Talk:Chris Killah

I object, loudly and irately, to Interrobang breaking the associated characters out into their own page. They are associated characters because they have no meaning outside of Chris Killah's context. That's why they're called "associated characters." -Derik 03:05, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

I object to your objection because I'd much rather have them on their own pages, since they have individual names. If they were utterly nameless and given only generic descriptors, sure. But they're not. We have (small) pages for other characters whose only context is in reference to other characters. What makes this any different? --M Sipher 03:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

We've got like 20+ pages that include 'associated characters' sections. Some of those sections have existed for 3+ years.

Respectfully to your question of "what does it harm" to put 1-sentence characters on 4 separate pages... the harm is that it makes it impossible to read about Chris Killah's News Crew on one page. Breaking up information that is best presented together forces readers to click between 4 tiny articles to get a whole picture, and that's terrible.

If my fellow editor believes that Associated Character section ought not exist... then that is a topic to be raised on the Community Portal, not a change in policy to be enacted by direct action with no discussion. Arbitrarily overturning long-held practice with no discussion is... rude.

Especially bad direct action. When Iolus Monk's article was broken out, it was done so is a sloppy slipshod manner, lacking a fiction section or even a storylink to indicate where the character was from. The broken-out Iolus Monk article was undeniably worse and less complete than the version contained in an Associated Characters section for that reason.

If he really wanted to break the character out (And Monk is the one character I might be open to an argument for in terms of breaking him out) than it should be done properly, not as an agenda-push that places the burden on other editors to clean up his slop. -Derik 03:32, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

The article lacked an storylink an a fiction section because the section here lacked either. I am sorry I cannot use information you don't feel the need to give! You don't tell us where Monk's from or what he did. It's "less complete" either way.

And "long-held practice"? What about the long-held practice of giving every named character their own pages, regardless of perceived obscurity? Should we now merge all of the Action Master partners, because I think they "have no meaning outside" their partners? The weapons with only one user? You are looking at the ten or so orange trees and completely ignoring the thousands of green trees. —Interrobang 04:08, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

So you admit that you just don't think Associated Characters sections should exist.

Take it to the Community Portal then. That's a fundamental change to page format you're proposing, and it shouldn't be fought out on a single page. -Derik 10:37, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

I think you're the only person who's ever created Associated Characters sections. The only reason they still exist is due to our negligence in removing them. --ItsWalky 10:42, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

So you really think that Joe Chuckry, Tom Hyroon and Rhona Jay would be better served by being on their own pages? -Derik 13:09, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

I've also made some associated character sections on articles I've created. Joseph Bergstrum had several, which I see have now been separated out. Connie still has her cameraman Craig on her page as associated, which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing. I think in some cases, it is appropriate. --KilMichaelMcC 17:21, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

The Joseph Bergstrom article was so well-served by breaking the characters out too! Now we have no idea who his staff is, but the radio operator who does nothing (but has a name) has a page to himself, and an empty fiction section because the person breaking him out did so out of reflex... but didn't bother to go back and read the story to do a proper job of it.

The resulting quintet of pages is measurably worse off and less informative than the original single article was. -Derik 18:45, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Again, I am sorry I cannot make fiction sections for characters in fiction I do not have access to in order to meet your personal and arbitrary expectations of articles! You still haven't explained why those characters warrant this treatment when nothing else with the same level of obscurity, or nonexistence outside the "context" of other things, does. What makes New Jersey (Ganzvort) special, but not Iolus Monk? Neutro-Fusion Tank? Why isn't Snowstalker merged with Tigatron? —Interrobang 22:54, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

I have to say that, I think that if you don't have access to the fiction for a character, that's probably a strong sign you should let someone who does have access make the article instead of you.

As for the topic at hand, I actually wish we would consolidate far more minor characters of the type who have no real personality of their own into either the pages of their "primary characters" or into lists of minor characters related to the continuity. I've always been bugged by having pages that are basically just skeleton pages that say nothing about the character because there is nothing to say. We can always split them out later if we ever get enough info on them to warrant an actual page. --Jeysie 23:22, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Koji Onishi's mother is an ideal example of an "associated character." She never did anything. I think she had exactly one line of dialogue ever. She doesn't even have a name, her only monicker being a reference to her relationship with a better-known character. If she had an entire page to herself, it would probably consist of two sentences: "KOJI'S MOTHER is Koji's mother. FICTION: She watched some shit on TV." Honestly, that's better off right where it is on Koji's page. Now, I didn't read Hardwired so I don't know anything about Chris Killah or his colleagues and rivals; however, if any of them are just names mentioned in passing in a single sentence, I very much agree that they too should just be "associated characters." --Thylacine 2000 23:31, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Why isn't Snowstalker merged with Tigatron?

We don't have a written policy relating to this... but I follow the same principle we use for redirects.

1. We do not favor one fiction over another, so "Blurr" redirects to "Blurr (disambiguation)" not "Blurr (G1)." (G1 is not automatically 'senior' when compared to the more-or-less equally-prominent Armada blurr and Animated Blurr.)
2. In cases when one individual is demonstrably prominent and all other claimants on the name are demonstrably obscure, the primary redirect can go to the preeminent one. "Nightbeat" redirects to "Nightbeat (G1)," since all other claimants on the name are Mini-cons who may-or-may-not have appeared anywhere, and a bunch of toy-only guys. (If Shattered Glass Nightbeat continues to get screentime he might end up kicking the whole thing back to "Nightbeat (disambiguation)" though.)

So it's a balance of the 'Associated Character' being obscure enough that they don't really need their own article while also being strongly associated with another character. If Chris Killah had dozens of appearances and this news crew was only in 1 or 2 of 'em, it wouldn't be appropriate to include them here because it would be creating a false connection to those dozens of appearances. But they still wouldn't be prominent enough for individual articles; you'd move them to something like "MNT News crew" and treat them like the Uberhogs. (Always remembering to include the proper character 'cats in the redirect so they list.)

I admit to being ambivalent about Koji's mom being part of his article... but she is at least always his mom. (And arguably the including her there serves to highlight how she plays virtually no part of her son's life; when his father is kidnapped the show treats Koji like an orphan waif.) But while Snowstalker is important to Tigatron very early on, she is a null-factor later, so it's probably not appropriate to make her part of Tigatron's article.

So while you're right and we don't have a clearly articulated policy about Associated characters... our treatment of them is consistent enough with underlying principles the site uses in other circumstances.

I refuse to feel like a no-good-shit for arguing with you about this; that you admit your stance is that consistent format should trump clear presentation of the information. Quote: "You are looking at the ten or so orange trees and completely ignoring the thousands of green trees." -Derik 13:07, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Snowstalker actually mattered in a story. An entire episode's worth of dramatic tension and character growth happened entirely because of her. I think any supporting character who is shown to be driving the behavior of one of the main characters, or in some way has an important role to play in some medium or another, deserves their own article; someone who is just a name listed next to other names in a sentence and who never does anything can be "associated." If the article would be all of one sentence long and there would be nothing to actually read in it, "associate" it.--Thylacine 2000 14:00, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

When possible. Fortunately such nobodies tend to cluster together... -14:20, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Chris Killah is a tool

The one piece of exposition I couldn't figure out how to work into this bio was Killah's appearance; he's got sandy hair, piercing greene yes that eh hides behind Raybans (the same little black ones Neo wore in The Matrix) and has cultivated his signature on-air look of blue jeans, a gray turtleneck and a black duster.

In other words... he's a total tool. (But you already knew that.) If anyone can figure out how to wedge that into his bio, feel free. -Derik 13:09, 23 August 2009 (EDT)