Talk:Willy (EastEnders)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why?
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. Otto4711 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Otto4711 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- 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.Gungadin 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Willyputdown.jpg
Image:Willyputdown.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

