Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?: Difference between revisions

Line 202: Line 202:

::Ok let me check https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/page/scale-universe-cary-michael-huang-california-high-school-15573968,a tv tropes article,a instagram,a LinkedIn,their official YouTube channels,htwins and yeah that’s essentially it. [[Special:Contributions/47.214.132.155|47.214.132.155]] ([[User talk:47.214.132.155|talk]]) 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Error. It’s actually https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/page/scale-universe-cary-michael-huang-california-high-school-15573968 [[Special:Contributions/47.214.132.155|47.214.132.155]] ([[User talk:47.214.132.155|talk]]) 21:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

:::The article from ABC News is one reliable source. Social media/networking sites (e.g., YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn) and other user-generated sites (e.g., TVTropes) are ”’not reliable”’ sources. Sources that are not independent of the said creators (e.g. HTwins) are also not usable sources. [[User:AlphaBeta135|<span style=”padding:3px;background:#8F8;”>AlphaBeta135</span>]][[User talk:AlphaBeta135|<span style=”padding:3px;background:#CCC;”>talk</span>]] 22:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this page, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia’s policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a “request for comment“, a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: “pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours“). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Frequently asked questions

But BFDI has over 2 billion views. It is as popular as those web series you mentioned earlier! Why doesn’t it have an article then?

Popularity is not notability.

Why are Wikipedia editors biased against BFDI and against creating an article for this series?

Wikipedians are not “biased” against BFDI. The creation of a Battle for Dream Island article is simply not allowed because the topic lacks notability and overly enthusiastic fans have repeatedly recreated it despite consensus favoring its deletion. This behavior is disruptive and wastes the time of those who have to delete and salt (i.e. protect a page from creation) the pages created by these said fans, which is why it is blacklisted on Wikipedia.

Does this essay apply to other Wikimedia Foundation projects (e.g. non-English versions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons)?

No, this essay only addresses policies and guidelines and user conduct on the English Wikipedia. However, this answer should not be interpreted to justify adding BFDI onto other Wikimedia projects without understanding and following their own policies and guidelines. Non-English versions of Wikipedia, for example, have their own notability guidelines.

The Huang twins have done tie-ins with far more famous companies who have made merchandise with them. BFDI should be notable then, right?

Even if we had the reliable sources to verify this, this wouldn’t make BFDI notable. A hypothetical article on Wikipedia about the series would explain to a layperson (someone who isn’t a part of the object show community) what BFDI is about. We are talking about the series, not the merchandise.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Battle for Dream Island and/or related topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Battle for Dream Island and/or related topics at the Reference desk.

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

object shows. How do they NOT count for a Wikipedia page. 2600:1700:8530:E70:E98A:276F:6CC0:42EC (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you read the essay you’d find out. λ NegativeMP1 07:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I feel suspicious about it is that in the URL, it is misspelled as BFDO in the URL and it once misspelled BFDI as BDFI. Although there is a webpage where you can contact them to get the typo fixed, I don’t know how long it will take for them to reply since The Citizen is a South African website and I live in the United States. Also, this leaves me with a few questions; Can someone read an online newspaper if it’s from a foreign country? Can a source still be reliable if there’s a few or a couple of spelling mistakes? And speaking of the aforementioned question, are there any other reliable sources that have spelling mistakes in them? (NOTE: If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s this link) DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Why_is_BFDI_not_on_Wikipedia?/Archive_5#New_source. In context (does it help with WP:N?) I think it’s ok. Fwiw, it has some WP-presence:[3].

“Can a source still be reliable if there’s a few or a couple of spelling mistakes?” Absolutely. WP:RS doesn’t mean perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If “no spelling mistakes” is to be the standard then we would be left with very few reliable sources. The Grauniad would obviously go. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m told an English paper once reported that 30 000 pigs had drowned and floated down a river. The farmer (maybe with a bit of an accent) had actually told the reporter “30 sows and pigs.” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but I finally understand now and thanks for the self-demonstration. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be disrespectful at all with anyone, and I do think that BFDI does have this notability problem (which is kind of sad but probably will take some months or years to change)…

But wouldn’t Inanimate Insanity have a better chance at actually having an article? It’s a more “serious” show than BFDI is (which actually helped them to get a little more traction, expectation and their movie);
Its first season was crowdfunded by the Animation Nation Army (by Christian Potenza out of all people, with the initiative having some news about it in Canada and being proved to be linked to Inanimate Insanity’s start);
And it did have a theatrical movie release in two countries (with its synopse and informations about the screenings on their relative pages), along with a few other minor mentions (which i do know don’t mean much for notability itself).

Thank you.Apocon (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn’t matter how many movies there are. Despite how I think it should work, the rules require notibily to be determined by the amount of other sources talking about the topic, no matter how important or popular that thing may actually be. 2007GabrielT (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Inanimate Insanity might have a better claim to fame, let’s make another source assessment table. (feel free to add more sources to it) – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has recently been announced that a spin off show of bfdi is going to be added to theathers pretty soon. I feel like that’s a pretty big deal and not something to be ignored. I feel like the show getting a page should be considered, at least if it does well and gets coverage, which I think is likely. OkDendy (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is only the debut of a new episode of the newest season. But yes, unless there is sufficient independent and reliable sources, BFDI will not be on Wikipedia. Yet.

hi (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may get enough sources

Though is that recent source in the source assessment reliable enough? Animalsrule2024 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A film based on BFDI being released to theaters actually doesn’t change anything in of itself. Sources are still required, and for that film, that’d require things like critic reviews. That would also make that specific movie notable, but not BFDI itself, because notability is not inherited. Even if the film gained several individual critic reviews and was notable itself, BFDI itself would remain non-notable. BTW, the announcement of a BFDI spin-off being released into theaters has not garnered any coverage, which while insufficient to establish notability on its own anyways, does not paint a good picture. λ NegativeMP1 18:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly relevant information I’m sharing, but it isn’t a spinoff, it’s just the debut of a new episode in the most recent season. But yes, it shouldn’t have an article yet until there are sufficient sources.

hi (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, actually. It’s not a spin off, it’s the twentieth episode of the fifth season. The R 1.0 AUCCC (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they assumed that from the OP, though. hi (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah wait i didn’t see who this was actually replying to sorry hi (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that TPOT 20 is being released in several AMC theaters reminds me of Marcel the Shell with Shoes On, which had a most similar situation. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count as reliable? I do see true information on the page but is it all true? I dont think ive read the whole page Animalsrule2024 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bfdi is getting a movie, so will it get a page now that’s it’s coming to actual theaters? Simplyshows (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If enough reliable, independent sources cover it. They’ll (most likely) have to cover the whole series, not just the movie. The R 1.0 AUCCC (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, they will have to cover the whole series, since TPOT 20 is one of the many episodes of BFDI, and thus is based off of the former, even if it is theatrical, which could mean BFDI’s best chance of getting enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Pinhead123555 (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t a movie, it is actually a new episode that debuts in theater. However, unless there is significant news coverage that makes BFDI notable, it will not have an article.

Even then, it is more likely that if there is news coverage, it will be about the episode itself (BFDI:TPOT 20), meaning a BFDI related article is possible, but I don’t see anything about a standalone BFDI article itself.

Also, side tangent, but there was a post on the BFDI Wiki on Fandom (which I am active on) about this very thread, which I suspect may have been posted there to gather support for a post on a talk page that was made for the sole purpose of brownie points. Maybe I’m crazy, I probably am, just wanted to bring that up.

hi (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if they are trustworthy just wanted to share this
https://www.fantasylandnews.com/2025/09/20/jacknjellify-bfdi-creators-surprise-fans-with-battle-for-dream-island-the-power-of-two-episode-20-amc-screening/ APanFluteFan (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it to the source assessment table, and a subsequent editor has assessed its coverage as not being significant enough to help towards GNG compliance. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also decide on the source from last month if its reliable or not, from what i read the information is true but i havent read the whole page so idk Animalsrule2024 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the source assessment table one of the detractions for “Significant coverage” is “Three sentences are about BFDI at large, the remaining little coverage is about an upcoming screening for a specific episode.”

Wouldn’t this mean that this would be “Significant coverage” for specifically a TPOT 20 article even if Battle for Dream Island the series itself did not get significant coverage? Obviously this would only apply if a bunch of more sources start covering TPOT 20 in the same way as Fantasy Land News but that is something. ZestySourBoy (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source. It’s abundantly clear that it does not meet significant coverage for TPOT 20, an episode which currently does not exist, either. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a blog ran by two people (see [4]) which may fall under WP:BLOG. “About Us” page doesn’t give much food for thought in regards to how good their quality control is, i.e. whether or not they fact check anything and how well they do that. Sources with a more thorough history of trustworthiness is more desirable. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 11:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O’Donnell mentioned BFDI again in 2025:

2600:1700:AB90:45AF:4809:9C41:629E:3A1F (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not even an editor, but these are about Rosie O’Donnell’s Child, not BFDI. The article at least needs significant coverage, they literally only say BFDI’s name three times and don’t even explain what it is. 2A01:599:B21:4F32:D82C:E1E4:9404:40A7 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited a talkpage, so now you’re an editor 😉 Welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Dream Island only has three one-off mentions here without elaboration. Note that the AOL article is the same as the People article (syndication), so these articles will be treated as one. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 19:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate bringing up another article here, but I feel that the bias against BFDI is incredibly obvious as an adult fan (not staff on any object show).
And I feel I need to provide an example: Why is Zoophobia by Vivziepop allowed a page when the majority of sources cited are Tumblr, Youtube videos by Viv, and posts to independent furry blog websites? This clearly breaks the notability requirements outlined on BFDI related pages, yet goes ignored.
I get that early into BFDI’s lifespan there was a lot of vandalism from young editors, but that was years ago, and is not a problem unique to BFDI. Children will disrupt online activities wherever they go regardless of subject, just look at the infamous example of the teenage Scots editor.
I feel that the current policy is outdated, and resources used to keep BFDI off the site would be better spent moderating elsewhere. You could argue that both could be moderated, but the fact remains that several pieces of non-BFDI content are being neglected in terms of verification solely because they aren’t BFDI.
This isn’t meant to be a “whataboutism”, I’m trying to acknowledge a clear bias at play here. It’s just really hard to point out bias without providing examples of differently biased subjects. 209.137.196.143 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you put your mind to it, you can imagine anything as a bias. The sky is the limit. But there is no bias here and this is in principle a whataboutism argument. Regarding the Viziepop example you show, I do not want to investigate the notability of that, but if it truly isn’t notable… well, you know what should be done with it. You also know what should be done to anything that is deemed not notable. Yes, there are plenty of subjects on Wikipedia that are probably not notable. We have articles for deletion for that and multiple running at any given point to determine such.

There is no bias towards BFDI in particular. The page discusses why things are this way in extreme detail yet people still believe there is a bias and that we “banned” BFDI. The only reason this page exists is because there was enough disruptive editing or fans trying to force BFDI onto Wikipedia, so an explanation had to be made. There is no BFDI ban, it is a consequence of Wikipedia’s notability policies, which are non-negotiable on this page (and I doubt you’d get much support proposing that notability shouldn’t require sources when requiring sources, in of itself, is a key Wikipedia policy). If people try erasing content about BFDI from things like filmographies and cite this essay as a reason, they shouldn’t. They may have other reasons that could be negotiated but this essay in of itself represents nothing besides an explanation of why a specific series that people frequently try to make an article for does not have one. λ NegativeMP1 22:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not just about the sources presently cited in the article – you can try searching for more sources to help establish ZooPhobia‘s notability. If you cannot find enough coverage out there, WP:AfD it is, as Negative said. Anyone can help clear the backlog of articles on possibly non-notable topics. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the only mentions of BFDI so far in mainspace are in the filmography sections of TomSka, jacksfilms, Rosie O’Donnell, and The Gregory Brothers. Although, I checked those mentions in said sections, and they only rely on primary sources. But this essay doesn’t apply to them, according to Negative. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One fan to another: there’s simply not many sources usable to establish notability for BFDI. We have these guidelines for a reason: to curb misinformation, even if that means having to abstain from covering some topics. Also, if you think Zoophobia is not notable then you can submit it for deletion via WP:AFD, as the others have said. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 08:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this can be covered by reliable sources and maybe get put on Wikipedia.
the only source we have is https://www.fantasylandnews.com/2025/09/20/jacknjellify-bfdi-creators-surprise-fans-with-battle-for-dream-island-the-power-of-two-episode-20-amc-screening/, but I bet it isn’t notable 2605:A601:5557:8D00:4911:EA29:200B:C7B0 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Source_assessment/Battle_for_Dream_Island

The source you put was already put here before and it failed reliability and significant coverage checks, and does not qualify for general notability, just as others have said. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 22:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/790187316/the-creative-lead-animator-behind-jacknjellifys-the-power-of-two/ Radman the 12th (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t this already covered in the source assessment Thegoofhere (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press release already covered in the source assessment as not being a suitable source. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 16:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new Tpot episode is going to be shown in theaters specifically AMC franchises (United states only) does this count as being noticeable enough. 47.214.132.155 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If theres sources then yes Animalsrule2024 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would need to be reliable sources with significant coverage of BFDI in general, not just a specific event. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes Animalsrule2024 (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5747554/ Tankfarter (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Thegoofhere (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is certainly a source…

that is unreliable, because it is user generated. See WP:IMDB and WP:CITEIMDB. AlphaBeta135 talk 04:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is definitely not a reliable source. But it can be an external link. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 11:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following the AN discussion, Draft:Battle for Dream Island has been recreated by admin @FOARP. Posting here in case anyone is willing to improve it further. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it’s not obviously accepted that it’s allowed to exist yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw @FOARP, if this is kept you need to allow the talkpage to be recreated too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I know we don’t protect as a precaution, but a greylock might not be the worst idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced to EC on both draft and talkpage. FOARP (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The series title is still on the title blacklist, meaning the talk page cannot be created by non-admins yet. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP Just start the talkpage with a talkheader or something, will you? I get “Creation of this page (Draft talk:Battle for Dream Island) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an article for the creators at the very least for the things they’ve done. They did voice acting for YouTube and I think all their animations even the non object related one are noticeable for people. Maybe this is one step closer to bfdi being on Wikipedia 47.214.132.155 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources that mainly talk about the said creators? AlphaBeta135 talk 20:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me check https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/page/scale-universe-cary-michael-huang-california-high-school-15573968,a tv tropes article,a instagram,a LinkedIn,their official YouTube channels,htwins and yeah that’s essentially it. 47.214.132.155 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Error. It’s actually https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/page/scale-universe-cary-michael-huang-california-high-school-15573968 47.214.132.155 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article from ABC News is one reliable source. Social media/networking sites (e.g., YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn) and other user-generated sites (e.g., TVTropes) are not reliable sources. Sources that are not independent of the said creators (e.g., HTwins) are also not usable sources. AlphaBeta135 talk 22:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply