Talk:ComStar Minor Characters

Own Articles[edit]

I want to bring the ComStar/Minor Characters up to page, create at first stub articless, i hope any others fill in the missing fluff, I am not the fluff writer :(--Doneve 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need stub articles, Doneve, there alot of minor characters who do not have any background. I would hold off on it, unless you can find a concrete background on any of them. If think its valid, perhaps you should write up a list of characters who don't have alot background info, like the ones found in List of minor mercenary units, with tidbit info on the character and their references. - Wrangler 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, I am firmly against stub articles that cannot be expanded to "full article" status. I've already seen countless character bios and conventional regiment articles with virtually no content. It is my position that they add nothing to the site. Now if someone wants to prove me wrong, and take a "minor" character or unit and write a proper article about them, I have no issue with that. That's HIGHLY commendable, and frankly, its what I've tried to do. But putting up a bunch of stub articles seems pointless. ClanWolverine101 03:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
All the recent edits I've added are the sum total appearances of those characters, they exist on one page in one book and don't appear again. There is nothing more that can be added, they are perfect examples why pages like this should exist.Cyc 07:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Cyc, are you calling for characters in lists rather than complete-but-stub articles? Just asking, because that's what I thinking you're saying, but am not certain.
As for others, I'd like you to look at Rupert Masterson, an article I created for what I'd agree is a minor character. In this case, I don't agree with the stub tag, for I believe he is well-researched, but as of yet unexpanded. Survey: would most of you say that the character should instead be on a list, or when properly formatted, is better with his own article?
I prefer articles over lists for they fit in to my 'philosophy' of 'one subject, one article', while lists are exceptions to what otherwise exists as the norm on this site. Plus, when I start typing 'Rupert' into the search box, his name pops up, taking me directly to the article, but when I type 'Will' (as in 'Will Kemp'), his name is not one of the drop-downs, possibly deterring me from searching further. Also, when I do type (only) 'Will', the list on which 'Will Kemp' is located does not show up on the first page of results, but until after page 20. Granted, that is an extreme case -'Nadia' of 'Nadia Morgan' is currently the 6th result- but searching for a minor character on a list is not the same as searching for a minor character with his/her own article. We do employ categories for perusing minor characters within each faction.
My two percents of a C-bill. ;-) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, one sentence articles is basically bordering on sub-stub territory thus preference for list. I also apologize for not keeping up on the redirects into this article, try searching for Will Kemp now for example of what I did for older character adds. Cyc 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)\
Yes, redirects solve a lot of problems I have with lists. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Rev - I will give you 1 penny for your two. ;) Personally, I think lists (and redirects to those lists) are excellent ideas. If any of the items on that list, be they characters, units, or what-not, ARE worthy of a full article, someone should write that article, do a good job of it, take the character off the list, and fix the redirects.
In your example of Rupert Masterson, the article as written is strictly a stub, and is borderline sub-stub. Now maybe Masterson is worthy of a full article and maybe he isn't. But personally, I like it when people SHOW me why a character deserves their own article by actually writing a good article. But that's my own perspective. Does that make sense? ClanWolverine101 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hy Rev, and i give you the 2nd penny ;). I agree with your one subject philosphy, like your (Unfinished Book project= Jihad Turning Points: Luthien), and prever to articles.--Doneve 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. [jingling my change]
CW: I hear you and I can't refute your arguments. I think how the Masterson article is viewed is subjective. I don't see it as sub-stub, because it does provide in-universe info on the man. I could beef it up, in retrospective, by giving more details on his interview, but at the time I decided that wasn't really descriptive of his person. However, in light of the Unfinished Book Project, the article can definitely enjoy another 2-3 sentances minimum from the 4 pages of dialogue in ISP2.
Doneve, I think my interests overlap with yours frequently. We just need to bring others around. I like CW's perspective that if someone feels a character is important enough to write a good article, then the importance of the character is cemented.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Rev, i understand and like CW's arguments, but my opinion is, i like articles and not lists, you search to the subject and you must not use a redirect.--Doneve 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Its my general feeling that if it is simply impossible to expand an article to something substantial, why not leave it as a list? Stub articles look lazy; how notable is a person or unit if it doesn't have enough material? Again - its only my position. I believe its consistent with how most wiki are run, though its not necessarily consistent with how THIS wiki is run. ClanWolverine101 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, while I still enjoy starting new articles about minor characters, I'm starting to realize that there are some 'sub-minor' characters that don't even deserve an article by me. For example, while researching the 13th Marik Militia in the Field Manual: Free Worlds League, I found six characters that can only be described with the year they are known to have served, their rank and their positions (even gender is a stretch for one). So, while I can't admit that Lloyd Reissing is such a 'sub-minor' character, I can agree that Zhuge Ling and his five other Militia colleagues deserve to be relegated to a list (for now).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:03, 25 May 2013 (PDT)