Talk:List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters

Merger proposal

I propose that Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) and Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy) be merged into List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters. The sources used in those articles are all primary or only show slight or trivial mentions of the individual characters. The "Role in Ed, Edd n Eddy" and "Personality" sections can easily be merged into this article (with the possible WP:OR removed). The "Creation" and "Reception, appearances in other media and merchandising" are about all three main characters so fit better in this or the main Ed, Edd n Eddy article anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support There is little independent sourcing of notability for either of the characters. Each character only has one line of material that on development that applies specifically to them. The recpetion focusses exclusively on appearances in other media and does not reflect the characters as such. Eshlare (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per rationales expressed above. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There is not enough material on the characters individually to justify separate articles. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Milburn, since I know how much you hate Ed, Edd n Eddy and how much you want to delete Ed, Edd n Eddy related articles on Wikipedia, I just wanted to let you know that Ed, Edd n Eddy is a featured article so you can stop that from happening. I'm actually rooting for it, but I just wanted to let you know. StaleCupcakes (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support None of the information is non-trivial, the rest is OR. Milburn doesn't "hate" EEnE, so stop making false accusations. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 Erledigt AIRcorn (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Double D's name is Edward.

I think that it might be worth noting in the article - at Edd's section - that Edd's real name is Edward, hence the name Double D. I added that earlier in July 2012, but it was removed without any explanation, which I found odd, since there's no question about its factualness. I would like to hear what other contributors think on this matter, whether it should be added or not. --Altaïr (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be interested in discussing this issue, I will now take myself the freedom of adding it to the article. --Altaïr (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)