Forum:Character categories

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Character categories

Okay, there is some confusion about what categories to put on the character pages, mainly questions about the usage of the Coronation Street characters and ____ minor characters categories. Unfortunately, I'm pretty confused about it myself!

I'd appreciate it if people offered their opinions on the current structure of the character categories and suggested changes and additions.

Here are my thoughts:

• I'm still not sure how we define and distinguish between minor and major characters. So far we've been working using an arbitrary line based on whoever 'feels' like a main character. It's especially problematic with new characters.
• The Coronation Street characters category is useful because it goes alongside the Pardon the Expression characters and so on.
• The myearly minor characters categories are useful because some characters don't have a profession or residence that puts them in another category.
• To be honest, putting characters in the CSC category AND a MC category doesn't seem to serve much purpose, because the MC categories themselves go in the CSC category.

Any help? David 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it would be a good idea to have all the characters in one big exhaustable list - whether they be minor or major. A DEFAULSORT at the bottom of each page would list them in alphabetical order, which in my opinion, is always a good point of reference - especially to a new user of the site, or someone who doesn't have much knowledge about specific characters. So personally, I would be more inclined to go with a full CSC list - since characters would just disappear into their other categories of families, professions, residences etc.

However, I have the same problem with regards to distinguishing between major and minor characters:

• There are listings at the moment which are categorised as minor characters (eg. Colin Grimshaw) but has a main character infobox - I suppose purely because we've learned so much information about his family ties.
• There are characters with minor infoboxes on, but have accumulated knowledge of information that could go into a more 'detailed' box.
• There are main characters with very little information in their infoboxes.

I realise that there might be a lot of gaps in some instances, but maybe it might be a better idea to have a 'one fits all' infobox and then there's no confusion about what to use? --Karen2310 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could do both with all guest characters becoming minor characters but that would mean that someone like Dave Smith would be a minor character for quite a few years and he doesn't fall into the same league as a postman or a customer in the corner shop. On further reflection, I agree with Karen - have one long list in alphabetical order.--Jtomlin1uk 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just put my thinking cap back on with regard to the infoboxes - maybe we could use the smaller of the two for guest cast and the larger one for all regular cast? --Karen2310 10:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a solution:
Categories
Keep things the way they are? Everybody appears in the Coronation Street characters category, while also appearing more specific categories for minor characters. One thing I thought of is to have equivalent categories for main characters, like Category:1960 debuts and Category:2002 departures, or whatever. Or is that too much?
Infoboxes
Currently, we have main character infoboxes and minor character infoboxes. The main character infobox is quite big and is occasionally longer than the content of the actual page (eg. Esther Hayes). I suggest a minor revamp to remove the list of residences from the infobox - it can go elsewhere in the article. As for usage, I suggest this, so it depends more on how much is known about the character than whether they are classed as minor or major:

• For unnamed characters or those with a very minimal role, no infobox (possibly even merge their articles with others).
• For named characters with few details about them known, or recurring unnamed characters (such as several police officers), the minor character infobox (I might rejig it a bit but it will contain the same details).
• The main character infobox for characters where we know their family details.

David 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of everyone being in the CSC main category and your suggestions with the infoboxes, not too sure about the additional categories for main characters. I was just thinking about characters such as Bet Gilroy and Leanne Battersby - off the top of my head, and the minefield of arrivals and departures! But I'll be happy to go with whatever is decided. --Karen2310 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It would only be for first and last appearances. David 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How dumb of me! In which case my only concern would be the same problem as we're trying to solve now - distinguishing between main and minor characters. --Karen2310 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We could always review them on a case-by-case basis, and see if we come up with a pattern that helps us. There can't be that many characters that blur the lines? In the last year, I'd say Colin Grimshaw, Mary Taylor, Ramsay Clegg, Ben Richardson, Sian Powers and Martha Fraser are the iffy ones. David 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Count me as converted! --Karen2310 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what's the consensus on the above characters - regular or guest? David 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Guest for me.--Jtomlin1uk 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now his tenure is over, I agree about Colin actually, when he joined I thought he'd be around longer. He wasn't in it much so it shouldn't take long for me to 'demote' him. David 11:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New infobox

I've created a new infobox, titled Template:Infobox character. It's designed so that it can be attached to any character, and that if there's anything we don't know about them we can leave a field blank and it won't appear in their infobox. What are people's opinions? Suggestions? I would intend for it to be used for everybody except unnamed characters. David 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The new template looks much more easier to digest and less complicated. It's simplified by only having the current residence included, which obviously doesn't stretch out the box as much. Years of marriages should be pretty straightforward to fill in - since I've done a lot with the marriage category recently, many of the characters are in their respective years. Births, again I'm working on, but have most of the information in place in the categories. Liking the background colour too! Could I just clarify if we're going to use the smaller infobox for unnamed characters or not use one at all? my opinion is that it looks tidier to use it - with the episode and actor details in. --Karen2310 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This will be the only infobox used. If any details are left blank, that line won't appear in their infobox (for example on the infobox page there's a Ken Barlow infobox, which has no leaving date or date of death), so a minor character who we don't know much about will have an appropriately small infobox but it will still be this one. This has the benefit of sorting out any dilemma about whether to use a main or minor character infobox. I'm not sure about very minor characters though, is it worth it to have an infobox for someone who has only a couple of lines? David 09:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point! The one box fits all (named) characters is definately a better solution. --Karen2310 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall I start implementing it then? David 12:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me! --Karen2310 12:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And from me!--Jtomlin1uk 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)