Template talk:WikiProject Fictional characters: Difference between revisions

This template 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The category Fictional character articles needing images should be changed to Wikipedia requested images of fictional characters to follow the structure of category names in Category:Wikipedia requested images by subject. Steinninn 21:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done for now: However, this my need a consensus discussion, if so please adjust to the outcome of that discussion. – FlightTime (open channel) 21:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Should there be an “importance” parameter? Just a thought… – OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, please add
|QUALITY_SCALE = subpage
|class=
To the template to activate the SIA-class.-Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Your edit summary at Template:WikiProject Fictional characters/class indicates a discussion with @PresN about this, but I can’t find it at the project talk page, can you please point me to it? As this was previously undone, it would be necessary to show consensus for adding it back. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby The discussion occurred on the #wpvg subchannel with PresN on the WikiPedia discord, who suggested the same thing he had proposed to the Ukranian WikiProject. Right now the List category for the Fictional characters quality scale is loaded with a multitude of SIA-class articles. I think we both weren’t aware it’d been undone previously, it seemed like a non-controversial edit. My guess is it was changed to extended because prior to now none of the extended categories were actually used?–Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby There doesn’t seem to be any opposition from any ends, can we go ahead with the implication from your sandbox version?–Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]