While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Keep seperate on the basis that the Cheers article is plenty cramped as it is, and that a seperate page will allow for a more comprehensive look at these characters. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'dTalk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
When talking about the actors and the show: past tense. When talking about the roles and stories: present tense. Am I getting this right? The page is not really consistent. I am seeing Gary and the owner of Melville's differ. If anyone knows the right way, please help.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No mention of Diane's first episode fiance as a recurring character. He's in that episode, an episode in series 2 (Sumner's return) and Diane's final appearance at the end of series 5. He's also mentioned in at least one other episode (probably more) where Diane goes for a teaching assistant job. I don't think he appears in more than the three episodes I've listed but I could be wrong, anyone know of other episodes he's in or mentioned in?. TonyThomps (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Cheers was remarkable for its near-perfect continuity. But it's never explained why Esther doesn't marry her wealthy suitor. There's no indication that the wedding won't occur. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
The claim that Vera is an unseen character is not true. Her entire body although her face is partially obscured by a pie. But to insist that this means she is NOT seen is absurd. If I see a friend, but only from behind, it would be ludicrous for me to claim that I did not see him at all. seeing someone is not determined by having an unobstructed view of the person's face. By that standard, The Lone Ranger is also an "unseen" character. That's just crazy.
My edit to the page leaves intact the claim that she is only seen once and that her face is obscured in that case. But to call her "unseen" is false. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
She is only partially seen, and never speaks on camera, so she still comes under the unseen definition. It's not valid to compare her with masked characters, they are seen and speak, so please stop edit warring on the point. Can you identify someone without seeing their face? Then, she was not seen. It's not just my opinion, see here, here, here and here. Snappy (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your claim that she "comes under the unseen definition" is false. If you actually read the Unseen character page you will see that the definition given in the very first sentence is: "In fiction, an unseen character is a character that is never directly observed by the audience but is only described by other characters." That does not describe Vera at all. She IS directly observed by the audience and is NOT only described by other characters.
Also, for you to describe my editing as edit warring shows no understanding of that therm either and is uncivil. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have provided many references which prove she comes under the definition of unseen, so it is only your opinion and your original research that says she is not. Also wikipedia is not a reliable source. Snappy (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The term "unseen character", as references cited on the Unseen character page point out, is a term that is older than television and has a history in the theatre. That a few websites you found show people not knowing what it means (especially when anyone can view the Thanksgiving episode and see Vera for themselves) does not establish anything. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's just a claim on your part, and you have not provided any references to back up your claim. Snappy (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have provided the references. Just go to the Unseen character page and check the first three references given on that page. The evidence is there whether or not you choose to look at it.99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
