Category talk:Minor Characters


I challenge the very Raison d'etre of this category. If a character is minor then he/she should get an entry in a single list file of the same name, and not an article. Conversely, if there is enough information on a character to warrant an article, then he should go into the Category:People. This category, as is, is a middle thing that serves no purpose. (See Policy Talk:Notability.) My suggestion is to abandon this Category and put all articles into the "regular" Category:People. Frabby 13:20, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

Good word useage there, Frabby. I applaud.
Obviously, as the creator of the category, I feel it is necessary, but my defense is as follows: some characters do not fall within clear limits of other obvious lists. For example, read the articles on the following characters: Rupert Masterson, Takahiro Naguchi and David Pratcher. The latter two come from different realms, with a third presently unknown. Should the three be separated? Should a Universal Truth article be started, just to create that list? (I didn't feel up to creating such an article on the program.) Where should Masterson go? And if later (or in the case of Masterson, possibly earlier) writers expand upon any of these three characters, at what point do they deserve their own articles? I'm all for the co-existence of lists and minor character articles, but -as Nic stated in the Notability discussion- if someone goes to the effort of creating an article on a character they find favorable, what is actually required for that person to be major enough to not require a list-only presence? Similarly, some of the characters currently in the Peoples category really detract from the notable ones for whom many visitors may be scanning the list. I definitely feel a writer reviewing BTW for information to expand on a minor character (or reference his past sightings) would prefer to read details and source references on those characters, and I don't feel like a list mention really allows for that expansion. (Though, admittedly, it doesn't prevent it, either.) To me, though, it boils down to the article creator. Creating an article is simple: you just add the appropriate category to the bottom. But, with lists, one character may rquire a presence on several different lists, and myself alone would probably miss at least one of those several lists.
But maybe you're concerned with the divestment of one major list tracking all characters, such as done with 'Mechs and so many other categories). To that, I answer that having Major & Minor categories only allows someone to quickly peruse both lists, but another obvious answer is to keep the Peoples category so named, add a new Major Characters category and have each and every character appear on Peoples and one of the other lists. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:03, 17 August 2008 (CDT)
Strongly disagree with the concept of using separate major/minor categories! This was already discussed in Policy Talk:Notability#Solution Proposal.
Since this discussion is essentially the same as that one, I suggest we continue at the Policy Talk to keep it in a single place. Frabby 03:49, 18 August 2008 (CDT)
I have to support Frabby here, this category is useless without any definitions on what defines a character a minor. I noticed several Khans and house leaders in the minor character category, which is something I strongly opposes. In my opinion this category needs to either have strict definitions on what goes here, or if that is not provided, be removed. --Neufeld 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)