This category 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 articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Do we as a society really need this page? Is somebody at some point going to want to analyse the portrayals of agricultural workers in literature? I ask not just in jest. While wikipedia does allow a greater degree of specialised information to be stored compared to classical encyclopedias like Brittanica or something, it is still an encyclopedia. So we do need to exercise restraint in creating pages like this. I went to the Luke Skywalker page and saw a link to "Fictional Farmers" at the bottom. Is this really useful? And more importantly, will anybody ever feel a need to compare him to other farmers? Links at the bottom should be placed in a useful way. This is just a slippery slope to pages like "People with long hair in fiction". Ckannan90 (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I can completely see needing this page or using as a literary reference. No I do not think this is a slippery slope of any sort. The farmer is a recurring an important character in our culture. As a culture we love to paint the farmer as the most noble sort of person. Luke Skywalker is the same as any farmer from any fairy tale who saves a beautiful princess and goes on to become a great hero. Wikipedia is not lacking in space. It's not like this article is clogging the tubes. It has the potential to be a legitimate article. Documenting archetypes is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.172.39 (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
