Talk:Character (arts)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Character" alone should be linked[edit]

...IMO anyway.

I've noticed that people tend to include the word fictional when using the piped link for "Character (arts)" -- as in fictional character. I think this should generally be avoided, because it seems to encourage less experienced editors to create the redirect fictional character.

It seems best to simply link character. Just thought I'd do my good deed for the day and hope that this helps a little. -- James26 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary Sue?[edit]

Mary Sue is considered a fictional character, if so, tell me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.57.135 (talkcontribs) 03:09, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

If this fictional character becomes Out of Character?[edit]

Mary Sue is an self insert cliche to any fictional character? 112.209.22.167 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Article/redirect fails to address the topic generally[edit]

The focus of this article is far too narrow. For instance, cartoon character redirects here. Why? There are aspects of cartoon characters that are not found in literary fiction or even the dramatic arts like theater or film.

Suggestions?InformationvsInjustice (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That problems affects many of the 'big' topic articles on Wikipedia. It's far easier to give a comprehensive account of something very specific than it is to cover all aspects of a subject with such range. The solution is the same as for any major article: find reputable sources and edit. The lack of a treatment of animated characters is a simply a result of no one yet having tried to cover it.  • DP •  {huh?} 03:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Types of characters[edit]

The types of characters section has round vs flat, and guest vs continuing, but not character personality types. This came up at another article (Character theory (media) but really belongs here. What are well-respected sources for character personality types? I've seen lists with from 4 to 16 types. Vladimir Propp did a study of classic Russian folktales. His list is (villain, dispatcher, helper, princess or prize, donor, hero, false hero). That fits folk tales. Google, in its automated wisdom, says (Stock, Protagonist, Antagonist, Anti Hero, Foil). Those are roles, though. Suggestions? John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

This section contains too many irrelevant links. In fact, it looks like someone inserted a link to every article with the word "character" in it. I propose removing all but a few important links about the generic character concept.—Anita5192 (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anita5192: Are there any links you think should be kept? Things like character piece are completely unrelated to fictional characters, but I would suggest definitely keeping these:
However, I think many of those articles could be merged and redirected here, or mentioned somewhere else in the article. What do you think? anemoneprojectors 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Since this article is about character in general, I don’t think any links to specific character types are appropriate here. This is the "See also" section—not a list of character types or character articles. There are too many character articles to list here and this section already has a link to the Fictional characters portal. At present, I think this section should be limited to:
Anita5192 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So what would you think about merging some of the other articles? The portal isn't really a good means of navigation, but I think the articles about type of fictional characters should be either listed in see also, merged here or placed in a navigation template if there is one they could go in. At least for now we should remove the links to character piece and similar that have nothing to do with fiction. anemoneprojectors 23:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the following links for the following reasons:
Since I am more strict about this than you, I will leave it to you to decide what to do with the remaining links.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a good start. Earlier in the year I merged and redirected regular character and guest character here, which is why I think some of the other short articles should be merged and redirected to new or existing sections of this article, rather than just removed from "see also". anemoneprojectors 09:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)