68,299
edits
More actions
m
no edit summary
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-Downtime +Downtime (home video))) Tag: apiedit |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Articles about characters are often the hardest to judge in terms of their "stubbiness". Beyond the major televised characters like [[the Doctor]], his [[companion]]s, and perhaps the main guest stars, most characters require special effort to notice. Characters who appear in a medium ''other'' than television are particularly hard for most editors to assess, because they're more expensive in terms of pure cost and time required to research. | Articles about characters are often the hardest to judge in terms of their "stubbiness". Beyond the major televised characters like [[the Doctor]], his [[companion]]s, and perhaps the main guest stars, most characters require special effort to notice. Characters who appear in a medium ''other'' than television are particularly hard for most editors to assess, because they're more expensive in terms of pure cost and time required to research. | ||
Additionally, the bulk of characters on this wiki are in fact minor ones. For most character articles, two or three sentences is the ''maximum'' that can be written. A good example is the unseen character of [[H. P. Wilson]] from the televised episode ''[[Rose (TV story)|Rose]]''. While one could argue that the article could be stylistically tweaked, or that a word or two might be added or subtracted, there's never going to be any more information forthcoming on him. | Additionally, the bulk of characters on this wiki are in fact minor ones. For most character articles, two or three sentences is the ''maximum'' that can be written. A good example is the unseen character of [[H.P. Wilson]] from the televised episode ''[[Rose (TV story)|Rose]]''. While one could argue that the article could be stylistically tweaked, or that a word or two might be added or subtracted, there's never going to be any more information forthcoming on him. | ||
A good rule of thumb is that you should assume that articles about characters are ''not'' stubs. Only when you are '''certain''' that major details are missing should you mark it as a stub. | A good rule of thumb is that you should assume that articles about characters are ''not'' stubs. Only when you are '''certain''' that major details are missing should you mark it as a stub. | ||