This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
This seems a fairly arbitrary differentiation. Main characters are usually characters in the opening credits, and supporting are recurring characters that are frequently seen. To throw recurrers in with main cast members, and elevate three characters to "main" (even if they are the three we see most often) doesn't seem right. I don't really think the likes of Lester, Jeff and Big Mike oughta be up there - but at the very least Sarah and Morgan, cast members since Day 1 should be up there. Especially Morgan, who was more of a main character than Casey in Season 1. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The division of Main vs. Secondary is going to be a complicated issue. Although Jeff, Lester and Big Mike are all listed in the credits, none of them figure prominently into the A plots, nor do they play the same significant role in the B plots that Morgan, Ellie and Devon do.
I would suggest that The Primary characters consist of Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Morgan, Ellie and Devon, with the remainder as Secondary characters to reflect this status.Ambaryer (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Mostly agreed. But instead of having ugly subcategories, we can have three lists: one for primary characters in Chuck's personal orbit (the ones you listed), one for Buy More-centric characters and a third for the rest of the supporting characters (who mostly have to do with the spy world and smaller arcs that involve a mix of the spy world and Chuck's personal life).--DurandalsFate (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking better, although any way we can get the category headings so they fit on one line? Also, how do we want to list the characters in their? Alphabetized by last name seems the most organized. Ambaryer (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I'm not on the side of the group but I think the three need to be up there and the template should be sorted accordingly. The problem is that some might be forgetting those characters have throughout the show's history been involved in a and b plots on there own (maybe not big mike the newest member of the opening credits) they just haven't been the A or B plots we all like to see (near death spy action). Therefore I think they characters who the writers believe should be main, we should believe are main. (obviously there not in favor of other characters like Beckman who appears very often) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikopowii (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Operative word: GROUP. Wiki is a collaborative venture, which means one person can't go against the group consensus and change the page as they see fit. The group consensus is that billing does NOT designate the difference between main vs. secondary characters and that the Buy More crew should be listed separately from Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Morgan, Devon and Ellie. Although they may be involved in the A and B plots, Jeff, Lester and Big Mike VERY rarely carry these plots on their own and instead are generally used in supporting roles of plots where Team Bartowski, Ellie and Devon, or Morgan are the leads, which by definition makes them secondary characters.
We HAVE already noted a differentiation between the Buy More characters and the recurring/minor roles such as Stephen, Bryce and Jill, so this should be sufficient to set them apart from the more minor recurring roles. Ambaryer (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your right I apologize for acting without the group. I agree you definately have good points, I think there is a seperation between Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Morgan, Devon and Ellie and the other characters. I disagree about sorting them into "buy more" and "Recurring and Minor" because of crossovers and unclearness, also I think there should be levels (at least a character section with categories inside). How is what I produced below? I hope Im not straying to far from what would be ideal.
Please give me any feedback --Tikopowii (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
My take: it's much easier to navigate characters by their associations than by how "important" they are. Hence the three categories I proposed: (a) Chuck and those who are regularly in his personal orbit, (b) the characters who primarily appear within and around the Buy More and almost exclusively interact with other Buy More employees, and (c) the rest, who are typically involved in the spy action in some way and/or appear just for a couple of episodes. The crossovers in these categories are the exception rather than the rule: nobody familiar with the show thinks Devon or Jeff are primarily defined by the spy world despite their brushes with danger, or that Casey is primarily defined by his cover at the Buy More, etc. Morgan is the one arguable character, since despite his best-friendship with Chuck he's often relegated to the Buy More B-plots, but he clearly gets more time with Chuck and his family than everyone else at the Buy More combined, and puts his friendship with Chuck above Buy-Moria.
On an aesthetic level, I don't see why we'd have subgroups when we can just label each character group. If we had a few more groups of characters it might help (e.g. Template:The Wire), but right now it seems unnecessary to crowd the space.--DurandalsFate (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but do you not at all think that a character sub group is semi-apropriate for the purpose of viewing and organization?
Is this closer to your a b and c preference? --Tikopowii (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I can deal with subgroups, I just wonder if they're necessary with only 3 groups of characters. Not a big deal if they're all 1 line.
I'd make the following changes: (1) get rid of the "below" section and merge it into Miscellaneous, (2) Don't use wikilinks on "Primary" or "Spy world" since those lists of characters don't overlap too strongly, (3) alphabetize the character lists by last name.--DurandalsFate (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Those changes make sense. Im not sure if we should throw something important like episodes into a Miscellaneous category but for now I think the folowing could make do. --Tikopowii (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Per the Wiki style guidelines, color changes can be made for consistency with other pages related to the subject matter. IE: Simpsons using a Yellow theme for its infoboxes. The color of this page is consistent with the branding of Chuck, as well as the colors implemented on the Chuck character infobox. Ambaryer (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The extraneous CSS styling is superfluous. Also, there shouldn't be a newline between the end of the navbox and the beginning of the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Me too. nb: the newline messes up template spacing when multiple navboxes appear in succession. This situation also results in colours clashing when navboxes from different fandoms have different poor ideas going. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)