Fan Creation talk:Clach

Clach

• This page will need a bit of work. Needs to become more factual and more like the Paire article. (Admin 13:06, 1 January 2007 (EST))
  • Yup. But it's nice to have the other side of the equation represented, no?--Hardvice (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, it is and once it's cleaned up like the Praire article I think it's going to look pretty slick, too. (Admin 14:15, 1 January 2007 (EST))

Looks good now.....

I don't think it should look and feel exactly like Paire's article......because I think our's should stand out a little bit!!

For a fan site I'd definitely agree, you'd want to set yourself apart. Here, on the other hand, it's beneficial to standardize when possible and give pages the same feel. :) (Admin 16:54, 1 January 2007 (EST))

And by the way, you've done a great job cleaning the article up, Gargyloveswolfy. :) (Admin 16:59, 1 January 2007 (EST))

The "de-gaying" issue

I will NOT tolerate people adding for their own personal agenda. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:34, 24 January 2007

Like you are doing? Man, this is a car wreck. I stumbled here via the random page option. Clach? no one calls them that? And the gayness issue...It should read "rumor had it that Zach was intended to be a gay character, but that never materalized and was nothing more than a rumor or a fleeting thought of the director" I'm seriously detecting a militant gay agenda here...why would that be? Am I to expect the Nater (Nathan/Peter) page next?--ASEO 16:13, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• Actually, Gargy is pro-Clach, so it would be kind of counter-productive for her edits to reflect a "militant gay agenda" on this issue. As for the "rumor" aspect, both Tim Kring and Bryan Fuller stated as much in interviews. While interviews aren't canon, they're certainly enough to merit mention in a Fan Creations article.--Hardvice (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2007 (EST)

What do you believe was inappropriate about the material you removed? I checked it out and it seems like legitimate material concerning the change they made to the character. (Admin 16:00, 24 January 2007 (EST))

• • I detracted from the point of the article. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I think everyone needs to be careful to remember that this is a Wiki; by its nature, it's a collaboration. Nobody "owns" an article. Nobody should police an article for content they disagree with. Only information that is clearly and conclusively wrong should be removed; if it comes from a less reputable source, then that should be noted, but sanitizing an article to reflect only one viewpoint is unacceptable. Removing information shows as much of an agenda as adding it. In general, articles should reflect all of the available information and opinions, with clear notations of sources when possible.--Hardvice (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• But, it should stick to the subject of the article's title..........and I believe the "edits" to reflect such extreme emotions.........even with the retupable sources cited........that it showed an extreme prejudice about the relationship that this article is about. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:10, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Since the article itself does discuss the "de-gaying" of the character information about the reason it occured does seem pertinent. I also didn't detect any extremity in the links. They seemed to be a fairly objective explanation that it occurred because Tom Dekker's management complained for one reason or another. (Admin 16:15, 24 January 2007 (EST))

• • • The de-gaying is only relevant in the fact that it factors in all so minutely into the whole should Claire/Zach be a couple, that it's just not approriate to have to go into extreme detail. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• I'm not going to get into a debate about wiki rules, but, despite any statements that have been made, the show is by no means locked into Zach being either gay or straight. As far as the content of the show up to this point goes, Zach could very easily still turn out to be gay. I'll even go out on a limb and say I think he will. But it's still yet to be determined, and until something actually happens on the show to clear it up, then nothing else is going to be definitive to me. Maybe the most accurate and honest thing to say about Zach is that there is currently ambiguity about his orientation.--E rowe 16:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• • Maybe the most accurate and honest thing to say about Zach is that there is currently ambiguity about his orientation. That is my whole point and feel I made that clear. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)
    • If that's the case, then the article shouldn't say he has "been made straight", since that hasn't been confirmed on-screen either -- just in news reports, just like the de-gaying info.--Hardvice (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2007 (EST)
      • On-Screen true Zach has not been made straight. But, firstly we all know the straight people do not have to declare their orientation; thus that assesment is un-fair. Secondly, NBC made it explictly clear in article after article that Zach was without a doubt that straight. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
        • Episodes are canon sources. NBC (and articles) are not. The same rules need to apply consistently.--Hardvice (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2007 (EST)
          • • And that's why I am not re-changing your re-changes. I am leaving it as is.....alone. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:52, 24 January 2007 (EST)
              • Just to clarify: they were never my changes. They were made by Doop. All I did was remove the spoiler image.--Hardvice (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2007 (EST)
          • That's a distinction we need to make in the article, though. --Ted C 16:49, 24 January 2007 (EST)
            • Then, by all means make that change. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:52, 24 January 2007 (EST)

---

• My only caveat on this issue would be the phrase "Zach has been made straight mid-season". Is that actually confirmed from a legitimate source, or just rumor? If it's just a rumor, it should be identified as such, since his orientation has not actually been clarified in the show. --Ted C 16:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • And I see Hardvice beat me to that point. --Ted C 16:42, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• Since quite a bit of the Clach article is information about what the supposed opinions of the fans are, and since those sentences in the Clach article all express the opinions of only those fans who think Zach's being openly gay is a good thing, is it ok if I add another sentence indicating that there are other fans who think Zach would be a better role model if he's not gay?--E rowe 17:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • There's arguably already a paragraph about that, but if you have something to add... --Ted C 17:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • sure.--Gargyloveswolfy 17:03, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Out-N-Proud for Zach's gayness

Admin change that back to how it was originally..........as Zach did make ambigourous statements about he knew who he was and he was not ashamed and was actually proud of it. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:52, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• You are more than welcome to change it yourself. We don't patrol the articles for subjective content, just formatting, sources, layout, spelling, grammar, punctuation, vandalism, and the like. However, it would be nice to have a better phrase than "out-n-proud", since that sounds ... amateurish. At the very least, "and" instead of "-n-" would be better.--Hardvice (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • It is vandalism to change something to take away from the whole point just to have your point reflected. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:02, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • Blanking a page is vandalism. Posting nonsense text or profanity is vandalism. Posting something which you personally disagree with is just a disagreement. I patrolled User:Doop's change, and while I personally didn't agree with it, I didn't consider it vandalism.--Hardvice (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • So, User:Doop "blanking out" the parts that they didn't agree with to reflect their "opinion" without regard to all the facts is not vandalism? --Gargyloveswolfy 16:24, 6 February 2007 (EST)
• Also, I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean: "Some argue that Zach's comment about denying his initial flirting with Claire with "trust me" as being a sign of him admitting to his gayness and then they will use the letting Claire down for not going as her date to the homecoming dance". Who is "they"? What the heck does "the letting Claire down for not going as her date" mean? This could be much clearer.--Hardvice (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • They refer to the ones' online (as that's the only place I've seen the argument at) that continually made excuse. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:02, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • Again, this is very unclear. The sentence goes from talking about Zach and Claire to talking about fans. This is ungrammatical. --Hardvice (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2007 (EST)