Sternin, whose individuality does not serve well to general readers, regardless of fanbase. Why BRD? I don't know why Lilith is independently notable, but to me, discussing her is not that stellar. Even her relationships with other people than Frasier are not intriguing, especially without Frasier involved. I was going to add more of their relationships with others, like Sam and Rebecca, before the revert. Lilith's relationship with Rebecca and/or Sam without Frasier's involvement is neither sufficient nor interesting to justify independent notability or encyclopedic value of this article. You get the idea, right? --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "I didn't get consensus for my idea, so I am going to try calling it something else and just doing it anyway." No, George, just no. Not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? How is this proposal the same as merger proposal? --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Question on page protection Not sure why the article was fully protected. George isn't edit warring with me. He made Bold edits, but he didn't rerevert, but he began a discussion as he should have, per WP:BRD. Beside the page move, I only made two edits to the article, but I didn't realize that George had made an edit before my second edit, so my intention was not to revert his intermittent edit, but I thought I was making two edits in a row.-- JOJ Hutton  11:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There was clearly a content dispute here right after the RFC was closed. Two page moves, edit summaries like "stop changing" and "this needs to have some consensus" these are all signs of a brewing problem. So how about you two try to work that out instead of grousing about the protection? It's only two days but if there is agreement here on how to proceed before that it can easily be lifted.


 * According to his remarks here and on my talk page, George does not quite understand the objections to his changes, so I will get the ball rolling by trying again to explain. Less than ten minutes after the RFC on merging was closed George added a move proposal to this article that suggested moving this to a new title that would change its scope so that it was solely about Lilith in the context of her relationship to Frasier. He then went ahead and did this, somehow not realizing that this was essentially the same thing as the just-failed merge proposal and also not realizing that ten minutes is not long enough to wait for input on a change that can be reasonably assumed to be disputed when such a similar proposal just failed. So, the discussion that needs to be had now is about what the scope of this article should be and if it should be moved to a new title. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I take responsibility for the "grousing", but I don't think there was any "real" edit warring brewing. Although obviously upset, George didn't appear to be heading for a re-revert of my revert. In fact George has been a major asset to a lot of articles, including this one.
 * To George. I'm not your enemy, although you probably are not happy with me right now. You have made serious improvements on Cheers, Frasier, and Wings articles for a quite a while. I keep these articles on my watch list, less because I plan on editing them, but more because I really liked these shows and I usually watch for vandalism and POV pushing. I pretty much see all the edits you make on the articles and usually I just stay out of it and let you take care of them in the way you see fit, even if I don't whole heartedly agree. But in this instance I had to draw the line and oppose the merger/rename. I just didn't and still do not see any value in it. The article is stable and should continue to be so. It has already been established that Marque characters from the Cheers series have stand alone articles. This character should be no different, especially since the actress won an Emmy for playing the part.-- JOJ Hutton  17:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't see any value of Lilith individually, even when Neuwirth won two Emmys for that role. Still, how can I just write only about Lilith? The more I write about Lilith, the more I write about Frasier's involvement on Lilith and on her relationships with others. --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't originally planning on it, but I'll take a crack at it.-- JOJ Hutton  19:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Elaborate "it", please? --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You said that the more you write about lilith, the more you write about Frasier's involvement. I think I'll take a crack at editing the article to more reflect her other relationships, beyond Frasier. I sometimes am guily of not being able to look beyond a single aspect of a person or character, and perhaps that's what's happening here with you as well. Perhaps a fresh perspective on the article would be helpful to both of us because I may find that if I start editing too, I may hit the same snag.-- JOJ Hutton  19:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, we must keep things general, not excessive. For example, I quickly go through " Youth Olympics" without reading it thoroughly. Instead, I just looked through sports events. Also, I just don't care much as the torch relay routes as much as impact of torch relays. You understand? Same for Lilith's relationships with characters, like her mother (who appeared only once) and brother (who appeared only once, as well). --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Beeblebrox or Hutton, there are "Casting" and "Reception" sections in the prior version, so I wonder if they can be re-added to balance fiction and reality. --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats fine and I propose the article be unprotected so we can get to work on it, as long as we all agree not to rename the article or try and change the scope, until such time as a chance has been made to expand the characters relationships. -- JOJ Hutton  20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the title be still "Lilith Sternin", what details must I omit? I swear, I will write more about Frasier's involvements in Lilith's relationships with people. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it should a collaborative effort and all relationships can and should be discussed included.-- JOJ Hutton  20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though I'm not familiarized with the article I consider the merge an aggressive action, its content prior to this version had much and more relevant content and afaic her relationship with Frasier Crane is limited to a small series of events. The sole character is eligible for its own article, because Bebe Neuwirth won an Emmy for playing the role of Lilith Sternin, so the article should stand alone. Eduemoni<sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 16:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I don't feel that George Ho was acting in bad faith. He has been a major and tireless contributor to dozens of Cheers and Fraiser articles and despite my obvious objection to the merge, he has continued to keep these articles at the highest class possible.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the case can be made for each character having their own article and an overlapping "power couple" article. Lilith is a notable character on her own and apart from the coupling. Perhaps with both articles in play content that wouldn't be that appropriate or fit as well into one would work in another. The couple article as well could be reworked into a timeline of the couple much like it has been noting some of the highlights and corresponding episodes. Insomesia (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a third party who only got here through the RfC bot, it would appear to a case of forum shopping. This is not an accusation of bad faith—to the contrary, I've come across George before and agree that he is nothing if not a productive, positive editor. That said, I think we should move on. George, if you still feel strongly, revisit the issue in a few months, or if you really think Lilith doesn't have independent notability, you could try AfD. (I realize the irony of recommending a different forum after bring up forum shopping; I see AfD as asking a different question.) --BDD (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request #1
To Beeblebrox: Okay, I wonder if you could, um... add only the Reception section and condense "Wings" section from this version. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See above, let's try to find some consensus on what this article is supposed to be first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarities between merge proposal and scope-changing proposal?
Beeblebrox, I don't know how the proposal is the same as merger. Can you clarify? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, the stand-alone article on the topic is gone and it is discussed only in relation to the related topic. While not exactly the same thing the intent and the result are more or less the same. Since there was no consensus for a merger it could be reasonably assumed that this approach would also need to be discussed first. that didn't happen, and so you were reverted and now it is being discussed. i don't know how much clearer it can be than that, and again discussing those actual issues would be a better use of this page and everyon's time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection request?
Hutton and I decide to collaborate together WITHOUT renaming the article. In other words, I will let the discussion about changing the scope go one, while I will not include any info that does not relate to Lilith. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * George, please relax, ok? You don't need to keep starting new sections for every little concern, there is nothing urgent going on here. I'll unprotect the page, I was just waiting for some sign that the two of you had reached a basic agreement on how to proceed.  I am watchng this page but that doesn't mean I am monitoring it every single second. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything to remove?
I seem to have added a lot of detail about her, but I'm not sure if they are worthy to help readers acknowledge this character a lot more. In fact, generally speaking, Lilith is a one-dimensional, stereotypical asocial freak in Cheers. However, she's a whole different person in Frasier? How can her relationships with others, excluding Frasier, be worthy of inclusion if that doesn't involve Frasier at all? Driving lessons? Interaction with Carla? (Well, I could add Lilith's advices and Frasier's interference on Carla's relationships with Sam and his nemesis John Allen Hill (?).) Lab rats? (I could add ONLY one rat and nothing more.) I don't even know why I added her relationship with Norm. Woody's too irrelevant, and I have doubts about her relationship with Cliff, as well. --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How about something to edit? Mr Ho, I assume you're the author of this article. To someone whose first language is English (me), your use of words is Really Strange. The piece simply doesn't read like idiomatic American English. I can help you edit it, if you like.

By the way, there's no reference to Lilith in mythology, and you left out the fact that she can shove most of her fist into her mouth (though she has trouble getting it out).WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't insert Lilith mythology crap; that violates WP:no original research; even verification is required. As explained in Background, Lilith was intended as a one-time character. Also, what is the relevance of shoving "her fist into her mouth"? Do we must insert that to help general readers understand this character with that fist-in-mouth ridicule? As for editing, please merely copyedit; if I see unsourced mythology thing and the fist-in-mouth thing, then I'll remove either. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the myth thing, Lilith already explains it. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)