Talk:List of Parks and Recreation characters

Proposed merge

I see somebody has proposed merge Leslie Knope to this page. There are a lot of reliable, secondary sources with info on this character, and I've been planning an expansion, but have been distracted with other projects. If you're willing to hold off on the merge for a few days, I'd be willing to work on it, and then we can see if it's big enough to warrant its own page? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever tagged the page didn't feel the need to say why, so I see no reason to keep it tagged. Nonetheless, an expansion would be excellent. I merely created the page by splitting it off from the character list. — The Man in Question (in question) 14:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Gergich or Gerry Grgich?

According to his listing on imdb.com, the character is named Jerry Gergich, however in the most recent episode of the show, his name appears on-screen as Gerry Grgich. Any thoughts? Dahumorist (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Jerry, I think in Park Safety we see his name spelled out. 98.244.79.104 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke, they didn't know how to spell his name. 68.48.96.49 (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Allison Becker as Recurring?

Allison Becker has appeared in three episodes. At what point does she become "Recurring" instead of "Guest"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.79.104 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think she can be added now. She already has more appearances than Jean-Ralphio (Ben Schwartz). Dahumorist (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tikopowii (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Susan Yeagley as Jessica Wicks

Susan Yeagley has appeared in two episodes as Jessica Wicks, but is not even cited in the article. Shouldn't she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.117.113.151 (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed revamping

Hey all. I've been doing extensive work on Parks and Recreation articles including the articles about the seasons, the individual episode, the show itself and some of the major characters. I was looking over this list article and feel it could use a bit of revamping. I think rather than lumping all of the secondary characters into the non-descript "Recurring characters" and "Characters in story arcs" categories like we do now, we should create a wider range of more descriptive categories. For example: "Elected officials and city employees", "Members of the media", "Family/friends of main characters", "Citizens of Pawnee", etc. There are also a number of characters that seem to be missing from this list that should be added like Marcia Langman, Lindsay Carlisle Shay, Dr. Harris and others. I'm planning on doing some work on this in the upcoming weeks but wanted to check in here to make sure nobody objected to any of my proposed changes before I start. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone object to me changing the title of this article from List of Parks and Recreation characters to Characters of Parks and Recreation; like Characters of Lost, Characters of Glee, Characters of Friends, etc? I know it will wreak havoc on the wikilinks in the P&R episode/season articles, but I'll go through and fix them all. I just think it reads better, and it's a tighter and more grammatically efficient title. — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

I am starting this talk page discussion in response to edits by Aspects (talk · contribs) to replace this photo collage with this non-free image. I had reverted it once, but my line in the edit summary was cut off: What I started to say was that the collage image is a licensed alternative to the non-free image that was borne from suggestions by two editors (see my talk page). Since the non-free image is only supposed to be used in lieu of an alternative, I believe the photo collage should be used instead of the non-free image. And, since, at least two other editors have voiced support for the collage, I believe it has more WP:CONSENSUS support than the non-free image. However, I'll allow for some discussion here before I revert it again. — Hunter Kahn 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aspects I don't understand what point of NFCC do you think the non-free image passes? If so please point it out to me. There is nothing in the NF image that can't be portrayed by the free image. The cast aren't dressed different, looks different or are puppets. A free image of their bust is perfectly acceptable since the main point here is identification. There is no critical commentary, no increase of understnading for a reader with the inclusion of the non-free image that I can see. Hunter did a good thing by combining the free images of the cast and the collage image is just perfect as a main image for the article. I would gladly wait for your rationale. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The main point here, Aspects, is that the photograph essentially shows a group of living people, and so could clearly be replaced by free images of those living people. Non-free content is used as a last resort- ideally, we should only be using free content. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the file passes all of the points of WP:NFCC. I think a cast photo of the characters is not replaceable by individual pictures of the actors because the two files do not represent the same thing. I believe this is the first place I have seen this argument on Wikipedia, so can I be pointed to where on Wikipedia it was decided that a non-fair cast photo is replaceable by actors' free images?

Nick Offerman, Retta and Jim O'Heir do not have free images, so even if you think the cast photo of the characters is replaceable by individual pictures of the actors, not having those three actors' photos included would mean that one third of the file is not replaceable. Taken to the logical end of this discussion, the article Leslie Knope should have its image replaced with the one of Amy Poehler. Aspects (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how no one has repsonded to my concerns about the cast photo not being a replaceable image with actors photos and not having all of the actor photos in almost a week since I left the message, I am going to put back the cast photo in the article. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe your concerns were addressed here and there are more people who disagree with you than agree. Your most recent comment makes little sense to me (the fact that three actors aren't included in the collage image) because the cast photo doesn't include everybody either. The simple fact is we have two viable choices here, and one is licensed while the other is not. — Hunter Kahn 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think either of my concerns were addressed because nowhere was it provided a link to where it is shown that cast photos are replaceable by individual free images of the actors, especially since WP:NFLISTS states that a cast photo can be used in these sorts of articles. You still have not explained how an image can be replaceable with one-third of the elements are not represented by the amalgam of photos, since the elements have not all been replaced. Aspects (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• A two-thirds majority of those cast members had free images available, and the fact that three of them do not is not, in my opinion, a compelling enough reason alone to bring the cast photo back. And you haven't addressed the fact that the cast photo doesn't include Rob Lowe, whereas the new one does. If you still aren't satisfied, I'd suggest you try getting opinions from other users, perhaps at WP:TV or this article's FLC page. (Also, regarding WP:NFLISTS, it only states cast photos are preferred over individual images. That doesn't mean it's preferable to a free image(s) if one is available.) — Hunter Kahn 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said earlier. Your argument that there are not free images of some of the actors is irrelevant- they are still alive, and non-free images of living people are rarely allowable, per non-free content criterion 1. This criterion requires that non-free content is not replaceable, not that it is not replaced. We can wait, and, even if one is not forthcoming, it's not the end of the world. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the request for input about this at WT:NFC. In my view the cast group shot is appropriate, because it shows how the characters were styled and presented for the show, which is something additional to what is conveyed by red-carpet shots of cast members at awards shows. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's something of a difference between a cast shot and a group of characters, or am I missing something? If they were wearing excessive makeup and prosthetics, then maybe... J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that heavy makeup or prosthetics are a requirement. It seems to me that the styling and presentation of the characters, even when there is no such heavy makeup, is something that is of value to convey. As to your question, I think that value gained may well be slightly more in a group shot, because then the reader can compare how different characters in the cast are styled; and it gives a good idea of the ensemble feel of the cast as a whole. Jheald (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that I was interpretting the image as a group of actors, not a group of characters. I may be completely wrong here. If the latter is the case, then I guess this technically passes the NFCC, so I certainly wouldn't be removing it personally, but discussion regarding its use (from a more editor-to-editor standpoint, if you see what I mean) may still be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the question to ask (at least for NFCC) is whether it adds value to reader understanding about the topic of the article. Since the article title is "Characters of Parks and Recreation", it does seem relevant to analyse the pic as a group of characters, not just a group of actors.

Of course, as with any image or any other content, it is very much for editors to discuss how best to select and arrange material in order to make the article as useful and helpful and informative as can be achieved. But, as has to be discussed for the NFCC analysis, I think the character group shot probably is more valuable and informative in the context of the topic of the article than the actor collage. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for Mark Brendanawicz

Not a notable search term or character. The actual information that isn't plot on this page could fit easily on the List page. Does not require its own page.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for April Ludgate

Might be a searchable term, I don't know but not enough unique information to warrant an article, its pure plot. Tries to be tricky by including a background section which, if you don't read it, makes it sound like some actual background information behind the character instead of just more plot, which it is. No information here that needs to really be merged but the article itself probably shouldn't be deleted, just redirected here.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for Andy Dwyer

Same as above, might be a searchable term but not enough unique information to warrant an article, its pure plot. Includes a background section which is more plot. No information here that needs to really be merged but the article itself probably shouldn't be deleted, just redirected here. Development section will easily merge into the character entry on this page.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for Ann Perkins

Might be a searchable term but not enough unique information to warrant an article, its pure plot and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything of note in the first few pages and many of those don't turn up the actual character. Merge Development and Reception section.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for Tom Haverford

Might be a searchable term but not enough unique information to warrant an article, its pure plot and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything of note in the first few pages and many of those don't turn up the actual character. Merge Reception section.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion (please keep all discussion here)

I've started a separate thread to address the above merge proposals. If possible, could we pleased keep all the discussion in this thread so it can all go into one centralized place, as opposed to spread over several threads? I am strongly opposed to all of the proposed merges. There is more than a sufficient amount of verifiable coverage in reliable sources for each of them. All of the information in each article is thoroughly sourced. And, unlike many articles about fictional characters, these articles include more than just plot-related info, such as Development and Reception sections. Further, Characters of Parks and Recreation is already rather long as it is and, per WP:SIZE, it would be better to make efforts to keep the size under control rather than merge all of this information into it. And, finally, I am in the process of working all of these character-related articles up to GA. (Ron Swanson and Chris Traeger are already GAs and, I can't help but notice, those were not tagged for possible merges.) The non-plot sections will grow substantial once that work is done, but there is no deadline for which I must finish this work, so they should not be merged simply because I haven't yet had the chance to finish them. — Hunter Kahn 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If this article is too long, which it isn't, it may be because you have dedicated a full paragraph to people like Brandi Marxxx, a porn star who appears for 3 minutes in ONE episode. When I say merge, I mean keep the actual useful info, ditch the plot because plot is covered in the individual episode articles. What you would actually keeping is a very small amount because what isn't plot in these articles is very small. There are multiple character articles and this is easily nowhere near long and can be trimmed down, again, if you do not dedicate significant coverage to a minor character like Brandi Marxxx. Who appears ONCE, briefly. I know because I've just watched the entire series over the last 3 days. You've got a full paragraph for Will Arnett's character, who appears ONCE, for Kelly Larson, who appears ONCE, character after character with significant coverage, which is just the full events of their actions in the one episode they appeared in. Anyone with knowledge of the series should not pass it for GA on that alone.

There's a big section there for Raul. Raul! This MAY be why you feel you are struggling for space in this article. As it stands, I was being generous by suggesting the articles be merged because I didn't want to have to go through the AfD process, but they should really be deleted. None of them are notable search terms and at best they should be redirects to here. Were I to take them to AfD, given my prior experience with the process, the consensus would likely move towards deletion and merging of any relevant material. Backgroudn information and one sentence of critical reception do not make them notable.

Also a list of other like-articles that demonstrate how small this article really is for a character list.

• List of characters in Heroes
• List of characters in Family Guy
• List of characters in the Pokémon anime series
• List of Alien characters
• List of characters in the Uncharted series
• List of Scream characters
• List of characters on Scrubs
• List of Naruto characters
• List of Saw characters
• List of The Sopranos characters
• List of Crank characters
• List of 28 Days/Weeks Later characters
• List of Kill Bill characters
• List of The Fast and the Furious characters
• List of Red vs. Blue characters
• List of A Nightmare on Elm Street characters
• List of Indiana Jones characters

EDIT There was no reason to tag Ron Swanson for deletion. Even with my complete lack of knowledge of the series before the weekend I knew who he was, that is notability. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion is about the merges you have proposed. If you feel individual characters on this list should not be here, that is a separate discussion. The simple fact is that the threshold for whether these topics are worthy of stand-alone articles or not is whether they have verifiable coverage in secondary, reliable sources. In the case of all these articles, they do. All of these articles are sourced. Per WP:BELONG and WP:JNN, your subjective opinion that they aren't article-worthy is not a valid argument by itself. Also, the fact that you feel the information in some of the articles is still short or lacking is a reason to improve the articles, not delete them, per WP:RUBBISH. That's putting aside the fact that I am already in the process of improving these articles. I've already brought Ron Swanson and Chris Traeger up to GA and that's why you didn't nominate those to be merged too; I will eventually do the same for all of them, and I have no deadline to finish that work. (Also, what do you mean when you say they are not notable "search terms"? You keep saying that, but it doesn't make any sense to me. People will search for them if they are searching for an article on that characters; that makes them notable search terms.) Finally, with regard to the other lists you site as proof that Characters of Parks and Recreation isn't too long, it's not a very compelling argument. First of all WP:SIZE have suggested size limits. Secondly, comparing one list to another is not a valid merge/deletion argument by itself. And thirdly, most of those lists are poorly done and/or overly long, and many have their own tags because of those problems. — Hunter Kahn 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to your argument that the list is too long to fit the articles back in here. You cannot argue my argument is invalid because it addresses your argument. The articles are not sourced and there are limits to how much you can improve an article when there is insufficient real world coverage of them. That you "might" make them notable is not an argument to keep them, its an argument for you to remake them when sufficient information exists which I seriously question with articles like Jean-Ralphio Saperstein. You say that they are backed up by secondary sources. You're using the secondary sources to cite PLOT. There are two sentences of real-world information for Andy Dwyer. Two. This seriously cannot fit on this page? By the second page of Google search we've already completely lost any relevant to the Andy Dwyer of this show. Ann Perkins, 3 lines of real-world info, April Ludgate, no real world info, Ben Wyatt, no sources and no real world info, Jerry Gergich, two questionable sources , one line of real world info, Donna Meagle, 2 lines of real world info. They all seem to use the same few sources/reviews which display no significant real world coverage of the character, they show significant real world coverage of the show with a passing mention of the character by the nature of their existing IN the show. Mark Brendanawicz has plenty of background information but that is again, not particularly notable. A quick google search returns less than 90,000 results for Mark. For comparison, Cerie Xerox, a tertiary character from 30 Rock, who has just had her article deleted for lack of notability, has nearly 450,000 results. If you wish to make them notable, that's great, but at the moment they are not and that isn't a result of the content of their articles, it is because they lack real world notability or recognition. No amount of development information you add will alter that fact.

I;ve explained very carefully why these articles are not notable. Attempting to undermine my position by saying "You just think they aren't notable" is not the way to approach this.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The articles are not sourced". What do you mean? All of them are sourced. Are you contesting that the sources are reliable, secondary sources? And regarding your statements that "Andy has two lines of real-world info" or "Ann has 3 lines of real-world info", I once again point you to WP:RUBBISH, which says that the fact that articles are bad does not mean they can be deleted or merged. It just means they need to be improved. (By the way, your Google test argument is a clear-cut violation of WP:GOOGLEHITS.) — Hunter Kahn 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying the sources are episode reviews that offer no significant critical analysis or interpretation of the characters. That they feature 0-3 lines of actual real-world info is an example of their lack of notability and sources to verify any notability. It's nothing to do with the articles quality, it's to do with them not being notable characters needing an individual article. Bloating them out now with development information does not make them more notable. It makes them more detailed background scenery. That this article donates so much space to such minor characters displays a disconnect between what is notable and what is not.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you can say there is no critical analysis or interpretation of the characters. The Mark Brendanawicz article, which you cited specifically as not passing the "google test", includes information about how the character was conceived, his real-life influences, his casting, his progression from unlikeable to likeable throughout the season, his changes in response to focus groups, the actor's departure, etc. etc. Some of the other articles you proposed be merged may not have that much detail yet, but as I keep saying there is no deadline and shortcomings in the articles are suitable reason for improvement, not deletion/merge. In any event, I think we need others to weigh in here besides the two of us. — Hunter Kahn 23:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we need other opinions because you still don't grasp the difference between development information and real world analysis and notability. The three bottom paragraphs concern background information about why he became what he became. That's great. It's informative, it's magical, it's twinkly, whatever. It doesn't make him notable enough to require an article. You can find that kind of information on all manner of minor characters, it doesn't justify them having an article. To be clear here, are you telling me that you can find enough information, that the character is notable enough, that you can bring this to GA?

• • Yes, I can, and I fully intend to, along with the others. It's just a matter of time. — Hunter Kahn 01:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a character is not notable now, if the sources do not exist now because it is not notable now, it shouldn't exist. This isn't a "time limit" thing. If something is notable but the article is half-assed, the article shouldn't get deleted. In contrast, a non-notable article should not exist because possibly, in the future, it may become notable.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Your argument here seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not saying "it will be notable someday". I'm saying, it's notable right now, and the articles simply have to be improved. — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the mentioned articles need to be merged. Most of them have a significant amount of reliable sources and even development information. Amount of time shown on screen is not a standard for being covered on Wikipedia. Also(on your last note), not all articles can get to GA status. That does not mean they should be deleted. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "significant" sources are largely not character specific and are often used to back up plot events not anything specific related to the characters. What little real-world information there is in most cases can and should fit on this page without issue. Using sources does not create notability, many of the sources are just episode reviews that offer no specific analysis or real world interpretation of the characters and are again used to back up events of episodes rahter than real world character information. The Ben Wyatt character has NO sources. The characters I have listed are not notable, they have no notability, notability cannot be ascertained and articles should only exist when a subject is individually notable. this is not notable. Leslie Knope's mum is not a notable character. This is based on the notability guidelines. Any AfD discussion will highlight that the sources are not covering any signfiicant real world discussion of the characters and the behind-the-scenes info is minor, not always secondary sourced and is brief, thus allowing its inclusion on this list. If merging is not good enough, that is fine, but it does not change the nature of these articles and they will need to be AfD'd instead.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is for further investigation, but your attack on all of these articles makes it seem more like a WP:POINT rage. Most of the people mentioned here have enough sources for basic notability. My understanding is that Kahn(and other people) are still working on these articles, and they will improve in time(WP:NODEADLINE). I agree that articles like Ben Wyatt (Parks and Recreation), Ann Perkins, and Donna Meagle should be merged until more sources are found, but the others seem like ok starts at articles. If somebody experienced in the subject who has brought other characters articles to GA status finds that no more sources are available for these, then they might merge them back. If you want to merge articles, bring it up on the specific talkpages. Doing this for all of the characters at once just causes confusion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blake, although I agree with many of your points, I would like to say I disagree that the merge discussions should be spread out at different talk pages; I think having one centralized discussion here is better. Also, I just wanted to note, since Darkblakewarrior cited Ben Wyatt as an example of a particularly poor article due to its lack of sources, I made some improvements to it (before and after), including the addition of Development and Reception section and the addition of sources. The article still needs work, of course (I didn't touch the character bio section at all, I just added sources; it will likely have to be reworked), but I believe this demonstrates that these characters do satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and that they just need a little bit of work. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Blake - I just watched the entire series in 4 days, I have no vendetta against it but I am against fluff articles. I like 30 Rock, I still successfully argued for the deletion of articles for a series of secondary characters because at the end of the day, they lacked notability even as a basic search term requiring a redirect. Even if you can argue for some of the main cast (And this is why I left Knope and Swanson perfectly alone because like Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy, they are notable) and several of the Fast and Furious main cast (failed to get Dom Toretto removed however) it is very hard to justify Knope's mum or the friend of Tom Haverford who seems like this shows Tracy's son (I can't remember his name). Because something has development information does not mean it cannot fit here. HK is using size guidelines to justify the frequent splits but the guidelines are suggestions and intended largely for single subject articles. Yes, if this was grossly oversized he might have a point but it is nowhere near that. Anyway, I'm done discussing this now, I've made my case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding your 30 Rock and Fast and Furious arguments, you really should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding your "HK is trying to use size to justify" argument, that is only one of my arguments, and you've latched on to it because you feel it's the weakest one. My argument is, and has been from the start, that per the WP:GNG, something is worthy of an article if it receives significant coverage in reliable, WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources which are independent from the subject. These articles do, and it's as simple as that, not matter how much you say "it's only development info" or "it's not enough real-world analysis". (see below for more of my thoughts on that) — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@HK - Sources should generally offer significant coverage of the character they are backing up not a brief mention. The majority of your sources are reviews and the few I've had a quick read of do not mention the respective character in great detail. That renders them fairly poor sources to ascertain notability. According to the notability guidelines, they would fail to verify that a character is in fact notable. I need to see, honestly, why this is notable where thousands of other minor characters are not. For instance regarding these review references, the following ref is used in Ben's article. It mentions him by name once and simply lists that he believes he is a jinx in that episode. That is seriously not a resource which grants the character notability. (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/03/parks_and_recreation_recap.html) Anyway I've said all I've got to say on the subject. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Sources should generally offer significant coverage of the character they are backing up not a brief mention." I think you are misinterpreting the WP:GNG, which says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." This seeks to prevent the absence of original research. It doesn't mean we can only use sources that talk in depth about one subject and nothing else; that would be severely limiting and require us to remove lots of sources from practically all Wikipedia articles. These articles have a combination of sources, some of which talk directly about the subject and nothing else, and some that talk about it in the context of reviews/discussions about the series. That falls perfectly within the WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, as you probably noted above, I made some expansions to Ben Wyatt (Parks and Recreation) to try to demonstrate that these articles can and will be improved. Do you have any response to this? (Also, out of curiousity, you've addressed why you didn't nominate Ron Swanson for a merge, but why didn't you nominate Chris Traeger? He has been around for much less time than the other characters and has received much less coverage in reliable sources.) — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you stopped reading the GNG mid-sentence. Here is the rest of it " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Trivial is not actually talking about the character at all, mentioning their name once and about seven-words stating what they did. I didn't nominate Chris Traeger because I couldn't see how to effectively condense the two useful sections onto here and so a merge wouldn't have been doable without a rewrite. That said, an efficient rewrite could make it easily fit on here. The rest I'm not getting into, I've already spent enough time on this and nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. If I can't get you to realize that Jean-Ralphio Saperstein is not notable then our discussion is going nowhere.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't want to respond any further, that's fine, it's probably best that we wait for others to weigh in anyway. Our back and forth is going nowhere. — Hunter Kahn 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Since nobody else is weighing in, it doesn't appear to me there's much support for a merge. I'm willing to give it more time for most of the characters, but unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the merge tags from Ben Wyatt (Parks and Recreation) and Mark Brendanawicz, since those are the most thoroughly sourced of the lot in question. — Hunter Kahn 04:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of discussion != support for one side over the other. You should leave the tags until proper consensus is made; I've seen tags that are marked from 2009, though I don't expect that to be the case here. It will only take small vote of support or oppose. It's not helped that you've merged all discussion here since it is difficult to forge any discussion about a particular character/article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• How exactly is it unhelpful to centralize the discussion to one location? You're suggesting it's more helpful to have a bunch of little tiny conversations all over the place? The simple fact is we've reached out to many venues (the Wikiproject Television, the Notability noticeboard, the tag references on the character aticles) and there is no sign of support for your proposed merges. Are you still saying that Ben Wyatt, Mark Brendanawicz and Ann Perkins are non-notable despite the expansions/real-world info on those articles now? — Hunter Kahn 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• It makes it somewhat more difficult to have a real discussion because then the arguments are more generalized. Each article needs to stand up to guidelines by themselves, and should be discussed separately. Saying "all are notable" or "none are notable" are general arguments that should not be made, but end up being made if all are being discussed at the same time. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• My vote:
  • Keep - Ben Wyatt (Parks and Recreation), Mark Brendanawicz
  • Not sure - Tom Haverford, April Ludgate, Andy Dwyer, Marlene Griggs-Knope, Jean-Ralphio Saperstein
  • Merge - Ann Perkins, Jerry Gergich, Donna Meagle
• If you can find more sources and expand them to have a decent paragraph of reception, then they don't need to be merged, but some of them are sort of lacking. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 11:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Per your suggestion about the Reception section, I've expanded the Reception section for Ann Perkins, just to try to demonstrate that I believe the character is notable. Do you feel this expansion is enough that it means it shouldn't be merged? (I will try to work on Jerry and Donna in the next few days, but my upcoming weeks are going to be a bit busy.) — Hunter Kahn 16:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, she is now notable. That is why I opposed the merges in the first place. It seems like sources can easily be found. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

more characters

Characters that need to be added to this article include Leslie first campaign advisors and li'l sebation.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Orin & Douglass Howser

Were they by any chance named after Senator Orin Hatch and Doogie of the classic TV series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.158.252 (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Cameo appearances

Any reason why the article should not include cameo appearances by people such as Michelle Obama, John McCain, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, and others? Ricardo Santiago (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Billy Eichner May 2014.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Random characters

I suggest adding the tank top nitrous guy, the chanting guy, mel the loud screaming guy, the guy who doesn’t do his taxes, those are several recurring civilians of pawnee who have bigger roles than some of the characters listed 98.115.105.228 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)