Talk:Robert Ludlum

What to do with this page, if I'm not going to expand it?
This page is nearly empty and the info on it is completely redundant, since it says nothing more, than what can be found on the page for the Bourne canon. What is the proper thing to do with such a page, when I don't have any particular knowledge on the subject and can't expand on it? Do I simply mark it as a stub and let it be? Or do I flag it for deletion? The link to the author's name on the Bourne page could be replaced with a link to an external page, like Gene Roddenberry on the Star Trek page.EileenAlphabet 10:38, November 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think since the only thing that links here is the Bourne article, it can be safely removed, and the link there replaced with something better. In general I think we're developing a preference for fleshed-out continuum articles rather than a scattering of stub pages about characters and authors and whatever else. (Of course, in the case of really big continua like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, there's justification for more pages.)
 * ~Neshomeh 16:09, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. The wiki is kind of OUR library for stuff that has to do with the PPC. Tons of little stubs that contain little information really are out of place in that library: they don't explain the PPC's involvement, and they don't provide overview for new writers about what the PPC's already covered. I almost want to propose a rule that unless a continuum has at least two missions written about it, an agent comes from it and demonstrates its main ideas in a spin-off (you really can't explain a yeerk agent or an andalite agent without Animorphs), or is a really 'big' continuum like what you mentioned (such as the publishing of new series that become popular even before we write missions) no new page on it should be made. And if one is made, it shouldn't be a stub. But I'm not sure everybody agrees with that.
 * -Aster Corbett 16:30, November 6, 2011 (UTC)