Forum:Character information on novels, etc: Difference between revisions
Mini-mitch (talk | contribs) (indenting so its easier to read) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Personally, I agree with Mini-mitch. Character pages are the best places for such information. Television stories and novels may be different media but the background info and whatnot which they convey as regards characters should be treated by this wiki in the same manner i.e. included on the character's page itself rather than the novel's pages. The same should apply for audio dramas, short stories, etc. [[User:GusF|GusF]]\[[User talk:GusF|talk]] 17:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | :Personally, I agree with Mini-mitch. Character pages are the best places for such information. Television stories and novels may be different media but the background info and whatnot which they convey as regards characters should be treated by this wiki in the same manner i.e. included on the character's page itself rather than the novel's pages. The same should apply for audio dramas, short stories, etc. [[User:GusF|GusF]]\[[User talk:GusF|talk]] 17:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
I think it's nice to have immediately interesting points like these on pages. The character pages Mini Mitch is referencing are no more than skeleton articles in that they are adapted from information of the novel's page. The problem with these pages is that people may assume they completely cover their topic...when they don't. Admittedly these "character points" are a bit unrestrained as shown by ''[[Happy Endings]] that seems to merely list the sexual encounters and preferences of the characters. I suppose it would be no great loss to lose them if you are strongly opposed to their existence. I removed them once before a long time ago but was told to resurrect them. It's nice to see it being discussed.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 19:52, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:52, 15 March 2011
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
I have been creating article for character that appear in the NA stories. However, due to an error on my behalf (and I was correct by Skittle the Hog), I removed the character information that was on the NA page once the character article was created. In the MOS, it says that User may 'place information pertaining to characters that does not fit within the 'references' list. (Indent and bullet point by using :*)'
I actually see no point in doing this if the information is already been placed in the character's article. It's just duplicate information that is better of in the article page. We don't do it for television stories, so why for novels. It ultimately makes character articles a wee bit pointless IMO, as the information can just be put on story articles instead. Should the information on character not be removed, once a page is created for them? Mini-mitch\talk 17:10, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I agree with Mini-mitch. Character pages are the best places for such information. Television stories and novels may be different media but the background info and whatnot which they convey as regards characters should be treated by this wiki in the same manner i.e. included on the character's page itself rather than the novel's pages. The same should apply for audio dramas, short stories, etc. GusF\talk 17:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's nice to have immediately interesting points like these on pages. The character pages Mini Mitch is referencing are no more than skeleton articles in that they are adapted from information of the novel's page. The problem with these pages is that people may assume they completely cover their topic...when they don't. Admittedly these "character points" are a bit unrestrained as shown by Happy Endings that seems to merely list the sexual encounters and preferences of the characters. I suppose it would be no great loss to lose them if you are strongly opposed to their existence. I removed them once before a long time ago but was told to resurrect them. It's nice to see it being discussed.----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:52, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
