Talk:List of 7th Heaven characters

Do you want us to...

...create character descriptions for people like Sarah?
...add more characters to the list?
...organize it by immediate family, then other starring characters, then other recurring roles? Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 01:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just add every character and their descriptions. We'll worry about organizing the order later. -AMK152 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 03:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy's twins?

It says that after Lucy's miscarriage, she becomes pregnant with twin boys again. But, I don't think they ever mention that she's pregnant with twins. She doesn't even tell Kevin that she's pregnant until the second-to-last episode, and all she says is that she's pregnant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.106.254 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past versus Present

This is a television show, and much like a work of literature, should always be discussed in present tense. Even if we're talking about Deena, who is no longer is the show, we should, instead of saying she is Simon's "ex-"grifriend say that she "is" his girlfriend (but then specify in seasons blank-blank, for example). So for all of the character descriptions and character pages, try to make sure stuff stays in the present tense, guys!! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -AMK152 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character Descriptions

Please put all character descriptions on this page, instead of making a whole new article UNLESS is is a main character, where there is more info on them. -AMK152 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about minor recurring roles?

Is Andrew Nayloss (is it really spelt "Naylas"? - tell me how you determined it) really important enough to have his own description here? Maybe he is. But then what about characters like Doc? Where do we draw the line? Or do we draw the line? Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fairly new, so each character will be added. The line is drawn at such characters as "church congregation" and "hall way students. Any named character (even if it is Mr./Mrs./Miss. so-and so etc.) Basically, if they played a major, minor, or even a couple of episodes, they can even have their description here, no matter the size of the description. -AMK152 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think Bill Brewer should be listed here.... but I guess we'll organize this all later. I want to help fix this article up a lot, I just don't know how much time I have right now.... Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many characters, and I will add them as i watch the repeats. I say that the characters should be in order of when they appeared, except the main characters (which may as well include Kevin, Martin, Sandy and a few others, basically who was featured in the theme song credits (i.e. John Hamilton, in the early seasons)). This will make it easier. -AMK152 00:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good start - but I like how "Friends" does their characters. Look at the three links here: Friends#Secondary characters: [1] and [2].

They organize by family and significant others per star. Obviously, 7th Heaven is a different kind of show, but I do feel we should organize it in a better way than "order of appearance". How about this?

The immediate family (Eric, Annie, and 7 kids) in once section, perhaps even eventually with short descriptions of their own here.
Then other characters that have appeared in the opening credits (i.e. starred), in chronological order (i.e. John before Peter before Sandy).
Then maybe characters that have appeared in more than one season (such as major boyfriends/girlfriends and grandparents and other family, like Julie and even Hank and Carlos would count here)
Then other characters appearing/mentioned in more than one episode?

I don't know - it just seems better to me. What do you think? I think it'll be easier for people to notice missing characters and find the character they want to add a description to that way. Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 01:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Character?

Is it really necessary to mention every character who was ever on the show? There are many characters who appeared only in one episode, i.E. Mr. Nicholson, Diana, Mr. Russell, Nameless School Security...etc. I think only characters who appeared in more than episode should be listed here.--84.142.162.135 09:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Why not? 208.76.47.10 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of Main-Characters-Articles

Who deleted the articles for the Main Characters? (Eric, Annie, Matt etc.) I don't think that was a good idea. Od course there shouldn't be an article for every character, but these are the main characters, and the articles gave much information about them!--213.39.208.131 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. there wasn't even a discussion regarding it. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't always need to be a discussion in the first place. Can you please explain why you reverted them with something besides "the information is important"? Each character is a stub after the removal of trivial information. Just because they're main characters doesn't mean they need a page. Can you really say that the entries didn't do them justice?

And with the giant list - those are all very trivial characters. There is no need to mention every character that appears. Only ones that are important to the series need mention. Nemu 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my response: if you browse Wikipedia, you will see articles of many other fictional characters. Second, you will also see minor characters listed on one page (or separate for one-time or two time appearances.) When you desized the article, you actually removed many notable characters. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't regulate each other, some characters will require articles, some won't. Only featured content should be used as a base; and there isn't any really like this. Characters need to have out of universe information, and need to have reliable, non-trivial third party sources. This is pretty doubtful for the 7H characters. You're free to add who is notable, but it's obvious only certain characters are. I just kept the important characters that I could recall. Nemu 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by featured content? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured content; featured articles to be more specific. Nemu 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any television character list that was promoted to featured list status. If there is it was either demoted or not listed. Does every article have to be featured in order to be useful? And, if someone doesn't want to know about the minor characters, they don't have to read them. The chaacter's names are in bold. some people actually read about the minor characters. Many people are different. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that only featured content should be used as a base for regular content, against your point of "others do the same thing." I'm not implying anything else with it. The only similar FA is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (video game). It doesn't list every minor character with a name, and all of the fluffy characters were merged. That is what this should work for instead of some fluffy, unimportant pages. Nemu 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your added point, I can add a list of clothes the characters have worn throughout the series. Does that mean it should be added just because people can choose not to look at it? Nemu 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about THAT much detail. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well be. Seventy percent of those characters are about as important to the series as what the characters wore in episode 36. This is a "problem of the week" show, making most irrelevant to the whole thing. Only characters part of long lasting subplots need mention (such as the grandparents). Nemu 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the characters were wearing is more detailed than the characters themselves. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. It's just an example to show why these are pointless. The level of detail doesn't matter; their importance does. Nemu 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some characters are more or less important compared to others. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my point. Certain characters are of little importance, some are of high importance. The low ones are comparable to trivia, while the rest deserve mention. Do you even have an argument or are you just trying to lead me in circles? Nemu 23:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by some are more or less important than others is, for example, Eric Camden is a more importance character than his parents. While Gladys Bink is less important than Officer/Detective/Captain/Chief Michaels. And T-Bone is more important than George Orfield. I'm not trying to lead you in circles. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with your argument? Of course some characters are more important than others. You say they all are important enough to need a mention, so that only hurts your case for keeping them. If that is supposed to be some strange argument for keeping the main character articles, it still doesn't work. Per WP:FICT, major characters only need articles if they have OOU information and analysis, and non-trivial third party sources. Nemu 00:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying to keep the characters on the list. I'm not saying make a page for each character. Listing minor characters is not doing any harm. In fact, many of these minor characters had important roles in a few episodes or just a single episode. The main characters deserve their own articles since they have had significant roles in the series. If they are main characters and don't have that much information, like Happy for example, they don't need their own articles. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at my arguments? Per WP:FICT, the main characters don't need articles. They don't have the necessary content for actual articles (OOU info and analysis backed by non-trivial third party sources). Per WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO, the very minor characters don't need to be listed. They are much too minor for a casual reader to care about. Only major plot characters need mention. You have addressed neither of these; all you have done is lead the argument in circles with pointless side comments (intentionally or unintentionally, I have no idea). Nemu 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much too minor? Are all readers casual? Many of these characters had significant roles in one episode or a few episodes like i've said before. When referring to a "List of 7th Heaven characters" a reader would expect to see a, well, list of characters of course. A list called "List of non-minor 7th Heaven characters" a reader would expect to see those character who have had major or main roles. A list called "List of minor 7th Heaven characters" a reader would expect to see a list of minor characters. Per WP:NOT#IINFO, which number are you referring to? And as for the main character articles, how about you look here: [3] . Many, many, many characters have their own articles. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of characters are for characters important to the series. Just because a character has a name, and played a minor role doesn't earn them a spot. The two featured character lists are examples of what an article like this should look like. They both only list characters that serve a role, but they could easily be doubled by adding useless characters. WP:NOT#IINFO is being used as a whole; just because we have this information, it doesn't mean we have to use it. Once again, regular articles do not automatically regulate each other. If one character has an article, it doesn't mean others deserve one. I don't know how many times I've said that to you. Due to your constant ignorance towards my arguments, it is getting hard to assume good faith. Nemu 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link me to the two featured character lists? You are referring to WP:FL, right? And you didn't answer my question, are all readers casual? Still, the main characters are main enough to have their own articles.

Perhaps the Sam and David Camden article could be merged with this list as their article is short, I would agree with you there. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Metal Gear Solid characters are the two pieces of featured content that I refer to. An encyclopedia bends to the will of someone that knows nothing about the topic. If you want specific fan material, you want Wikia. There is no such thing as "main enough." As I have pointed out various times, characters need to have out of universe information, and need to have reliable, non-trivial third party sources to require an article. Little shows the possibility for 7H characters to have that. You have yet to even acknowledge this. Nemu 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main characters of shows deserve own articles, because we have much information about them. The main-character-articles give detailed information about the characters. In your list, much information was gone. So it wasn't a good idea. That's what the Wikipedia is for: Giving detailed information, isn't it?--213.39.167.13 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not to the point of fancruft like this article. The point is to give an encyclopedic view backed by sources. Doting on every minor point of the series is unencyclopedic, and they can hardly ever be sourced. Nemu 10:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean the mention of every character who appear in this show. I agree with you in this point. There a many characters in the list who appeared only in one episode. Only characters that appeared in more than one episode should be listed, i.E. Deena or Shelby. But nothing should be deleted without discussing.--213.39.141.231 11:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven Wiki

I'm waiting for this to go through: [4] -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we all set to go now that the wiki is all set? TTN 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's done. Do you want any help copying the character articles or will you be all set? TTN 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck...

So why the character-articles are deleted again? Don't tell me that the 7th Heaven-wiki is the reason. I know that the character-articles are now in the 7th Heaven-wiki, but that does not mean they can be deleted here. Otherwise you could be delete every article here, if there is a wiki about the topic anywhere. So the whole Wikipedia would be gone one day. (maybe not the worst. :p)--213.39.172.17 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah (Matt's wife)

I'd like to point out that it is a known fact that Sarah (Matt's wife) kept her maiden name, Glass, as her sole surname. Look on YouTube and search for the intended series finale's title along with 7th Heaven as your keyword, and watch part 1, starting at 1:17. The ultimate result of that conversation between Rev. and Mrs. Camden is where this is revealed, as a proven fact.Steven 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone is putting information about cults and mutilation on this page.

Mary's daughters

Not once in season 11 did they mentioned the names of Mary and Carlos's twin girls. Where did the names Julia Charlotte and Megn Ann come from? It should also be noted that for the longest times their names were listed as Emma and Grace. As far as i know no interview or article has mentioned names. You would think if an article or intreview told of their names that it would have mentioned the names of Matt and Sara's twin boys. Yet unlike Mary's girls not once has there been any names for Matt's boys.Mixed5000 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revamp Needed

Apart from the glaring grammatical errors (including a section under Lucy that I still can't quite parse, and another where Ruth is described as the "youngest daughter Camden child"), there are patches of inconsistency throughout the article. Lucy is listed in her section as having miscarried and lost her twins, but in her husband's section it says that she's still expecting. Someone who actually watches the show needs to go through this with a fine-toothed comb and get everything as up-to-date as possible. --Sleepsong (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle names

I’m just curious where the middle names for some of the Camden kids came from. Being a viewer during the series entire run I never once remember any of the kids middle names being reveled. Nor did I read any interview revealing such. Were this made up? Also I clearly remember in an early episode where Ruthie was in school and her teacher referred to her as Ruth. Ruthie indicated that her name was just Ruthie. So it seems unclear if her legal name is Ruth or if she was just named Ruthie. Mixed5000 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Family of Nine

If the "family of nine" was meant for the immediate family of nine, why are martin and sarah included? I understand sarah to a certain extent (since she married into the camdens) but martin should be included in the friends of hte family section, especially since Robbie is put there already. Small5th (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Bullets are too Long

Some of the bullet points -- especially the one for Julie Camden-Hastings -- are too long to be readable but, as far as I can tell, Wiki bullet points can't have paragraph breaks without removing the formatting. If we have that much to say about a character then it either needs to not be a bullet point or needs an article of its own.

I know I'm not the only person who has difficulty reading walls of text. My eyes get lost trying to follow the Julie Camden-Hastings section but I'm at a loss as to how to fix it. --Kitsunegami (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 7th Heaven characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021092742/http://voices.yahoo.com/top-10-favorite-tv-moms-2778263.html?cat=25 to http://voices.yahoo.com/top-10-favorite-tv-moms-2778263.html?cat=25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]