Talk:Emily (Thomas & Friends)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Thomas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thomas the Tank Engine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ThomasWikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task forceTemplate:WikiProject ThomasThomas articles

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Narrator

As far as I can tell the narrator provides all character voices. I can find no evidence of Emma Watson or anybody else voicing Emily.—Theo (Talk) 06:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup time

This page should stay by itself, rather than being merged with Railway Engines, since Emily is now part of the *shudders* Steam Team... But it does need a good cleanup. Gonzerelli 21:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have rewritten this article, removing a lot of the bias and inaccuracies.

Keep your opinions to yourselves

I've just removed the following from this article:

"Thanks a lot, Overweight, ugly scoccer moms for runing the show!!!"

Now, I realise that a lot of fans don't like this character, but if she annoys you so much that you simply have to express your hatred, take it to one of the fan forums. Putting it bluntly, nobody wants to read about your mysogynistic crusades against "overweight, ugly soccer moms" or that Duck was a far better character or whatever. This is the fifth time I've had to remove something like this.

-HonestTom

The show was more than awesome before Emily appeared.

(unsigned)

Whatever people's personal opinions, surely it would make sense to include an impartial statement about reactions to Emily? From what I've seen elsewhere on the internet, a significant number of fans do seem to blame her for the apparent absence of Duck, while an equal amount seem to regard her as the best thing since sliced bread. Since she does appear to be a somewhat divisive character, I think it at least deserves a mention.

unsigned

Provided you can find such information from Verifiable and Reliable Sources, then it may legitimately be included. Until then, please don't add anyhing like that, since it will just have to be removed again.

EdJogg 01:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily's Coaches

Have I done a good job uploading Emily's Coaches? Felix 19:11, 10 August 2006

Yes, Felix. This was a very positive edit. You used an image fairly, and it was very much relevant and applicable to this article. Thank you for the effort and consideration. The only thing you could do better is to explain the image further when you create the image in Wikipedia- that is, rather than just stating "Emily's coaches", it would have been better to put "Emily's coaches, from the TV Series Thomas and Friends". I have made this change for you, this time :) Gonzerelli 02:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Felix Cheng 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional Heroine"??

An unregistered user has been continually adding the Category:Fictional heroines to the bottom of this article.

You could hardly call Emily a "heroine" at all, no more than you could call Gordon a "hero". A protagonist, possibly, still not quite appropriate but more accurate.

This category has been removed, and will continue to be removed if added incessantly. Gonzerelli 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Sections

As an individual who has some liking to some of the train characters, I would include things on articles to express them. When I look on the net for information of characters from other sitcoms, I find various things; including bio, interest or even episodes where they are the protagonist. Thus, I thought editors would accept and embrace it if I do similar things here. With regards to their criticisms, may some topics aren't worth including. But I just don't like it they would inconsiderately removed them which provokes to into edit war. We must assume good faith especially if the what's added by others don't intend to ruin the article. 124.106.201.102 22:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the 'Certain Sections' include the 'Spotlight Episodes', I have conceded that this particular section may be appropriate -- provided that the episodes are clearly enumerated and linked to the appropriate series page. I cannot speak for other editors, though, who may find this level of detail too trivial to be appropriate at WP.

The real problem you will find, I suspect, is that you wish to add information for which there are no Reliable Sources, and so, any such information you add (such as character analysis) will count as Original Research, which is not permitted at WP. Such additions will not be kept, unless there is a realistic chance of finding a source to back it up.

Also, I for one never delete anything 'inconsiderately'. I always consider the edit in question, with regard to WP policies and its worth to the article, it's just that it may not take very long to realise that it's not worth keeping!

EdJogg 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the certain sections do include Spotlight Episodes I'll back away from deleting that section. What bothers me about that section is that, that section was started by IP address user who once vandalised a page associated with another wikiproject I take part in. Driveus 08:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

CGiEmily.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]