Sarna News: MekTek Is Back

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)
I'm deleting the characters assigned to it which have another clear identification (Solaris, DCMS soldiers...). Maybe once we see which ones only have this category some action can be taken.--Pserratv (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2018 (EDT)

Actions on Category[edit]

I'm going to review all people assigned here and delete the assignment if it is possible to clearly point another allegiance.--Pserratv (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

I have been slowly doing this around other things for a couple if months. (Started at about 650 characters), I think we should reassign what we can, also update all articles to include Infoboxes, then when we get to the point where we have a small number of articles with no clear category we will see what we can do.--Dmon (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Fully Agree. I'm adding the infobox in all them. Then deleting those that have more categories and leaving for a sort of phase 2 those ones not so easily classified.--Pserratv (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
Phase 1 finished. Now here there are only:
- Characters that I've been unable to classify
- Links to Minor pages which will need new pages for them all--Pserratv (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
I am away at a music festival from tomorrow until Monday so I will not be about, but if you have anything still outstanding when I get back I will chip in :-)--Dmon (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
The single characters left I have no idea on how to classify them. I don't think Minor is the correct category. Maybe Unknown Affiliation... or some additional work. I've been cleaning the list, but those ones... I'll wait for you to be back and we can see.--Pserratv (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2018 (EDT)

Delete page[edit]

I'm going to disconnect this category to the rest. I've created Unknown Affiliation to cover those characters that do not have a known affiliation after ruling from Catalyst team.--Pserratv (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

Not every characer has a clear affiliation. I have no problem leaving it blank/not categorizing a character. After all, what informative value does "unknown affiliation" have as a category? Frabby (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
I agree with Frabby on this one, to borrow his description of Minor as a "Rat word".. Unknown is the word I would say we need to drive out next. It bothers me most in character articles that end with "fate unknown" and command articles that have composition or tactics as "unknown", it just brings nothing above leaving the section blank. Personally I would arbitrarily assign the character to Republic of the Sphere since she is on a ship as part of Stones Coalition. Not perfect but better in my mind.--Dmon (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
It is true there are characters without and easy or known affiliation. It could be an option on that, but doing that makes the user not appear, those ones whose affiliation is shaddy should have a category I feel. What I do not want is "Minor". Both suggested options are OK for me. --Pserratv (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2019 (EDT)