This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
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
I redirected this page to Watkyn Bassett's section on the List of Jeeves characters, but I see that user StAnselm reverted the edit, so I will start a discussion. It seemed clear to me that Sir Watkyn does not need his own stand-alone article, since he only appears in two Wodehouse novels and his section on the Jeeves character list seems sufficient for him. Plot information for those two novels (The Code of the Woosters and Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves) is also provided on their own pages. StAnselm, can you tell me why you think Pop Bassett needs his own article? Does anyone else have any thoughts? Miles26 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Topics that pass WP:GNG are not necessarily stand-alone topics. According to WP:GNG, a topic that passes WP:GNG is "presumed" to be suitable for a stand-alone article, but this does not guarantee that a topic merits own page. Plenty of topics, including minor characters, that pass WP:GNG are still merged with similar topics when it makes sense. The content provided by the three sources listed on Watkyn's page don't seem to me to merit making a stand-alone article. The first source is from a Wodehouse reference work, and has short entries on every named Wodehouse character. I don't think we can say that every character in that book merits a stand-alone article, because then every minor Wodehouse character would get their own article, which would leave us with a lot of stubs about very minor characters. I do not own copies of the second or third listed sources, but I was able to search the second one in Google Books. It has only a single brief mention of Sir Watkyn. The third source doesn't seem to contribute more than a sentence of plot information. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how there is enough significant coverage about Sir Watkyn to justify a whole stand-alone article. Miles26 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi StAnselm, I would like to discuss this question more with you. As someone who has read all 35 Jeeves short stories and 11 novels multiple times, and seen all the adaptations, I'm a big fan of all Jeeves characters and want to see their information represented in a clear, objective, and organized fashion on Wikipedia. I don't see how Sir Watkyn has significantly more character information than a number of other two-story Jeeves characters such as Stilton Cheesewright or the valet Brinkley, who don't have their own stand-alone articles, but I haven't heard much about your viewpoint and would like to hear more. If you still feel that there is enough significant coverage about Watkyn that wouldn't be sufficiently covered by a section on the Jeeves character list, please list the specific sources and explain the significance of that coverage. I am happy to have the chance to talk to anyone else who is a Jeeves fan, and I hope that we can reach some kind of compromise. I appreciate your time and contributions. Miles26 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay in replying. I've also read all the Jeeves stories - but only just. I finished them last year. Anyway, I guess I try to keep my interest in these articles reasonably separate from my personal enjoyment of the books - I am trying to assess the notability of these characters as objectively as possible. And I think most of them are notable - there is no need for them to be subsumed in one list. Looking at that list, there are lots of books discussing characters in Wodehouse - Cawthorne, Garrison, Usborne. So I think many characters would be presumed to be notable - there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. That is really all we need. I take your point that passing GNG does not necessarily merit a stand-alone article, but I don't see why that would not be the case with these characters. StAnselm (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am also trying to assess the notability of these characters objectively, and I appreciate you doing the same. The books by Cawthorne, Garrison, and Usborne provide short character descriptions, most not more than a paragraph or two long, which are largely redundant between those books. Making an article for every character described in those books, using everything that those books say about those characters, would give us many very short stub articles that could not be expanded. WP:GNG's example of significant coverage from a source is a "book-length history" about the subject of an article, but these books don't have nearly that much to say about many characters like Watkyn. Plus, content from books about Wodehouse's characters includes not only hundreds of Jeeves characters, but thousands of characters that Wodehouse created across all his works, for example minor Blandings characters who also only have a small amount of coverage each. Making short articles for all the Jeeves characters described in secondary sources would mean making them for all the other non-Jeeves characters, too. To avoid having hundreds or thousands of stub articles that couldn't be expanded, I think information about minor characters like Watkyn should be placed in character lists. This is also how it is done in the books by Cawthorne, Garrison, and Usborne, which present information about Watkyn and similar characters in list form. Miles26 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hadn't looked up those references. Of course, the WP:GNG guideline doesn't really help - it says a book is significant, and a single sentence is insignificant - but of course, there's a lot in between. I guess I use a page as a rule of thumb. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point that there's a lot in between a book and a single sentence, and I think that a page is a reasonable rule of thumb. That being said, none of the books by Cawthorne, Garrison and Usborne has a full page about him, and the information they do have doesn't amount to a lot combined since the info given about him is mostly redundant between those books. Miles26 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if I were honest I would have to admit that I haven't answered your arguments and that it is probably mere sentiment that makes me want to keep it - so go ahead and redirect. StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
