Talk:List of fictional princes
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Wes sideman in topic Proposal to keep list relevant
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposal to keep list relevant
editOnly fictional princes with their own Wikipedia articles should be included in this list. Thoughts? Wes sideman (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- As no one has raised any objections to this in 3 weeks, I'll go ahead and start trimming. Wes sideman (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I immediately suggest we should undo the trimming. Any of the characters should NOT be trimmed out of the list. Reese3196 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't a place where you can just declare you don't like something and revert. You need to base opinions like this on Wikipedia policy. According to WP:NOT, we should avoid indiscriminate lists like this. Attaching a qualifier to keep the list relevant is the best way to do this. Wes sideman (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Shall I restore few of the prince characters that have been trimmed? Reese3196 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, absolutely not. Most of the list is still a violation of WP:NOT. Wes sideman (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Shall I restore few of the prince characters that have been trimmed? Reese3196 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't a place where you can just declare you don't like something and revert. You need to base opinions like this on Wikipedia policy. According to WP:NOT, we should avoid indiscriminate lists like this. Attaching a qualifier to keep the list relevant is the best way to do this. Wes sideman (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I immediately suggest we should undo the trimming. Any of the characters should NOT be trimmed out of the list. Reese3196 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for replying to something written five months ago, but while I do think the list should be limited, I would also say limiting it only to fictional princes with their own Wikipedia pages would be too much. Some works of fiction are, though still pop-culturally or otherwise notable, too short in length or do not have enough literary analysis done of them for individual characters to have their own Wikipedia pages.
I would say that a better, less strict benchmark would be fictional princes who 1) are from works of fiction with their own Wikipedia articles (or at least included in a collection, e.g. Arabian Nights), and who 2) are also major characters within said works (so no one-off side characters). That would mean the list would stay relevant while also not being too short. 95m95 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)- If it's a "major character", the character would have their own article. I don't know of any other metric that you could evenly apply to determine "major". Wes sideman (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)