This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBCsoap operaEastEnders 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.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
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
Why you refuse to explain yourself in the edit summary is a complete mystery, but here we are on the talk page. So. Talk. Explain why an article about a fictional character should not be in the fictional characters subcategory. This would now be the third time I've asked you to offer an explanation for your resistance to this completely non-controversial recategorization, so I'm looking forward to an end to your silence on the matter. Otto471115:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your general tone very uncivil, rude and threatening. There is no need to be as demanding and generally confrontive as you are being. Please read Wikipedia:Civility - I think you'd benefit from it.
In response to your demands for my reasons - I don't think that a dog, which is played by a dog and not a human - should be grouped with humans, they're two completely different cases. This is the opinion of myself and at least one other member of WP:WPEE, who has expressed this opinion through off-Wikipedia contact. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs)15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A character is a character, whether the character is a dog, human or alien, whether the character is portrayed by a human, animal, robot or CGI. Jar Jar Binks for example is in a Star Wars character sub-category with humans despite being entirely computer-generated. Kermit the Frog is in the Muppet Show characters category, not The Muppet Show. Pilot (Farscape) is in a single category, for characters of the series, right alongside the other puppet and the human characters. Eddie the Dog from Frasier, played by a dog, is on a list of characters from the show alongside the humans. Articles should be categorized precisely and the characters category is the most precise existing category for these articles, not the general EE one. Otto471116:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Otto on this. Being a dog doesnt make Willy any less of a fictional character. His storylines were all invented by scriptwriters and unwittingly acted out by the real dog. We categorise babies there and they arent really characters either, just glorified props. Ive never really understood why they were removed from the EE characters category in the first place. If we had a cat for EE pets then it would be different, but seeing as there isnt one I think they should be categorised as characters.Gungadin17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was confused when they were removed from the characters category originally, but I left them as they were and didn't question Trampikey's reasons. I can't remember what I said in our MSN conversation the other day but Otto is right, actually. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
