Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unrelated but kinda related

You should exlplain why SML has no wikipedia page, they have a retail merch store in Pensacola, is 10x bigger than BFDI, and appeared on Good Morning America and The Sun, albeit for bad reasons, Jeffy alone could have a Wikipedia page, maybe even Jeffy's Tantrum could have a wikipedia since that is what started the whole controversy (please make it a shorter essay unlike the anti-BFDI page essay) AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SML (YouTube channel). An essay about that would have essentially the same points as the BFDI one. ObserveOwl (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You can try searching for sources talking about SML in more detail that weren't mentioned in the deletion discussion, though. Try asking someone experienced with notability about them, and then open a deletion review if appropriate. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

except SML fans are 10x worse with vandalism then bfdi fans, so even if it met all the criteria, it probably wouldnt have one AmericanAccount704 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

AmericanAccount704, that's not how WP works. If SML had was notable, had an article, and fans were frequently vandalizing it, it would just get protected. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

need something to explain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Really. Just REALLY. You dont lead BFDI to HAVE a Page but you want SKIBIDI TOILET WITH A FANART DRAWING TO HAVE ONE. Sorry but nothing can say how angry i am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:101E:4:3ABA:3474:B0C5:2E01:90B9 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at the FAQ at the top of this page. Skibidi Toilet has way more reliable sources analysing its impact on internet culture - to the point that Michael Bay is producing a film adaptation. I don't see any fanart on the English article about Skibidi Toilet, just cosplays, but there might be on other language versions for copyright reasons. But that has nothing to do with the suitability for an article. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the essay got a sudden surge in edits, and there's this recent rejected undeletion request, so I wonder if this essay was mentioned by someone known in the OSC... yet again. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Wikipedia forbid BFDI only as its own page on the English Wikipedia, or all object show content on all Wikipedias of all languages?

Although all other Wikimedia projects of all languages still allow object show content. (see wiktionary:objectsona, commons:Category:Battle for Dream Island, wikidata:Q66121500 for example) 67.209.130.4 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Other WMF-projects will deal with whatever per their own policies and guidelines when noticed by the editors there. en-WP has no special authority over other WMF-projects. For example, ja-WP had a BFDI-article for a while:[1]. Fwiw, this page exists on ko-WP:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bigger than its sister projects and is more likely to be used as a source so it needs to be stricter. RmationYT (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

weird but important questions

i have been following this situation for the better portion of a year, and a few things should be answered .

1. if battle for dream island got reliable sources on something that didn’t exactly aim for the show itself, but something expressly bfdi (like for example the live tour/the scholastic guide book), would it mean that the thing itself still be rejected as its not significant coverage? (of the show), or would the thing itself be able to get a wikipedia article only about itself.

1b. and if it would be rejected, does that mean that bfdi is required to have its own article (for the show) for there to be any articles relating to bfdi?

2. what about object shows? (bfdi’s main example) like itft, inanimate insanity, or obsolete battle show, these shows take (both full/partial) inspiration from bfdi, but most are unrelated, but this is not talking about a single confined object show, it’s about the whole community as a thing, but how could you even make an article (with sources), on such a wide concept, as the osc?

2b. what about any singular object show?, like what if lots of sources made news coverage on any particular object show, would it need to conform to its unique identity as an object show?, or would it only be classified as a webshow? (if both a bfdi and osc article didn’t exist)

[cw roblox mention]

3. what about find the markers? the original game creator was the one to come up with marker, so he has the ownership of the character, so he made a game on roblox that wasn’t directly tied to bfdi or anything other than the character marker, this game is popular with alot of people (bfdi fans and non bfdi fans alike) and could have it’s own article (with sources), does that mean you couldn’t mention bfdi along with this article? (as find the markers’ development didn’t have direct influence from bfdi, so mentions of bfdi aren’t needed)

[roblox mention over]

4. how many sources do we need on bfdi?, what is the number of reliable sources needed until bfdi is notable?, because does wikipedia allow any wikipedia page aslong as it has atleast 1 source? or does it need lots?

5. do we exactly need all mentions of bfdi in regular known pages deleted?, as its blacklisted (for now), because there’s lots of places where bfdi could be used as a passing mention, but what if the (wikipedia) article is based on an news article that has only a slight mention of bfdi in it?

(heh 5b) 5b. how about general places that don’t need bfdi references?, but the topic in question mentions it to the point where it is applicable to the article, but technically you could reference bfdi in it as it was in article that was a reliable source?

5c. are mentions of bfdi banned?

so that’s alot of the questions i had, thanks for reading (if you read them all) and have a good day!. Led lore (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

1. That would depend on how much context on BFDI the source provides. The article about BFDI would be pretty confusing to read without information about itself.

1b. Technically not, but that would perhaps be for an exceptional case in which something from BFDI has made some impact outside the OSC.

2. By waiting for reliable, independent and in-depth sources the article would base upon, I suppose. As for the OSC, there are some articles about specific fandoms, so an article about the OSC could base its structure on some of them.

2b. Depends on how reliable coverage describes it.

3. It would again require reliable coverage, and of course it can mention BFDI when relevant and noted by sources.

4. The general notability guideline mentions "sources" in plural, but the reliability and depth of the sources count more than the quantity. The practical minimum could be two sources if they are very in-depth, or three moderately in-depth ones; it should be evaluated case-by-case.

5. Would depend on the context and relevance to the article in question.

5b. Couldn't understand this question, sorry.

5c. No, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia", but the blacklist prevents it from being mentioned in the title of a page created by a non-admin. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

this is going to be another wierd question but it will be more specific.

how about yoylecake itself getting a wp article..

battle for dream island has been brought up for sources from a Comic con food truck for its food item yoyle cake.

and those sources don’t specifically fit as sources for bfdi, but my question is could yoylecake have its own wp article?

understandably yoylecake is an important thing in the bfdi universe, but not exactly a real food item.

yoyle cake isn’t strictly a food item though as its also a catchprase from one of the characters in the show.. and this broadness of being both a phrase and a (fictional) food item, is something they could put on a page.

(catchphrases aren’t always articles [execptions eg. D'oh!] but rather sections/redirections of characters [eg Did i do that, Bazinga] and could be possible for a redirection/section of a hypothetical yoyle cake article)

the reason i ask this is because my questions from last month were too broad/and or specific Led lore (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Are sources providing detail on what the yoylecake is? I see that, in practice, only really well known food/drinks from movies or television have articles, like Duff Beer or the Krabby Patty (see Category:Fictional food and drink), so its notability seems unlikely, even if BFDI gets notable. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)~

A half-decent point

Something I have never managed to understand is how Battle For Dream Island doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, and yet Epic Rap Battles of History does. What does ERB have that BFDI doesn’t? I’d argue that BFDI has more, what with merchandise, an active fan base of all ages, countless series inspired by it and a lot more! 86.13.247.51 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the page? It explains this. ERB has sufficient sourcing for an article while BFDI doesn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you think anyone complaining here actually read the page? λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They are complaining because the rules clearly don’t help anything as something that should clearly have a page can’t 2007GabrielT (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If BFDI "should clearly have a page", then why haven't any significant publications discussed the show in-depth? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Like this one? 86.13.247.51 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island. It is republishing this Hindustan Times aricle, which states on its disclaimer at the end: "This article is a paid publication and does not have journalistic/editorial involvement of Hindustan Times." This and other BFDI articles by Business Today are part of the publication's "Impact Feature" section, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations advises that this section from India Today (owned by the same company as Business Today) is mostly sponsored content. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would significant publications ever talk about it? 2007GabrielT (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are one of the people that have not actually read the page. λ NegativeMP1 18:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Better yet, has anyone actually read Arguments to avoid 2601:98B:4480:2040:CCAF:A2C4:65BD:2543 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ addresses this. Stop beating a dead horse. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(possibly) reliable source

keep in mind one source is not enough to make an article, but the article in question appears to be independent the author is listed, and thank goodness, it's not Peter ruette. [source] 2601:98B:4480:2040:CCAF:A2C4:65BD:2543 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are many assessed sources that feature BFDI. I did add the source in question at the bottom of the table (for now). AlphaBeta135talk 02:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The title of that source is similar to the URL of one of the MSN links on the source assessment table, but the MSN link is broken and I can't seem to find an archived version of it. If the Under30CEO writer just changed a few things from the MSN article, which is supposedly paid, it seems like that kind of "churnalism" that Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases warns about (although technically the MSN source is not a press release, it is not independent). I can also see that the article maintains a very promotional tone. I cannot find any page about Under30CEO's editorial standards or independent reliable sources citing the website. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Inanimate Insanity

This may seem like a terrible argument, but hear me out. Inanimate Insanity, another object show, did recently get a movie. It could technically be counted for a Wikipedia article. Especially considering the fact every single other piece of media with a movie has a Wikipedia article. Additionally, Inanimate Insanity is even mentioned on this page. I’ll let you consider this fact. For now, though, I bid you adieu. 86.13.247.51 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Where are the reliable independent sources? ObserveOwl (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt33333453/ 86.13.247.51 (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is widely deemed a designated unreliable source. Wikia (also known as Fandom) is also widely deemed a designated unreliable source AlphaBeta135talk 13:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

ah 86.13.247.51 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Adam Katz (tv director)

Related topic to BFDI as creator of Inanimate Insanity however has done notable other works outside of that

Draft Page User:Shjunpei/LiveGround

I decided not to put this up as a draft immediately because of relations to BFDI. - shJunpei :3 08:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If it is related to BFDI, then what about the other Object Shows though?, aren’t they also based on BFDI, because this Show inspires all other Object Shows for it. 108.7.229.224 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this does not mean that BFDI needs an article. - WinterJunpei :3 10:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It also seems you have made multiple edits trying to add BFDI to other articles where it shouldnt - Excluding the TomSka article. - WinterJunpei :3 11:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I know 108.7.229.224 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Also plus I’ve actually only add BFDI outside of Tomska To at least One Article for sure. 108.7.229.224 (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I may have found one reliable source for BFDI

Battle for Dream Island Wiki | Fandom This source has been run by fans of BFDI and has a vast majority of the information needed to create a wikipedia article on BFDI if anyone is interested in making a BFDI article they should probably start here GuyFromNSW (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@GuyFromNSW, the reason why BFDI is not an article is because it is not notable (which means it is not discussed in reliable sources). Fandom is user-generated and therefore not a reliable source. Thank you for trying to help, though. Have a good day, win8x (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Fandom is Not a Reliable Source 108.7.229.224 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Cary Huang

I personally think that an article about Cary Huang should exist as he has a planet named after him and made scale of the universe which does have an article and he does actually have some credible sources 207.235.149.135 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We would need sources that describe biographical details of him in order to write that article based on those sources. Notability is not inherited. ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Eventually...

In the eventuality that an article on BFDI gets created after it has been proven worthy of creation (when enough independent, reliable, SIGCOV sources exist), what would we do with this Wikiessay? Ramkarlo82 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've said here, it could probably be marked as {{historical}} or something similar. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that if this ever happens, this page could be marked as {{historical}} and a whole different essay would be made, titled "Wikipedia:The BFDI situation". In addition to this, a hatnote on this page will lead readers to the new essay.

Also, should it ever happen, the article about BFDI would be permanently/indefinitely 30/500'd^[hyperbole] to prevent disruptive editing and the use of Wikipedia like Fandom. 176.223.186.176 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Page protection proposal

We've been talking to brick walls for months. Every once in a while, someone from the OSC who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works gets mad on Twitter (not calling it that) that BFDI has no Wikipedia article and point to this essay, which leads to a bunch of angry laypeople complain on this talkpage thinking the series doesn't have an article because we have a negative bias against it (which is obviously not true). When we explain the rules to them, they refuse to learn from their erroneous ways. Should we just enforce pending changes protection on this talkpage? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 14:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Broken on mobile devices

As of this topic's posting, this page appears broken on mobile devices right now, because there is a huge spacing between the essay and nutshell templates, which is caused by the shortcut template. 176.223.186.176 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. There shouldn't be too many shortcut links per Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link boxes; Special:WhatLinksHere does the job. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

👏👏👏

176.223.186.176 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This page has been put on Wikipedia:Unusual articles#Comics and animation.

Does it fit there, or should we remove it? 67.209.128.30 (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it fits there since thhis page is not an article Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe move it to Wikipedia:Unusual articles#Other pages then? It does seem unusual, but probably not in that category. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I moved it yesterday to the Other pages section (which non-article pages are put), before I found out about this discussion. Xeroctic (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

i checked recently, its linked on the box describing "enshittification" 159.48.95.69 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the entire description for that entry due to tin foil hat POV pushing, btw 67.209.128.50 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

New sources for Battle for Dream Island's notability

After doing research on another matter about if the guest voice actors that have appeared on Battle for Dream Island should have their appearances on BFDI credited to them on their Wikipedia pages, I ended up stumbling on a potential unseen news source that could add to BFDI's notability.

https://www.etonline.com/rosie-odonnell-on-why-shes-happy-being-single-and-bonding-with-daughter-dakota-exclusive-205270

This article briefly mentions BFDI. It's probably not enough of a mention to cause a page to be created but combined with the news article that touched on the BFDI & II 2024 Tour we're getting closer and closer to substantial news coverage. If I remember correctly the 2024 Tour news article was considered partial credit for notability, this news article probably would be the same. Not enough by themselves to base an article on but could be used as sources when the BFDI page does inevitably come to fruition.

I also want to link two other things that I don't think I've seen discussed here.

https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-bfdi-mouth-and-how-did-it-make-its-way-into-so-many-youtube-videos--2

There is this Know Your Meme editorial thing that details the meme of the BFDI mouth assets getting used all over the internet. I don't know if Wikipedia likes KYM but I think at least this might be another thing that can be used once we do actually get a page even if this link in and of itself can't be used as a sign of notability.

https://www.fandom.com/articles/fandom-battle-of-fantasy-foods-winner

I know this is a Fandom link but this is not a link to a fan run wiki, this is a link to the Fandom article about the Battle of the Fantasy Foods 2016. I think BotFF has been brought up before but I'm not sure if this article was ever brought up. Since this is a proper article from the Fandom company instead of a fan run wiki thing this should count for something. Again maybe not something that proves notability in and of itself but at least something that can be used to add more information to the inevitable article once we do prove it's notability.

So yeah still nothing that outright proves notability, though at this point it's gonna happen soon, but I thought I'd show these off so that once we've got a BFDI article we know what extra stuff can be included. Stuff like Rosie's kid being a fan and guest voicing on the show, the BFDI assets being frequently used all over the internet, and Yoylecake winning Fandom's Battle of the Fantasy Foods 2016. ZestySourBoy (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The first one doesn't count for notability as it is a trivial mention, which doesn't count for significant coverage as outlined on the general notability guideline. A whole Wikipedia article needs enough content to stand on its own. It wouldn't entirely be the same, as the Tour source provides greater detail on the Tour, despite both these sources not saying that much about what BFDI is. The only content on that etonline.com news piece that could be inserted to a BFDI article would be that Rosie's kid is a fan and that the series "was a very big hit in 2009 on YouTube", which doesn't help support an entire Wikipedia article on the subject and the last fact is not even correct, it started on 2010.

About the Know Your Meme editorial piece, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut consensus on this discussion, but it appears that the general feeling is that it is situated between marginally reliable for uncontroversial claims about entertainment to outright unreliable. According to The Wall Street Journal, the writer of that BFDI mouth article, Philipp Kachalin, has written for memepedia.ru, which doesn't inspire confidence as a reputable source (looks like a blog and I couldn't find Memepedia's editorial staff page), so it's questionable to claim that Kachalin is a subject-matter expert.

Per this, it seems that Fandom news stories is more akin to a blog without any reputation being clear. That news story in particular doesn't say what BFDI is, either, just that a fictional cake on that series won some non-notable prize, which might not even be due weight for an article about BFDI. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey owl, I'm just here to ask if youre actively against the idea of adding bfdi to some people's pages because they have had roles in recent episodes, or if you're just trying to help us w the citations and stuff. Dont take this as an insult please I'm just asking a question :p 222.152.234.67 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't really know. I don't often work on biographies of actors, and our guidelines on filmographies don't help. I have attempted to provide what other relevant policies and guidelines say, but I acknowledge I'm not the ideal editor to be discussing this stuff. Hopefully the post at WT:ACTOR will bring actual experienced eyes to the issue, but I imagine that no experienced user will be willing to drag on this years-long BFDI debate on Wikipedia, and edit wars by new users will continue on each individual actors' pages until maybe an admin protects them. Genuinely sad and stressful to see the edit histories. :( ObserveOwl (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clear things up

1 - Yes, BFDI still can not get an article due to not many citations on multiple topics of the series.

2 - No, this does not mean it is right to delete ANY mention of BFDI unless if a clear guideline has been broken.

- WinterJunpei :3 13:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

so atleast the BFDIA part of Tomska's article should be readded cuz you can just check his twitter and see he's part of the new episode? 2601:680:CD80:B1E0:6CE2:CDE9:4A8E:9E45 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thats litreally what my 2nd point is... - WinterJunpei :3 19:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to note this on the essay itself, as that might help lessen edit wars in the future. ZestySourBoy (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information § Hatnote?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information § Hatnote?. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) For including a hatnote to this essay in an article with the same acrynoym.

Should we make all BFDI-related titles redirect here?

This is one of Wikipedia's essential-reading essays, of where it might as well be considered that instead of salting such pages we can just make them into fully protected redirects to this page. 67.209.128.50 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases, redirects on the main (article) namespace should redirect to articles on that namespace. See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. There are some redirects from the main namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace, like About Wikipedia and Disambiguation page, that deal with Wikipedia-specific policies, guidelines and other information pages. These make the exception rather than the rule; BFDI isn't solely related to Wikipedia. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What about while the mainspace page is salted we can just make the draft version redirect here instead? 89.33.114.2 (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Add a note for mentions?

It seems as if many people misinterpret this page as a COMPLETE ban on BFDI, which has led to many edit disputes, such as those of Jacksfilms and Tomska, this note would hopefully clear the waters a little bit, and could help with confusion and people using this page as a blanket statement for removing any reference to the series. Kyllstru (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Ca @ObserveOwl @AlphaBeta135 @Xeroctic 89.33.114.2 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A sentence on the starting paragraphs clarifying that the essay doesn't apply to mentions would be nice. It could perhaps link to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So just like how on Wiktionary notability is completely optional and even one citation from one source is fine? (wiktionary:object show) 67.209.130.11 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary does have criteria for inclusion requiring three independent quotes spanning at least a year. Quotes from social media sites like Twitter are allowed on Wiktionary, so it shouldn't be hard to find citations for that entry. But I fail to see how Wiktionary has to do with this. ObserveOwl (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI: wiktionary:object show survived, but wiktionary:OS mockup got instantly RfD'd. (that was probably a social stress test) 67.209.130.11 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

An OS mockup is literally just a mockup of an OS, so it's not an idiomatic term. But object shows have multiple common characteristics besides being shows about objects. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

All sources I could find for BFDI's notability.

This is a collection of all the sources I could find that could probably be used in a potential BFDI article or just to clear up its reasoning for not being on Wikipedia, Wikiquote, or Wikitionary. (Wikitionary does mention object shows but not any specific ones, which I feel should be added) This contains sources I have found in this talk page (to which I will give credit) and a few tidbits of information I found.

This article does briefly mention BFDI. Most likely not enough to give BFDI a page on its own, and I realize it is a trivial mention, but it should be at least something. This KYM article details the influence of the BFDI mouth, made specifically for BFDI and having a greater cultural impact than most people even realize. This next one does use a Fandom link, but everything in it is factual and unopinionated. The Battle of the Fantasy Foods winner was BFDI's very own Yoylecake, winning against Pitt Cola with an approximately 9:1 ratio of votes! (These links found by ZestySourBoy)

In 2022, BFDI won the Cartoon Crave "Favorite Web Program" award with a whopping 63% of the votes out of 5 contestants! (Inanimate Insanity, another popular object show, also being a contestant.) Also, a lot f notable people have made small cameos in BFDI, most notably Kevin MacLeod as Pan Flute (who isn't just a cameo, but now a well-established character), but also Homestar Runner, Bryant Oden, (Creator of The Duck Song), TomSka, and even Clay and Rosie O'Donnell. Those people are definitely notable. Cary Huang, creator of The Scale of the Universe who also has his own minor planet, doesn't have an article, most likely because BFDI would almost have to be mentioned. Even if there may not be enough notable articles (Which I highly doubt there's a lack of, they just may not be page-1), there have been a lot of notable people and a lot of notable recognition from said notable people.

Also, It's pretty clear you just hate BFDI, removing LITERALLY any mention of it. I don't care about the lack of a page. I'm upset about the fact you try to deny its existence for no reason. In Rosie O'Donnell's page, in Kevin MacLeod's page, any mention of it, just reduced to dust. Sumaesioso (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a thorough list at Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island, if you want to check or add to it. etonline.com is a trivial mention; this type of coverage is quickly disregarded in articles for deletion discussions, as quick mentions can't hold an entire article on the subject. The KYM and Fandom sources are questionable, see my comment above.

Cary Huang doesn't have an article because there have not been enough in-depth reliable independent sources that could be cited for his life and career info, at least they have not been found. Recognition from notable people is cool and all, but an article about Cary would need to cite high-quality sources nonetheless.

Check out Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#RfC: BFDI inclusion in Filmography section - there's an ongoing discussion about the mention on Rosie's page with significant support. The series is mentioned on TomSka and jacksfilms. Kevin Macleod mentions the Bops, Famous Ditties & Instrumentals album, a collaboration with BFDI if I remember correctly. Lack of notability doesn't mean it can't be mentioned on other articles. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There are sources reporting on The Scale of the Universe that describe Cary a bit, of course, but don't provide that much biographical detail other than their city and age at the time. Cary, whose name was used for 10003 Caryhuang, is explained here by the IAU, which is probably the best source that I've found on Cary, albeit being too short on detail, too.

Someone has pointed out an article about Michael Huang before here, which is great for notability, but additional sources are needed for up-to-date info. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

ObserveOwl, agree with you on #1, but #2 does not count towards notability, as it is a local source. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 00:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2025

Change the short description from "Essay on editing Wikipedia" to "Essay on why a certain topic is not allowed on Wikipedia". 67.209.129.173 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems a bit redundant to the title, to be honest. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Season vs. series

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a recent edit, instances of "season" were replaced with "series". While I personally don't disagree too strongly with this, the edit summary does beg the question: How is "season" less neutral than "series"?

WP:CONCISE is about brevity, but the issue appeared to be about word choice, not brevity, so the editor probably meant to cite WP:PRECISE. However, both shortcuts link to sections of a policy regarding article titles, so neither of these would apply here. If the issue was that the word "season" had arguably been causing this essay to have a North American bias, then MOS:ENGVAR would be a more relevant shortcut to cite.

Also, the use of "season" in this context isn't necessarily unprofessional, as that is what is usually used in North America to refer to a set of episodes. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The official jacknjellify channel refers to them as seasons. I believe it was fine as it was. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Does it mean that BFDI will not be on WP until more reliable sources for it are made? However, does it mean that "object show" is still fine to be on Wiktionary? 49.145.107.76 (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes - when reliable, independent sources provide enough information about BFDI, the article can be made, after discussion at deletion review.

Yes - it can stay at Wiktionary, as long as the criteria there are met, but this essay is about the English Wikipedia. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition, this also means that "Object Show Community" should not be added to the OSC disambiguation page? 49.145.107.76 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Not for now, since there is no article about the community, and it's not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Disambiguation pages are supposed to direct readers to other existing articles. ObserveOwl (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Question: Do things need citations to be on wiktionary? 49.145.107.76 (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a question to be asked on Wiktionary, perhaps at wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk, but basically, yes. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

is it possible to make a simple English version of this article?

what it says on the tin. considering the scope of simple English (people whose first language isn't english, young people, and people with learning disablities), I think it could be valid maybe. but at the same time, this essay is pretty specific. 159.48.95.69 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The title for BFDI is also protected against recreation on the Simple Wikipedia, and it's also on the other wiki's title blacklist, so no (other than admins). The simple notability guideline is similar to the one on this wiki. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

IMO, these efforts to get any mention of BFDI into any article on en-WP etc, are way into WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:ADVOCACY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Per the hidden note that says do not revert edits that simplify the essay's grammar, this essay is already (sort of) supposed to be written simply to begin with. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

inanimate insanity

inanimate insanity should be blacklisted too as it's just as popular as bfdi and has even less reliable secondary sources than bfdi (bfdi has like 2 and ii has none at all) and is just as likely for someone to attempt a draft for since it has a movie Radman the 12th (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that II is arguably less popular than BFDI, and has less people attempting to make a page out of it. Also, the movie came out 2 to 3 months ago, so if nothing happened back then, its most likely not happening now. 155.135.55.233 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

there is a draft about the movie and what I think might be an edit war on List of depictions of Steve Jobs Radman the 12th (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The Henry Stickmin Collection

Would The Henry Stickmin Collection also be fair game for coverage on this essay? It too is an immensely popular work of fiction (and is objectively the best interactive movie game I've ever played period), but also somehow manages to currently fail Wikipedia's notability standards. Should it be covered in the essay's lead as "this game is also non-notable for same reasons", should it obtain a near-identical essay, or should we do something else? ToThAc (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-notable but popular topics out there discussed frequently at AfD, but BFDI stands out in particular due to persistent disruption and subsequent title blacklisting. Seeing how there's a live draft, users haven't disrupted Wikipedia that much over The Henry Stickmin Collection to get to that point. Maybe it could be noted briefly as another example of a popular topic without an article. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There's also another Henry Stickmin draft, but it was rejected upon its first submission because it looked like this. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

But in the article for Among Us, there are some brief mentions of Henry Stickmin, though not enough to merit its own article. Does that make The Henry Stickmin Collection semi-notable? 1isall (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think a similar thing can be said with The New Order: Last Days of Europe. It's an immensely popular work of fiction (arguably one of the most popular examples of alternate history of the 21st century, and one of the most popular video game mods ever). It seems to currently fail the notability standards, despite it's parent game meeting the notability standards. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

If the mod is not notable, it likely would still be possible to include a much more detailed description of it in the main Hearts of Iron IV article and have the title redirect there. With BFDI and The Henry Stickmin Collection there isn't anything to redirect to. (BTW: "its" and not "it's".) 80.221.186.222 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is a redirect currently so I think it should stay that way. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 23:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone ever going to record a Spoken Wikipedia of this?

The Spoken Wikipedia request for this essay (see above, especially for reason) has been up for weeks, but still, no one is recording it.

Pinging: @Ca @ObserveOwl @Xeroctic @AlphaBeta135

67.209.130.11 (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see why a spoken version of this hyper-specific essay is needed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

accesibillty reasons, also some people prefer listening over to reading 159.48.95.69 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The quickest way may be to do it yourself, otherwise you will have to wait for someone willing to do the job who agrees with you that this is a good idea. And they have to notice the banner somehow, which most editors won't since they've never heard of this essay. From where I'm sitting the idea appears at best harmless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

i plan on doing one soon lol, when I get the time really 159.48.95.69 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW you need an account to upload your recording. 67.209.129.191 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah I know, I do have one just I'm on another computer 159.48.95.69 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question?

Is it true that it's actually a misconception that Wikipedia hates BFDI (Some editors may like the show, but they understand it can't have an article) 49.145.100.19 (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a bit vague. Wikipedia isn't a single entity, but a community with diverse opinions. I imagine the FAQ answers what you probably mean. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I mean. I've seen many people say that Wikipedia editors hate BFDI. 49.145.100.19 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Some do. Some like cheese, some live in Japan and some can play the piano. But some don't. 2007GabrielT (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I like the BFDI series, but I can understand it can't have an article. 49.145.100.19 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that most Wikipedians have no particular opinion on BFDI per se, but "won't allow an article" = "hate" is the view of some BFDI fans. Also, I think some Wikipedians get annoyed by the long-lasting on-WP doings of BFDI-fans. The doings eat time and patience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition, isn't this essay just for the BFDI/OSC people? 49.145.100.19 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"If you are new to Wikipedia, then this essay is for you. For experienced editors, this can also be a case study on Wikipedia's major policies like notability, what Wikipedia is and is not, and disruptive editing. In fact, several users have used the term "WP:BFDI" to broadly refer to any subject in general whose popularity, or even existence, does not translate to notability." ObserveOwl (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

What about those who are not familiar with it in the first place? JordiLopezboy (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition, could users still abbrevatie one or two parts of the series name of BFDI. For example: Battle for D. Island, B. For D. Island, B. For Dream Island, or even Battle F. Dream I.?, and make a page about it? 49.145.100.19 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

They could but thats like against the rules 2007GabrielT (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Associated Press

So, I was scrolling through the Discussions page of the Fandom Battle for Dream Island Wiki, and found this: https://battlefordreamisland.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000001634210, is the article pictured in the thread a reliable source or not? A editor from mars (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's already at Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island. See the top of the article: "PRESS RELEASE: Paid Content from EIN Presswire | Newsmatics. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation." Not independent nor reliable, see Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

(It is important to note that, despite its name, Associated Press is a news agency that does not only republish press releases, but the article in question comes from EIN Presswire - a press release agency.) ObserveOwl (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

and for those who are excited about bfdi getting one then well guess what, it's a press release as you can tell it's a paid article as if you can see the top of the article in which that it already is, and yes R.I.P to those who thinks that it's a reliable sources or marks a step in bfdi getting a wikipedia article. 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:5174:FA26:75FC:37EF (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, notability is subjective, and people are just biased. 2601:3CB:C80:B520:BDA0:2B61:C028:F087 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

There's certainly WP:Advocacy going on here, yes. What can you do, it's an (up to a point) open wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, the general notability guideline may be interpreted differently during discussions, but on Wikipedia, "notability" is defined in a more precise way than the general meaning of the word "notability". In short, Wikipedia-notability is all about whether there are good enough independent sources that could be cited for the article. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Christine Weston Chandler

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Perennial requests

Possible source

It appears the idea of inanimate object characters goes back to November 2002, when publisher Todd Zapoli published a comic called "Inanimate Objects", that featured talking objects with faces. This likely may've been the inspiration of object shows in the first place. Is this reliable? 49.145.107.76 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

What you presented here is a primary source. Sources that are required for notability are works like news, reviews, magazines, journals, etc., that analyze other topics - secondary sources. That page doesn't describe what object shows as a whole are, and it may be original research to claim that object shows are inspired by the comic, without a reliable source making the connection. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

1. The concept of anthropomorphism (i.e the personification of objects) dates back centuries.
2. As ObserveOwl said above, no credible source as of writing this has made an appropriate connection of the comic to the history of the OSC as a whole. Adding your original interpretation of the source is against Wikipedia guidelines. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they/it) ^talk/edits 14:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Moses talked to a burning bush. I don't know if it had a face. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Point A: Cary himself once described Battle for Dream Island (originally titled Total Firey Island) as a "spin-off" of Total Drama Island.

Point B: I used to watch an HBO Family show called A Little Curious when I was little, and as a TV show featuring anthropomorphic objects, it predates the example you've mentioned by a few years. Going back even further, it could be argued that some illustrations of the nursery rhyme Hey Diddle Diddle are examples of early non-animated precursors. I'm not trying to insinuate that either of these may have also inspired BFDI though. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The idea has existed at least since the 80s. --181.170.238.243 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Within the last few years, I once came across a short animated video that featured characters that all resembled Blocky. I don't remember what it was called, and I want to say it was a Canadian cartoon from as far back as the 60s, but I can't be sure of that until I somehow manage to find it again. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and remembers what it was called, please do tell. (even though questions like these are what the Reference Desk is for) – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: I found the cartoon I was talking about. It's a 1972 short titled Balablok, in which a red cube is the first character to pull off a sort of funny doing, oddly enough. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

We got an independent article

https://apnews.com/press-release/ein-presswire-newsmatics/television-animation-and-comics-los-angeles-fort-lauderdale-chicago-a85a2c24c9c94682c75210bf72233e9a I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already but AP News has written an article that could possibly be used as a reliable source :) GwiezdnaFuri (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. See above. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

that's press release Mypc252wastaken (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ah, sorry. My bad :( GwiezdnaFuri (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Press release, too bad! An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Too many banners?

Currently, this talk page has 10 yellow banners at the top taking quite a bit of space. Could there be a good way to reduce this, to avoid banner blindness from newcomers? I'd suggest maybe merging the "common misconception" banner to the FAQ, or using {{banner holder}} for the move discussion and spoken audio request banners, for instance. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks okay now, thanks LunaEclipse! ObserveOwl (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

nvm

Mypc252wastaken (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

While WP:BFDI is based on existing policies and guidelines, it is neither a policy nor a guideline per se, let alone a criterion for speedy deletion. Also, your speedy deletion request was denied by an admin since WP:BFDI is certainly not a criterion for speedy deletion. AlphaBeta135talk 23:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Humorous page about a hypothetical article about BFDI

I tried to create to create a humorous page presented as a bfdi article but the editor did not let me make it.

Can anyone create a draft of it so I can edit it? Manueru-San MM98 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The terms "Battle for Dream Island" and "BFDI" are title-blacklisted, and the draft namespace is not for joke articles. You can try contributing to the Uncyclopedia page about the series instead. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl The humorous page is probably in reference to the upcoming Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2025, where certain users like me add joke pages under the handle "Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2025/_____________". AlphaBeta135talk 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

As a brief fun side note, this essay page first gained a decent amount of traffic because of one of my joke AfD nominations (this is allowed) on WP:APRIL2023. AlphaBeta135talk 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I know about those, though I did not realise April Fools was coming. Still, I'm not entirely sure if an admin would be happy to fulfill their joke page request, given that drafts and even userpage sandboxes about BFDI have been deleted at MfD. However, that was due to their unlikelihood of becoming actual articles, whereas an April Fools page wouldn't intend to do that, so I don't mind either way. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

So, @Manueru-San MM98, I guess you could try to make a request to an administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, but it may or may not succeed. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

or name the page by something else like Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2025/beefy die. AlphaBeta135talk 00:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I made a parody of Hong Kong 97 based on this essay:

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1153520300/ Manueru-San MM98 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

My idea

We should put a disclaimer to not harass Wikipedia editors and admins for this. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Are people being harassed over this? ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 13:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Already on the talk page. Cloning it on the main page may probably be useful, as long as i hope this doesn't invoke WP:BEANS. 67.209.128.163 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Confusion regarding the source assessment table

I frankly do not understand something about this table, why is the pix11 source that clearly states "This content is not written by or endorsed by "c", its advertisers, or Nexstar Media Inc." it still partially meets the reliability criteria? meanwhile the similar WLNS source with its "NOTE: This content is not written by or endorsed by "WLNS", its advertisers, or Nexstar Media Inc." note does not? VirtualizerExtreme (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiple people have contributed to the table, so for the pix11 source, I imagine that someone used yellow for reliability instead of blue one with a question mark, to signify that reliability wasn't evaluated. Press releases don't tend to be fact-checked, so I wouldn't consider either reliable - or at least I'd use them with a lot of caution if needed. Either way, non-independent sources don't contribute to notability, even if reliable, but feel free to change the table. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

VirtualizerExtreme, the pix11 source was evaluated by @LunaEclipse in Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island (Diff ~1249390406) while @Elli added the WLNS source in Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island (Diff ~1246770038). So it's just different editors with different opinions.
In general, personally I lean to agree with LunaEclipse. A press release can sometimes be used a primary source. Whether a press release is reliable as a primary source is circumstantial, so a "partial" evaluation would seem justified to me. However, neither of these sources are independent so they don't contribute to WP:GNG. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island

Perhaps some of the "I want BFDI to be on WP" people will enjoy editing this alternative. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

lets hope they enjoy it Manueru-San MM98 (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Should the BFDI article on the Korean Wikipedia be deleted just like the ones on the Uzbek and Japanese Wikipedias?

There is a article about BFDI in the Korean wikipedia (See https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B4%88%EC%95%88:Battle_for_dream_island), but i dont think it belongs here, its zero sourced. Manueru-San MM98 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That's up to the people who edit the Korean Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has no supremacy over other language versions. If Korean WP has similar WP:N rules, it'll probably happen at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

O V O Manueru-San MM98 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

what does that mean "O V O" 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:6C1C:64CD:948D:3543 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

nothing X_X Manueru-San MM98 (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Manueru-San MM98, that's not an article. That page is in the "초안" (Draft) namespace.
Also note that some Wikipedia language editions have different notability standards. Just leave it to the kowiki community. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Rosie's Cameo in BFDI (topic copied from Rosie O'Donnell talk page)

On January 1st, BFDIA 17 released and in that episode Rosie O'Donnell and one of her kids, Clay O'Donnnell, appeared in cameo roles voice acting as Spool and Mirror respectively. I'm aware of "Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?" but not long at all after that episode came out an editor immediately went to this page and added a hidden editor-only message saying "DO NOT add Battle for Dream Island here" which to me feels unnecessary and very much biased against BFDI.

Surely the idea of "this person was in this thing" should be documented on a persons page page, regardless of Wikipedia's "measure of notability" determining that BFDI isn't able to have an impartial page due to lack of news coverage. It's also worth pointing out that Rosie currently on her page has appearances in media listed that appear to not have Wikipedia pages. Would that not be bias against BFDI to include those other not notable things but exclude BFDI for no reason other than an apparent dislike towards BFDI from at least a fair few regular Wikipedia editors? (I've read everything on the talk page of the BFDI essay. You cannot deny that there are a fair few Wikipedia editors that actively dislike BFDI. Even if it is for somewhat justifiable reasons such as young BFDI fans making edits that other editors have to clean up that is still bias, and Wikipedia should not be biased.)

Also something else I've just thought about while writing this. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has specific rules in place for what should or should not be mentioned in a list of things a person has been in but if such a thing does not exist it might be a good idea to make such rules.

(This is a topic I just posted on the Rosie O'Donnell talk page but then I noticed that no one has been on that talk page since 2023 and I figured it would be a good idea to also post this subject on the BFDI essay talk page. I would like to apologise if this isn't okay to do. It's also worth putting this here anyways because this stuff also applies to all other cameos of people with Wikipedia pages such as TomSka, Jacksfilms, Kevin MacLeod, The Brothers Chap, and if we are including Inanimate Insanity in the discussion Christian Potenza. It would be good to get a firm stance on this since that would help minimise back and forth editing on any of those peoples pages.) ZestySourBoy (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZestySourBoy: this should probably just stay on that article's talk page. Try not to split consensus between different talk pages, although you could make a short notice here directing to the talk page for participation, instead of copying it all. You can ping the editor who added the notice (see here) on Talk:Rosie O'Donnell to notify them of the discussion, too. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, however, that some broader discussion, maybe here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, is warranted concerning mentions on other articles such as Jacksfilms and The Brothers Chap. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for copying the post over. I do still think this is worth being here anyways so that we can discuss non-Rosie related things. Wikipedia really needs a consensus on how to list projects a person has been in else editors will be forever stuck having to waste their time getting into edit wars trying to debate what things should be credited to people. As an editor for various Fandom wikias I don't want to make Wikipedia editor's jobs difficult. ZestySourBoy (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Somebody Just removed BFDI from Rosie Page Because of the fact that it is unsourced, and so. 108.7.229.224 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Dude the fact that this show has Kevin Macleod, who has made the most popular pieces of music in Youtube media, Gooseworx the creator of one of the most popular Youtube web series, TomSka who has made the creator of asdfmovie, ROSIE O' DONNEL A ACTUAL CELEBRITY WHO HAS STARRED IN NICKELODEON AND AMERICAN DAD, and many other famous youtubers, has a billion views on yt winning 2 awards like there has to be some vias here dude MrMosesStuff (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias* MrMosesStuff (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think all these accusations of bias everywhere are getting constructive. The essay explains why it doesn't have an article; there is not much reliable and independent coverage the article could cite from. I think the main question is why mainstream media is not covering BFDI, not Wikipedia. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not even fair at that point bro they got a celebrity on it, get two awards it's still not connected enough to mainstream? That's BS. Seems like bias to me. Like what do they want, Donald Trump in BFDI? MrMosesStuff (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

We want articles about BFDI on CNN, in The Times, The New Yorker, Journal of Cinema and Media Studies etc. Even Screen Rant might be of interest. See WP:GNG or take the time to read the essay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Why exactly does a series need to be covered by major news articles to be considered “notable”??? It has over 2 BILLION COMBINED VIEWS and has featured multiple notable people on the internet and that’s not even including the fact that they got ROSIE FUCKING O’DONNELL not to mention her child also is a fan of bfdi too??? The “popularity isnt notability” excuse has to be the most stupidest excuse in the world of excuses because if you acknowledge the fact that Cary made “The Scale of the universe” but then refuse to acknowledge BFDI on here is the equivalent of drinking alcohol with a strawberry drink mix and then ignoring the fact that it’s alcohol and saying that you're drinking strawberry drink mix or like eating a giant chocolate cake and then claiming that all you ate was the frosting it makes no sense whatsoever all Wikipedia proves is that its simply biased against BFDI and thinks they can use some half assed excuse to slap onto it like a post it card to simply “ignore” the fact that they’re just biased ITrappedOfficial (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

These things have been explained in this talk page countless times, as well as the essay this talk page is associated with. Clearly, you did not read either. Otherwise, you would know that our notability policies apply to EVERYTHING, and that claiming we have a "bias" against BFDI is moot. λ NegativeMP1 16:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

“These things have been explained in this talk page countless times! Clearly you did not read either otherwise you would know that our notability policies apply to EVERYTHING and that claiming we have a ‘Bias’ against BFDI is not moot!!!!” how is Cary’s the scale of the universe video have a page on here but BFDI doesn’t when BFDI is his main creation? That’s like Crediting Albert Einstein for creating the Photo electric effect but ignoring his theory of relativity because “oh the photoelectric effect has more notability from scholarly articles!!”🤓 and before you bring up “oh but the theory of relativity has more real life notability then the photo electric effect!” its a hypothetical and if you’re unable to imagine a hypothetical where the photo electric effect has more notability then the theory of relativity then maybe you aren’t someone who can control what gets put on Wikipedia are you? ITrappedOfficial (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah and just because you pissed me off here’s A FOX ARTICLE TALKING ABOUT BFDI https://fox8.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/760814015/jacknjellifys-niall-burns-powers-animated-success-across-bfdi-tpot-and-global-screenings/ ITrappedOfficial (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah and the cherry on top of the cake i made? FOX 8 IS CONSIDERED AMONG THE LEAST BIASED NEWS SOURCES! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wghp-fox8/ ITrappedOfficial (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a press release, see the URL. Not independent. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Fox news is not a good source if I remember correctly. Either way, that isn't enough for inclusion WP:FOX ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That RSP entry applies to foxnews.com, not the local Fox affiliates like fox8.com, which are distinct and fall under WP:NEWSORG. In any case, this Fox8 article is a press release, which doesn't count for notability. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct Fox News isnt a reliable source however this is fox 8 a way more reliable source that is essentially unbiased to the lowest degree this has been stated by a website that WIKIPEDIA THEMSELVES have confirmed to be accurate enough to be used as evidence ITrappedOfficial (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't recommend relying on Media Bias/Fact Check as it is considered unreliable, although I agree that Fox8 should generally be a decent source - once again, outside affiliated press releases like the one you linked to. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The answer is simple: The Scale of the Universe got coverage in reliable secondary sources. BFDI has not. Maybe if you actually bothered to read the page and try to understand how things work on Wikipedia, instead of just yelling or making strawmans, you would get that. I'm not the one in control of what does or does not get put on Wikipedia.

Also, the Fox source is a press release, and therefore falls under WP:PRIMARY. It cannot be used to demonstrate notability. λ NegativeMP1 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

“Maybe if you actually bothered to read the page and try to understand how things work on Wikipedia” well MAYBE if you had functioning eyes (and some actual effort put into trying to hide bias) you’d see that its fox 8 which is considered reliable and also isnt biased at all this was checked by a website deemed accurate enough for usage BY WIKIPEDIA ITrappedOfficial (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The source is a press release, though. It says it in the URL. λ NegativeMP1 13:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay? Clearly you dont care about scholarly articles considering all the articles Grabergs mentioned aren’t scholarly articles with the exception of a singular one you legit just changed it from “scholarly article!!!” To “Non press release” just to make it invalid next time you’re being biased maybe dont make it obvious K? ITrappedOfficial (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? λ NegativeMP1 17:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The articles Grabergs mentioned weren’t scholarly articles except one of them ITrappedOfficial (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been explained time to time here that the usual sense of "notability" isn't the same as how Wikipedia uses it. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Using the existence of the SOTU article as an argument for the creation of a BFDI article (or using the strawberry/alcohol analogy) may be equivalent to complaining about how unfair it is that 2001: A Space Odyssey was never nominated for an Oscar even though it grossed more box office revenue than Barry Lyndon, which did get nominated for one despite not appearing to have been as famous. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I may have found a secondary source that has significant coverage of BFDI. The article was created by Fox and is about Niall Burns and his work on BFDI. Eliwiki116 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

But it might be a press release so idk Eliwiki116 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Link??? Mypc252wastaken (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

link??? Mypc252wastaken (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Link here https://fox8.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/760814015/jacknjellifys-niall-burns-powers-animated-success-across-bfdi-tpot-and-global-screenings/ ITrappedOfficial (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

One hint that is a press release is that the url says so. There are others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hold that thought Sherlock lets not forget that you wanted CNN and other articles you mentioned to make articles about BFDI yet out of all of them only one was scholarly showing even mister Wikipedia soldier doesn’t even know the definition of what is needed to get something a Wikipedia article so how do you expect to know what qualifies for something to have a Wikipedia article if you dont even fact check your statements? ITrappedOfficial (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

One hint that is a press release is that the url says so. There are others. What fact check fail did you find? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Bro completely ignored what i said “B-but it’s a press release!!!” ITrappedOfficial (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

go to wikipedia:notability or else Manueru-San MM98 (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Trap, that's one source, the source doesnt have enough information to cover the entirety of BFDI. Any claim from the article that isn't sourced could easily be biased/misinformation. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)