Talk:List of fictional penguins

Misc

The listed of Penguins in animated cartoons needs to be alphabetized. Will somebody alphabetize it, please? Thank you. Erudil 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely retarded - Why does such a list exist? It's mostly from "Happy Feet" anyways.

Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman! This is the best article. --Indolences 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a wonderful article indeed, and getting better all the time thanks to the contributions of all you wonderful pinguinophiles. Thanks! Erudil 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And it is totally wrong to say it is "mostly from Happy Feet." Of 46 entries so far in the list, only 8 are from HF and 38 are not. Erudil 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And thank you very much to whomever alphabetized the list! Erudil 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Lovecraft "At The Mountains Of Madness"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.207.249.116 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Topper

Moved Topper to his proper place in alphabetical order. It's a very long list, but we must keep it in alphabetical order. Das Baz 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Tags

I think the {{fansite|date=March 2009}} tag should be removed. This article is primarily a list, I'm just not seeing the lack of neutrality. If nobody objects, I'll remove it the next time I stop by this list. XeroxKleenex (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Florida Giant Penguin"

The mention of the "Florida Giant Penguin" has been removed. It will only be allowed back in if it is properly sourced and footnoted, and placed at the end, not the beginning of the article. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC) A couple of other rather dubious penguins have also been removed, but will be allowed back in if they can provide either a footnote or a blue link. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit

Someone reverted my edit, but "Feathers McGraw", the bank-robbing penguin villain in The Wrong Trousers, is at least as "notable" as some of this anime crap. 86.161.31.85 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that the character Feathers McGraw cannot be wiki-linked. You'll notice that "Feathers McGraw" (or actually "Feathers McGraw") is in fact a redirect to The Wrong Trousers. The lede of that article clearly states that "The Wrong Trousers is a 1993 animated film directed by Nick Park." The lede of this article clearly states "This is a list of fictional penguins." Because films aren't fictional penguins we cannot link that article as an example of a fictional penguin. If you wish to include Feathers McGraw some work must be done first. The following options are available: A) you'll need to create an article on the character Feathers McGraw (which was earlier deleted for lack of sources) or B) you'll have to create a subsection devoted to the character at The Wrong Trousers (or some other related article such as List of characters from The Wrong Trousers) or C) you'll have to provide sources that demonstrate Feathers McGraw's notability outside of his inherited notability via The Wrong Trousers. If you wish to create an article on Feathers McGraw this would perhaps be a good starting point. Please feel free to ask for any help. -Thibbs (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't really have time to do the above, but maybe somebody will now that there's a note on the talk page. I suppose this isn't one of the more important articles on WP :) 86.161.31.85 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy-based agrument that requires expending that time. Presumptions of this sort cannot be erected in the absence of WP policy on the matter. David in DC (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption that there is no policy-based argument is quite incorrect. There are in fact policy- and guideline-supported bases for the presumptions and I have pointed this out below. Also, if you don't mind, let's try to keep our discussion to the subsection created earlier today (below). I find that discussions are often enhanced by centralization and that they become unmanageable when they are spread across several different subsections. -Thibbs (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirects to non-character articles do not belong

This article aims to list all notable fictional penguins. If an entry cannot be linked (i.e. it is a redlink) then it is presumed non-notable. If an entry links to an article on something other than a notable fictional penguin characters then it is presumed to fall outside of the scope of the article. This includes links to redirects where what appears to be a link to an article on a fictional penguin character (e.g. Mumble the Penguin) actually redirects the viewer to an article on the book/film/game (e.g. "Happy Feet") from which the character originates. Further explanation about these presumptions can be found above. -Thibbs (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Who invented the rule that a list of fictional penguins must only include fictional penguins who have an article about them on wikipedia. I can find absolutely nothing in WP policy that even begins to dictate that. In fact, wikipedia lists are often made up of individual entries that may well be notable, but about which no article has yet been written. That's exactly what redlinks are for. Please direct me to a policy, or make a policy-based argument, for disallowing redlinks or redirects on a list. A suggestion that, because one editor asserted it, and another acquiesced up above, it's now penguin-list policy is insufficient. The presumptions supposedly erected above are awfully, um, presumptuous. "The article aims..."? Says who? Can that be answered without violating WP:OWN? David in DC (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, a stand-alone list such as this should be properly defined to avoid it becoming an indiscriminate collection of information or becoming a Listcruft directory. WP:LIST states that the definition of the list (i.e. the explicit inclusion criteria) should come in the lede paragraphe and of the three common selection criteria listed at WP:LSC, it is clear that "Every entry meets the notability criteria" makes the most sense for this article. The lede paragraphe of this article states "This is a list of fictional penguins. This list is restricted to notable penguin characters from the world of fiction." In answer to your question about how I have ascertained the aims of the article: The lede reflects the inclusion criteria per Wikipedia's current guideline on lists.

As for your question regarding redlinks, you are quite right that redlinking may be allowed for articles that have not yet been written, however this is only true for articles that meet the thresholds of inclusion at Wikipedia. WP:REDLINK clearly states "Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects . . . Do not create red links to articles that will never be created" (emphasis added). Articles on non-notable topics will never be created at Wikipedia (and if by accident one is created then the system here at Wikipedia takes care of it through AfD) and so we must avoid the use of redlinks to non-notable topics at this article if we intend to abide by the inclusion criteria established in the lede. If you are anxious to include a particular red-linked character in this list then please keep in mind that as I suggested above, red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. I don't think it's unreasonable to require reliable proof of notability for redlinked members of a list whose lede restricts its membership by notability. The argument that other lists may contain redlinked non-notable entries is an argument best avoided. -Thibbs (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice board

I've sought counsel at the content noticeboard. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Thanks for the alert. -Thibbs (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mumble the Penguin

User:David in DC has added the character "Mumble the Penguin" three times to the list and it is quite clear that he is anxious that this character should appear on the list. I am hoping that I can use this addition as an example that can be pointed to for future editors who are having trouble with the notability requirements currently in place at this article. First let me note that I have absolutely no interest in blocking the addition of notable fictional penguins from inclusion on this list. The stated aim of the list is to display "notable penguin characters from the world of fiction." This much is clear from the article's lede. If an entry meets these requirements then it belongs in this list. If it does not meet these requirements then it cannot be included in this list. This is an appropriate restriction according to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, and I would hope this sounds reasonable to editors.

It is important to examine the inclusion of redirects and redlinks to lists in particular as they offer the greatest potential to trip up even experienced editors.

Regarding redirects, we must consider carefully whether or not they advance the stated aims of the article. Does a redirect to an article on a book, film, or song about penguins meet this list's stated inclusion criteria? I believe the issue is easily resolved by looking at the lede of the article that has been redirected to. Is a film with a penguin character a penguin? I would argue that it is not. Of course some redirects are appropriate if they redirect to an article about a fictional penguin, but if the redirect is only created as a "Related word" then it is often the case that the related word is not notable in its own right. Because Notability is not inherited, all entries on this list should be notable separate and apart from the works in which they feature.

Regarding redlinks, we note that in addition to the notability and descriptive criteria located in the lede, WP:LSC imposes an additional requirement that the entry be verifiably a member of the list group. As with redirects, redlinks are acceptable for inclusion in the list if they are verifiable as fictional penguin characters and if they can be shown to be notable in their own right. These requirements follow from the guidelines, WP:LIST and WP:LSC.

Now let us focus on Mumble the Penguin as an example:
1) Is Mumble (Happy Feet) a link to an article about a fictional penguin?
No. This link is a redirect to a film about penguins. Are films about penguins the same thing as penguins? No.
2) Is the alleged fictional penguin character notable separate and apart from the film we are redirecting to currently?
I don't know. If the user who inserted him had included a reliable reference that demonstrated his notability separate and apart from the film then it would be fine but so far we have not seen such a source emerge. Sourcing the notability of an entry means meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline. In a nutshell a source demonstrating notability must significantly cover the topic sourced, must be reliable, and must be independent of the topic. The burden of proof for notability naturally lies with the editor asserting the character's notability.
3) Can Mumble (Happy Feet) be listed here?
Yes provided that the link points to a notable fictional penguin character or is supported by a reliable source that demonstrates the notability of the alleged fictional penguin character. If the entry is a redlink then it also must be supported by a reliable source that demonstrates that the entry meets the lede's descriptive criteria (i.e. that it is a fictional penguin character) per WP:LSC.

If there are still questions about this set of policies then please discuss them here. -Thibbs (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps here, which would make the whole conversation between and among co-equal editors. David in DC (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fictional species

It seems a user named Thibbs (who has posted on this talk page) has decided that fictional species that are based on or resemble penguins are no-gos. Why? That doesn't seem to be the rule on other "List of fictional animal" pages. To give an example, Piplup the Pokémon is clearly reminiscent of a penguin, and it is called the "Penguin Pokémon" in-game (why, yes, I can source that, thank you very much. Piplup is #393, and if you select him or his evolved form, Prinplup, the box on the right will read: "Species: Penguin".) Even if Piplup the species was not allowed for whatever reason despite this rule not seeming to apply anywhere else, wouldn't Piplup the anime character still be viable? --HeroicJay (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New entries must meet the following criteria (as listed in the lede of this very article):

1)Penguin - The character must be a penguin - "order Sphenisciformes, family Spheniscidae, a group of aquatic, flightless birds living almost exclusively in the southern hemisphere, especially in Antarctica."

2)Fictional character - The character must come from the world of fiction - "any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s)".

3)Notable - The character must meet WP:N - The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

A bluelink is usually enough to satisfy requirements #1 and #2, but for redlinks these must be verified through reliable sources.

As for Piplup, I assume that it was not included or that it was removed from the list based on the fact that it didn't meet requirement #1. Piplup the Pokemon is not a penguin. It is a penguin-type pokemon - an entirely fictional species. If you can find reliable sources demonstrating that Piplup (or Piplup the anime character) is a notable fictional penguin character then feel free to add it to the list together with the source. Alternately we can discuss the inclusion criteria listed in the lede. If editors feel that it is too strict then perhaps it would be a good idea to broaden the scope of the article. Perhaps it might be a good idea to change the article to "List of fictional penguins and other animals that look like penguins" or "List of penguins and penguin-related media." Then the lede could be expanded to allow whatever we feel is useful. The lede as written currently bars the addition of entries that do not meet the three requirements above. -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome HJ. If you look up the board a bit, you'll find a noticeboard entry that might benefit from your input. David in DC (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thibbs: You say "I assume", but you yourself were the one who removed the entry. Seems more than a little patronizing. David: I'll look it over. --HeroicJay (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My response was slowed a bit by computer problems. Anyway. I have little to add to the noticeboard entry, given I'm barely involved in this. In fact, it's not like it's super-important to me; I'm just wondering why nearly every other "fictional animals" page lists Pokémon (even "badgers", which I don't think applies in the first place), and this one apparently used to, but doesn't now. If you're in the process of cleaning up pages and this one happened to be first, I guess that makes sense (but trust me, the "frog" article needs it far more), but even then, I'm not entirely convinced by Thibbs' response; he quotes the rules and then comes up with an interpretation I do not see in them. I'm not going to get into an edit war, though; I haven't even touched the main page. Just wanted to add my two cents. --HeroicJay (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to be patronizing. I have made hundreds of edits improving articles like this and I honestly do not remember which entries I have removed or modified. I do make a habit of removing fictional species, robots, and aliens from these lists and I also usually transfer legendary creatures to the List of legendary creatures, so if I was the one that removed Piplup the Pokémon from this list then my rationale is that Piplup is fictional but is not a penguin. As Pokémon are fictional species I think that they cannot reasonably be included in a list of fictional animals of a real species. If sources can be provided that prove that they are real species, however, then I am fine with including them. I am not sure why other lists of fictional animals include Pokémon, but when/if I can find the time to overhaul those articles you can be sure that I would be in favor of removing them based on the fact that they are members of a fictional species. Obviously if adequate sourcing demonstrating the opposite could be located then it would be fine if they remained. There is a related concept that you might be interested in reviewing if you are a fan of Pokémon: see The Pokémon Test.

I am also quite interested in your comment that "he quotes the rules and then comes up with an interpretation I do not see in them." Could you be more specific? I would like to know at what points in my cleanup process editors begin to feel uncomfortable. You can write to me at my talk page if the issues you take with my edits don't bear any relation to fictional penguins. -Thibbs (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Pokémon test and don't think it's really the issue at hand; the question is not "should this have an article" but "should this be included in an article with an ambiguous scope where it may or may not fit depending on your point of view". What I meant was that the rule you quoted above is unclear on the question "do fictional species that resemble an animal count as fictional uses of that animal"; you clearly took the interpretation that they do not, but I'm saying, again, that it's ambiguous at best and at worst doesn't address it at all. (BTW, it's not just Piplup that I'm focusing on. Prinnies of Disgaea, for another example, are also a valid question. I just mentioned Piplup and not Prinnies because I knew of an official source that equates Piplup with penguins - the Pokemon.com link I gave above - and not one that equates Prinnies with them. As for your removal where you said "Prinnies have wings", one may as well remove all instances of talking penguins; fictional creatures don't always match real-life ones. But without an official source - which may exist, but I don't feel like spending hours looking for it - I felt it unnecessary to push that point.) --HeroicJay (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK this is interesting. I think the problem is that I haven't made clear the fact that the two guidelines, WP:LIST and WP:LSC, require the scope of an article like this to be clearly defined in the lede paragraphe.

• According to WP:LIST, "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
• According to WP:LSC, "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list."

I had tried to craft a lede for this article that was clear and unambiguous, but perhaps there is room for improvement. Currently the lede reads "This is a list of fictional penguins. This list is restricted to notable penguin characters from the world of fiction." I must admit that I don't really see how fictional species can fit here considering that they are not actually penguins. Are you arguing that the term "penguin" might be understood to mean penguin-like creatures? If so, perhaps it would improve the situation if we linked the word "penguin" in the lede to the article on the animal. If that sounds like a good idea I say we should go for it. What do you think?
As for your concern about prinnies, I think my edit summary for that edit was quite poor. After all, penguins have wings as well. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Perhaps I meant "Prinnies have four wings" or "Prinnies have bats wings." At any rate, I think the removal of Prinny from the list of fictional penguins is much better supported by a quick review of the article on Prinnies where the lede there states "Prinnies (プリニー, Purini?) are a fictional race of creatures." If Prinnies are a fictional race of creatures and penguins are not a fictional race of creatures then how can Prinnies be penguins? I think they would have to be excluded unless we can find an appropriate reliable source that demonstrates that they are penguins. Speaking of which, by the way, if you'd like to add Piplup the Pokémon to the list of fictional penguins based on the strength of the source you have provided then please feel free to. I am only interested in seeing things like this sourced. I'll leave the debates about whether or not Piplup is really a penguin or a pokémon or both to the experts.
Thanks for explaining your concerns and please let me know if you think that linking the word "penguin" in the lede will help tighten the definition and reduce the ambiguity of the scope. -Thibbs (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The obvious workaround is to have a section for fictional characters that merely resemble penguins. Mr Flibble, Frobisher, the prinnies and whatever else can go in that. Call the section (eg) characters that resemble penguins. Job done. Totnesmartin (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Only one problem: Such a category would rely strictly on Original Research. Whereas there is a definition for penguin, there is no definition for penguin-like. -Thibbs (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I would guess that a character mentioned by a reliable source as looking like a penguin could be described as "penguin-like" - and in effect most of the penguins in this list aren't actually penguins because real penguins can't talk, so what's the difference between a talking penguin and, say, a penguin glove puppet? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is where the fictional aspect of the list comes into play. A fictional penguin may have unrealistic characteristics through the magic of fiction, but no amount of magic can change a Pokemon or a Whifferdill into a penguin. The primary sources define these fictional species in distinction to penguins. Any source claiming that they are penguins is therefore obviously unreliable. If you can locate characters on this list that are not actually described in primary sources as penguins then I encourage you to remove them.

As far as opening the article up to all sourced penguin-like characters, this would have the effect of turning it into an unbounded list. There is a potentially infinite number of penguin-like characters. As I suggested in an edit summary, I find E.T. to be penguin-like. I might even be able to find an RS that describes the squat waddling alien as "penguin-like". Doesn't it seem obvious that E.T. doesn't belong on this list, though? -Thibbs (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not much of an argument. If we keep it to looking like a penguin, rather than having a waddling gait or living in antarctica or whatever, then the penguinality is obvious, and the list is finite; reliable sources should be findable for such characters. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the article as it currently exists doesn't allow the inclusion of non-penguins. It seems that you are suggesting that we should broaden the scope of the article to include penguin-like creatures. I think that the term "penguin-like" is hopelessly vague (a violation of WP:LIST and WP:LSC among others) and thus largely unhelpful. Even if RSes describe something as penguin-like, the term lacks an objective definition and so the term will not be applied consistently across all RSes. Although "penguinality" may be obvious to some, it is at its core a profoundly ambiguous concept. Ultimately it's an issue of where to draw the line. It seems eminently reasonable to stick to the current inclusion criteria that the members of the list be A)Penguins, B)Fictional, and C)Notable. This is in keeping with all of the other lists of fictional animals. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:DUCK apply to other waterfowl? David in DC (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that, David, but WP:DUCK certainly doesn't apply to article content. -Thibbs (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It was a joke. David in DC (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Roy and Silo

Reading through the extensive discussion above left me with a lot of new questions that I didn't come here to ask, so I may pose such questions directly to Thibbs on his talk page. What I came to ask is: Why are Roy and Silo on this page? Yes, they are characters from a book, but a book that was essentially non-fiction. Even if the book has elements that were invented by the author, I don't quite see how that converts real animals or people into fictional ones. When I was in elementary school, I read a book about Benjamin Franklin in which his best friend was a talking mouse. Clearly a fictional story, so does that make Benjamin Franklin a fictional politician? --BBrucker2 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Gunter/Gunther

Why is verification needed for Gunt(h)er? Is it verification of Gunter's notability or verification that this character exists? Because Gunter is clearly listed in the List of Adventure Time characters. As for notability, I'll leave it to you guys to argue about. 158.223.174.28 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Members of the Penguin Cabal are watching this page

Squark!! Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)