Talk:Children of Passions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an attempt to build consistent guidelines for articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
[edit] Infoboxes
Hey, of course I love this composite article, but it is obviously inappropriate, cumbersome and just plain messy to retain the infoboxes from the individual articles. I will help when I can, but notable info should be incorporated into the text for each child (it most probably is already), with performer info noted at the top of each. Images, of course, can remain on their own. Check out One Life to Live children or Children of Salem, Days of our Lives for ways to do it. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- How are infoboxes cumbersome? The whole point of the infobox is to make articles less cumbersome. What's cumbersome, in my opinion, is a long list of child actors who played a character at the beginning of an article. — Charity (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- For most of these children, the infoboxes are longer than the text about them, and there isn't a whole lot more to be written. And having like 10 infoboxes in one article is ridiculous, I don't think this is done anywhere else. Perhaps there's a better way to format the actors, but I really think the infoboxes adversely affect the article's readability. — TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having numerous infoboxes in one article isn't unheard of, especially when the article contains information on multiple characters, e.g. Death Eater, Order of the Phoenix, Hogwarts students. I personally prefer the infoboxes for the brief summary of the character that they provide, plus the fact that they include family members in a hide-able place instead of taking up space at the bottom of the article. Most of the infoboxes that are significantly longer than their article are longer due to a picture, too. — Charity (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article is basically a list, and the characters are pushing the limits of notability; there is absolutely no need for huge lists of distant relatives, hidden or otherwise, in this particular case. Their parents and notable relationships are appropriately mentioned in the text. The multiple infoboxes you note in the Harry Potter articles contain only about three lines of info each, which would be fine here, but the standard soap infobox (which I created, I might add) is overkill in this article. I am a huge fan of infoboxes in general, but we just don't need all that info listed separately, like the fact that Jim Reilly created all of them, their sex, where they live. Realistically, they are more like props than characters. — TAnthonyTalk 04:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having numerous infoboxes in one article isn't unheard of, especially when the article contains information on multiple characters, e.g. Death Eater, Order of the Phoenix, Hogwarts students. I personally prefer the infoboxes for the brief summary of the character that they provide, plus the fact that they include family members in a hide-able place instead of taking up space at the bottom of the article. Most of the infoboxes that are significantly longer than their article are longer due to a picture, too. — Charity (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- For most of these children, the infoboxes are longer than the text about them, and there isn't a whole lot more to be written. And having like 10 infoboxes in one article is ridiculous, I don't think this is done anywhere else. Perhaps there's a better way to format the actors, but I really think the infoboxes adversely affect the article's readability. — TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Endora
I like this page except for Endora, I think she's important enough for her own page. Her witch powers give her a much more active role than the other children. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I compiled this page I wasn't sure if she warranted her own article or not, so I just lumped her in with the rest of the children. I can support her being given her own article, though. — Charity (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- She is certainly more active and notable, but there is still not really enough material for a separate article and isn't likely to be anytime soon. However, should she warrant a separate article in the future, note that the former infobox can be retrieved from this edit. — TAnthonyTalk 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is article length really an issue? I'd think a character who's notable enough to add to this list would, by definition, be notable enough for his/her own page. Nothing I've seen so far about article guidelines restrict articles to only lengthy ones, only notability seems to matter. Plus, it's very difficult to add real-world context and other wikipedia desired items to articles like this that are just essentially lists, so I've decided that I do not like these melded pages on the whole I think-- Dougie WII (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about length. The truth is, most of the characters are really not notable per Wikipedia:Notability. Though they are "notable" to us within the context of the series (the children of important characters), they are (mostly non-speaking) minor characters without their own storylines and with minimal (if any) coverage in external sources. As individual stubs, they are easily nominated for deletion and pretty much undefendable; at least collected this way, they can be defended as a "list." Still, some notability has to be asserted using external sources/real world context when we can get around to it, or it may easily be targeted for deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 06:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is article length really an issue? I'd think a character who's notable enough to add to this list would, by definition, be notable enough for his/her own page. Nothing I've seen so far about article guidelines restrict articles to only lengthy ones, only notability seems to matter. Plus, it's very difficult to add real-world context and other wikipedia desired items to articles like this that are just essentially lists, so I've decided that I do not like these melded pages on the whole I think-- Dougie WII (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- She is certainly more active and notable, but there is still not really enough material for a separate article and isn't likely to be anytime soon. However, should she warrant a separate article in the future, note that the former infobox can be retrieved from this edit. — TAnthonyTalk 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
