Forum:Character Categories

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091227230730/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/archive/b/bc/20100401212842!Wiki.png

Taken from the Minor Characters category talk page.

Category renaming
Maybe we should sort the characters by primary, secondary, and tertiary. Though we can keep primary as major so just change characters to secondary characters and minor characters to tertiary characters. This is kind of like the system at Avatar wikia, though Bulbapedia has a category for what they call "Character of the Day" which is a character that is only ever shown on one episode, I figure those can just be tertiary characters, at least until Advebture Time has around fifteen seasons like Pokemon does which causes them to need to make that category... felinoel ~  (Talk)  13:28, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, although I don't necessarily like the names "primary, secondary, and tertiary." We already have a "Main Characters" category, which only includes the six or so main characters. That's fine. Maybe "Recurring characters" for those who appeared in multiple episodes. Then some characters in this category get demoted to "Background characters" or something. That would be characters that are so minor, they only appeared in one scene and didn't play a notable role in the story. Just some ideas. --Cornprone 23:06, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I did say we can go Major, Secondary, Tertiary. But what is the difference between a background character and a background character who was actually given a name? If a character was given a name it seems more important but is only ever seen in the background... felinoel  ~  (Talk)  03:32, May 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is some pretty old discusion, but I think I have an idea. There is a category for comic book characters, and since those characters do not appear on the TV series, they are not exactly considered minor characters. So, basically, the characters who appear on the TV series belong in this category, while the comic book characters go in the other category. Sky Monster 22:32, March 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, are these comic book characters in the minor characters category? felinoel  ~  (Talk)  13:29, March 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * No. I removed it from the pages when I thought of the idea. Sky Monster 22:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok so now we have Major Characters, Minor Characters, Genderswap Characters, and Comic Characters?
 * ... I really think this should be reorganized... Bulbapedia has a category for one episode ever shown characters, could we at least add this? felinoel  ~  (Talk)  13:03, March 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * The system could definitely use a reorganization. My suggestion is as follows.
 * I think categories of Major, Minor, and Extras would be a viable system. Major are obvious and the difference between Minor and Extra would be that Minor characters: 1. Have at least two lines of notable dialogue that is non repetitive (notable in the same sense of "notable quotes only" in the Quotes template)
 * 2. Function in the plot of the episode to some degree and
 * 3. Can be viewed as a single entity that is mostly independent (the word "can" so as to not exclude characters like BUFO).
 * This means that any character that does not have dialogue as specified above, doesn't impact the plot, or is functional as a group would be an extra.


 * There would obviously be exceptions - Snow Golem for example has only one true line, but is a minor character nonetheless. I'd like to hope we can be reasonable with characters that are slightly out of the boundaries of my system's rules.


 * Sorry for the wall of text, but I would really like to see this (or something like it) implemented - 6 major to 512 minor is incredibly disproportionate.
 * I agree with this having to reorganize the minor character section. I think renaming less well known characters as "extras" is a good idea. A category that encompasses nearly half of all of the wiki's article is much too broad, especially when you put characters like Flame Princess on the samel level as, say, Raccoon. Although the difference between "extra" and "minor" is controversial, I don't think it will be a problem deciding; the three criteria listed seem highly reasonable. I support this. Saber  Sworn  08:09, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with the general idea of dividing the "Minor characters" categories into two using these basic criteria. I'm not too sure about using the word "Extras" because that's a word that more relates to live action actors. Maybe we can think of a better name? But yeah, I'm in favor of splitting and redefining the category. --Cornprone 12:12, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * lol Corn the name used has always been an issue with you, do you have any ideas for what to name it? (Though I do agree that extra isn't too relatable.) [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] f e l in o e l [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=User talk:felinoel|Talk Page]] . 13:22, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * what about Major, Minor, and background characters? Saber  Sworn  13:29, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * That does sound better imo. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] f e l in o e l [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=User talk:felinoel|Talk Page]] . 14:03, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course though, when this change happens we will not be having a character be in the Characters category, just the Major, Minor, or Background category. I am not sure what the Characters category is for, but it is redundant and unneeded. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] f e l in o e l [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=User talk:felinoel|Talk Page]] . 16:19, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree background characters is a slightly better term and the characters category is certainly redundant. Does anyone think the defining criteria need revision though? Flame Prince Finn
 * I think the criteria look good, if we allow for exceptions like Snow Golem, as you noted. --Cornprone 00:02, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Exceptions like Snow Golem has to be made, that wasn't really a talking episode but he was definitely the main character. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] f e l in o e l [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 12:41, April 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed lately that some people have been adding the character category to all characters that don't have it yet even though it is redundant.
 * We need to make a decision on this, though I would like to suggest yet another (x.x) possibility, we keep main and minor characters, but add bit and extra characters. Bit characters are there to move the plot forward while extra characters are just in the background like animated furniture, aka most of the Candy People.
 * 05:58, June 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the category is unnecessary and should be deleted. I think that "background character" sounds better than "extra character."
 * Also, could you give an example of a bit character, as opposed to a minor or background character. Trixie_sig.png Saber Sworn Trixie_sig_flipped.png 06:04, June 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ice King is of course Major, Cosmic Owl and Flame King are Minor, Ancient Psychic Tandem War Elephant, Tiffany, Bucket Knight, Balloons, and Gumdrop Lass 1 are Bit, Ice Cream Lady, Gelatin Man, Hawk, Dimension Wizard, and Candy Heart are Extra. 12:52, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up this discussion again so a decision can be made; it seems like it keeps getting ignored.

I don't really like the idea of having four separate categories for characters. What will most likely happen is disputes will pop up about whether or not a character is minor, bit, or extra, since they seem to be pretty similar categories, especially bit and extra. Instead, I think there should be three categories. Obviously, main characters for the first category. Although I like the name "recurring characters," I don't think it'd be too useful because not too many characters come back in a second or third episode. That leaves "extra" and "background." I believe that "background" is a better name, as long as the category is not limited to characters who haven't talked. Even though someone talks, I don't think they could necessarily be automatically classified as minor, per the above criteria. However, if others like the term "extra" better, I'd support that too (background is just my preference).

Also, regarding the characters category, it seems like the consensus is that it is unneeded and quite redundant?

Basically, I think Main --> Minor --> Background  could work fine.

Thoughts?  Saber Sworn  17:40, June 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Major -> Minor -> Background seems good to me. My assumption was that background characters would be any character worthy of an article that doesn't meet the above requirements. As long as we agree on the distinction I guess all we're worried about is the title? I think Extra and Bit is an okay distinction, but I don't think it's necessarily a big improvement over just Background. I support implementing that system.
 * As for deleting the characters category, I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been done yet. It's pretty darn redundant. FPsig1.png Flame   Prince  Finn FPsig2.png 18:07, June 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah for a year or more now this issue has been brought up, talked about, then no decision reached. 18:37, June 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the aforementioned system is good. What do we need to do to implement it? FPsig1.png Flame   Prince  Finn FPsig2.png 18:59, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think classifying the characters is a good idea. It will help non-members who only come to this site occasionally for information understand the importance of each character. At this time, I think that only three categories are needed. If the characters are categorized and you find that there are to many characters in one category, you can make further distinctions then. The main problem I am seeing is with classification requirements. Everyone seems to have a general idea of what characters should be in what category, but unless you make specific requirements for each category there will be a fair amount of arguing. I suggest that everyone list the three categories (Major, Minor, Background) and then a list of requirements that they believe a character must meet to be placed within said category. Once that is done, then you can further debate the requirements. This will hopefully put everyone's thoughts on the table and make it easier to agree on the categories, requirements, and character placement. - Alchemical 18:46, June 13, 2012 (UTC)