This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
"For example, Leo Tolstoy's novels are widely regarded as having created complex believable characters." Can we get a source on this? Sounds awfully passive and unattributed. I left it in, but I don't think it's useful as it is. Mariko
I'm not sure that the merge proposal is such a good idea. Certainly, the two articles could do with some editing in light of each other, but characterization is a distinct process from the analysis of character, and offers the potential for substantial further development. DionysosProteus 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I searched for this page specifically to be enlighted on the process of characterisation.
[User:djknight82]] 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of merging the topics. Characters move stories. No characters, no stories. Great characters, great stories. The discipline of creating characters, characterization, is an honored skill among writers. In teaching characterization, I start with Arthur and the Sword in the Stone. Joseph Campbell told me that this story is deeply psychological and that the play of the characters in the mind determine the nature of the individual. I believe he said that it might have been an early method of psychoanalysis. In any case, it gets people cracking on developing complex characters with a lot of power. Dreamdissolve (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Another agreement with the above. Link the articles together however you wish, but characterization really should have independent treatment, and I think that is best done in an article where it stands as its own headword. -- Beckersc0t 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Characterisation is the process of designing a character and as such is seperate and distinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just undone the recent move from -s to -z spelling, since Wikipedia policy says it should stay where it was. In line with that, I've updated the spelling throughout to reflect the article title. I've also removed the MERGE proposal, as it is clear that the majority disagree with the proposal. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Where does wikipedia policy say something should remain mispelled?
It isn't, it is correct in UK English and other varieties of English Bevo74 (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: article moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Clear WP:ENGVAR issue and original article used 'z'. Changed vote due to comments below pointing this out (I had look before voting above but got a little confused thanks to the histoye merge). Dpmuk (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Obvious case of ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Reasons above, and it is not just British spelling. Bevo74 (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. The body of this article has apparently always used the "characterization" spelling, since its creation in 2002. A cut & paste move to Characterisation was attempted and then properly reverted with a histmerge on 12 November 2008 (see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen/Archive 2). Only later that day did another editor move the article over the new redirect to Characterisation, perhaps mistakenly, with the edit summary "Re: Wikipedia guidelines on US/UK spelling variations". WP:RETAIN would seem to argue for the original spelling, although, frankly, it doesn't matter that much either way. Station1 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, per my statements, as well as Station1's. I understand WP:ENGVAR, but that doesn't address the inconsistency of this article's title in comparison to the other article titles. The Disambiguation page is even titled Characterization. In my view, "Internal consistency," which is cited by WP:ENGVAR, should include article titles in cases like these. Keeping the article titled Characterisation just to prove a point doesn't make much sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support per first major contributor portion of ENGVAR. there was never any proper reason to move it. And consistancy with other articles noted by mom. oknazevad (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The move log says that it was moved from Characterisation in 2007. The Characterization page move shows moved back to Characterisation in 2008. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I could be wrong but the only 2007 move I see was of the redirect from Characterisation (existing since 2003), to Characterisationn (sic)  - Station1 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Neutral—this is really such a trivially minor point. It doesn't matter either way. (Consistency is a bit of a red herring: check out Red (ENUS color) versus Blue (ENGB colour) for a longterm stable example of spelling inconsistency.) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Support per Dpmuk. –CWenger (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, seems procedurally correct, and anyway, the "z" spelling is not out of place in British English either.--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.