Talk:List of Big Time Rush characters

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Nickelodeon Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fictional characters

This article 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

Split

I think the main characters are now notable enough to revisit splitting them into their own articles. Wizards of Waverly Place, The Suite Life on Deck, etc. have separate articles for their main characters, so I don't see why Big Time Rush should be any different. Besides, the info for each one has already been enlarged enough to have split articles. There are sources. --VP44444 ^talk 20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffin

Where's Arthur Griffin in the article? He's an important character. --Hoppybunny (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffin Link

Arthur Griffin? He is in the article. Click the link to see: Arthur Griffin That should take you to his section of this CRAMPED article.

Onto the subject, yes it really should be split. It's too long of a page and it'd be easier to find characters if there was just 3 main articles: Main Characters, Secondary Characters and Other Characters. Would make alot of things easier. --Corky238971 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age

Stop changing the birth dates once I put it up. First of all your changing the birth dates Kendall is the sencond oldest, James is the eldest, Carlos was the youngest, and Logan is the sencond youngest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.219.174 (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table

A column should be made for season four characters. A column should be made for last appearence of the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.48.54 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claification of statement; something (subconsciously) missing ?

"So Kendall asks Babylace, a made up mentally impaired fifty year old."66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen (?) used anywhere in English text. The proper wiki markup for a questionable statement is {{clarify}}. I took the addition as questioning the changes which the editor making the changes should not be doing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for your inexperience in English literature. "?" can commonly be found in many printed works in American and British English. It should be used when the subject has asked a question. Good luck on your further education.20:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk)

"?" is common, "(?)" is not. See also WP:SARC. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are becoming tiresome. If you see something wrong and know how to fix it then at least have the courtesy to suggest the proper way instead of coming across as contentious. The purpose od editing is not to piss off people, especially those that provide much of what you seem to co within WP. You tell me what is more functional and advancing, {{clarify}} or some remark that gets the process no where?66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something wrong, and didn't know what were trying for so didn't know how to fix it. What I saw was a strange edit which I reverted to the previous good enough version. You fixed it. Good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You put {{clarify}} into a message and you do not know what is needed to be done? And you edit rather much and you cannot decipher if something is vandalism, not understood or wrong place or wrong way? Maybe you are attempting to do far more edits that the time necessary to accomplish the long term goals and aspirations of WP. No reply necessary unless if course you can answer the original purpose of this section.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that if I thought it was vandalism, I would have marked it as such and left a user talk page message. I didn't know what you were attempting to accomplish. I still don't know what you were attempting to accomplish with a "(?)" inserted in the article. You removed it, so it is no longer an issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not expect for you to understand because the reaction is common when they do not understand. Do you think that "So Kendall asks Babylace, a made up mentally impaired fifty year old." is a complete statement? And if (?) is next to it that it just may be calling attention to it. Not only that but the edits made during that session were far more than just the one. Then you respond with {{clarify}} after the fact rather than with the original interaction. There is something here that I cannot appreciate.66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put "(?)" next to statements to call attention to it. Write it clearer, remove it or use standard wiki markup if unsure of meaning. My best guess at the time is that you were attempting a non-standard variation of {{clarify}} but I didn't know what you were attempting to do. And yes, I admit, my reaction of puzzlement to not understanding something is fairly common. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, this is just what Dolly Levi said to Horace Vandergelder, "You just can't help yourself."66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And with that comment it seems that you have gone beyond commenting on improving the article to just issuing insults. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What told me this would happen?66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]