Category talk:Characters

Thousand dollar question re: the new cat

Standard wiki practice (read: standard Wikipedia practice) is to have articles which are part of a subcat not listed as part of the parent cat. I've always liked having Category:People be a list of all people, whether evolved or not, but it's entirely up for discussion whether we should just go through and remove Category:People from the articles (making it a true parent category) or replace it with Category:Characters (preserving the combined list). It's about the same amount of work either way. Thoughts? --Hardvice (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I agree. I think the standard practice works for most cases, but not this one. If I want to see the characters, I want to see all characters, not just the evolved ones (in fact, most people would probably want to primarily see the evolved ones). For instance, since Peter is both evolved and a character, he should be in both categories. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Guest Characters Portal

I shudder to ask this, but should we have a portal for guest characters? It seems like consistency demands it to make the portals truly a visual interface, but ... yuck. It'd be about a mile long, even with teeny-tiny pictures. What does everybody think?--Hardvice (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2006 (EST)

What about highlighting just the more, um, important guest stars? For instance, I think it might be nice to see, oh, I don't know, 12 guest characters. For instance, maybe family members and people that are kind of pivotal to the story. I don't have any firm ideas, and I don't really want to think of the chore of creating a portal, so I'm not going to fully endorse the idea. I'll support where I need. In the end, it'd be nice, but not necessary. That's my ambivalent thought. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Politics

Isn't this a sub-cat of characters? Because for some reason it doesn't show up. Heroe 20:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

• Well, I just changed it, but I'm not liking it as a subcat of characters. There are more than just characters in Category:Politics, just as Category:Military and Category:Medical also have places in them. But I don't know if Category:Heroes is the best place for them, either. We should probably ask our categories expert. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Image Map

• Should the image map still be on this page? It's neat, but I never really saw the purpose of it to begin with, especially if there's a few characters that are deceased (assuming DL bit the dust).--Bob 02:04, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
  • We could add it to the bottom of Portal:Characters/Season One, I suppose. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Suggestion for categorization of characters

The categorization of the characters is becoming pretty messy. E.g. both Janice Parkman and D.L. Hawkins are listed as "minor characters", even though D.L. was a main character throughout season 1 and Janice is one of the non-main characters with the most appearances (10, tied with Bob Bishop). The reason for this obviously is that the characters is categorized by their status in the last season they occured in. This also results in that characters who didn't appeared at all during season two, but played a significant role during season one is listed as "supporting characters", even though they have made less apperances than e.g. Janice, (such characters include Eden McCain, Audrey Hanson and Mr. Thompson among others).

Now, it's obvious that this problem will keep growing as the seasons keep coming (as we all hope they will ;) ). Therefore, my suggestion is that we sort the characters, not only by status but also be the seasons they have occured in, i.e. we create several new categories: [[

Category:Season One Main Characters|Category:Season One Main Characters]], [[

Category:Season One Main Characters|Category:Season One Main Characters]], Category:Season One Supporting Characters, [[

Category:Season One Recurring Characters|Category:Season One Recurring Characters]], [[

Category:Season One Minor Characters|Category:Season One Minor Characters]], [[

Category:Season Two Main Characters|Category:Season Two Main Characters]], Category:Season Two Supporting , [[

Category:Season Two Recurring Characters|Category:Season Two Recurring Characters]], [[

Category:Season Two Minor Characters|Category:Season Two Minor Characters]], [[

Category:Season Three Main Characters|Category:Season Three Main Characters]], Category:Season Three Supporting , [[

Category:Season Three Recurring Characters|Category:Season Three Recurring Characters]] and [[

Category:Season Three Minor Characters|Category:Season Three Minor Characters]]. The Season One Characters categories would then be categorized as subcategories in Category: Season One Characters, and the same with the Season Two characters etc. Likewise would Category:Season One Supporting Characters, Category:Season Two Supporting Characters and Category:Season Three Supporting Characters, become subcats under Category:Supporting Characters, and similar categorization would be done with the main, recurring and minor characters.

As a result, a character like Ando would go into Category:Season One Supporting Characters, [[

Category:Season Two Main Characters|Category:Season Two Main Characters]] and [[

Category:Season Three Main Characters|Category:Season Three Main Characters]], Janice would be sorted into Category:Season One Supporting Characters and [[

Category:Season Two Minor Characters|Category:Season Two Minor Characters]] etc. So, actually, a bonus, the categorization of a character will also show how her or his involvement in the show has changed over the years.

This would also mean that no articles would be categorized directly into Category: Season One Characters, Category: Season Two Characters, Category: Season Three Characters, Category:Main Characters, Category:Supporting Characters, Category:Recurring Characters, or Category:Minor Characters, which would only include the subcats.

Finally - the wish to find the characters that is currently apperearing as Supporting characters etc. would still be granted, as I propose that we leave the portals (Portal:Main Characters etc.) and templates (Template:Characternav with subtemplates) as they are.

This would mean some work, but I wouldn't mind do it, since it would save the categories from turning more or less useless.

Reactions? Pierre 12:14, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

• Yes, it's a bit of work, and we should probably do the Cast along with the Characters if we decide to do this. I recommend you wait at least a week for people to add comments. I'll add a couple split tags so people can realize a discussion is in progress. I think we may have mentioned this before, and at the time we decided to rename the portals, keeping the splits, but we didn't make the split cats for the categories. I wouldn't mind seeing this done, but it's not a priority for me.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Sure I'll wait - that's common wiki sense :) However - I think it's important for the change to be made in good time prior to Season Three, in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. Pierre 07:47, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
    • So.. if there is no objections, I go ahead and make the change sometime early next week. Pierre 09:16, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
      • If anything, I was always confused as to why we never did this. Especially when D.L. is a main character in season one, but his page says he's a minor character. --DocM 09:52, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

After spending days trying to sort this out, I give up. I lack the wiki skills to work out the codes. I urge anyone who have the knowledge to work this out, though. The main problem is that the categorization is tied to the templates, which are based upon quite complicated codes. Personally I don't think its a good idea to use to complex systems on a wiki, but that's just my opinion. If it was up to me I'd skip the auto categorization of the templates, change to use the categorization mentioned above, and also replace the too complicated Template:Characternav, with a simpler template, something like this:

With that said - it's obvious that there is much work behind the current system, and I won't interfere with it. However - I urge those users who worked it out to take look at it. Otherwise it will soon grow pretty useless... Pierre 09:10, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I think that the new template is even more complicated to be honest. I like the idea of sorting people by season and major/recurring/guest but Additional posthumans and Family members both make no sense to me. I say have 3 templates: Characters season 1, Characters season 2, and Characters season 3. We will also need to sort though all the guest cast which could take some time, but I think if new start now we can do it before the season starts. --Skywalkerrbf 09:32, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Heres what I think it should look like:

The complications I referred to was regarding to codes creating the templates. I don't like the season bounded templates, mainly because most characters worth mentioning in templates isn't bound to one season. Regarding Skywalkerrbf's template - there isn't any change other than in the header as to teh current one, right. Anyhow - I'm off this,m and as long as someone starts cleaning up the mess in some way, I'm happy. Pierre 09:57, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Personally think sorting them by season rather than 'family member' is a easier way to find someone. It would also solve the problem of say Ando as he would have both templates on this page so you could see that his position has changed, its just the same as the Character portals. We also need to sort the charters into main cast:season one, main cast: season 2 ect, are you still interested in helping with that?

Hm... "both templates"? There is only one in my suggestion - the one posted above. Every character would have the same template. It is when we use more templates, as we do currently and as your suggestion have it, that it becomes tricky to decide how many templates that ought to be included in each article... So as far as I see it - my suggestion solves the problems caused by the current model ;)

The trouble with the current categorization is, as I stated above, that it is being done automatically by the templates, and I'm not enough skilled to work around this. Otherwise I would have done it already, according to the suggestion made above, some month ago, since there was no objections.Pierre 10:26, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

The trouble with your template is Additional posthumans and Family members, I really don't think they work. If I were you I would try make a template that includes them all but in a different way.--Skywalkerrbf 10:36, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Well... If I had a better idea I would use that idea wouldn't I :) This is my suggestion, and the ideal character template as far as I go. As with every wiki change it is up to consensus though. Anyone who have suggestions regarding how to improve my suggestion, or any other, are always welcome to do so, and hopefully we will come up with something everyone will be fine with. Until then we are stuck with the current ones.

Maybe if you could be more specific about what you really don't think work? Pierre 10:53, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I thought I was :S The Additional posthumans and Family members rows. --Skywalkerrbf 10:58, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that you said... :) But why do you think they don't work? Pierre 11:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Because they are not credited as family members, they are supporting or recurring Characters. --Skywalkerrbf 11:19, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, you are wrong there. They are credited as "stars", "guest stars" and "co-stars". The terms supporting, recurring, minor characters are Heroes Wiki inventions, and - specially regarding season 1, VERY speculative. That's one of the reasons I prefer my template, since there is no question what header each character belongs under. Pierre 11:32, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes there is a question, what if they are a family member and a evolved human? By the way here are a few new templates I made:--Skywalkerrbf 11:42, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

If they are posthumans and relatives of the main characters then they go under posthumans. But you have a point though - it should be noted better. Changing "Family members" to "Relatives with no known abilities". Pierre 11:50, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

• I originally made it so each character had the bar for each season they were in, but it was huge. So it was decided to have only the latest season they were in, in the bar. The automation was done to make it so we didn't have to change every page every time categories or seasons changed. Categories can be added manually if needed. I have not had time to consider the category changes that have been proposed above, I will try to, and see if I can do anything with them. It is true that "main", "guest", and "minor" are Heroes Wiki inventions, but they are based on, "stars", "guest stars", and "co-stars". I don't like "posthumans" and "Relatives with no known abilities" very much, to me it infers that characters with powers are more important. -Lөvөl 12:32, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I actually had made one that did something like this back in December. I can update it with the categories if they are decided on. -Lөvөl 13:06, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's true that "main characters" is the Heroes Wiki term for series regulars (or "Stars") But there is absolutely no correspondence between the "Supporting"/"Recurring"/"Minor" categorizations and "Guest stars"/"Co-stars". If anything the HW categories is based upon number of appearances, which would be fine if it were consistent, but regarding season 1 characters, it simply isn't. Pierre 13:51, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Why change?

I wasn't around when the above suggestion was made, so I didn't have a chance to comment on the proposal. Why are we thinking about changing the way it's being done? I personally like the way it's set up now. I think having automatic categorization saves some huge headaches. Level's solution way-back-when was a good solution. What exactly are we talking about adding or changing? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

• How I see it is there is a problem with people like Ando being in both the main cast and the recurring cast, so instead of main cast and recurring cast it wouls be main cast:season 2 and recurring cast season 2.--Skywalkerrbf 13:39, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
• Read my original post above, and hopefully my thoughts on the matter will be clear Pierre 13:45, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
  • My problem is how D.L. is a main character in season one and minor in season two, and Kaito being recurring in season one, but minor in season two. That kind of thing. It makes no sense to categorise a character into season two, if they have also been in season one. --DocM 13:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I read Pierre's original post--it's not a matter of not understanding what is wanted so much as a matter of understanding why such a change would be necessary and how exactly one plans to go about it. I don't see anything wrong with listing D.L. as a minor character since he is now--Leonard Roberts is correctly categorized as a former principal actor as well as a guest star, since, well, he was. Ando is no longer a recurring character, he is correctly labeled as a main character, and James Kyson Lee is correctly labeled as a member of the principal cast. I'm still not sure how any of that is an issue. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Basically it depends on weather you regards the series as one entity, which I do - then DL is and will always be a min character of the show - or if you regard the most current episode/season as the most correct measurement as to what status a character have. Personally I've never understood the later view. Anyhow - since I'm not capable of changing anything, I'm off this discussion. I still think the current character categorization is a disaster, and one of the really big faults of a general pretty decent category tree. If there is a consensus to improve it, and I in any way can help, plz give me a nod at my talk page. Pierre 12:44, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
        • I think we've got this all worked out now, and for the best. The categories are now more specific, so one won't read "guest star" and think they've always been a guest star. Instead, they will read "Season Two Guest Star" and "Season One Principal Cast" (in the cast of someone like Leonard Roberts), and there shouldn't be any confusion. Additionally, the navbar on the actors' pages (well, and on the character pages) should show the most current status for the individual. Both Leonard's and D.L.'s navbars show s2 information since that was the most recent season he was in. Hopefully this satisfies both worlds. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (EST)