Talk:Enid Sinclair

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Cosplayer in 2023

• ... that some people interpreted the character of Enid Sinclair (cosplayer pictured) as trans coded?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tremate, empi, tremate
  • Comment: Driveby nom.

5x expanded by HalfHazard98 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 404 past nominations.

Launchballer 12:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC).

• Hi. I am reviewing this article. Before replying here, there are some concerns on the article talk as well. Thank you! M. Billoo 13:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw that, and I see HalfHazard98's on it already. Not all the points are DYK showstoppers so I'll chip in another time.--Launchballer 13:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@HalfHazard98 and Launchballer: No major problems, the article is good to go for DYK. QPQ presented, new and long enough. Earwig comes green. Old version was <2kB, and the current version is ~15kB, so definitely a 5x qualifier. One concern is left which I have opened elsewhere, about the fiction word count. Image used is licensed well. The hook and image may get a good reception at the main page. I see it as a strong candidate for the GAN as well. Thank you and all the best! M. Billoo 16:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Thank you! - HalfHazard98

Quick concerns

@HalfHazard98: Hi, thank you for writing such an article. I just came across this after the above DYK nomination, might be formally reviewing that as well. Here are just a quick concerns:

Extended content

* Is the word "protagonist" allowed per wikipedia guidelines?

• Are these sentences non-WP:ATTRIButed WP:SYNTH with no WP:INLINE?
  • Enid has met a positive reception
  • Certain aspects of Enid's characterization and storyline have met criticism
  • Emma Myers' performance as Enid has been praised
• WP:CITEBUNDLE footnotes approach is good. Please also consider WP:INTEXT attributions within it as well.
• Are these references complying WP:RSP? Mirror.co.uk, Express.co.uk, Metro.co.uk, Forbes.com
• Are there any WP:WTW?
• Is the Character biography complying MOS:TVPLOT, WP:NFICT, and WP:NTVEP? As of Special:Permalink/1357019630, it has 151+376+481 words.
• I see that someone has recently uploaded the File:Emma Myers as Enid in Wednesday.jpg, but I could not verify its license for now. That may be a separate concern for wikimedia commons, but I think that the WP:DYKG may demand it as well.
• How this article falls under the WikiProject Comedy?

Thank you! M. Billoo 08:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey! No problem! I just helped, just built on top of what was already there before a revert. I didn't even do the nomination. Team effort!

• Is the word "protagonist" allowed per wikipedia guidelines?

Not sure! Assumed it was. That's a pretty objective word, right? Should I just swap with main character instead? I just didn't want to overuse the character's name in one sentence.

Probably, yes. It is defined in MOS:FILM. M. Billoo 11:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Are these sentences non-WP:ATTRIButed WP:SYNTH with no WP:INLINE?
  • Enid has met a positive reception
  • Certain aspects of Enid's characterization and storyline have met criticism
  • Emma Myers' performance as Enid has been praised

Yes, but I took influence for that from the reception section of Erik Campbell (Final Destination), which is a featured article, so I assumed that was ok. The reception section of that article also says things like "Erik received a positive response from both fans and critics" with no in-line citation and then backs that up with the following sentences in the rest of the paragraph which do have in-line citations.

• WP:CITEBUNDLE footnotes approach is good. Please also consider WP:INTEXT attributions within it as well.

Thanks! By the in-text attribution, do you mean within the footnotes? Like having the footnotes say something like "As said by John Smith of Website A, Jane Doe of Website B, etc" instead of "Sources: (insert citations here)"? I've done similar things on other pages. Or do you just mean use in-text attribution outside of footnotes? Like in the sentence "Multiple writers have praised Enid as interesting and compelling on her own, with her depth 'complicating what could have been a seemingly simple character'" which could easily be changed to "Multiple writers have praised Enid as interesting and compelling on her own, with Screen Rant's Jerome Casio commenting on her depth 'complicating what could have been a seemingly simple character'"?

As in TLOAS#Footnotes. M. Billoo 11:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Are these references complying WP:RSP? Mirror.co.uk, Express.co.uk, Metro.co.uk, Forbes.com

My bad! Didn't know they were unreliable. I'll remove them.

• Are there any WP:WTW?

I agree that "often" is a weasel word, and I considered not using it, but at the same time, I think it helps break up sentence repetition so that every sentence that is backed up by several sources doesn't say "several journalists have said", which I think we can agree would get really repetitive. I'll also point to MOS:WEASEL, which says "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Maybe they're not topic sentences but what if the attribution is there nonetheless with inline citations provided after the sentence? The question for me is what is the threshold for "often"? I think we can agree that the chemistry footnote which has 11 citations probably qualifies as "often" but the emotional core footnote has 4 citations so that one was a stretch on my part. At a certain point too, though, "often" is legitimately the appropriate word to use, like with the chemistry footnote. Saying "several journalists have said" there wouldn't properly communicate just how overwhelmingly the viewpoint is shared.

• Is the Character biography complying MOS:TVPLOT, WP:NFICT, and WP:NTVEP? As of Special:Permalink/1357019630, it has 151+376+481 words.

The seasons sections of the character biography of Walter White (a Good Article) have hundreds of words each so I assumed it was ok.

That is some concerning point. We may need broader viewpoints on this. I have raised the query at the WT:TV#Character story as well before responding back. M. Billoo 13:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• I see that someone has recently uploaded the File:Emma Myers as Enid in Wednesday.jpg, but I could not verify its license for now. That may be a separate concern for wikimedia commons, but I think that the WP:DYKG may demand it as well.

I completely agree on this one. I didn't upload it. I was going to add a low-res screenshot that would hopefully qualify for acceptable non-free content. However, the person that uploaded that image beat me to it and I didn't want to be rude by taking it down. So I'm waiting on Wikimedia Commons to handle it, I guess.

• How this article falls under the WikiProject Comedy?

It probably doesn't. But I'm out of my depth there, didn't add it and unsure how to remove it. I've never messed with categories when editing.

I also think it does not fall under it, for now. M. Billoo 11:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! HalfHazard98 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• The term "alpha" is mentioned in an earlier section, but is defined in a latwr section. The reference ahead says "alpha werewolf" as a complete term. Please can you clarify for someone who is a new reader here? M. Billoo 16:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  Done HalfHazard98 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy delete. I'll try to upload a non-free low-res screenshot later HalfHazard98 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: Just for your information, I have edited a little, the context from where your hook is extracted. Feel free to check it, and restore your version if you think so. Also, do you have any other hook suggestions, just in case if this does not work? Thank you! M. Billoo 14:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• It has been considered one of the series' best strengths, or even its outright best strength. How this statement is extracted from its WP:INLINE sources? I could not verify using WP:TSI. M. Billoo 14:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok I got it. A source says "best part", another says "strongest pillar", etc. But what do you mean by "outright"? Is it talking about body swap part? M. Billoo 16:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Outright best just means the #1 best. If someone says something is one of the best parts of a show, they mean it might be the second or third best thing about the show. If someone says something is the outright best part of a show, they mean there's nothing else in the show that's better. The source itself didn't use the word "outright" but I put that word in to draw the distinction and make it clear what the source meant (which was that it was the #1 best part of the show). HalfHazard98 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• @HalfHazard98: There is a paragraph starting with "Journalists have highlighted Enid's relationship with Wednesday." And then there is another paragraph under a seperate heading "Wenclair". Can these be merged, or go together within this one heading? Is the term "Wenclair" only highlighting the alleged romantic relationship, or the strong friendship as well? M. Billoo 06:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would say no, they shouldn't be merged. The "Journalists have highlighted Enid's relationship with Wednesday" paragraph covers reception to the platonic, canon friendship within the series. The Wenclair section (which I didn't make, someone before me did) covers only the alleged romantic pairing. The two ideas are each notable enough on their own that they should definitely be separate paragraphs. I guess you could argue that the Wenclair paragraph could still be merged into the "Reception" section, but I've recently made a redirect to the Wenclair section, which isn't a good redirect if it doesn't point to a separate Wenclair section. HalfHazard98 (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I may not suggest merging the "Wenclair" paragraph into the reception, because it still has its notability, instead my concern was to broaden its view. So for now, I would take the point that the "Wenclair" phenomenon is restricted to fans speculations only, about romantic relationship. But that the creators wanted to highlight the friendship only. Right? But still, there is currently no journalism analysis on it. M. Billoo 07:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Luckily, to address that concern, I am currently working on making the Wenclair redirect into a standalone Wenclair article which will cover the topic in extensive depth and immensely broaden its view, including journalistic analysis. But for now, that journalistic analysis can be partly found in the queercoding paragraph. HalfHazard98 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. You can check guideline at WP:SPLIT and WP:CWW. M. Billoo 08:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! HalfHazard98 (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• @HalfHazard98 and Launchballer: Hi. This can be a double DYK nom if you want by adding Wednesday Addams (Wednesday). I will be happy to review (or nominate if anyone else is willing to review) that as well, and a seperate article is much appreciated. Otherwise, that article can go on an individual DYK as well. Thank you! M. Billoo 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oooh. I'm thinking that one might work more as a WP:DYKAPRIL nom (e.g. "that Wednesday has been criticized for reduced deadliness") but I'll give the article a proper readthrough when I'm finished shopping.--Launchballer 18:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hahaha, I was going to say I would feel bad for roping you into another DYK nomination since you did this one as a drive-by, but since you mention it, that might be perfect we might have to do that lmaoo HalfHazard98 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks, no problem, glad you like the article! I had doubts when I was making it. I was going to make the Wenclair article like I promised you, but I thought the Wednesday Addams article made more sense to make first.

My attention will probably shift to that Wenclair article now. So between that, starting a new job, and my wi-fi being down right now, I would do what I can for DYK improvements on the WA article. I know the article’s not perfect, I just published it once I considered it good enough, but I did already take your feedback from the Enid article into account when making it, so that’s a good start! I appreciate you offering that, though, if you really would be happy to! I don’t think I can nominate as the person who made it, but yeah I’m willing to keep working on it if you truly want to! HalfHazard98 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You can indeed nominate your own articles, though I just snapped up Wednesday. Take your time on the Wenclair article.--Launchballer 23:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok! And thanks! HalfHazard98 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)