Template talk:Desperate Housewives

Colours

Sorry but these colours clash horribly, making it look unattractive, distracting, and difficult to read. violet/riga (t) 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold! Change them! If you think you know a better colour then change them, when i added the reds i was trying to get the shade from the apple in the intro (it didnt go well) but feel free to change them ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you only just changed them and I've had nothing to do with any related articles I thought I'd give you the chance to try something different. If I were to change them it would probably be just your standard grey/light blue shading, which I can do if you'd like but isn't particularly revolutionary. violet/riga (t) 13:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did the gray thing and just changed them; Template:Desperate Housewives Ok? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Or I'll let you do it as you've done a good job there. violet/riga (t) 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I based the colour scheame of an old nav template that has since been redesigned to use green :) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor characters

I moved the non-starring roles to a "minor characters" section Pjär80 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dots

I've reverted somebody's change from pipes to dots back to pipes, dots are poor separators and render poorly. Matthew 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian

Wondering about Ian. As far as I can see, he is still credited as guest star in the latest aired episode, Dress big. What's the source for him being credited as main? Pjär80 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Press releases credit him as guest star. Matthew 07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Colours

Sorry, but this new green template just is hideous. Anyone strongly disagree if I change it back? Pjär80 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Danielle

Should we really say she isn't a main character anymore? We are still early into the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy77 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The actress who plays her - Joy Lauren - isn't credited anymore, which means that she ain't a main character; thus, she belongs with other former main characters (and as such she might guest appearances in the future, just like Rex, John, Karl etc. has done in the past). Pjär80 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

She was credited last night (although she didnt appear). So, she is a main character. Frenchy 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy77 (talk • contribs)

Yep - she's back in the credits, and back as a current main character in the credits. Pjär80 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Housewives additions

I was thinking that since the articles for each of the main wives are getting pretty long, it would be smart to split it up into something along the lines of, for example, "Bree Van De Kamp (season 1)" or "Bree Van De Kamp in Season 1" and then having an optional row within this template (Desperate Housewives) and it would say something like, "Part of a series on Bree Hodge" with links for each season (abbreviated of course)." Geoking66_talk 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No! By all means no! The reason for the character articles getting too long is that the information about them is too detailed. See Wikipedia: Writing about fiction for more information. Pjär80 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have a show with every single character having a huge contribution to an increasingly complex storyline as Desperate Housewives, detail is a necessity. No matter how much you try to simplify it, eventually the article will need to be split. Rather than taking on this task later when there's a extremely large volume of information, completing it now saves a lot of energy. Geoking66_talk 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, and I think you'll see my point. We have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a DH fan site. :) Pjär80 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Phyllis Van De Kamp added to Secondary Charecters?

Should she be added? I think she's quite an important charecter to be added, she was in four episodes in the second season and according to the wikipedia page on the forth episode of the fourth season, she makes an apperance in that aswell and might even appear after that episode. I think she should be added because she was an important role during the second season with the Bree/George storyline so I think she should be added. What does everyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1012233 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that character appearing in less than 8 episodes are included in List of Desperate Housewives characters. If or when Phyllis reaches an amount of 8 appearences, then she ought to have an individual article. But please add info to her paragraph in List of Desperate Housewives characters, as it's very short at the moment. Pjär80 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair enough. Also sorry for making the Stella Wingfield page, I wasen't aware of the epight episode rule before I made the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1012233 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - nothing to be sorry for :) The more we are trying to improve the DH sites, the better they will get. Better to edit one too many, than one too few edit. Be bold, and don't be afraid to disagree with other editors. :) Pjär80 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I get why eight episodes is an approiate amount, but alot of charecters who have had less apperances have also been quite important to the storyline such as Phyllis, Stella and other charecters but I have to agree that Desperate Housewives has had a huge cast from main charecters, recurring charecters, etc so I think the eight episode rule is a good idea. I do think Cayolyn Brigsby should have her own page back. She played quite a major rule, fair enough she was in episode 1-7 of season 3 but she was quite an important charecter, anybody agree? Sam1012233 23:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "eight episodes" is a rather prosaic way to do it, and obviously, as it has been broken in the case of Gloria Hodge (and also of Travers McClain), that rule shouldn't always be adhered to. The way I see it, is that character bios should be given when the character is essential for an imporant plot point. When you read a character bio and it is mostly passive information or incidental references put together (in my opinion, those descriptions refer to Travers McClain and Ida Greenberg respectively), then perhaps it isn't such a good idea. Characters such as Carolyn Bigsby, who are far more tied up in significant events, should be included over those with simply a higher episode count.

As for current guest stars, those whose significance we can't yet fully predict, I actually think it's better for them to be added in from the start. This is apparently how the articles were controlled in Season Three, for example, with Art being added in, and then taken away (the same thing, I think, happened with Rick Colleti). My point is, browsers are most probably going to interested in guest stars whose role is important at the moment. I don't think the green light should be given only after waiting for eight episodes to pass. There is no harm, if, after the character's arc has finished, they are then removed again. Under this idea, I would include Stella Wingfield most definitely. Of course, once Lynette's cancer storyline is over, and if Stella leaves the show, her significance will soon pale (think of Susan's mother in Season One and Two).

As we are not at the end of Season Seven (if that will indeed be when the show will end), we cannot really tell who the "secondary characters" are, as we don't have the whole picture. We can surmise as we go along.

--Pob iii 13:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Added Bob Hunter and Lee

I've added Bob Hunter and Lee, please do not delete there pages I've worked hard on it. And I think it's silly to delete a page and then bring it back if they do appear in more than eight episodes. So until we can no for sure please leave the pages as they are. Sam1012233 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring Dylan's page back

I like the idea of cutting down charecters who are deceased for example Alma Hodge and Nora Huntington. But why has Dylan Mayfair, Parker, Preston and Porter Scavoa and Kayla Huntington been removed from main charecters? All of them are main charecters and need to be included especially Dylan who is obvisoly going to have a large role this series, also maybe Adam Mayfair could be added to the current cast along with Victor Lang and Ida Greenberg theese charecters have large roles and is stupid to cut them out. Sam10123 11:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add back at least starring characters such as Dylan, Caleb, Austin and Matthew. They all had/have a big impact on the story, maybe bigger than McCluskey. In the guest stars George and Ian definitely deserve their own page. Maybe Victor and Nora can have theirs too. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, theese charecters are essential. Sam10123 11:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the deletion discussion for all those characters, the outcome of which was to redirect them all to the character list article. As important as some of these characters are to the storyline, they need to have real-world context to deserve their own pages, and none of them do. The articles were nothing more than plot summary, which fails WP:WAF and WP:FICT. The same plot summaries exist in the episode articles, so additionally, the character articles were also redundant. --CrazyLegsKC 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So. On Google, Autin McCann, Ian Hainsworth, George Williams and Felicia Tilman have millions of answers. All 4 of them had promo photoshoots and a big importance to the plot. Dylan, Caleb and Matthew all are/were big parts of their season's mystery and had/have people talking about them for the whole season. Heck, there even was that Caleb actor controversy. While I agree that Nora, Victor, Martha, Carolyn, Alma, Gloria, Bob and Lee are nothing more than notable guests, they still had quite important storylines so I have mixed feeling about them. However I agree about the fact that Kayla, Porter, Preston and Ida are not notable/important enough to have their own article. Parker is slightly more important so maybe he does...

I think that's one silly rule to be honest. 172.159.78.7 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very annoyed! Dylan should have her own page! She is a season regular! She's been SO important to the storyline of this series so far and she's likely to last for a long time and she apperared on the same episode that Katherine apperared in so she has the right to have her page back like Katherine does. I see why Ida, Parker, Porter, Kayla and Preston don't have their own pages as they don't contribute much to the story but Dylan however, does. Sam10123 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Housewives image

The image has to go. You cannot have a copyrighted image in the banner, it clearly fails WP:FU.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I just posted a question related to this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --CapitalR (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which characters should be in the "Main housewives" group?

OK let's discuss it. I think under this group should be only the 4 main characters. Any other opinions? -- 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the character of Edie really departing or staying in season 5. If she stays, she should be in the group of main housewives. Lots of promo images feature her, and Nicolette has been along the other four main cast members in award ceremonies and stuff. Just go to Google Images and look for Desperate Housewives images and you will find that most of them include Edie with the other 4. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that I think that Katherine and Mary Alice Young should not be added in the main group. Their case is not the same as Edie's. They should be included only as "other main characters".--Lord Opeth (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edie shouldn't be in the group of the main housewives. Whether she appears in promo images or not, Edie has never had a storyline that wasn't merely a support to one of the REAL main Housewives. Even when Bree was gone in season 3, her role was mostly to set up Gabby's plotlines. It should be Susan, Bree, Gabrielle, and Lynette. If Katherine becomes a real main Housewife in the fifth season, that can be discussed then. RosaAquafire (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Love the new set-up for this -- I think it should be left this way. RosaAquafire 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Katherine Mayfair should be added to the list. She is playing poker with them five years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.180.129 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that only the five main housewives should be included in the main characters list. Yes, Edie has been a supporting main charcater for most of the series, but it was confirmed by Marc Cherry before Season 2 that Edie would take the place of Mary Alice Young as the fifth lead, something that had already been established by the end of the first season when she is invited to poker. Also, Bree includes her as one of her friends when she explains to Katherine about 'niches'. Asf08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.50.16 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a "housewives" group, then all of them should be included, the main ladies, Edie, Katherine and Mary Alice. But maybe we should eliminate the "housewives" group altogether because I don't think there is ever going to be a consensus, and we should do what was there before this whole division of characters, we should put all the main characters, including the housewives, the husbands and the kids in one group. There should only be "Current Main Character" and "Former Main Characters". But I know lots of people won't agree with me, and I can't understand why. Also, there should be "Recurring Characters" like before, but somehow there are no longer pages for any recurring character other that Karen McCluskey and Adam Mayfair. The template from like early 2007 was great, but some idiots changed it for some reason, and now if we try to get it back they will undo it. It's a shame... -- Renaboss (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

After all these edit wars I think the best division is "Current Main Character", "Former Main Characters", "Secondary Characters" as the most off-universe description among the ones suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonstandard colours

WP:Navbox states: "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles"

should colours of this template be changed to standard?

Nonstandard colours seem to be used often in TV series templates, like Template:Blackadder or Template:mrbean; there are precedents, and this template has looked like it does for really long time. I personally do not see reason for standardizing it just for the sake of it. Any other opinions? ASN (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

it's not so much the colour, but the fonting.... and i cannot imagine any justification for the use of such blatantly off-standard formatting. and the use of one--or in this case two--very bad ideas is not justification for another. --emerson7 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

first of all, very polite of you to make sure that you repeated the changes and protected them by sysop before coming here to discuss them. really, this is obviously much better than leaving template as it is and proposing changes on this page.

(irony off)

yes the formatting is non-standard, both in colors and fonts - but, to the best of my knowledge, it does not violate any policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, and it has been consistently kept this way since the beginning. Read history for numerous reverts, not by me, to the old layout.

please, provide a policy or guideline which would support your changes, and i will stop reverting them and agree with your point. otherwise, which version is better is a matter of taste - and, as I've mentioned, editors of this template have sided with the version of the template that you keep removing. ASN (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

rather than devolving into sarcastic wit myself, i'll only address the issues. 1) wp:navbox encompasses the general standards and practices employed throughout wikipedia and applies them to the navbox template. moreover, it is referenced by each of the policies that govern the class including: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of navigational templates, and Wikipedia:Template standardisation as the overall guideline to follow. 2) consideration must be given to the fact that the template does not exist in a vacuum. by nature, templates affect the appearance of several pages, and must make nice with the content and other templates with which they appear. 3) the use of nonstandard formatting, fonts, colours and odd frame sizes and shapes without justification, for 'purely' decorative effect is a prohibited interjection of personal taste, and opinion and is on its face unencyclopaedic.

you might find it helpful to read over: {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-mos2}},Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), which all cover this topic to one degree or another.

i will add one thing however....through all of this discourse, you have yet to offer any coherent reason this template should deviate so radically from the norm. --emerson7 16:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I support a change back to standard formatting. There is no need for this template to deviate so radically from the norm. It's simply distracting and unnecessary (not to mention in direct opposition of the various guidelines and policies mentioned by emerson7 above). Please also read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles — the editors of this template who "side" with the current version seem to be getting a little possessive with this template. It's not a matter of "taste", either — the proposed standard formatting is the general norm for navboxes, not what emerson7 or I think is prettier. Mr. Absurd (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The template

In continuity to my recent post - see above, in the Which characters should be in the "Main housewives" group, post - I see that there is a slot in the template that lists who portrays the five leading characters. This doesn't show in the actual template, as there is an 's' missing in the word 'list'.

Also, should Katherine and Mary Alice be listed in the 'Main Housewives' group, as they are, technically, still housewives, and if not Katherine, then Mary Alice should definately be in the group, as, as Marc Cherry has admitted himself, she in the epicentre of the show, holds it together, and, in effect, is possibly the most important character. Asf08

Dividing the main characters in two sections is more complicated, it's an area for speculations and in fact is a bit unencyclopedic. Why "Katherine" is more notable/important than "Carlos Solis"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that, I was just categorizing them into their roles on the shows. Katherine is a Housewife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asf08 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Karen McCluskey is as well then. Just read the concerns other editors have. I really liked that this template had the "Housewives" section but as I understand now it's a ground for editing warring! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess I didn't think of that - good point. Asf08 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A New Template

Here is a new template, which I have designed so that there is as little information as possible.

1. All of the main housewives are in prominence. Mary Alice is included as she has been present in all episodes, with the exception of 'My Husband, the Pig', and propelles the show through her narrative.

2. Recurring Characters are in the 'Current Characters' section, as they are still, technically, current.

3. All 'Other' information is now in a below section, and, to erase another category, I have included a link to 'Amas de Casa Desesperadas', which leads to the disambiguation page, with all of the different versions.

4. The 'Current Cast' section lists the cast in billing order, not in order of popularity. Also, Recurring characters are not included in this section.

5. I have centered the text in a bid to make it more distinguishable and easier to read.

I was also contemplating replacing the dot separators with the '|' characters, to see is it made it easier to distinguish the names and links from each other, but I thought it more polite to put this idea forward first instead of just going right ahead and changing it.

I hope you like it.

Could I also ask that you consider before changing it, as I did to the prior template, as I took a lot of time doing it, and tried to take into account people's opinions of the template. Thanks. Asf08 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Julie, Karl and Danielle

Julie Mayer, Karl Mayer and Danielle Van de Kamp are all listed as current characters, but they're not. For starters, they're no longer credited as regulars, they just make guest appearances every now and then. Danielle and Karl haven't been see since early in October, and Julie was only in the latest episode, she won't be in the next few ones. They should be removed from the current characters' list and added to the former characters' list. -- Renaboss (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am good with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bt we don't want to give newcomers the wrong idea. I think that only people who cannot permanantly come back, i.e, Rex, because he's dead, and Betty, because of the basement prison thing, should be listed in former characters. As long as they recur from time to time, then i think that they should be included in current characters. Though I'm open to other points of view. Asf08 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the one hundredth, Rex Van de Kamp will make an appearance in flashbacks. Does that mean we should include a character who's been dead since 2005 in the list of current characters? I don't think so. Julie, Karl and Danielle should be removed from the list because they are no longer regulars and they haven't appeared on the show, even in season five, for a while now, and there's no mention that they should return in the future. Renaboss (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The look!

Hi, everybody! First of all the template looks very nice. I love it. But there is one problem. You must change it!!! Look I think is goregeous but the rules are rules! So the title Desperate Housewives on the template, that looks exactly like the show logo must be change it. Wikipedia is an ENCUCLOPEDIA so change it! Because the Charmed template, was taken all of its color, the Grey's Anatomy template was taken the right to make the title like this so I don't see the reason why WE must OBEY the rules and you don't! So change the template FAST or I will do everything in my power to make it normal. Rules are rules, even if I simply adore the template. --SmartM&M (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Past characters?

Why don't we put the past main characters in italics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.184.158 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TV series are like book, films, etc. and they have to be looked in the whole. The same way in a book there is no "current chapter" in a TV series there is no "current season". As WP:MOSFICT writes "At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'." Conclusion, they are no "past" and "current" characters. Afterall, it doesn't help readers who haven't followed the last episodes to easy access information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The FOUR Protagonists

Only the FOUR MAIN Protagonists (Susan, Lynette, Bree and Gaby) should be listed in prominence. Katherine should be kept in line with the other SUPPORTING cast. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.20.250 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Box Color!!!

That red is horrible!!! It makes difficult to read the dark blue letters that contains!!! That color must be change.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunato luigi (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Former characters?

If Edie Britt and Andrew Van de Kamp are to be removed from the template, because they are not current main characters, then I'd say it's time to bring back the "former characters" section. Otherwise, put them back in the characters section. It doesn't need to reflect the current or upcoming season, but provide easy to access information on the series as a whole! Every article directly relating to series needs to appear in there, in my opinion. Firestorm566 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is no "former" in fiction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Acquaintances"

Why are the four primary characters filed under "Acquaintances"? This makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.82.187 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Return of Julie's Page?

I think the character of Julie Mayer should have her own page again. She was a regular character in five separate seasons and has appeared in some form in every season to date and as it's been confirmed she's also going to be in season eight it means she would have appeared in every single season of the shows history. She's also been involved with some big storylines including the hostage episode in season three and she was a big part of the Fairview Strangler mystery in season six. She's also nearly appeared in one hundred episodes of the show overall! I think if characters like Bob and Lee can get pages, let alone separate ones, I think Julie should get her page back. She's been a constant presence throughout the shows run. What do you think? Sam10123 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)