Talk:Henry Lanson

These articles really don't have much in the way of content, and I doubt ever will. Wouldn't it make more sense to include them all into a "Magnificent Seven" article? We could still have all the individual names as redirects, but I don't see any article here actually linking to an individual rather than the group as a whole. --Bluestreak7 12:49, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Good idea.--Jimsorenson 12:54, 10 February 2010 (EST)

I disagree with you with every fiber of my being. —Interrobang 13:29, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Great. Well put. A cogent argument, all around.

There is literally no information on this article that isn't already on the Ark II site. Nor for any of the other Magnificent Seven except for Sparkplug. They're the same article again and again and again, with only the first sentence different. That first sentence is what we've already seen. This article has no value at all. The Related Characters template is perfect for this. Individual names can and should be redirects. --Jimsorenson 13:59, 10 February 2010 (EST)

When you get down to it, Wikis are essentially duplicated information packed into different configurations. This article just doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of uniqueness. I'd prefer this Wiki not fall into the pit of "X doesn't deserve an article because I think so". —Interrobang 14:17, 10 February 2010 (EST)

I'm with Sorenson here, myself. I'm always in favor of anything that consolidates articles that will never have more than near-useless one-liner and/or duplicated information into something more substantial and useful. It makes both editing and reading much easier. --Jeysie 14:27, 10 February 2010 (EST)

The first thing I looked for when I came to this page is a link where I could see who the other six members are. I know now they are on the Ark II page, but that isn't obvious. Either a "Magificient Seven" page or cateogory would be helpful.

Someone made this page. It is complete with all necessary information. I think it is valid, but I don't have strong opinion either way. - Starfield 14:47, 10 February 2010 (EST)

How does it make reading easier? ("Makes editing easier" is a terrible argument. Lots of things make editing easier, like banning every Anonymous user. That doesn't mean it's good.) What if I just want to know about Henry Lanson? —Interrobang 17:27, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Then you'll be severely disappointed and annoyed when you click on his link and learn ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW about him. I suppose you're in favor of full-on articles for all the associated characters for the Wraith and Chris Killah too, right? One line articles saying "This dude was Chris' cameraman." Also one-line articles about each of the 15 or so ingredients of Garbage O's. And each kind of nutritional component of the same. ("Vibranium B is something that protoforms need. One serving of Garbage O's contains 15% of a protoform's recommended amount.") Or articles for each of the 12 or so movies that are referenced on the movie poster for Monster from Mars. ("Prognosis Negative is a movie. It was advertised in the Detroit Powell Press.")

There does come a point when something just doesn't have enough information to warrant its own article, especially if that something is completely subordinate to another idea.--Jimsorenson 18:01, 10 February 2010 (EST)

...what Sorenson said. Much better than I could have put it. --Jeysie 18:18, 10 February 2010 (EST)

I agree with Jim. These articles contain no new information whatsoever. They should be converted to redirects to the group article, preferably with Categories so they at least show up in those lists. --M Sipher 18:13, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Put another vote on Jim's side, for exactly the reasons he so eloquently stated. Khajidha 12:33, 11 February 2010 (EST)

I think the consensus is clear ... I'm going to change this and similar pages to redirects.--Jimsorenson 12:35, 11 February 2010 (EST)