Talk:John de Lancie

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John de Lancie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

My Little Pony Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of My Little Pony related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.My Little PonyWikipedia:WikiProject My Little PonyTemplate:WikiProject My Little PonyMy Little Pony articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Star Trek Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atheism Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dyslexia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dyslexia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DyslexiaWikipedia:WikiProject DyslexiaTemplate:WikiProject DyslexiaDyslexia articles

Disability

John de Lancie is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

New Edit Proposal for Discord Mention in the Lede[edit]

another try with little support, OP indef'ed

Hello, as the one who made arguments in favor of adding Discord to the lede alongside Q, I accept that the consensus is against me on it, and I think that @Leon Nalle: actually made good points against me on that. So I would like to propose a different edit that I made here. I think this edit is an improvement over the original lede because it separates out the one vocal role mentioned in the lede over the mentions of his live action roles, succinctly mentions the important fact that he has done many several vocal roles, and succinctly mentions that his Discord role was directly inspired by his most well known role. Can I get a consensus in favor of this edit? EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I officially made the edit here EpicTiger87 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And removed. So many things wrong here... you don't get to make a controversial edit to the article, then add a talk page discussion about it, wait a few hours, and claim some sort of consensus for it. This edit was already undone once, so you know itis controversial. If you want to propose what you know is going to be a controversial edit then do so on the talk page first. Meters (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe you have mischaracterized my actions here. I originally made a similar edit to the article on January 3rd. I felt comfortable at the time unilaterally making that edit, because none of the controversial aspects that were discussed about my previous proposed edit applied for it. I was no longer trying to move the Discord role to the first paragraph of the lede, and I was no longer trying to claim that it was one of his top 2 most well known roles. As I explained in the edit summary, all the edit did was slightly expanded on the coverage of the role in the lede, by mentioning that John de Lancie has done multiple voice roles (which is an important aspect of his career that is very appropriate to mention in lede), and briefly mention that his Discord role was directly inspired by his most known role (which is a claim already made and sourced in the main body of the article).

I also did not expect that it would be controversial to state that Discord was his most well known voice role. In the current version of the article his Discord role was already both the only voice role mentioned in the lede, and the first and most described voice role mentioned in the "voice acting" section of the article. The article clearly already does treat it as easily his most well known voice role. Secondly, there is no precedent for needing a source to claim that something is the "most well known", as that is a claim that is extremely hard to prove without original research, and it is allowed to put that claim in based off of common knowledge. This article already makes a similar unsourced claim that Q is de Lancie's most well known role in general. So it is clear to me that whether or not to call something "most well known" is a judgement call based on common knowledge and consensus, rather than a claim that needs sourcing. This was an argument I extensively made earlier on this page, and one that both a neutral party (@Sergecross73:) and even a user who opposed my edit (@Leon Nalle:) both agreed with me on. So I do not believe that anything in this edit requires additional sources in the article.

I did not do anything wrong in making that edit on January 3rd. It was a minor edit that I had good reason to (in hindsight wrongly) believe would not be controversial. Wikipedia actively encourages making those types of edits, and once my edit was reversed I respected it. I was busy during the next couple of weeks and therefore did not bring anything up on the talk page. However, a couple of days ago I made this new topic where I explained the edit. I originally had made the edit again so that I would be able to link to it here, and immediately reverted said edits (I ended up doing this 3 times to fix errors I noticed, but each time I did so I immediately reverted so that I could bring it to the talk page before instating it). So I respected the request to bring up the edit on the talk page before permanently making it again. I gave it a full day and a half (which I believed was a reasonable amount of time), and nobody brought any objections at all on the talk page. Since nobody had objected, I then made the edit.

So this sentence of yours "you don't get to make a controversial edit to the article, then add a talk page discussion about it, wait a few hours, and claim some sort of consensus for it. " is not what happened. I had made the talk page discussion before trying to permanently instate the edit, and I waited a day and a half, not "a few hours" before doing so. I never claimed there was a consensus, I just went forward with the edit since there were no points given against. I have no issue with the edit being undone and discussing it since you disagree with it. If you believe I should have waited longer to try to instate the edit after I made this topic, then I would be happy to hear how long I should have waited or how else I could have better handled this. I would also be interested in hearing why you disagree with me, Sergecross73, and Leon Nalle on the issue of it requiring a source to claim something is "the most well known", and to hear any other objections you have to my edit. Thank you. EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to move on. It seems like the community doesn't really agree with your efforts to place more emphasis on his My Little Ponies character. It's still mentioned, and mentioned relatively prominently with a mention in the WP:LEAD, so I don't think it's really worth sinking more time into debating this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My new edit was significantly different from my old proposed one and only one user has objected to it so far, so I'll be interested if seeing if any other users agree or disagree with it. I have fully accepted that the community was against me on my old edit, I just don't see that as being the case for the new edit yet. I'll give it a few days to see if anybody else wants to voice their opinion here, and if nobody else responds, I'll open a Request for Comments to settle this. Thank you. EpicTiger87 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New relevant discussion on this matter can be found here. EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not open a RFC on this. The consensus is already clear. Move on and do something else in a different subject area. Trivial reformulations of the edit are not going to change the result. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to open the Dispute resolution instead of the RFC (I thought a discussion with people involved in discussion over the previous edit would be more useful than getting completely uninvolved editors to comment). I will only open a RFC if no consensus develops in the Dispute resolution, which I doubt will be the case. As for you saying my 2nd edit is a "Trivial reformulation" of the first, this is not true. My two edits are completely different, and there are clear grounds on which my first edit can be opposed but my 2nd edit can be still supported. My first edit claimed that the Discord role has comparable notability to the Q role above all his other roles and moved the Discord mention to a different place. My 2nd edit makes no such claim and keeps the Discord mention in the same place, only claiming that his Discord role is his most well known voice role, and outside of that just sufficiently adds info to the lead about him being a voice actor & his Discord role being based off of his most well known role. And if my claim of Discord being the most well known voice role is problematic to others, the wording there in my edit could just be changed to "De Lancie has also performed several vocal roles, including the Q-inspired Discord in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (2011–2019).", therefore resolving that one issue. Since my two edits change the lede in different ways, the consensus against my first edit does not automatically translate to a consensus against my second edit. We should just let a discussion play out so that a consensus can actually develop on my 2nd edit. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime, Meters, Daniel Case, Dennis Brown, Sergecross73, City of Silver, Leon Nalle, Slacker13, and VQuakr:

I see my DRN discussion was closed, and the closer requested that I instead file a RFC or invite the parties to discuss here. Fair enough. Since I think it's more productive to have discussion with those already involved in the matter of my previous edit, I am electing to invite all the parties from the DRN here to discuss the new proposed edit. If any of you have not read the DRN discussion, please read it here so that you get my explanation for why I want you all here, on top of the stuff I previously said on this section of this page. If any of you are not interested in participating, that is totally fine. I will not bug any of you if you decide not to engage in this discussion, and if no consensus develops than I will make a Request For Comment instead. EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the edit. Move on. All this wasted drama at DRN and on the talk page is not endearing you to the community participating. In fact, you have a lot to learn about collaborating with people. Once you learn that you shot yourself in the foot several times, the key is to stop reloading the gun. Again, move on. Dennis Brown 2¢ 05:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus has already developed and you are beating a dead horse. You omitted the third option given you in the DRN closure, which was to conclude that you are indeed in a minority. But to recap, the change you are proposing is not an accurate summary of the body as required by WP:LEAD, is unsourced, and in addition is not editorially favored by other editors. In the absence of new and significant reliable sources, I don't think we need any expansion of Discord coverage in the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have extensively explained above and on the previous discussion why the sourcing of the "most well known" statement is not an issue (if it was an issue than the article's current unsourced claim of Q being his most well known role would also need to be removed), and my argument on that was agreed to by both a neutral party and a user who opposed my original edit. But in spite of that, I am easily willing to concede that point since my wording can simply be changed to say "including" instead of "with the most well known being", negating that problem completely. And of the only other two claims of my edit, both were already sourced later in the article. de Lancie being a voice actor & the Discord role being inspired by Q were already stated in the article and sourced in the "Voice Acting" section. Do you think there are any sourcing issues I am missing here? And I don't see how my brief proposed addition to the lede makes it so that the lede no longer accurately summarizes the body. EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of sourcing and establishing the edit lies with you, not with people who disagree with the edit. When people say "drop the stick", you don't seem to understand what that means. It means you probably shouldn't keep beating this dead horse unless you already can provide some source that clearly, cleanly and significantly supports your addition. It isn't up to others to do this for you. Dennis Brown 2¢ 05:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already showed how both of the factual claims made in the edit I added were already stated and sourced in the Voice Acting section later in the article. EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REHASH. VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said that my proposed edit was unsourced, but you have not responded to me explaining and showing that I was repeating already sourced information in the edit. EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed edit is unsourced. It's important to note that verifiability is a minimum requirement, but it's not a guarantee that content will be included. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the reason there were no sources given for the edit is because the same claims it made were already made and sourced in the body of the article. I have explained this repeatably. EpicTiger87 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I would like it clarified from you; Why does my edit need direct sourcing when the body of the article already has the needed sources for the claims I added? None of the currently existing lede has direct sources either, because the sources for the information it lays out are included in the body instead. Why are you holding the sourcing for my proposed edit to a standard the already existing lede does not fulfill either? EpicTiger87 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're badgering. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sourcing your proposed edit, not handwave that it's "sourced elsewhere" or commence whataboutery. But in the interest of not wasting your time: as I already noted I am opposed to expansion of Discord coverage in this article, broadly construed, in the absence of new and exceptional sourcing. Please stop pinging me. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not engage with the questions I asked. I didn't handwave that there are sources elsewhere, I specifically pointed to the paragraph in the article in which the claims and sources were. A look at the short "Voice Acting" section in the body of the article shows that the exact 2 claims I wanted to add to the lede were already present and sourced in that part of the article. That is the sourcing for my proposed edit, it is right there. Since I specifically pointed to the sourcing, what other sources do I need to provide? In what way is it insufficient? The already present lede has no sourcing because everything there is sourced in the body of the article, why does my proposed edit need to follow a different standard? Do you believe that the article's current lede also needs sourcing directly in it? EpicTiger87 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicTiger87: Please stop pinging me, you're wasting a lot of people's time with this unwarranted book. 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)- FlightTime (open channel)[reply]

EpicTiger87. this is fundamentally the same edit as was previously discussed here and at DRN. A minor changing of the wording and moving the claims from one paragraph to another does not make it different. If you don't see that then this may be a case of WP:CIR And no, your claims that Discord is de Lancie's best known vocal role and that Discord is based on Q are not sourced in the body of the article. You have no support for your edit. WP:DROPTHESTICK, and please stop pinging me and posting on my talk page. Meters (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your first point, let's do a quick compare and contrast of my two edits:

Edit 1:

Moves the mention of Discord in the lede from the 2nd to 1st paragraph, claimed that Discord is one of John de Lancie's two most known roles period.

Edit 2:

Maintains the location of the original Discord mention in the lede, claims that he is Q-inspired, that John de Lancie is a voice actor, and that Discord is his most known voice role.

These are not "fundamentally the same edit", as they do entirely different things. My 2nd edit was not just "moving the claims" from the first one, as it flat out made different claims. Beyond the first edit changing the location while the 2nd one doesn't, the first edit makes a claim the 2nd lacks, and the 2nd edit makes 3 whole claims(!) that the first one lacked. The only thing they have in common is both being about Discord and involving expanding his coverage in the lede, but they expanded the coverage in fundamentally different ways. Both edits added specific claims that the other did not. One who disagrees with saying that Discord's popularity is comparable to Q's and disagrees with my first edit, could consistently support my 2nd edit as they agree with the fundamentally different claims that made.

When I stated that the claims in my edit were sourced the in the body of the article, I was specifically referring to the two claims of Discord being Q inspired, and John de Lancie being a voice actor. I had already addressed earlier in this discussion the issue of the other claim you mentioned of Discord being de Lancie's most well known voice role. I stated that I had already explained in discussions on the previous edit why I do not believe that specific type of claim requires sourcing (if it did, than the article's current unsourced claim of Q being his most well known role would also need to be removed for the same reason. Also, both a neutral editor and one whom opposed my edit agreed with my argument on that). But I also stated that I am easily willing to concede that point, and just change the wording of my edit so it no longer makes that specific claim ("with the most well known being" can just be replaced with "including), negating that issue.

You also claimed that the claim of Discord being Q inspired was not sourced in the body. Here is a quote from the "Voice Acting" section of the article: "Discord was inspired by Q as an omnipotent being who embodies mischief and chaos, but is genuinely good-hearted and is occasionally helpful to the heroes of the show". There were two sources given of interviews with John de Lancie, that backed up those claims made in that specific paragraph about his Discord role. So yes, that claim was already stated and sourced in the body of the article (as well as the claim of John de Lancie being a voice actor). EpicTiger87 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unsourced claim in the body of the article. You cannot claim that your statement in the lead is sourced because there is an unsourced claim elsewhere. This is verging on WP:CIR. Read WP:V. This is verging on WP:CIR. And please read WP:BLUDGEON. Meters (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the claim unsourced? The paragraph with the information on Discord contains two sources (18 and 19), which are interviews with de Lancie on the character backing up the information that paragraph gives. EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll recommend dropping this. There's very little at stake here. I'd understand if people were trying to remove the mention outright or something, but they're not. We're just debating relatively trivial details about placement and emphasis. I understand that you want this, but what I don't understand is what is lost if your proposed change isn't made. The answer, to me, seems to be "very little". Little at stake, little to gain, little to lose. Its best to find someone else to edit about. Based on all these discussions, I'd guess you're a fan of this Discord character. Why not concentrate on improving that article instead or something? Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]