Talk:When I Think of Bobby

Bobby Kennedy
Concerning the move of Bobby Kennedy to background; I do think his mention in the title should be enough to make him canon. After all, we accept historical characters based on only part of their name (though usually their last name) coupled with other hints all the time. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, the title would be enough to create "Bobby (fictional character)". But how insensible would it be to create that article and then only note his RFK identity in a background note. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:16, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * For all we know, "Bobby" could simply be a metaphor and thus, not a fictional character. There is a leaning toward adding information into the mix that just doesn't necessarily exist in canon, and I think that this is one of those circumstances. -- sulfur (talk) 16:51, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

I've always been opposed to adding extrapolation to the mix, so believe me when I say I see your point, but this just seems well within precedent. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:07, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Democratic Party was deleted on the grounds that it wasn't mentioned, even though Democrat was. I think this is a similar case; we shouldn't have Kennedy if he wasn't directly mentioned. 31dot (talk) 20:08, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing like that; by the logic of the Democratic party precedent we should indeed have a page for "Bobby", although not nescesarily for "Bobby Kennedy". As for taking "Bobby (character)" and turning it into "Bobby Kennedy", I can see the hesitance to do that, but it's essentially something that has been done dozens of times before. Take for exaple the low-on-detail reference to a "Beckett" in, which resulted oin a page for Samuel Beckett.-- Capricorn (talk) 14:45, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * What would be in a "Bobby (character)" article other than what is on this page? We don't need two articles saying the same thing. 31dot (talk) 15:02, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Beckett is a different circumstance, as he himself was mentioned; he wasn't mentioned by extension. 31dot (talk) 15:04, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

What does mentioned by extension mean exactly, and where is the rule against it. Pleasure Goddess of Rixx seems to be the exact same situation for example. Lake Como too, yet check the talk page, 31dot :p. We have pages on Cygnian, Fellebia, the Roman god Mars, and I could go on. Oh and yeah, I do think I could whip up a reasonable (if short) article on Bobby Kennedy, one that's not just a rehash of this one. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:36, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Lake Como" was said in canon, not just the word "Como" or other oblique reference to it without using the actual name; the phrase "Democratic Party" was not mentioned, but "Democrat" was, the Party article was made by extension as the phrase itself was not used. "Bobby" in this case could mean anything or anyone in the Star Trek universe; I realize it doesn't in reality, but that's not what we're dealing with here.  You can give it a shot, but I'm still not seeing what would be in a RFK article other than "RFK was a person who a book was written about", since that's all we know. 31dot (talk) 08:59, September 7, 2012 (UTC)