Talk:List of Heroes characters/Merge Proposal

Created
Since there weren't any objections and it was going to have to be done anyway at some point i went ahead and moved this off the main article. Alot of work still needs to be done to expand this article past the chart I would recommend merging the minor characters list into the article as a sub section and going from there. --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On an added note I think here the table can retain the photos but I still think that the occupation and location columns should go and possibly the age column as well as even for this article that information is still a bit trivial and should probably be left to each characters individual page. Didn't want to do that right away though because that is debatable where as the page move pretty much needed to happen at some point.  --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The following section is an archived debate of a proposed merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a separate section of the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was merge. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.

Merge proposal
I've placed the merger templates on both pages and baring any objections will go ahead with it tonight or tomorrow --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  15:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually they are related as they both refer to characters that appear on Heroes. I would refer you to Characters of Lost.  Since there has been disagreement though i will now hold off


 * Comment You ought to give at least a week for some serious discussion on the topic. --Pinkkeith 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Kmsiever 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree - the page of Major Characters and Minor Characters would become very long with them merged together. --Mjrmtg 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree - The two are not related and per Mjrmtg the article will be long. If anything this should be merged back in with the main article. It is not small enough to have a seperate article. --Pinkkeith 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree, why do we have this article anyway?-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree per Mjrmtg, and Pinkkeith. per A c1983fan, i think the page is valuable and should remain up here.--Sdp4408 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support To those proposing that this article will be too long, have you actually looked at the article? It's a table. There's nothing else. It's just one table. The article barely stretches more than a page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support May take a bit of moving around the content from the other article, but, honestly, we don't need the same information twice s.omewhere. Merge 'em... Plus, we know of at least one 'minor' character who has just been signed up to be a longer term, permanent character (Mr. Bennet). Instead of constantly editing both pages, until the series gets the first season or two down, who stays/goes is likely to be a bit fluid. Thus, one page that contains any character to repeat more than one episode, would help in the editing (not to mention, handling red herrings which are certain to appear). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrdinn (talk • contribs).
 * Support - While I dont agree with seperating the characters based on whether or not they have powers (since Mohinder deserves to be nearer to the top than most other non-powered characters), I think the two articles would fit nicely in together--Piemanmoo 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - No "powers" separation. I'd say make it one page, with the table on the top like it is now (linking to each character's page), and just put minor characters below, with a brief description for each. Essentially a straight cut and paste. One thing I would also support is if people wanted to pare down the minor characters page to be "recurring/significant minor characters" or something like that, since that list will get HUGE by the end of the season. Novastarj 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the idea of including the "main" and "minor" characters in a single article. However, I think we should get rid of the table and write up the main characters with a short paragraph, just like the minor characters. Primogen 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - the show certainly blurs the line between "major" and "minor" characters. Merge the articles and, as with any Wikipedia article, split if and when the article becomes excessively long. SkerHawx 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * support -- cleaner this way, and who makes the distinction between major and minor characters? ---FoodMarket   talk! 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)    Edit:  I also support keeping the table format -- this sort of show and its characters almost require it.  ---FoodMarket   talk! 09:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: I think my opinion is rather obvious 10-5 now we good to merge? --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, although the table should be re-written to be a small blurb about each character, so maybe move the info from the main show pageabout them here, and just have the one re-direct on that page? JQF 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - The table from Characters should be merged back to the orginal article as a table of characters with powers for quick reference and ease of use. Major and minor characters should be on the Characters page with detailed information. Creektoad 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - It's becoming increasingly clear that apparently minor characters become major ones, so it seems silly to have two lists. Also, I think it might be wiser to group characters by storyline, rather than by relative importance.--TallulahBelle 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - So, we can stop questioning whether certain characters are major and minor. Almost all the minor characters named seem to have had a major influence whether they would be considered "major" or not. PureSoldier 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Not sure on internal separation, but the lists certainly can exist on one page. --StuffOfInterest 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It just makes sense. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)