Talk:Minor Characters

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reply for Homestar Coder.)
m (Link Fix.)
 
(includes 7 intermediate revisions)
Line 1: Line 1:
Does anyone really think we need ANOTHER of these pages? <small><tt>[[User:Homestar Coder|<span style="color:#8B0000;">Aurora the Homestar Coder</span>]]</tt></small> 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone really think we need ANOTHER of these pages? <small><tt>[[User:Homestar Coder|<span style="color:#8B0000;">Aurora the Homestar Coder</span>]]</tt></small> 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
:I really think most of these pages should go. [[Minor Main Page Characters]] comes to mind. They're getting way out of hand, and I really think we need to come to an agreement on what to do with them. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 15:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+
:I really think most of these pages should go. [[Unnamed Characters|Main Page Characters]] comes to mind. They're getting way out of hand, and I really think we need to come to an agreement on what to do with them. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 15:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::Yeah, I agree. The only one I actually like is "Old Characters." At least most of those have more than one appearance / reference. "Unnamed Characters" is pretty lame, because it seems to just be collecting bits of background scenery. "Minor Main Page Chararacters" is the ultimate uselessness though. 
 +
 
 +
::Actually, I see a problem in general with inconsistency in pages kept and pages deleted that I've been meaning to open a dialogue about. We really need to decide what qualifies a character, place or item for its own page and then apply that standard consistently. My personal standard is anything that appears/is referenced in more than one toon and serves as more than a background object in at least one toon. Additionally, it is okay to give a page to something that has only appeared in one toon IF it has a fairly important role in that toon. This disqualifies Unnamed Girl for her own page but allows Homeschool Winner a page, for example. <small><tt>[[User:Homestar Coder|<span style="color:#8B0000;">Aurora the Homestar Coder</span>]]</tt></small> 15:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::I agree 100%. [[Unnamed Characters]] and [[Unnamed Characters|Main Page Characters]] (which are just a collection of background characters who have no important role) would go. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::Does that mean you also agree on [[Rejected Characters|Old Characters]] and on creating some sort of page standard? <small><tt>[[User:Homestar Coder|<span style="color:#8B0000;">Aurora the Homestar Coder</span>]]</tt></small> 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::I agree on applying a new standard on Old Characters and deleting the rest of these character pages, if that's what you're saying. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 16:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::Well, that's part of what I'm saying, but I'm also saying that there needs to be a standard applied to ALL characters, toons, and places to decide what stays and what goes. Some of the decisions seem a bit arbitrary. <small><tt>[[User:Homestar Coder|<span style="color:#8B0000;">Aurora the Homestar Coder</span>]]</tt></small> 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
'''Update:''' "Main Page Characters" had been merged with [[Unnamed Characters]]. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:50, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Current revision as of 19:37, 15 February 2006

Does anyone really think we need ANOTHER of these pages? Aurora the Homestar Coder 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really think most of these pages should go. Main Page Characters comes to mind. They're getting way out of hand, and I really think we need to come to an agreement on what to do with them. —FireBird|Talk 15:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. The only one I actually like is "Old Characters." At least most of those have more than one appearance / reference. "Unnamed Characters" is pretty lame, because it seems to just be collecting bits of background scenery. "Minor Main Page Chararacters" is the ultimate uselessness though.
Actually, I see a problem in general with inconsistency in pages kept and pages deleted that I've been meaning to open a dialogue about. We really need to decide what qualifies a character, place or item for its own page and then apply that standard consistently. My personal standard is anything that appears/is referenced in more than one toon and serves as more than a background object in at least one toon. Additionally, it is okay to give a page to something that has only appeared in one toon IF it has a fairly important role in that toon. This disqualifies Unnamed Girl for her own page but allows Homeschool Winner a page, for example. Aurora the Homestar Coder 15:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Unnamed Characters and Main Page Characters (which are just a collection of background characters who have no important role) would go. —FireBird|Talk 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean you also agree on Old Characters and on creating some sort of page standard? Aurora the Homestar Coder 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree on applying a new standard on Old Characters and deleting the rest of these character pages, if that's what you're saying. —FireBird|Talk 16:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's part of what I'm saying, but I'm also saying that there needs to be a standard applied to ALL characters, toons, and places to decide what stays and what goes. Some of the decisions seem a bit arbitrary. Aurora the Homestar Coder 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: "Main Page Characters" had been merged with Unnamed Characters. — It's dot com 23:50, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Personal tools