Forum:CHARACTER on Day X articles

Forum: The Situation Room > CHARACTER on Day X articles

I think we should make a category that lists all the articles such as Jack Bauer on Day 1 etc. so we know which characters have articles for which seasons. Also I think we might need to establish criteria for when they are created. Personally I think it should be a situation where a character has substantial appearances in at least 3 seasons (substantial being appearing in more than 12 episodes that season). Sound like a good idea? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Originally I thought that the criteria would be something like "the article started looking too long" and they had 3 seasons or more. But an episode count sounds reasonable too. To be clear, though, the characters' main articles wouldn't be getting this categ, right? It would be just for the "On Day #" sub-pages? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only the subpages would get the category. I'm having trouble thinking of an appropriate name for the category though! --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Character-by-season articles"? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, ;) You're good. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The only criteria should be "article is getting too long." If a one-season character is featured constantly and it creates a ridiculously long article, there's nothing wrong with making a "Character on Day X" page for them. --proudhug 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems insane to make the article for a one season character. The only difference between the two pages would be a quotes section, background notes, and an appearances table! --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 08:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If Jack Bauer had only been in one season, his Day 1 synopsis would still be huge. We had the exact same discussion about Novel synopses. We agreed that if they got too long, they could go on a separate page. This would be no different. --proudhug 12:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Proudhug do you mean that if someone expands Rick's article by leaps and bounds, it will eventually get a "Rick Allen on Day 1" page? It's not such a big issue to me either way, but I have to say my immediate reaction is "really?" The only length-reduction this would do is shave off the app table and a few lines of other stuff. Again, this has not happened yet, but it seems odd to consider that it might have to happen for someone like Rick. Chase, maybe if his article grows.. but Rick? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Teri or Mike Doyle would be a better example. If someone expands the page to be massively long, I see no reason to move it to "Mike Doyle on Day 6" and put a shorter paragraph on his main page. I'm not sure what you mean by it would shave off other stuff, though. --proudhug 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He means that the only difference between the article "Teri Bauer" and the article "Teri Bauer on Day 1" is that the former would have an appearances template, a quotes section, and a BGIN section, whereas the latter wouldn't. Why create an article for something that would have such a small difference. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 16:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It would also have an intro, a sidebar, a Before Day 1 section and a shortened Day 1 synopsis. The "small difference" is that the long synopsis of Day 1 events is on a different page, thereby splitting it into two smaller articles instead of one large one. --proudhug 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)