Noah and Greg[edit source]

I'm not too sure about giving them their own articles yet. While this could change by the end of the current story arc, there's really not enough information on them to warrant it, in my opinion. JediMB 22:20, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetization[edit source]

What's the rule for alphabetizing things in this section? Sometimes it goes by last name but usually it doesn't. I know that Ranger Simpson is in the wrong place, but I'm not sure whether to move him to RA or SI. Tbug (talk) 16:41, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

The characters should be listed by names if known. Ranger is not a name. However, I can't come up with rules for all cases right now. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:58, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Diane (and Catalina)[edit source]

Why doesn't Diane have her own article yet? She's a major plot character, after all. I'd love to make a page for her, but I don't want to mess anything up with this page and all.

Just to elaborate, she was a main focus character during Family Tree, before that she was the best friend and an incredibly important influence on Rhoda (and probably still is, whatever happens with Rhoda in the future of EGS, I am sure she'll be all over it), she's Susan sister, which she 'kinda' knows but hasn't made it known yet (who knows what that will result in) and obviously, her love interest in Elliot is going somewhere and she is friends with Ellen and Nanase. After Greg, Noah, Rhoda and Mr. Verres, she is probably the most important non-main character. I hope I made my case, but if this isn't enough, I would like to vote for the deletion of the General Shade Tail page, haha.

EDIT: Now what I think of it, the same would go for Catalina Bobcat's character. I believe both should get their own pages, though as I said, I don't want to mess up links and all that that go to this page.

-Maplestrip (talk) 11:19, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, unknown Wikia Contributer. I hope there won't be any linking issues - I really had no idea how to deal with those. My idea for a page for Catalina still stands, though.

-Maplestrip (talk) 10:58, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Susan's Logic, Curiosity, Nature and Nurture[edit source]

Any objections to replacing the sections on Susan's Logic, Curiosity, Nature and Nurture with links to the relevant sections of Susan's page? --Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:30, June 9, 2019 (UTC)

Said like this, yes.
First, I don't like completely removing something from this page, as someone may then think it's missing. Also, it requires be very careful about all links possibly pointing on it. You seem to already realized that, but just to be clear.
Second, it's not obvious if the sections on Susan's page are duplicate. I tried to compare and seems they miss the "first appeared on" (but that's taken care of with reference) and some links. This would need to be added.
Third, it shouldn't be normal link, we have template for that. Or should have. We have Template:Main but I'm not sure if it's the best one ... This should definitely be added.
Fourth, it seems stupid when the section is JUST the link. Logically, there should be the link, the image and short summary (while the section on Susan should have all information). Problem is, the whole section about them is hardly longer than summary ...
In conclusion: I tried to fix the missing stuff. Try to re-read if I didn't missed something. Afterwards, if you feel like making summary which would be shorter, try it, but I don't think it should be removed completely. Hmmm ... actually, for curiosity and logic, we could just remove everything from "She first appeared" ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 21:09, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
But Cranium's and Wolf's sections consist solely of Main templates. --Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:35, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
And it looks stupid. -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:02, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
This is really hard problem. On one hand, the minor character page is too long. On the other, the page is called "minor character page" and despite the disclaimer on top, people may think some minor character not on this page is not present on wiki ... or even if they don't think so, they may fail to find them. And mixing the short sections with just the link and the long section with description doesn't look good ... wait ... hmmm ... maybe we should put the characters with own articles on top? Like, give up the list being alphabetized (the list of sections may still be)? With heading of third level instead of second? What do you think? -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:14, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
A list of minor characters described in other articles? I like that idea. --Lophotrochozoa (talk) 07:52, June 10, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.