Template talk:SecretLife

Starring

Actors and crew members do not belong in navigation boxes. As cast/crew are involved with many projects in their career (usually), it does not make sense to include them in the umbrella of Secret Life articles, even though they have a major role in it. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actors do have other projects in their career, however the cast members associated with the show are linked, and therefore allow for easy navagation for those who want to easly navagate and look information up on the cast. There is no rule saying that cast members do not belong in the Nav box, and therefore it is your opinion being stated. If, and when, the cast becomes really big, discussion on removal would be understood.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

This isn't just my opinion, this is consensus, you can see from discussions here and here as well as countless TfDs. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is made on Wikipedia to better it. Removing the cast of this particular show is not betterng Wikipedia, concensus or not, and rule or not as it does not allow for better and easier access to actors and actress' pages. If there was a rule stating so, I would still add the cast for this show. The cast that is listed is the main cast as shown on the TV show and on various media websites such as MSN and TVGuide.com. I have read the two links provided and it seems the consensus was to remove the cast if sugar coated (meaning playing favorites) or too big, exc. This cast list is neither too big, or sugar coated. As per WP:IGNORE and WP:SENSE, it is advisable to leave the cast in this show's navagational box until the cast becomes a state which is not up to Wikipedia's standards.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16[reply]

That is all opinion. If you want to establish IGNORE, you should have a good reason why, which you don't. And ignoring consensus is not conducive to a collaborative community. You can see that consensus is not in your favor. You may bring it up in the project talk page if you wish. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not simplify the issue by linking to the "Cast and characters" section at the main article? Have a piped "Cast" link for that and have a link to the "Characters" sub-article. Erik (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Chaos, consensus has been established more than once for this. I guess we'll have round three. Navboxes as such, can link to their character pages, as the character is more exclusively linked to the work, not the actor. The actors should be linked in the infobox, so there's little reason to link again in the navbox. —Mike Allen 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bovineboy and MikeAllen. Consensus is quite clear on this matter. Unless new consensus is made against it, this is the way things will remain. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters on template

Templates like this are to connect articles of the same topic. If something doesn't have an article, it doesn't belong on the template. Most of the characters on this template have never had an article. The other, more important ones, I have redirected to the character list because they don't show notability(Notablity has nothing to do with importance in the show. Notability is shown from coverage in third party reliable sources). If you want to find sources to reference these character articles, then please do so. But do not revert them back without adding such sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing it first. I have gone ahead and reverted my revision. ChaosMaster_Chat 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]