the brothers have nothing to do with any of the stories. why do they need indivdual pages?
Neither do the sisters, mind you. --Old Dickens 15:07, 28 December 2007 (CET)
Two comments: 1) I thought we tried to give each mentioned character their own page (a la memory-alpha.org), even minor ones (that way, we can put them in categories, refer to them directly from other pages, etc). 2) the revision that you undid had other changes (it mentioned Deviousness Carter for example), so you "lost" more than just links. Kellyterryjones 20:37, 28 December 2007 (CET)
Then there are all the other characters, gods, places and things that exist only as mentions but have articles already. Should they be deleted? I think Knmatt needs to publish his criteria for admissibility before we waste more effort. --Old Dickens 22:16, 28 December 2007 (CET)
I just reckon that referencing every single character and item named throughout the entire canon is a waste of time as no-one's a) going to write them, or b) ever want to look at them. Do you not agree? I mean, people like Gancia and Dahoney - could you without looking know where they're from, what their roles are or what book they appear in? As minor minor characters, do we ever need to know, or can we not just take them in context, as in, "Rincewind spoke to x, a stallholder, and..." without having a page that, in its entirety says "X is a stallholder in y. This page is a stub."? --Knmatt 17:26, 29 December 2007 (CET)
a) (no-one's going to write them.) There used to be many, many red links to minor characters and things mentioned in Characters and Stuff. They've almost all been written.
b) (Gancia and Dahoney.) Nope. That's why I'd want to look them up.
c) What are your criteria? Recent changes mentions Necromancer cigarettes (quite a large article,) Ezeriel, Evil-Smelling-Bugger, Serpent Dance, Long Hogmeat, Warrior of Fortune, Lord Wynkin's Men and Almeg. They're all mere mentions of people and things in the background; can we not just take them in context? Your laptop doesn't get heavier with more articles in it; until Sanity says the hard drives are getting full, I don't see any reason to delete stuff (come to that, I'll chip in for bigger ones.) --Old Dickens 22:12, 29 December 2007 (CET)