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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Bias* MrMosesStuff (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's a press release, see the URL. Not independent. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
The source is a press release, though. It says it in the URL. λ NegativeMP1 13:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What are you talking about? λ NegativeMP1 17:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But it might be a press release so idk Eliwiki116 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link??? Mypc252wastaken (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
link??? Mypc252wastaken (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Point A: Cary himself once described Battle for Dream Island (originally titled Total Firey Island) as a "spin-off" of Total Drama Island.[1]
  1. ^ Humany (February 16, 2022). "spinoff of a spinoff of a spinoff of a spinoff of a spinoff". YouTube.
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)[reply]
The idea has existed at least since the 80s. --181.170.238.243 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In addition, isn't this essay just for the BFDI/OSC people? 49.145.100.19 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
What about those who are not familiar with it in the first place? JordiLopezboy (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
They could but thats like against the rules 2007GabrielT (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Christine Weston Chandler

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Perennial requests

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)[reply]

Unfortunately not. See above. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's press release Mypc252wastaken (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah, sorry. My bad :( GwiezdnaFuri (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Press release, too bad! An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

nvm

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Are people being harassed over this? ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 13:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AWhy_is_BFDI_not_on_Wikipedia%3F
No tags for this post.