Talk:Marlene Wallace

Merge with Barret Wallace
As far as NPCs go, Marlene is fairly important, but I think having a seperate article dedicated to her is a little extreme. Any information contained in this article can be fairly easily folded into the article on Barret, or, if we want to get even more serious about combatting cruft, into the main Final Fantasy VII article. – Seancdaug 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree Her article is a lot more filled out than many others. She's one of the more important NPCs, as you said, and even has cutscenes dedicated to her. The only other NPC to get that recognition are President Shinra and Sephiroth. ArrowmanCoder 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? I don't deny that she's relevant in the context of the game. I do, however, question whether or not she's relevant to deserve a distinct entry in a general interest encyclopedia. One of the complaints most frequently leveled against CVG articles is their tendency towards fancruft, and there's a pretty strong sentiment that even player characters shouldn't automatically be awarded their own articles. We could write reams on her, but Wikipedia is not a game guide, and we really shouldn't be providing anything more than a basic summary of who she is and what role she plays in the story. At most she deserves a short paragraph, and anything over two or three sentences is probably unneccessary. This sort of detail is better suited to a subject-specific wiki. It's in everyone's interests to keep the amount of article sprawl down, and, frankly, Marlene does not warrant this much attention. – Seancdaug 03:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that we don't want articles about fluff, like 'the guy on the street corner in the 3rd unnamed city'. I do however, feel that characters that people will discuss outside of game mechanics are fleshed out enough to deserve their own article. I am not aware of sentiment to reduce this; then again, I haven't gone looking for it. Marlene falls somewhere in the fuzzy area between. I personally would rather err on the side of leaving information in than on the side of 'keeping it clean'. I have found that one of the greatest strengths of the wikipedia is its possession of articles on every subject, even the most obscure. In keeping with that general theme, my opinion remains Disagree ArrowmanCoder 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)