Talk:Character (arts)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Persons?

Fictional characters can also include Animals and Animated objects (usually anthropomorphized). Simple examples would be Bugs Bunny on Looney Tunes and Bender the Robot on Futurama. Should the definition of "person" be expanded for this? I think not because an anthropomorphized animal is really only a fictional device so I think it really belongs here. Of course the future of artificial intelligence may one day break down the barrier of "person" but it hasn't come close yet.

What do people think?

Jeff schiller 00:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the article already covers this. Take a look at the opening paragraph again:

A fictional character is any person who appears in a work of fiction. More accurately, a fictional character is the person or conscious entity we imagine to exist within the world of such a work. In addition to people, characters can be aliens, animals, gods or, occasionally, inanimate objects.

The first sentence does assert a character "is any person", which is the most general case. Given that the technecality is cleared up in the next sentence, I'm inclined to leave it as is. After all, wikipedia is not a dictionary -- the goal is to write a clear article, not a precise definition. As a clear opening sentence, I like the simple if slightly incorrect, "A fictional character is any person...". The following sentence (which begins "more accurately", making it clear that it gives the more technical definition) covers the cases you've brought up. --Tom 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good...Jeff schiller 14:07, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Real people appearing in works of fiction

Does it mean that real people appearing in works of fiction are also fictional characters? Ausir 16:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yup -- I think so -- and I think that makes sense. Once an author throws you into a fictional work, you're a fictional character, whether you are the author's roomate or a long-dead king or the author him or herself. Tom 19:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, technically, you are still real, but the author creates a fictional character that is characterised in the same way you could be characterised. If they know you, this leads the audience to think of you when they read/hear/… about that character. If they do not know you, they cannot tell the difference to a "thought up" character. (In the ideal case that all characterisations are developed equally well.) Thus, all characters appearing in fiction are necessarily fictional, even if they look and behave very similar to some "real" person. — TowerDragon (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely not true if the character is described as 'real' history permits. For example (sorry it's not very literary) in Ben Elton's novel Chart Throb, the lead character models himself on Simon Cowell. In this case, even if not the best example, Simon Cowell is a non-fictional character, and all observations in the book of him are accurate, so could for example have come from a non-fiction source like a biography? (Paul (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Half revert

Per the discussions above about all this, I have restored this article to a previous, less complicated version, but with alterations.[1][2][3] I tweaked some things, and I left in the additions by DionysosProteus. However, I took his took over-complicated additions out of the lead. The lead's definition of what a fictional character is should be simple, not clouded with a bunch of classical character "jargon" (as Pmanderson feels). The article also needed to be brought back to defining the different types of characters, instead of only having a classical representation of the topic.

DionysosProteus has been gone from Wikipedia for months, at least editing-wise. So, of course, we cannot ask for his thoughts about these changes...unless someone knows his e-mail. And we certainly cannot wait for him forever before improving this article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the revert. By driving consensus amongst a number of editors, we can make the article more useful. For example, there has got to be more relevant illustraive examples then Hedda Gabler or Miss Julie. While the old article was well referenced, it wasn't of much use to the average reader. The best approach I think is finding sources for statements that are unreferenced, and go from there. --Work permit (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Specifically regarding more editors weighing in on these matters, other than the usual set (all of us who have debated the topics), we could try posting a link about all of this at the related Wikiprojects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

perhaps we should just start referencing the article like I just did with "flat" and "round" characters. It's pretty easy. It took me a while to "prove" forster introduced the concept. There is more to add on this one subject alone that is easly referenced. The editors know what they want to say, I'm happy to find references and tweak the definitions. Posting on the relevant boards is a good idea as well. --Work permit (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the sourced version. It's been several months since the intention to provide sources for the unsourced material, but none are there. I have also removed those that merely cite websites. I've left in the statement in flat/round that requires a source, since the previous sentence is sourced and I assume that that source says what the following explains. The version I have replaced had slowly accumulated all of the faults and errors weeded out before. Anyone is welcome to restore the deleted material, provided it has a reliable, third-party source. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

fair enough. Rather then a wholesale revert, you were thoughtful and kept "round versus flat", which was sourced. Lets find reliable, third-party sources and continue to build the article.--Work permit (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still worried about the opening part of the lead, though, where it says, " A character is the representation of a person in a narrative or dramatic work of art (such as a novel, play, or film)." As we stated before, a fictional character is not always a representation of a person (at least not in the human sense). Bugs Bunny was brought up before. Another example is Alien (Alien franchise). Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made this edit. DionysosProteus may object to the "or other such entity" bit, since I did not source it, but I feel that it is important to note that a fictional character is not always a representation of a person (if we mean human beings). Any thoughts on rewording the first line just a bit, DionysosProteus? Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "or other such entity" bit, because the Person article clarifies what is and can be a person. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, DionysosProteus, are you saying that you don't want online sources in this article? Or is it that the website sources were unreliable, and you prefer book sources? Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Flat vs round

This section needs more filling out, it is a basic characteristic of a character. Simplistic summary from britannica Flat characters are two-dimensional in that they are relatively uncomplicated and do not change throughout the course of a work. By contrast, round characters are complex and undergo development, sometimes sufficiently to surprise the reader., can do much better from better sources.--Work permit (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"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)

I still feel that the bracketed "sometimes known as a fictional character" is silly and unnecessary, equivalent to writing "main protagonist". Popcornduff (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DionysosProteus (sighs), I misunderstand nothing about this topic or title issue. And as should be clear by our past discussions, I am not interested in debating you on your views of what a character is. I can be very interested in taking any of your arguments through a WP:RfC, though, so that others will weigh in. Your argument that I've been trying to promote "fictional character" across the project is nonsense. It's been "across the project" for years without my help, because the term fictional character is common and is used in numerous reliable sources, much to your displeasure. AnemoneProjectors can attest to that as well. This TheFreeDictionary.com source defines "fictional character" as "an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction (play or film or story); 'she is the main character in the novel'." This Vocabulary.com source defines "fictional character" as "an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction (play or film or story)." This Collinsdictionary.com source states, "Fictional characters or events occur only in stories, plays, or films and never actually existed or happened." This Oxforddictionaries.com source states of the term fictional: "Relating to or occurring in fiction; invented for the purposes of fiction. 'Fictional texts' [...] 'a fictional character'." The term fictional character exists. It needs no promotion from me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that you ignored AnemoneProjectors and focused only on me. But it's not surprising, given your grudge tactics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And by "argument that [I] added in 2017," I take it you mean this and this edit I made per the 2016 "Historicising Transmedia Storytelling: Early Twentieth-Century Transmedia Story Worlds" source, from Routledge, pages 31–34, and the 2011 "Novel Characters: A Genealogy source, from John Wiley & Sons, pages 14-20. Sorry, but I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Not by what you state. The "Creation of characters" section was already in the article. All I did was restore it, source it and tweak it. If you want "fictional character" abolished so badly on Wikipedia, then do take it to WP:Redirects for discussion and see how successful you are on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I just thought I'd mention that I got 49,100 results on a Google News search for "fictional character" just now, and that's just in the last month's news (I know others will see different results to me). Reading some of the results, they would lose a lot of meaning without the word "fictional", so it is certainly not a redundant word in all cases. Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion but there you go. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 22:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)