Talk:Biff the Understudy

Ah, this makes sense. It also explains how the heck Baldur's Gate II has 500,000 words of conversation in it! Cell4 01:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you categorize him as an actor then it suggests the BG2 use of the character takes preference, and I believe the article should reflect that and thus needs to be re-written quite a bit. Anyone in disagreement? Johnnyriot999 19:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not my (guess- and reasoning-based) understanding of how categories are used. It would make sense to me to use every category that applies in some significant sense. Like putting the Iron Throne in Category:Baldur's Gate computer game even though it appears elsewhere, since it's significant in the game. You could say this article concerns two different variations of the same thing, but does that mean either having to split it or not include categories that only apply to one? The only sensible change to reflect only one use here would be to just remove the other half the article. (I created the Actors category anticipating some other articles, by the way, including this article or not is not of much consequence.) Ville V. Kokko 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole reaons I brought this up was because I always, based partially on opinion but also on his function in BG1, thought of Biff as a game mechanic rather than an actual character. Thus to include him in a category related to inhabitants seemed a bit off. Seeing as how he only appears in the games I thought those categories would be enough and actors one should be removed. If he is an actual character in the later games as well though, thus having two "functions" as it were, then I think the article needs rewriting.
 * As for the point: "It would make sense to me to use every category that applies in some significant sense." I guess my concern is where to draw the line. Seeing as how Biff was introduced and appears only the games I think that'd be fitting; same for Gorion, Sarevok, etc. The Iron Throne was, I believe, introduced before the games (or at least retconned in sourcebooks afterwards) and my opinion on that case is that game template/category is not needed. Considering thats just an opinion though I'd be interested in the consensus of the other contributors, or any policies I might have missed. Johnnyriot999 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He is a character in the second game. However, there's not much more to be said about that than what already is, and I would think the way the article was written in the first place is just an indication that he was more noteworthy as a non-character. I really see the second appearance as a cameo by the game mechanic guy, even if that also means he becomes a real character. I don't oppose a rewrite, so long as no information from here is lost, but I don't see it as necessary.
 * In including articles such as the Iron Throne in game categories, I made the not so obvious even to me decision that it would be convenient for finding game-related articles. You said that the category is not needed, which I take to mean that it's not needed by the article, so to speak; I'd agree about that, but I'd say the category could use the article in it to be more complete. I don't know about policy either. Ville V. Kokko 06:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)