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. Abritrarily overturning long-held practice with no discussion is... rude.

Especially not 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)