Talk:List of characters in 2003 Strawberry Shortcake

Merging
List of Strawberry Shortcake villains should be merged in here. Why have two different articles? Moreover, both articles need serious cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Blake Gripling (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly recommend against it. The character page is closing in on the 32k size rule (notice how Wikipedia displays a size warning during editing when the page comes close to or becomes bigger than 32k). Why I broke out some of the characters I see as minor into a different page (the page was 34k before the breakout, 31k - borderline to the limit - after). RAM (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the topic of merging, I have merged in the fillies page. However I had to make some sacrifices to keep things below 32k. Characters that are not yet introduced in the 2003 series have been moved to the minor characters page. This page is now at 31k. RAM (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the Fillies already have their own page (a very good arrangement, Honey Pie should be in there too), it just doesn't seem responsible that their information should be repeated on the "main characters" page, in favor of well-known "classic" characters like Lime Chiffon. Just because a character isn't involved in the current revival does NOT mean that they aren't important! Strawberry Shortcake's chronology looks spotty and poorly edited with certain names relegated to "minor" status on that basis alone. In short: Fillies OUT, "Not Yet Reintroduced Characters" Back IN! I'm sure that some space could be saved by trimming down certain characters' individual entries. Angel Cake's paragraph, for instance, seems needlessly long (although I DID have a hand in that..). Just my opinion, I don't have many. Thanks! 206.58.228.162 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fillies page was nominated for AfD and was deleted. The concensus was to merge with the list of characters. Look closely- the link in the infobox redirects to the Fillies anchor on the Characters page. And shouting gets you nowhere -.- . As for trimming their entries, well, I don't think so. That could be in violation of the anti-censorship rights of wikipedia RAM (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I put those caps in for EMPHASIS, not to indicate shouting. :^) Why was the Fillies Page deleted? Are the "Villains" and "Minor Characters" pages in jeopardy as well? There are many, many things I (obviously!) don't know about how Wikipedia runs. Is this 32k space restriction something new? It sure throws a wrench into the works of an elaborate project such as this page...

What do You think of the idea of possibly a separate entry, dedicated solely to the "Classic" Strawberry Shortcake pantheon? This would free up some space on the existing page, which could then also "shuffle" the entries around to reflect the "Current" chronology of character introduction. I may be totally alone in this, but I do NOT (emphasis) consider characters such as Lime Chiffon and Baby Needs-A-Name to be Minor at all. I still feel that the main page looks wrong with all those names missing.

Just another of my "not-very-many" opinions... Thanks so much for Your input! Berry Prince (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the person who nominated the deletion claims that the information is not important enough to warrant a separate page from what I can understand. For now, the Villains and Minors page is safe. To be truthful, I didn't know about the 32k rule either until someone brought it up to me last month, although someone else now says that the rule isn't really compulsory, but I abide by it anyway because I also visit Wikipedia on my PDA Phone regularly and large pages slow the device to a crawl.
 * As for a separate entry dedicated only to the classic characters, by all means go ahead, I'm for the idea. We'll know if it's a bad idea or not when it gets nominated for AfD (with any luck, it won't). Remember to update the infobox and related sections in the main article accordingly tho. RAM (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been attempting to divide up the list of characters between the "Classic" run and the "Current" run, but have been unable to achieve a division that satisfies the criteria needed to sustain a separate page with the Moderators. So I began wondering: what if the Fillies portion of the page was upgraded, with character details and info other than just vital stats? Would it perhaps be able to get its own page back? To this end, I have begun adding some supplemental data to the "Fillies" section. Hope this goes well... Thanks a Lot! Berry Prince (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we could try again soon, if that TenPoundHammer guy drops in again and says that it's okay. In the meantime, tho, I am starting to see a lot of logic in diving up the characters into classic and current runs, although we'd be better off calling it by the runs' decade/year (i.e. 2003 series, 1980s series), since AG is apparetly going to relaunch the series in 2009 with the continuity rebooted and with, no doubt, characters removed and added. RAM (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have reorganized the entries from major/minor characters into 1980s/2003s characters, in prepration for the 2009 relaunch (which will no doubt see a lot of changes to the series and possibly alienate many of the 2003 series fans like me). Do correct any dead/missing links if you come across them, as well as clean up the entries. And please try to keep the page below the 32k limit- prior to the splitting the 2003 series page has somehow grown to be a humongous 38k page. RAM (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to re-split Fillies entry into own page
I request that the Fillies section be split out into it's own page. At the moment this page is 1K past it's 32k suggested limit, and it's going to get worse once new characters are introduced. From what I can notice, another 2-3 characters are going to be reintroduced soon, one being Lime Chiffon (reintroduced as Lime Light in the upcoming Hooray for Berrywood DVD, whose episodes has already been shown in the UK over Tiny Pop from what I've been told (along with a Youtube video provided by said person as proof).RAM (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Since there was no reply, I decided to split out the ponies page again. I have no choice, as this article is already past the 32k trigger and will no doubt continue growing a little more.RAM (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting 2009 characters into their own page
As the 2009 relaunch characters are in no way similar in behavior or look with the 2003 characters, I suggest splitting the page up. I will do that in a bit. 60.52.100.101 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)