	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Missing characters

Untitled

I list here the characters who currently don't have an entry in this page, in case someone wants to write it (I don't have time at the moment): Sam Martino (Myka's former partner, 2 episodes in S1, 1 episode in S3); Carol Augustine MacPherson (MacPherson's wife and Artie's past love interest, 2 episodes in S1); Theodora Stanton (the waitress/Regent who ends up killed by Sally, 1 episode in S1, 2 episodes in S3); Tyler Struhl (the programmer recruited by Sykes, 3 episodes in S3). Kumagoro-42 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sam Martino is already on the page (you must have missed him). I've added Carol Augustine, Theodora Stanton, and Tyler Struhl. I'll probably also add Mr. Keeler, though I first need to re-watch thee episodes that give his bio information. Brother Adrain will also have to be added, but we need to let his story arc play out first.--66.192.46.10 (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helena G. Wells

Since there is a main article for Helena G. Wells (whether she is a main character or not is not a valid reason for deletion under the guidelines for valid reasons for article deletion). Rather than get into an edit war about the changes to the character list article, I'm just going to put this here and see if anyone has any objections about placing the wikilinks for her article in the subsection of character list entry for her.Electprogeny (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it's watched by more people, I've started a discussion at Talk:Warehouse 13#Helena G. Wells regarding this, prior to a formal merge proposal or AfD nomination. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Claudia Donovan

The character only has plot information, so there is no need for an article. Wikia exists for such in-depth information. TTN (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As a main character of the series, and a character who has been in the series since season 1 it's inconsistent to relegate Claudia Donovan to a paragraph or two in this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources asserting notability for the character? Main or minor status doesn't factor into it. If there were a minor character from this series that had gotten national attention due to some praise or criticism while the other characters received no attention, only that one character would deserve an article. TTN (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me clarify. As a main character in the series, Donovan has a very well developed history, and there's far too much reasonable content to move into this article without losing a lot of information. Recurring characters usually don't have such detailed histories so they usually don't warrant their own articles, regardless of notability. Of course the information includes plot information; a fictional character's biography is almost entirely plot information. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing on the existence of an article. If there is only plot information, it belongs on Wikia. The reason for including plot in character articles is to act as context from an encyclopedic standpoint. If there is no encyclopedic information, then it only needs an appropriate amount of summary relative to its importance, which would be a paragraph or two on the character list. Without substantial, non-trivial reception or impact information, it fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you've redirected a lot of articles but how many have you split? The amount of content is always relevant - See WP:SPLIT. Your oft used claim "If there is only plot information, it belongs on Wikia" is not supported by the community. As to what constitutes "encyclopedic information", that is a subjective determination and, based on the current discussion at Talk:List of creatures in Primeval, the community doesn't support you there either. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the links above. An article requires notability from multiple, independent, non-pirmary reliable sources (WP:N and WP:RS), and cannot be only a plot summary (WP:PLOT). That's two two guidelines and a policy. There is also WP:WAF describing how such articles should be written, agreeing with all three of those. Plot cannot exist on its own, and all of those support that. TTN (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're ignoring is that we have an article full of content. Merging that back here as you tried doesn't delete the content, it just hides it from view of our readers. What you merged here was only a shadow of the full article. A proper merge requires far more than that, especially when we're talking about a main character in the series. The amount of content in the article, if it was merged back here could justify a split because that much content is sufficient for a standalone article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article does not mesh with current consensus on the proper treatment of fictional characters as per two guidelines, a policy, and a manual of style page. If we have inappropriate content, it is either lessened or removed entirely. This character article in its current state does not even meet the minimum requirements for satisfying the general notability guideline. It has a place in this list, so the content needs to be appropriately trimmed to fit within the article. The fact that the content exists and fully details the character has absolutely no impact on it requiring a page. That kind of in-depth analysis is left for Wikia. You mentioned something about misunderstanding those pages, so feel free to explain how an article without non-primary reliable sources that fails to establish notability, fails to fit the accepted style of writing about fiction, and has only a analysis of fictional content specifically said to be something not fit for an article is appropriate. The only way for the article to even be considered acceptable if there were sources available that would allow for eventual improvement, but searching briefly doesn't turn up anything substantial. TTN (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the applicable section of WP:PLOT concludes "Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage"", it's pretty plain that your arguments aren't consonant with policy/guideline. And since you apply these arguments indiscriminately, trying to gut Wikipedia coverage of even Shakespearean characters with extensive critical discussion [1], it's pretty clear that you have no genuine interest in encyclopedic treatment of topics related to fiction and the creative arts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's only if improvement is actually possible. Age doesn't mean implicit notability. I'm sure many works such as that have been so thoroughly analyzed that even the most minor of characters can have full articles, but that character at the time displayed nothing of the sort. The article Characters in Romeo and Juliet wouldn't exist if every single one were capable of such. You're the one assuming bad faith and making outrageous claims. If you must know my reasoning, I'd liken it to the the enjoyment of cleaning out an old attic, reminiscing about some of it, and then throwing or repacking anything that doesn't have any immediate use. Expansive articles on fiction clutter what could be much neater areas with over-detailed plot elements that would be best moved to somewhere else to allow them to be covered properly. To claim I have no interest in it would be like saying anyone with a sole focus on one topic has to have some sort of ulterior motive. TTN (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]