Talk:List of Gilmore Girls characters

maybe she should at least be put under recurring characters just so she is searchable if anyone is interested.

The characters descriptions could be longer...

I am going to do so changes, separete characters and stuff 200.241.255.250 04:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at the hip

I combined Louise and Madeline because they're inseparable and their descriptions were exactly parallel. —Tamfang 20:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I love the show, have some DVDs of it at home, but I fear none of the Gilmore Girls characters currently establish notability as outlined in WP:FICTION. One way to keep the articles for each character is to trim the plot and then add significant real-world information, like e.g. Boone Carlyle of Lost. Another way is, as I propose here, to merge them into a list like List of 7th Heaven characters. Individual characters can be broken out into their own pages again as soon as significant real-world information is included. The page histories allow the resurrection of old information easily. Unless there is any opposition, I'll start the merger soon. I have already merged many minor characters into this list here, which prevents them from being nominated for deletion right-away. I acn also help with a transwiki, if someone wants to keep the information somewhere off-wikipedia. Opinions? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This probably wasn't the place to discuss a merge proposal because of the low page traffic this page actually gets; most of the talk usually occurs on the character pages themselves. I wouldn't mind merging the minor characters, but the regulars should continue having their own pages, especially Rory's boyfriends, Sookie, Lane and Paris. Everyone else can be confined to this page easily. Nate · (chatter) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All pages have merge tags that redirect to this discussion here, so everything is well (I apologize for forgetting Paris Gellar). Anyway, all character pages violate WP:NOT#PLOT and need to be trimmed massively. Although a couple of them have one or two tiny paragraphs for production info, all are completely unsourced and therefore seem to violate WP:NOTABILITY. As a result, they fail WP:FICT. In such a case, WP:FICT recommends discussion for merging to avoid redirection or deletion. Except for maybe Lorelai and Rory, all other characters would have a hard time surviving AfD in their current state. I explained everything else above. It's either trimming&merging (as these articles should not have been started in the first place per WP:FICT), or adding real-world information (which should have happened at the point of article creation). If you want to avoid the former, you have to do the latter. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inbreeding

Is it worth mentioning that Lorelai's and Rory's macabre speculations, when they learn that Richard's parents were second cousins, are mistaken? The danger of inbreeding is duplication of harmful recessive alleles, which would not affect Richard's descendants because they only get one set of genes from him. And by the way I've never heard of a legal bar to marriage between second cousins. —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is too much detail, but if you think it makes the article better, be bold. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing what good television does

The warm and personable characters in Gilmore Girls draw the viewer into their world. And while it may seem inappropriate to some for people and places of fiction to be so comprehensively documented in this context, I disagree. As long the authors of these pages acknowledge that the people and places are fictional, and do not let themselves or others believe they are real, what's the harm?

The Wikipedia format is perfect for the Gilmoreverse. As encyclepedia, it provides a method for recreating a fictional place, in a manner that makes it seem real. The Wiki expands the knowledge base by bringing fans together who add new details, further bringing into focus the fictional world. However, there must be some structure to how these pages are created and maintained.

Not all places and people deserve their own (vanity) page. Therefore, I propose a compromise. Vanity pages for all major people and places. Aggregate pages for people and places organized by place. See below:

Vanity Page YES - If the actor's name appeared in the opening credits of the show throughout any season

Gilmore Girls, Main Cast

Vanity Page YES - Locations of significance in the show

Stars Hollow and Chilton Academy, primarily; possibly Richard's and Emily's house, but it might have to be merged

Merged Page YES - Minor characters organized by location

Stars Hollow - List of Notable Residents: Taylor, Jackson, Babette, Ms. Patty, The Town Troubadore, etc. etc.
Chilton Academy - List of Notable Staff and Students: (List Rory, Paris but link to their pages) Madeline, Louise, Tristan, the Puffs, along with Headmaster Charleston and Max Medina

Merged Page YES - Places and things associated with a location of signficance

Stars Hollow - Places of Interest in Stars Hollow: Luke's Diner, The Independence Inn, Dosie's, The Town Square, Kim's Antiques

That's my opinion. I love Gilmore Girls; these pages are fun and bring insight to the show. My favorite is the Stars Hollow page because my company has several clients in Connecticut. Speculating the location of Stars Hollow in reference to real towns is amusing.

Let's preserve the spirit of the Gilmoreverse by keeping vanity pages for major people and places and consolidating pages about minor people and places then grouping them by location.

Qmendoza (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love(d) Gilmore Girls as well, but your focus is not ideal. Wikis are a great software, but wikipedia is an neutral encyclopedia written from a real-world perspective and encourages articles like Boone Carlyle (see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)). Vanity pages and in-depth in-universe material however are welcomed in severals wikias, such as wikia:TV:Gilmore Girls. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk as a main character?

Should Kirk really be a main character? He seems decidedly minor to me. Other characters that appear about as often (Jackson, Mrs. Kim) are under "major recurring characters". Unless he has his own plots and appears a lot during seasons 4, 5 or 6 I don't think he should be under "main". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.22.133 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared in the opening titles for some seasons, so he is/was a main character. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Yale characters

Could anyone add Rory's two artsy new friends Lucy and Olivia (quote: „Genius!“) from Season 7? --89.244.191.55 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and add them yourself. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I have to say, merging these articles based on a consensus that amounts to one person who disagreed with you and nobody who agreed with you seems a poor choice. I am going to unmerge the main characters articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion was open for over three(!) months. WP:NOT#PLOT (policy) is clear. You did not gain consensus for un-redirecting the articles back to their policy violating state. Please self-revert them or establish notability in significant ways that couldn't as well fit into this list. There is also the option to raise this at WP:FICT/N. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a little more, it's clear who is not in line with policy, and who didn't gain consensus for his actions first. I'll therefore revert your edits per WP:BRD (you were bold, not me) and wait for your justification. If you believe I'm in the wrong nevertheless, I'd like you to raise my actions at WP:FICT/N, not the other way around. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot: What exactly does your edit summary "[...] valuable information lost in merge" refer to? Plot detail? Again, please see WP:NOT#PLOT (and WP:WAF). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion had minimal input, all of which was opposed to you, especially given that you were reverted on some. The merge never had consensus. Gather an actual consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Then check back when the merge discussion took place, and when I took action for the possibly-notable characters. I'd also like to point to policies and guidelines, which have way more weight than one person in three months opposing a merge. As I said, if you believe me to be in the wrong, raise it at WP:FICT/N. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silence and consensus is an essay. WP:FICT is a proposed guideline. Neither of those have substantive weight. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention WP:FICT in this thread a single time; I however repeatedly pointed to WP:NOT#PLOT, a policy. Besides, at the time of the merge proposal, WP:FICT was not proposed. So, since you don't seem to obey WP:BRD, does that mean you prefer to edit-war instead of reporting me to the noticeboard like I proposed? If yes, no problem, I'll do that for you then. See you there unless you self-revert in the next hour or explain how my actions were wrong and how yours aren't. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT says what should be added - it is difficult to add such material to a heavily condensed list. I'd love to see more out-of-universe material added to those articles, but they need to actually exist for that to happen. But WP:NOT in no way calls for mass merges where the only discussion was people opposing you and reverting you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could also have taken the articles to AfD, if that's what you suggest. Since I merged Lorelai and Rory (the most likely candidates to actually have real-world information out there) only in March after three months of discussion, there was a lot of time to add any(!) real-world information to prevent a merge. This wasn't done, neither by you nor by anyone else. Contrary to your claim, it is no more difficult to add real-world information to the list than to a separate article. Anything else that I missed before I take it to the noticeboard (since you don't seem to be willing to do that)? – sgeureka ^t•c 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. See you at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#List of Gilmore Girls characters (see characters in the template at the bottom). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected again per Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#List of Gilmore Girls characters (see characters in the template at the bottom). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]