Talk:Character (arts)

"Character" alone should be linked

...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?

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

The term "Mary Sue" is used to describe fictional characters whose abilities, appearance, and personality are unbelievably exaggerated. A "Mary Sue" is seen most often in a fan-fiction work, though they can be found in young adult or any other genre. Calling a character a "Mary Sue" is generally used as an insult, though some use it as constructive criticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.255.75 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If this fictional character becomes Out of Character?

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

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

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

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:

• Character flaw, as it relates to fictional characters
• Characterization, same reason
• Composite character, a type of fictional character
• Costumed character, same
• Focal character
• Gag character
• Generic character (fiction)
• Mary Sue
• Player character
• Supporting character
• Sympathetic character
• Unseen character

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:

• Character arc
• Character flaw
• Characterization
• Persona.

—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:

• Character dance — has nothing directly to do with characters in the arts
• Character piece — has nothing directly to do with characters in the arts
• Declamatio — has nothing directly to do with characters in the arts
• Out of character — empty article; mostly redirects
• Secret character (video games) — redirects to Player character.

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)

Alternative title

AnemoneProjectors and Popcornduff, regarding this and this, I obviously agree with AnemoneProjectors. Per WP:Alternative title, "fictional character" should be bolded somewhere in the lead. I would support "or fictional character" in place of "sometimes known as a fictional character," but there was debate in the past on this talk page about fictional characters vs. characters based on real-life people, and the claim that "fictional" doesn't apply to certain mediums. That debate mainly took form in discussions about whether this article should be titled "Fictional character." That the word "fictional" is redundant for the article title was also claimed. I was a newbie back then, but I still lean more toward "fictional character" for the title of this article. Most others back then did as well. It was one editor arguing against us. Either way, I wholeheartedly support "fictional character" being included as an alternative name in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks, WP:Alternative title is what I was thinking of. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 22:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea for three reasons:

• By definition, characters are fictional or at least fictionalised to some extent, so "fictional character" is tautological. A character who is exclusively non-fictional is not a character.

• That said, many characters are based on real people, so "fictional" could be misleading. Omitting it gives us flexibility - we avoid any suggestion that the article is about 100% fictional characters.

• That people use the term "fictional character" is a good reason to have the term redirect to this page, but treating it as an alternative title is silly. People also use the term "main protagonist", after all.

Here's my proposal for the first two sentences of the lead (just a trimmed version of what we already have):

A character is a person or other being in a narrative such as a novel, play, television series, film, or video game. A character may be completely fictional or based on a real person.

I think that covers all the bases and makes it clear how "fictional" and "character" interact. Popcornduff (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, after "A character may be completely fictional", couldn't we mention the alternative title in brackets there? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. So you're proposing we write "A character may be completely fictional (a fictional character)"? I think that would look rather silly - and it's a bit misleading, as even only partly fictional characters are still fictional characters. Popcornduff (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Something like that. So change "completely" to "completely or partly" and it's not misleading. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 11:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

However you spin it, it reads very strangely to me - just a simple duplication - and I don't think it's worth including or bolding. Popcornduff (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, maybe we should just shorten "sometimes known as a fictional character" to "or fictional character." But if that's done, debate with the aforementioned editor (the one who objected to "fictional character" in the past and made this article mostly a "classical analysis" article, although it's been expanded somewhat since then) might happen again. That editor has also insisted on "is the representation of a person" wording, despite questions on how we are defining "person" in that case and arguments that fictional characters are not always based on people. Other than some people not considering some fictional characters as fictional, and the fact that "fictional character" can be misleading," I don't see a problem with bolding "fictional character" in the lead as the alternative title. We bold obvious titles in our leads all the time, and that includes the actual titles of the articles. Bolding "fictional character" just helps readers immediately recognize that they've landed on the right article. This is especially the case since "fictional character" is the term that is mainly used by people while "character (arts)" isn't. Of course, people often simply just state "character" when talking about fictional characters as well, but "character" is a disambiguation page. And in the case of some people not considering some fictional characters as fictional, the lead already states, "The character may be entirely fictional or based on a real-life person, in which case the distinction of a 'fictional' versus 'real' character may be made." I added that in 2017. I agree with Popcornduff on not going with your alternative suggestion, AnemoneProjectors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I was trying to come up with some other compromise. I agree with what you said above. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 08:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22, you misunderstand the argument and the nature of the subject covered by the article. A character is by definition a representation. Can't be anything else. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the sources for that creation (whether a real person, something imagined, something created by someone else, etc). "Fictional character" is a nonsense you've been trying to promote across the project. It is entirely equivalent to saying "wet water". The argument that you added in 2017 is a ill-reasoned (and unsupported by any legitimate scholarly source, naturally).  • DP •  ^{huh?} 11:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)