Difference between revisions of "Wikisimpsons talk:Notability"
Wikisimpsons - The Simpsons Wiki
(→Rethinking this) |
Solar Dragon (talk | contribs) (→Rethinking this) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::All characters with pictures? That means every background character too, which is a no. Not all unnamed characters who only say one line deserve an article. The named characters who say one line should have an article as they are named. I'm still not sure about mentioned characters though. I think a decent amount of information must be revealed about them, or they must have some relation to a largely recurring character. <span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 2px black">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 16:53, 28 January 2012 (EST) | ::All characters with pictures? That means every background character too, which is a no. Not all unnamed characters who only say one line deserve an article. The named characters who say one line should have an article as they are named. I'm still not sure about mentioned characters though. I think a decent amount of information must be revealed about them, or they must have some relation to a largely recurring character. <span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 2px black">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 16:53, 28 January 2012 (EST) | ||
:::See I get the approach as names = searches. But one would say in some circumstances we have more to add on, say a character who speaks one line, then a named one. This is something that is very hard to define, and so maybe we should just take a leaned back approach, letting, if users want, create equally one-liners and named no-bodys. Content is content, and as long as it's up to standard why not have it?--[[User:Cook879|Cook879]] 17:35, 28 January 2012 (EST) | :::See I get the approach as names = searches. But one would say in some circumstances we have more to add on, say a character who speaks one line, then a named one. This is something that is very hard to define, and so maybe we should just take a leaned back approach, letting, if users want, create equally one-liners and named no-bodys. Content is content, and as long as it's up to standard why not have it?--[[User:Cook879|Cook879]] 17:35, 28 January 2012 (EST) | ||
| + | ::::That's the thing, if the article is just one line, I don't think it should be around. If it is two-three lines long then that's fine. If it can get no more than one line though, I don't think the article should be here. ☆<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span>☆ 17:41, 28 January 2012 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 18:41, January 28, 2012
| This is a talk page, where you can leave messages and comments about the Notability project page. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Rethinking this
Okay, I've been trying to make a policy that makes sense but I just can't manage to get it just right. Therefore, I'm asking for help. What do others think is notable or not? 
(Talk - Contribs.) 16:26, 28 January 2012 (EST)
- The grey area, I definitely think is around mentioned characters. What mentioned characters deserve a page? Also, should every named character, despite the fact they do not say any lines, get pages? I think they should, as long as they have pictures and names but that's just me. (Talk - Contribs.) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (EST)
- All characters with pictures, should have an article. Characters that talks, should have a name. Characters that doesn't talk, but is a celebrity, or an parody of one, should have an article. That is what I think. FatHomerTalk 16:43, 28 January 2012 (EST)
- All characters with pictures? That means every background character too, which is a no. Not all unnamed characters who only say one line deserve an article. The named characters who say one line should have an article as they are named. I'm still not sure about mentioned characters though. I think a decent amount of information must be revealed about them, or they must have some relation to a largely recurring character. The Solar Dragon 16:53, 28 January 2012 (EST)
- See I get the approach as names = searches. But one would say in some circumstances we have more to add on, say a character who speaks one line, then a named one. This is something that is very hard to define, and so maybe we should just take a leaned back approach, letting, if users want, create equally one-liners and named no-bodys. Content is content, and as long as it's up to standard why not have it?--Cook879 17:35, 28 January 2012 (EST)
- All characters with pictures? That means every background character too, which is a no. Not all unnamed characters who only say one line deserve an article. The named characters who say one line should have an article as they are named. I'm still not sure about mentioned characters though. I think a decent amount of information must be revealed about them, or they must have some relation to a largely recurring character. The Solar Dragon 16:53, 28 January 2012 (EST)
