Talk:List of Primeval characters

Primeval: New World
Why aren't the characters from Primeval: New World listed here? --LegerPrime (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of creatures in Primeval
Originally thought about tagging this for deletion again, but figured may as well give this a try. This is a mostly worthless fancruft list, a relic from a decade ago with no encyclopedic value. The episode list should cover everything important, and there are no real world details of value that make this list relevant. If anything is to be merged, I would say the "Future Predator" section would be the only thing that seems reasonably relevant. TTN (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Previous attempts to have the article deleted were met with pretty much overwhelming rejection in each of the three AfDs. The argument that it is fancruft is not supported. As it stands, the article currently has 86kB of readable prose. WP:SIZERULE says that an article with more than 60kB of readable prose should probably be divided. Merging with this article, which has 23kB of readable would result in a total size of 109kB, which is above WP:SIZERULE's "Almost certainly should be divided" recommendation, so a merge makes no sense give the guidelines. I disagree wholeheartedly that only the future predator section should be merged. All of the sections are relevant as the creatures were significant in each episode. If anything, some of the real-world information needs to be removed and replaced with comparisons between the fictional creatures and their real-world counterparts. A lot of the real-world information has no relevance to the fictionalised versions. For anyone new to the discussion I will point out that your previous attempts to remove significant amounts of content received no consensus in the discussion now archived at Talk:List of creatures in Primeval/Archive 2. This edit to this article requires similar discussion. An arbitrary deletion of huge amounts of content is inappropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to who were all participants in the last AfD and or the discussion at Talk:List of creatures in Primeval in case they are interested in participating here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merging is just non-sensical, The creature article is extremely big so for that reason alone it deserves its own article, Plus merging is just going to confuse everyone as technically the creatures weren't characters in that sense.... – Davey 2010 Talk 15:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge is just another attempt to delete it, since nothing would fit in that other article. When the same editor nominates the same article twice for deletion and fails, then tries again later to get rid of it by other means, that's just gaming the system.   D r e a m Focus  17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't trust the consensus that was reached in the AfDs, so I really don't consider it gaming the system. This is cruft, pure and simple, and nobody can actually provide a proper explanation as to what purpose it serves. It's mostly the silly argument of "it doesn't hurt anything." I won't do anything as crazy as nominate once per month, but I will keep going with it until someone can show proper sources indicating actual potential. TTN (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well tough shit, Consensus was TWICE Three times to keep!, Many explanations were given however you're simply refusing to accept this,
 * "but I will keep going with it until someone can show proper sources indicating actual potential" - Well then you're going to be blocked for disruptive editing and or you could be topic banned from this entire article altogether,
 * May I suggest you go and do something productive instead of fighting a losing battle ?, This article is staying for good and you can nominate it, request merges etc etc as much as you want it's still staying so give up and find something useful to do. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it was kept three times, not two. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops amended, thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)Whether or not you trust the consensus is irrelevant. The point is that consensus was reached and, whether you like it or not, you have to follow it until a new consensus is formed. That's how Wikipedia works. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * TTN has posted to my talk page regarding this article but, as it relates directly to the merge proposal, I have directed him back here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all wrong with bringing up a discussion infrequently, especially when editors defensively bubble around an article or set of articles. You'll often see contentious AfDs that take over four attempts, and then go to deletion review, then get deleted again. Three attempts in ten years is not disruptive, so you're just being silly. I'll leave this up for now, and if it gets no attention, I'll either use a RfC or ask on neutral projects for comment. TTN (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't get what you want, you'll WP:forum shop elsewhere then?  D r e a m Focus  21:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will ask neutral outlets for opinions on a fairly stagnant discussion, should the merge tags not garner any attention after some time. If half a dozen people that were not pinged show up and are against it, that will be that, but just those who were pinged showing up is not a proper discussion. TTN (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Were the three AFDs and the past talk page discussions not proper discussions since so many were against you? You mention some AFDs take over four attempts to delete.  You just keep trying until the only people that notice and show up to participate might agree with you.  That's gaming the system.  You shouldn't be able to start the same thing again without contacting those in the previous discussions.   D r e a m Focus  01:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very easy for a particular topic to get very echochamber-y. If this doesn't attract much attention, I would like to see if other avenues think the same. Do note that it is contingent on letting this sit for over a month and getting no response beyond this. If it gets attention, in my favor or not, I won't be bothering. If I post in a couple neutral areas and get an overwhelming response in my favor, then it means the discussion was too packed with people with a minority mind set. If it reflects the AfDs and is overwhelmingly in the favor of keeping it, then I guess this is just the case of everyone endorsing that one bad article that just will never die. And again, this is over the period of a literal decade, so please stop acting like this is some back to back constant attempt. TTN (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is, apart from the case of Rex, no creature which could count as a character, and, apart from Connor, no characters which could count as creatures. That this article was kept three times does not surprise me - "List of (TV Show) characters" is a pretty common thing, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it existing. However, the article at present is rather poor. It is riddled with plot summaries, when instead it should just be focusing on major events and, if possible, behind the scenes details such as casting, story growth, etc. This article needs culling, but it does not deserve extinction or hybridisation. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Primeval is culturally important; I'd be opposed to any removal of the existing valuable content, or the useful info boxes. It's encyclopedic for us to have detailed coverage of both charcters and creatures. As Mattbuck explains, there is very little overlap between the two groups. A merged article would be too large for many readers to comfortably navigate.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Primeval characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110118073825/http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/theteam/emilymerchant/ to http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/theteam/emilymerchant/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222011435/http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/theteam/jessparker/ to http://www.itv.com/drama/primeval/theteam/jessparker/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)