Talk:Ivy, Margaret and Betty

Deletion Discussion
It seems awkward to shove all three together like this. They're separate characters; they should have separate pages. Betty already does. I can easily create Ivy and Margaret pages if that is what we decide to do. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 04:28, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Why? There's no information worth putting on. They only have the one mention on the first page of LWW, and all that is is the mention of their names, they don't appear in the movies or even the other productions, and that's it. Seems pointless having 3 separate pages when all you'll be doing is putting the same minor info on each one. Storyseeker1 (talk) 11:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Storyseeker on this one... 18:12, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine if it's what you guys want to do, although I don't fully understand your aversion to having more pages. If we're going to do that, we need to create Betty and Ivy redirects to this page. (Margaret already has one.) Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 19:31, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * No aversion, but only when the pages have different quantities of information written on them. If they're completely the same, like these maids, then there's really no point in having 3 separate pages.    Storyseeker1 (talk) 20:05, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * We have separate pages for Dar, Darrin, Cole, Colin, Tran, and Shar. Tran and Shar at least have only one mention in "The Fight at Anvard" in HB. It still makes sense to have separate pages, though, because they're separate characters. They're mentioned all as a group and the info we have about them is minimal and identical, but it would be awkward to list them all in the title of an article because they're not a unit--they're individual people. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of downside to having a page for each of them. I think the same is true for the three housemaids. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 20:43, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, we can only agree to disagree, cos I think it would be stupid having 3 separate pages for 3 women who only have a minor mention on the first page of the book, and then are never heard of again, thus having nothing whatsoever to do with any of the stories, and weren't even in any of the media productions.    Storyseeker1 (talk) 22:37, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I realized it would seem a lot less awkward to me if we moved the page to "Digory Kirke's Staff" or some such. We could include a link to Mrs. Macready and keep what is on the page already. I guess it just feels sloppy to have a list of three distinct people share a page. Does that sound good to anyone? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:04, December 25, 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty pointless to me actually. If someone did a search for Margaret, Betty or Ivy, the search engine would instantly show their page. Because, as far as I know, there are no other characters of those names in the entire chronicles. Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:22, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there aren't. The point is not how findable the page is--we've solved that problem already with re-directs. Because the three maids aren't mentioned anywhere else, they're redirected to this page, and they're mentioned on this page, it shouldn't be difficult to find it no matter what we pick as the title. My point was rather that it feels sloppy to have a list of names as an article title. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 03:07, December 26, 2012 (UTC)