Talk:Character (arts)/Archive 1

Meous
How would the character/role of 'the common man' in A Man for All Seasons fit in this article? i don;t know

"Some language- or text-oriented critics emphasize that characters are nothing more than certain conventional uses of words on a page: names or evenn just pronouns repeated throughout a text. They refer to characters as functions of the text. Some critics go so far as to suggest that even authors do not exist outside the texts that construct them."

Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. You can relate to characters emotionally in a way that you can't relate to a dispassionate block of text. Lee M 05:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about "dispassionate"? That same school of critics would probably refer to your emotions as just another set of functions of the text. :)

Tom


 * Whereas I would describe them as functions of my hormonal system... :-\ Lee M 13:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is Macbeth really a readers to imagine characters as real people by giving them realistic names, names that were often the titles of books, such as Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre or Charles

for the whole) would only make sense if one were using Hamlet to refer to all of Shakespeare's work or something along those lines, but that would be a rather strange way to use the term.

On another note, I'm not sure of the usefulness of the oft-alluded-to characters list. If someone doesn't get an allusion, wouldn't they just look up that person's entry on the wikipedia? When would you want to use a list of oft-alluded-to people? -- Thomas Mills Hinkle
 * My hope is actually that people will eventually add similar characters from India, Japan, etc. If so, and the list is subdivided by cultural region, it could be useful as far as pointing out characters that areto.  I know a tiny about Japanese religion and culture and whatnot, for example, but couldn't even begin to name a character with iconic significance.  I'd like of famous characters, rather than a list of characters so famous that they have acquired an identity of their own outside of their work that is a major part of our culture. Hermione Granger was recently added to the list -- while she and the other Harry Potter characters are certainly famous, I don't believe her name has grown outside of Rowling's control in the same way as characters like Quijote, Big Brother and Jeckyl and Hyde. I'm inclined to begin pruning this list boldly if people don't mind -- there are many lists of characters on the wikipedia, and I want to avoid having this article turn into another one. Tom 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree this list should be pruned quite significantly. If you said "She's a bit of a Hermione Granger" I'm not sure anyone would know what you meant. If you said "He's a bit of a Jeckyl and Hyde" then people would know exactly what you meant. Jeckyl and Hyde should stay. Granger should go. --JimmyTheWig 8 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)


 * Agreed, even though I'm a big enough Harry Potter fan that I actually could imagine calling someone a "bit of a Hermione Granger" and having people know exactly what I meant. That said, I'm still a bit nervous about starting doing this. Can anyone give any insight into regular wikipedia practice. I think this really is a case where too much new content threatens to overwhelm the pagethe 'pedia, but I also am loathe to start removing content others put time into adding. Tom


 * I was going to say "Seeing as no-one was defending the list as it stands, I propose removing x, y and z". But now I've had another look at it, I find it hard to prune.
 * I'm concerned about deleting someone just because I haven't heard of them, especially if they're from another culture. I've never heard of "Brother Jonathan", though he may be famous in the States (I'm in the UK). Similarly, there are Czech and Russian characters on the list that I've never heard of.
 * I propose removing the following from the list: Archie Bunker, Brother Jonathan, Captain Ahab, Captain Kirk, Hamlet, Hermione Granger, Holden Caulfield, Ivan-durak, Jara Cimrman, King Lear, Nozdrev, Ophelia, Penelope, Sharikov, Siren, Tom Joad.
 * If someone is removed then I suggest the text is copied to this talk page to preserve it, at least for now.(UTC)


 * I disagree with Archie Bunker, Captain Ahab, Hamlet and Penelope, I think they are all sufficiently archetypal (probably Ophelia too - there is a book with the title "Saving Ophelia", for example, which relies on people having the association of "suicidal young woman" with the name). Someone has addedreversed for Yoda and Merlin/Gandalf (they have Yoda as the archetype influencing the characters of Merlin and Gandalf, which is chronologically impossible apart from any other issues).


 * I will remove the X-Men characters and insert Merlin as archetype rather than influencee. We should have a link to "archetype" somewhere as well.


 * I think what we should probably use as a criterion for inclusion in this list is "Is this the originating character which subsequently is referenced by future characters of the same type?" So Merlin is is but Hercule Poirot isn't (not because they don't significantly extend the archetype but because they didn't originate it).

MikeRM 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When editing, please note the helpful comment at the top of the list (not mine):

"For the sake of brevity and only using the most helpful examples, please no national personifications, mythological heroes, very contemporary characters or characters that are not extraordinarily iconic."

Looking at the list I found a lot that I am dubious about. Usually they are relatively modern characters based on older archetypes. My opinion is that we should go for the earlier character rather than the one that may be more familiar, but I am open to argument here. The lead-in paragraph does make fame one of the criteria for an "iconic" character.

All of the Star Wars based on archetypes from Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces".

Also, are we restricting ourselves to literature? The article's title is "fictional characters" so it would seem appropriate to include only characters which have first appeared in fiction (including media other than text in the broad category of fiction, but excluding myth and legend). However, this test would exclude Robin Hood, Santa Claus and probably King Arthur, for example, and I'm not sure we want to do that. (King Arthur isn't currently included - although he arose from folk legend/history, our earliest available sources are literary, so he may count after all.)

MikeRM 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bugs Bunny - based at least partly on Brer Rabbit (certainly as regards "benign slyness and cunning"), who in turn is a traditional mythological character, although he is known to Western culture primarily through the "Uncle Remus" rendering. Do either of these (Bugs or Brer Rabbit) belong here?
 * Buffy - based on earlier vampire slayers, notably Abraham Van Helsing (from Bram Stoker's Dracula), * I don't think Doctor Who is "extraordinarily iconic". I am open to being convinced. If he is, he is probably based on the Wandering Jew or some similarly itinerant legendary figure.
 * Indiana Jones is based on earlier adventurers such as Doc Savage or, further back, Allan Quatermain. But you would be more widely understood if you said "He's an Indiana Jones type" than if you said "He's an Allan Quatermain type", at least until someone films the H. Rider Haggard books again and does a decent job of it.
 * Robin Hood, while widely used in fiction, wasn't originally literary, was he? Does he count? He does in all other ways.
 * Removed He-Man and the Flash as they are not "extraordinarily iconic".
 * Santa Claus - another non-literary one.
 * Mr Spock - probably a literary descendant of Sherlock Holmes, so I'm dubious about his status as "iconic" if we are taking the earlier one as the icon.
 * Superman definitely belongs.
 * Captain America, I'm not so sure. If we are including non-literary characters I would say Uncle Sam was a more* Spiderman might squeak in as an iconically troubled superhero, but I'm dubious.
 * Removed Wolverine as not "extraordinarily iconic".
 * Obi-Wan Kenobi is a "wise old man" figure who is derived from an archetype rather than being one. Removed.
 * Replaced Yoda with Merlin as per my other note above.

You make some very good points, Mike; although there's certainly some merit with going with the earlier version in many cases (as they did come first; my justification for listing 'Sam Spade' as the 'iconic' character for the Gumshoe archetype), the problem as I see it with going simply by the earlier archetype is that many of the later archetypes are either (a) more well-known and therefore established as being more 'iconic' in the public mind (as you point out with the Indiana Jones / Allan Quatermain example), or (b) are different in respects that establish them as being 'iconic' on their own merits (such as Darth Vader and Sauron - although clearly influenced by Sauron, there's elements in Darth Vader's character that are arguably 'iconic' in their own right, although I'd say there's certainly a space for Sauron on the list, what with the success of the Lord of the Rings movies). As such, as well as adding some characters whom I think are iconic (although I'd certainly be open to discussion about them), I've also taken the liberty of expanding slightly on some of the entries (such as Vader and Doctor Who) in an effort to expand on why they're iconic in their own right. After reading this discussion, I also took down a few characters I'd added whom, on further consideration, I didn't feel were really 'iconic' enough.

Regarding Sherlock Holmes and Spock, however, I agree that there's very little difference between the two characters beyond the superficial; reading their entries side-by-side, they're virtually the same, and Holmes is a clear inspiration for Spock. As such, since Holmes did come first, I've merged the two into Holmes' entry. --Joseph Q Publique 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Character as Reference
I just put back in much of the stuff about cultural/feminist reading of characters in relation to stereotypes. It had been replaced by a pithy mention of stereotypes which didn't do justice at all to this kind of criticism (the point is not that stereotypes are bad and bad authors use them -- the point is that authors rely on or react to stereotypes in their writing).

My edit may have been overzealous -- I started out trying to fix a bunch of typos and grammar errors that had been introduced, then realized content had been lost. In the process, I cut some of what was added by User:151.201.28.80, but I think I kept the core examples that were added and actually expanded on one in the newly forged paragraph.

If you're going to do any major edits, please discuss here.

Also, I'm starting to think that I should look for references and quotes of literary criticism to go along with these sections, rather than relying on generalities and examples of books. While the expanding selection of example characters/texts is useful, "ways of reading characters" is really about reading, so example readings would, I think, be even better :) Tom 23:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Characters and Types
I think everything here is great, and I would also like to see a little more to show the distinction between a full character and one who is less individualized and is more defined by as being a type (not strictly a stereotype). In some of my screenwriting classes, I recall the fact that distinguishing between a character and a type was a very important skill in both character/story creation and analysis. Perhaps this would be viewed as a relatively minor technicality, but I feel it's important and might be worth highlighting more right from the start of this entry. -forteanajones 15:15, 23 Mar 2005 PST


 * I say go for it. I think it would be best added under the section Round Characters vs. Flat Characters, which already works more from the perspective of writing than the other sections (which I wrote, mostly, from the perspective of criticism/reading). Tom


 * I fleshed out round vs. flat a bit and added dynamic vs. static as well. These categories could have gone in the "Characterization" article as well, but "Dynamic character" already redirected to this page. I moved these two categories to the top of the section because I felt they were more commonly encountered terms than some of the others. Also, I realize my examples of round characters are a little strange; they were what I could pull off the top of my head. IrisWings 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a list of fictional horror killers to the category - I think it is a relevant list for horror afficianados and also important as part of the fictional character list. Piecraft 22:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Some things to add to the article?
It seems to me something should be said about the importance of fictional characters to both authors and readers in how they see themselves and grow. Some questions related to this are:

-- Sitearm | Talk 03:21, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are so many people so fascinated with fictional characters? (e.g., many Wikipedia articles devoted each to a character)
 * 2) Fictional treatments of historical characters who actually existed (e.g., Miyamoto Musashi wrote a book about martial arts and existed, but a book was written about him by Eiji Yoshikawa and a film was made about him by Akira Kurosawa)
 * 3) Fictional treatments where historical characters are mixed with fictional characters (e.g., Horatio Hornblower and Napoleon)
 * 4) Characters like Adam and Eve
 * 5) nicknames and avatars used in online communities and role playing games

Is List of fictional people known for their names appropriate?
A link to a List of fictional people known for their names has been added to this page by User:Jrleighton. Is the linked page appropriate for an encyclopedia?

--JimmyTheWig 09:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Should Ziggy Stardust be classed as a "fictional character"
Musicians create fictional characters. For example, David Bowie created Ziggy Stardust, among others. Is there a special word for these, or should they also be termed "fictional characters" in the same way as characters in cartoons, for example. Alan Pascoe 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What about non-persons?
The opening sentence reads, "A fictional character is any person who appears in a work of fiction."

Just curious, why is it restricted to being a person? Are not anthropromorphic creatures in works of fiction also characters? Consider the cast of A. A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh, or any number of cartoons such as Yogi Bear.

Also, must a person in a work of fiction be fictional? There are many literary and theatrical works that feature real people in fictional situations. Examples are Adolf Hitler in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Franklin D. Roosevelt in Yankee Doodle Dandy.

— Michael J 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Winnie the Pooh is a person too! There is a list of real people in a fictional context (I forget the exact title).  Perhaps the lead could say "A fictional character is one who appears...", but then that assumes knowledge of the word "character" (which itself could imply human, anyway).  I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's too much of a problem.  violet/riga (t) 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * it´s quite a problem--89.212.209.233 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Listcruft
Over half of this article is an unreadable laundry list. I intend to start trimming it over the next few days. Would anyone like to opine about why these lists are important or necessary before I begin? Nandesuka 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope - I'd be happy if you axed the whole thing. "Iconic" is utterly unverifiable and POV. Percy Snoodle 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please also check out WikiProject Laundromat, a project to identify and keep lists under control. Nandesuka 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the removal -- any chance we could remove the whole list of Iconic characters too? Tom


 * Go for it - Be bold! Percy Snoodle 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What might be good is to pick a small number of those "iconic characters" -&mdash; say, 3 or 4 &mdash; and replace the list with a small paragraph, using those as examples. Just my $0.02.  I'll do that later today if no one beats me to it. Nandesuka 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Percy Snoodle 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

round vs. flat and dynamic vs. static
Round v. flat and dynamic v. static were recently moved to the top of the list of "ways of reading characters" This strikes me as wrong -- if you note, the other ways of reading characters all have a parallel construction and they really refer to modes in which literary critics might approach character.

Round vs. Flat and Dynamic vs. Static refers to types of characters that exist in a work (rather than ways of reading characters). In other words, ways of reading characters refer to multiple ways in which readers could interpret the same character whereas round v. flat etc. refer to classification schemes with which you can differentiate characters.

I'm not sure what a good sub-heading for them would be -- perhaps, "basic uses of characters" or "basic types of characters". Any ideas? Tom 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the current change, "Some ways of classifying characters." I knew at the time that round/flat, dynamic/static didn't fit with the other schemes, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. IrisWings 06:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

refine intro para
Fictional character includes a character or personna portrayed in a performance by an actor or provocateur, or as part of a breaching experiment, where the continuity of the performance or experiment depends on the illusion that the character is in fact "real". dr.ef.tymac 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Move of Fictional character to Character (fiction)
Hello, Mike Klaassen. I just noticed your move of the article Fictional character to Character (fiction), and I must say that I don't feel that this move is for the best. I saw that one of your reasons for the move is that you feel that the title Character (fiction) is easier to find than the title Fictional character. As stated before, I don't feel this way. Many editors here have been typing the words Fictional character as to internal-link that article for a while now, and it's easier to type than to have to pipe-trick the character part of the title. Would you mind further explaining (seeing as I read your edit summary about it) to me why you feel that this move is for the best on this matter? Flyer22 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Flyer. Rather than argue the merits of either title, I changed it back. Mike Klaassen 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mike. I would have been fine with "hearing" your side on this matter, of course. Anyway, thank you for the move-back. Flyer22 08:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 : It's better moved back, but I think the piping wasn't an issue per se, because we could still happily link to the fictional character redirect without any piping needed – actually piping wouldn't have been desirable here, it's a common misconception that any and all link to a redirect must be bypassed or piped, when actually many links need to be kept to separate redirects, so as to sort them out by different usage based on which redirect they link to, with separate "What Links Here" lists. I however see a different reason for the move back:
 * Mike Klaassen : WP:FICT allows articles about notable characters under the condition that we clearly inform the reader of their fictional nature, right after their name: thus, I believe that quantitatively, the #1 use for this article on Wikipedia is by far for leads such as, "Foo Bar is a fictional character in the works of John Smithee." Of course, the redirect was good enough too, but as per Wikipedia standards it's preferable to have the article sit at the name it's the most commonly linked to. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, Komusou. I know that we could have still relied on the Fictional character redirect. I should have cited your reason first for the move-back &mdash; its common name. Good point of bringing it up. I was kind of touching on that subject when I stated that many editors here have been linking to that name for a while now. I'll see you around. Flyer22 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

by calliope h.p

Wording in first paragraph
I don't like the wording in the first paragraph because not all fictional characters are created as a figment of one's imagination. In other words, the fictional character may be influenced by an existing person or entity. Please give me a response within two days. Otherwise, the rewording will be likely to be reverted. Marcus2 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Structure
Alongside the note at the top of the page that the article may contain original research, this seems to be a random collection of 'thoughts on character from various places'. There appears to be no real structure, and no particular reason why the included sections are there. Can I suggest that a more useful structure would be to analyse what is meant by 'character' in various epochs of literary criticism, since the topic has been analysed since Aristotle, and different ages have reached quite different conclusions. Martin Turner (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gathering material on character into one article
I've moved this article to Character (arts) in order to gather together into one place the material formerly organized as fictional character and nonfictional character, on the basis that we need an article that addresses the concept in general as used in a wide-range of arts - theatre & drama, opera, literature, etc. I've preferred "arts" to "fiction" as the latter term is ambiguous and carries some ideological baggage about reading performing arts as a form of literature (reading them 'textually' rather than 'performatively'). I've merged in the info from non-fictional character. I've arrived here from work on Greek tragedy, where the distinction between fictional and non-fictional characters doesn't make sense--they are mythological, legendary and historical. The article is still a mess and requires a great deal of attention, though. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good thinking - well done! Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot say that I really like this move. For one, as noted above in another section by me, this article's common name is Fictional character, which is linked that way to many articles here. This article now being titled "Character (arts)" and currently looking even more a mess (due to the changes since then, no offense to Mike Klaassen) has caused a few editors not to link to this article when they note the word "Fictional character" in the lead of fictional character articles, as seen with Freddy Krueger and Buffy Summers, for just two examples. That suggests that this article is not doing a decent job in explaining what a fictional character is...or is seen as too messy to simply get the basics across. Furthermore, the Non-fictional character article still exists. What was the point of merging that article into this one and changing the name of this article if that article is still to remain? Lastly, since we have a Fiction article and a Non-fiction article, why is it not better to have a Fictional character article and a Non-fictional character article? Why must they be merged? Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've failed to address any of the reasons why the article ought to appear under a broader term than "fictional", as given above. Your suggestion that fictional character is the common name is obviously incorrect; when used, the term is usually used without the adjective fictional, because in the vast majority of cases the qualifier is redundant. The quality issues that you raise have no bearing on the discussion on the most appropriate article name (though it is an important discussion - started a new section on that below). The point of the existence of a non-fictional character is that it is a sub-topic of character - the non-fictional character is a particular type of the general. It is precisely the association with fiction that is the problem with using fictional character as the article name, since fiction in its narrow sense is only one medium among many that utilises characters. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing how I failed to address why the article ought to be under the term "fictional character," though I admit that I did not go into detail about it. My "suggestion" that fictional character is the common name is not incorrect, in the context of Wikipedia. Any article on Wikipedia about a fictional character starts off with "[So and so] is a fictional character," not "[So and so] is a character" or "[So and so] is a character (arts)." As this article currently notes, a character can be real or fictional; this is why we distinguish here by saying "fictional character." You yourself seemed to have pondered naming the article "Character (fiction)," like Mike Klaassen did before, which would hardly be any different than "Fictional character"...except for the fact that people do not say "Character (fiction)"...but they do say "Fictional character." The quality issues that I have raised have every bearing on this discussion for the simple fact that since you changed the article, it clearly does not explain fictional characters well or clear enough for some people to even want to link to this article. Linking to this article was never seen as a problem for editors before your move of it. You have failed to address why this article cannot or should not be named "Fictional character" when we have a Fiction article and a Non-fiction article. We do not have an article titled "Fiction (arts)" to thoroughly cover the topic of both fiction and non-fictional topics (as in topics about fiction and  topics in some way fictional or otherwise which are based upon real  entities/incidents, contemporary or historical). Why is it not better to have a Fictional character article and a Non-fictional character article? Why must they be merged? If the term "Non-fictional character" is a sub-topic of character, as we know, then why does it have its own article (which is redundant, seeing as it does not seem as though it will be properly expanded upon) when this article (as you say) is supposed to be an article "that addresses the concept in general as used in a wide-range of arts - theatre & drama, opera, literature, etc." People can argue that "Fictional character" is a sub-topic of character as well, since the term "character" does not solely mean fictional.


 * I will invite editors from WikiProject Television to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also replied below in your other section, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should have an article on Fictional character. If we want to have articles on the general term, and the non-fiction version, that's fine.  They're all notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal of confusion in the comments posted above. Firstly, you have failed to engage with any of the reasons presented in the first post. To summarise for your convenience, they are:
 * 1) Character is a general term, for which non-fictional character would be a particular type. All characters are, by definition (see OED), fictional, even when based on real people. It is not the case that there are "real" characters and "fictional" characters. Yes, character as a word is also used to describe real people, as in the phrase "he's a real character", to denote eccentricity, etc., but that is a completely different sense; hence the disambiguation. Again, consult a dictionary if you are confused about this; you'll find that the term "character" does solely mean fictional. "Fictional" is a redundant qualifier. When Xerxes takes the stage in The Persians, we see a fictional character, not the real man. If you need this confirmed beyond consulting a dictionary, try searching on Google books for the phrase "non-fictional character". The results are interesting. The vast majority of examples are not talking about "characters" at all, but using the word as synonym for "quality", (for example, "the non-fictional character of my experience leads me to suppose..." or some-such). Is there a reliable, 3rd-party source that the term is in common usage? The phrase may be employed occasionally, but to justify an article and the arrangement of articles that you propose, we'd need a solid, dictionary-type definition. Do you know of one?
 * 2) Fiction is not an ideologically-neutral designation (as in the disambiguation Character (fiction)). Fiction usually describes novels, etc. and not plays, operas, films. Go to any bookstore if you need this confirmed and take a look at the signs. I lecture in the fields of theatre and cinema, and both academic disciplines object strongly to the notion that their subject should be treated as literature, i.e., textually (rather than performatively).
 * 3) The distinction between "fictional characters" and "non-fictional characters" that you propose is senseless for many characters. To which category would Achilles or Andromache belong?
 * I see nothing in any of the posts replying to the initial one that addresses these three issues, hence my complaint that you have failed to address them. Furthermore:
 * 4) Usage in Wikipedia is invalid as an argument for correct or most-common usage, as I'm sure you know. The whole point is that Wikipedia's truth claims are indexed to reliable sources external to the project. To say that "Hamlet is a character from Shakespeare's tragedy..." is just as accurate, appropriate and specific as "Hamlet is a fictional character from Shakespeare's tragedy...". The "fictional" is completely redundant and not included in common usage. Again, if you need this confirmed, as will all such disagreements in the project, the way we resolve them is not by a head count of personal opinions, but by reference to reliable 3rd-party sources: consult the OED or any of the many dictionaries of literary, cinematic, theatrical, critical terms. You will find the entry in all cases is listed under "Character" not "Fictional character".
 * 5) Your arguments about the use of terms in parentheses is clearly nonsense and I'm surprised that you offer them. Are you intending to be disingenuous? Topic (specific) is the form of disambiguation that Wikipedia employs, not an indication of actual use in sentences, as I'm sure you know.
 * 6) I don't recall contemplating the disambiguation (fiction) here. Could you indicate from where you've acquired this impression?
 * 7) No, the quality issues have no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. The feelings of other editors about its quality has no bearing on the most-appropriate article name. The article was in a shoddy state when I first read it, and it's even worse now. I haven't added anything substantial, only re-arranged already existing material. If linking to the material was okay for editors before and is not now, then simply put, they're morons--the article was, is, and remains, piss-poor. Take a look at the notes and sources--they're pretty much the lowest quality one could find and very far from meeting Wikipedia's standards. Nonetheless, what editors "feel able to link to" is not a valid criterion for assessing the most-appropriate article name--at least, I'm fairly certain that that does not appear in the Wikipedia naming conventions policies. Am I wrong about that?
 * In summary: this discussion needs to ground itself with references to reliable, 3rd-party sources. In addition to the OED and other standard dictionaries, there are many, many specific dictionaries for critical terms in the various disciplines of literature, theatre, cinema, opera, etc. They provide the most-appropriate guidance in this question. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is not a "great deal of confusion" on my part whatsoever. I am as educated in "the arts" as you present yourself to be, whether you believe it or not. You can insist that I am confused or that I am some uneducated moron who does not truly understand "character" and literature, etc., or even Wikipedia policies, but that is not the case. It all boils down to:


 * 1: I do not need to consult a dictionary about what "character" means; but since you insisted, I did not find that the term "character" solely means fictional in any dictionary, nor do I understand how you can arrive at such a conclusion. American Heritage Dictionary, for one, says that "character" means "The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another." It goes on to mention all the other things that "character" means without applying "character" to mean "fictional" until definition 10. "Fictional" is obviously not as much of a redundant qualifier when applied to "character" as you insist it is, considering how much the term "Fictional character" is used and the fact that "character" does not solely or even mainly mean "fictional." In addition, I do not know what you mean by saying I have proposed an arrangement of articles, unless you mean "my proposal" (which is really the way things were originally done here) to have two different articles to cover "Fictional" and "Non-fictional," which is hardly any different than having two different articles covering "Fiction" and "Non-fiction." You say that this article should not be titled "Fictional character" because the term is not in common usage and we would need a solid, dictionary-type definition. I say the same about this article being titled "Character (arts)." We go by the more common name here at Wikipedia, and out of these two titles "Fictional character" is it. You can go on and on about about how "incorrect" it is to say "Fictional character," but that does not take away the fact that it is the more common title...as opposed to yours...and that every fictional character article here starts out saying "fictional character" and linking to an article that is supposed to be about what a fictional character is. In fact, many times I read anything describing Harry Potter, or Bella Swan, etc. (whether in the news or other such reliable articles), it describes them as "fictional characters," no matter "fictional" supposedly being redundant.


 * 2: I do not care about that.


 * 3: You say the distinction between "fictional characters" and "non-fictional characters" that I propose is senseless for many characters. To which category would Achilles or Andromache belong? I say they can surely fit in one of them and well if the article explains what it is supposed to be explaining well. And even if not, you can keep this article titled Character (arts), but that does not mean that there should not also be an article on Wikipedia titled Fictional character, just like there is currently an article here titled Non-fictional character...because you saw fit not to truly merge that article.


 * 4: I was not saying that usage in Wikipedia is valid as an argument for correct or most-common usage, as you should have realized. I was arguing which of the two titles is the most commonly used. Fictional character or Character (arts)? I am certain that Fictional character wins.


 * 5: Your arguments about "character" solely meaning "fictional" is clearly nonsense and I am surprised that you offer them. Are you intending to be disingenuous?


 * 6: You say that you do not recall contemplating the disambiguation (fiction) here. Could I indicate from where I acquired this impression? Surely, I will. I acquired this impression when you said, "I've preferred 'arts' to 'fiction' as the latter term is ambiguous and carries some ideological baggage about reading performing arts as a form of literature (reading them 'textually' rather than 'performatively')."


 * Why even say you "preferred 'arts' to 'fiction'" if you were not contemplating on the latter even a little?


 * 7: Yes, the quality issues do have bearing on this discussion, and I have already stated why. You say, "If linking to the material was okay for editors before and is not now, then simply put, they're morons--the article was, is, and remains, piss-poor." I say, "No, that is not the case for the editors." This article simply became more complicated with your move. Who wants to link to an article titled "Characters (arts)" that goes into all this other stuff and even mentions that a character can be real or fictional...when they are simply trying to link to an article that explains what a fictional character is (clear and cut)?


 * In summary: The point I am making is that we are perfectly allowed to have an article tackling the topic of fictional character by itself, and I feel that such is needed. The Non-fictional character article can tackle "Non-fictional characters" by itself. If there are a group of characters truly seen as too complicated to fit in either article, then this article can exist as well. But this article existing does not mean that we cannot or should not have an article titled Fictional character. Like Peregrine Fisher says, "They're are notable." Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have invited editors from four more WikiProjects, and one policy page, to weigh in on this matter: WikiProject Literature, WikiProject Theatre, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Anime and manga, and Naming conventions. Hopefully, we will get more thoughts on things discussed here on this topic, because you and I going back and forth on it will not solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, an article titled "fictional character" would not fly. That's because it could be thought of as a fictional character (symbol) as well. Since the arts really means "anything expressive", the current title seems fine.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with needing to disambiguate via a hatnote. I tend to agree with others that character (arts) indicates a topic much broader than fictional character, and the latter is a topic worthy of a separate article.  Powers T 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22, I notice that you have completely ignored the one means we have, as established in Wikipedia policy, to resolve such disagreements, namely, the reference to reliable third-party sources. There are plenty out there and you need to consult some before this discussion can move forward in a constructive way. While waiting for you to do so, to answer the points you raise in your last posting: In summary, then, I see that I need to repeat my suggestion that "this discussion needs to ground itself with references to reliable, 3rd-party sources". I have taken the time to do so, and they all list their articles under "Character", not "Fictional character". Wikipedia policy says that this is how we do it. Accordingly, the most appropriate title for this article, on the subject of characters who appear in novels, plays, films, television programmes, etc., is Character (arts). DionysosProteus (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. In order to begin writing a new article on this subject, I began with the OED. Two versions, in fact. So I'm aware that there are multiple meanings of the word "character". But that is what the disambiguation page Character is for. We are not discussing that page, but this article, whose subject is, precisely, the definition #10 to which you refer. When discussing that sense of the word "character", "fictional" is redundant.
 * And, yes, the proposal to arrange the articles into fictional character and non-fictional character is precisely that to which I referred.
 * You write: "I say the same about this article being titled "Character (arts)" with regard to my request for confirmation that this is the most-common usage. Well, that is precisely what I provide in my new version of the article. In response to your initial concerns about the quality of the presently-appearing article, I took the time to go to my local library and to consult a large number of reliable, third-party sources on the subject. Each and every one that was arranged in a dictionary format listed the relevant article under "Character", not under "Fictional character". As I wrote below, my new material is not ready to be published yet, but I'm sure you can do the same work that I have and confirm it for yourself. I expect many of the dictionaries on critical terms may even have their entries available on google books.
 * You write: "every fictional character article here starts out saying "fictional character" and linking to an article that is supposed to be about what a fictional character is." In complete contradiction to this statement, you follow this with: "I was not saying that usage in Wikipedia is valid as an argument for correct or most-common usage". What is the first statement if not an appeal to the authority of badly-authored articles in Wikipedia. Yes, I'm aware that there are many articles currently linking to fictional character. As stated in my (4) above, though, that is not a valid argument. We rely on reliable third-party sources for the definition.
 * You then go on to repeat the same nonsense that you originally gave about the use of the form Character (arts). Do you really need that explained? Since you have repeated it twice now, I'll assume that you do. For this article to have the title Character (arts) is no different from having the article on the tragedy by Shakespeare under the title Julius Caesar (play). It in no way suggests that the common form is "character (arts)". Rather, it says that the common form is "character", specifying, by means of the standard Wikipedia convention on disambiguation, which sense is intended (namely, definition #10). That is the subject of this article.
 * So, yes, character, in definition #10, does solely mean "fictional", and as such the qualifier is redundant.
 * You avoid the question about Achilles, blaming the poor quality of the current version of the article. In fact, what the question exposes is the inappropriateness of arranging material on characters who appear in novels, plays, films, etc. under "fictional characters" or "non-fictional characters". "Surely" they will fit under one or the other, you suggest. But that's precisely the point, they don't.
 * In contemplating this non-fit, you go on to propose that we might consider having an article on Character (arts) and another on fictional character. Ignoring the bullshit "you saw fit to..." comment, might I point out that you have in fact ignored the gaping hole in your argument that I exposed in my #1 comment above. To restate it more clearly: your argument is based on the existence of an article entitled "non-fictional character." Did I write that article? No. Does that fact that I did not request it to be deleted or replace it with a redirect indicate my approval of the existence of that article? Obviously not. On the contrary, I made a request for a reliable third-party source that provides a definition for "non-fictional character". Your proposal, both the original one to move this article and the one made in light of this discussion on Achilles to duplicate it, presupposes the validity of the article on non-fictional character (as well as assuming that the relationship between this article and that one ought to be one of two alternative types rather than a general category and a specific type). However, in the absence of a sourced definition, that validity remains to be proven. As I suggested in #1 above, a google books search suggests that it is dubious. As such, your arrangement, too, is dubious.
 * Thank you for clarifying why you thought that I had considered (fiction) as a way to disambiguate this article. However, it is clear, I think, that that was a strained reading by you, at best. I "contemplated" it in the sense of rejecting it--i.e., not at all.
 * You write: Who wants to link to an article titled "Characters (arts)" that goes into all this other stuff and even mentions that a character can be real or fictional...when they are simply trying to link to an article that explains what a fictional character is (clear and cut)?. It is because of statements like this that I have understood you to be confused about what a character is, and as far as I can tell, you still are. This is in no way to impugn your academic credentials, which you assert so defensively at the start of your last post. I myself am often confused about the fundamental vocabulary of my disciplines, because their apparent simplicity often hides historical and theoretical complexity. I resolve my confusions, as I encouraged you to, by reference to, yes, you've guessed it, reliable third-party sources that provide definitions. When you first raised your concerns, that is exactly what I did and spent a couple of hours in the library exploring the issue. Is it too much to expect you to do the same? It would be time better spent--since, presumably, it would lead to the improvement of the current article--than merely restating your confusions in another form in another post. Perhaps this sounds aggressive? It is not intended to be. I am often amazed at how much energy goes into these kinds of discussions when a simple adherence to Wikipedia policy on sources would render many of them redundant. I took the time and effort to ensure that the points I make here are informed by reference to such sources, and I don't think it's too much to expect that in return. You are basing your objection to the title Character (arts) (at least, your objection in that statement) on the present content of the article, not on the definition of its subject provided by reliable sources. But the present content of the article is, more or less, worthless. That goes, in particular, for the statement that you cite ("a character can be real or fictional"). That is not accurate, and if you took the time to do the research that policy dictates for resolving disagreements, you'd know that. One may say, for example, "a character may be based on a real person", but the character is and remains "fictional" for all that.


 * ZXCVBNM, I am not seeing how "fictional character" would not "fly" as an article title. It "flew" for years here, and, clearly, character symbols do not have to be in an article titled "Fictional character," nor should they be. But you make even more of a point as to why there should be an article dedicated solely to the topic of "Fictional character." As LtPowers says, "...character (arts) indicates a topic much broader than fictional character, and the latter is a topic worthy of a separate article."


 * DionysosProteus, I have not completely ignored the one means we have, as established in Wikipedia policy, to resolve such disagreements, namely, the reference to reliable third-party source. I was most definitely speaking of the dictionary definition of "character" when speaking of "fictional" at some point above. Yes, there are plenty of reliable sources out there and I have consulted with enough of them. Below, I will now go over everything else you have addressed:


 * To start off, I do not see how this is getting silly on my part. There is a disambiguation page for "Character" for the simple fact that character has different meanings. Thus, it is no sillier to specify what type of character we are talking about by titling the article "Fictional character" as to title it "Character (fiction)" or to title it "Character (arts)." The only difference is that "Fictional character" is the more common name of the these titles and that "Character (arts)" supposedly covers the broader way "character" is used in the arts. Of course, when discussing the word "character" in the fictional sense, "fictional" is redundant. You are saying that just because this article mostly discusses fiction, the title should not have "fictional" in it. I disagree with that. The title is simply specifying for the reader which type of "character" (as in what definition) we are talking about.


 * It does not matter that you took the time to go to your local library and to consult a large number of reliable, third-party sources on the subject. I just about have a library in my house. Of course, dictionary format lists the relevant article under "Character", not under "Fictional character." That is because "fictional character" is one definition of "Character."  None of this takes away from the fact that the more common definition for this article would be "Fictional character" as opposed to "Character (arts)" and that this article covers more than just solely fictional topics. We disambiguate here at Wikipedia for a reason -- when one word has more than one meaning, but usually several meanings. That is the case for "Character." That is why when starting an article about "Character" in the context of fiction, we would title the article "Character (fiction)" or "Fictional character," but not "Character (arts)" covering things other than fictional characters.


 * Yes, I did write: "every fictional character article here starts out saying "fictional character" and linking to an article that is supposed to be about what a fictional character is." And it is not in "complete contradiction" to this statement: "I was not saying that usage in Wikipedia is valid as an argument for correct or most-common usage". I went on to explain what I was/am talking about: "Fictional character" is a more common title than "Character (arts)" (I did not say more common than the title "character"), and this article is about more than fictional characters. I do not blame you for character symbols being in this article, though, since that was wrongly here before your move. Yes, we do rely on reliable third-party sources for the definition, not always for the article title, and it is pretty clear that the #10 definition of the American Heritage Dictionary is talking about characters in the fictional sense; we call these fictional characters. It is under the title "Character" in the dictionary, because it is but one definition of "Character." But nowhere in there does it say "Character (arts)" or that all these other things should be looped in together under the title "Character (arts)."


 * You then go on to repeat the same nonsense that you originally gave about the use of the form Character (arts). Do you really need that explained? Since you have repeated it more than once now, I will assume that you do. For this article to have the title Character (arts), it is covering different things other than just solely fictional characters. This is different from having the article on the tragedy by Shakespeare under the title Julius Caesar (play). It in no way suggests that other elements are added in the article other than information about that play.


 * I did not avoid the question about Achilles. It is of no issue. I said that if there are characters who truly do not fit under either title "Fictional character" or "Non-fictional character," this article can remain, but it does not mean that we cannot also have an article titled "Fictional character." Plenty of characters who appear in novels, plays, films, etc. are fictional characters. If these characters are fictional, they are fictional. If they are a little bit of both, fictional and non-fictional, this article is "perfect" for them in your view. Thus, keep this article, but do not act as though this means that an article titled "Fictional character" should not exist.


 * You say that my argument to have an article on Character (arts) and another on fictional character is based on the existence of an article entitled "Non-fictional character." I say, no, my argument is not based on that, and I have now gone over my other arguments above. Nothing is dubious about what I propose.
 * There was no strained reading by me. You "contemplated" it in the sense of rejecting it--i.e., not at all. Okay.


 * You still insist that I am confused about what a character is, and that you can tell I still am. I ask do you create characters? Do you even write stories? Whether you do or not, you address someone (me) who does and has studied a vast number of subjects, including literature, since age 12, to be confused about what a character is or means as if I have not gone over its basics time and time again? Laughable. You say that this is in no way to impugn my academic credentials. I say "bull" to that. But whatever. You keep acting all superior; I will not go and cry in a corner or suddenly praise you for being right on everything you have stated here. When I first raised my concerns, you spent a couple of hours in the library exploring the issue, you say. Is it too much to expect me to do the same? Really, I have what could quite honestly be deemed a library in my house, as I have stated above. Why should I read up on what a character is when I already know and when my argument for the change in title is about which of the two titles is more common and that this article does not cover solely fictional characters? It even has character symbols in it, for goodness sakes. I am saying that we should have an article that covers fictional characters, whether it be called "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)" (though I earlier objected to that latter title above)...without it going into the broader aspect of "character" within the arts such as character symbols. You took the time and effort to ensure that the points you made here are informed by reference to such sources, and you do not think it is too much to expect that in return? I have, and have now stated so above. There not being a definition titled "Fictional character" in the dictionary does not mean that this article should be titled "Character (arts)." "Character (arts)" is not simply about characters relating to fiction, which is why you object to some of the examples you cited above being under the title "Fictional character." Having an article on the different ways "character" is used in the arts, such as even character symbols, does not mean that we cannot or should not have an article titled "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)". That is what I am saying.


 * In summary, we now have three editors who agree that there should be an article solely about fictional characters. If you want to continue to give me an unneeded lesson on what "character" is, then oh well. But I would rather hear from other editors on whether I or someone else should go ahead and create an article titled "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)." You "created" this article to cover a broader aspect of what "character" means within the arts. There is no reason that we cannot have a "less broad" article. Wikipedia policy most certainly allows us to create a disambiguation for characters solely relating to fiction as "Character (fiction)." Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, you must be high. What on earth make any of you imagine that an article on Character (arts) covers more than fictional characters...? Astonishing. The disambiguation page specifies the content of the article. "Characters in novels, plays, films." By what bizarre leap of logic do you imagine that Character (arts) would cover more than that? Characters as symbols??? That's Character (symbol). Anything else???? Want to provide a source for your bizarre leap? You repeat this frequently in your last post without specifying what you imagine is covered by Character (arts) that is more than fictional creations. What are you talking about? Since when was Wikipedia so directly contiguous with the twilight zone?

As for your suggestion that you've consulted other sources, might I ask which? A dictionary of critical terms in the arts? In literature? In theatre? In film? '''All of them list under "character". That's the most-common form. Evidence''', remember. You write: "this article covers more than just solely fictional topics"... Yeah, such as????

Then it gets really bizarre. You write: "I do not blame you for character symbols being in this article, though, since that was wrongly here before your move. " What on earth are you talking about? What can possibly lead you to imagine that that section is talking about anything other than characters in fictional works? Did you read it??? What makes you think that this doesn't belong in this article, whether titled fictional character, character (arts) or characters in novels, plays, and films? The section discusses, albeit without sources and with a strange emphasis given to such a minor work of literature, the symbolic and representational functions of certain characters. What makes you think that doesn't belong here? Again, consult a source, for heaven's sake. Later you repeat the same thing: "It even has character symbols in it, for goodness sakes.". Yes... so...? That doesn't belong in an article on fictional characters why, exactly?

You write: "we call these fictional characters". No, actually "we" don't. Again, consult the sources. Do you actually need me to offer you a list of them for you to go check for yourself? Or are you just going to pretend like your American Heritage Dictionary is sufficient? If the sources agreed with you, I'd have no problem, but they don't. Go look for yourself.

You write: "Plenty of characters who appear in novels, plays, films, etc. are fictional characters." That made me laugh out loud, so thank you for that. No, silly. All characters who appear in novels, plays, films, etc. are fictional. By definition. You're suggesting that there are characters in novels, etc. that aren't fictional. Such as...? Go on, please, offer an example. Just a little one.

Then we arrive at the crux of the matter. You write: "Why should I read up on what a character is when I already know". Well, there we have it. Kindly go consult WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL. This is exactly what they are there for. Yeah, you know. Oooo, you write stories, how terribly creative of you. That must make you some kind of expert, right? Only, this is not the place for you to enlighten us all with your expertise. Nor me with mine. I really couldn't care less what you imagine you know or understand, and I have no intention of enlightening you on the many ways in which I am an expert in these fields, since I imagine you couldn't care less, and rightly so. However, the same goes for me as it does for you: You need to cite sources that support your claims. You write: "I have, and have now stated so above". To which sources do you refer? The American Heritage Dictionary????? Yes, that's a good start. And then...?

Finally, I did not create this article, I moved it. Its subject was, is, and remains characters in novels, plays, films, etc. If you consult reliable sources on that subject, you will find that what I wrote above is correct and that the most-common form in which this subject is discussed in the sources is "character", not "fictional character". I truly have no idea why you think that characters' symbolic or representational functions involve anything "broader" than this. That makes them somehow not fictional????? You gotta be kidding me. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, I must be high? The same can be said of you. But I do not have to resort to name-calling, other such insults, and acts of superiority to get my points across. You ask what on earth makes any of us imagine that an article on Character (arts) covers more than fictional characters? I state that you are seemingly the one who makes this conclusion. You are the one who argues for certain characters not being under the title "Fictional character" because you feel that they would not "fit" under such a title (such as fictional character Achilles, also pointed out by another editor below). If they are fictional, then why would they not fit? Astonishing and bizarre indeed if all characters are fictional according to you. Perhaps we state that Character (arts) covers more than fictional characters on the basis that you view fictional characters of a somewhat more complicated nature as not fitting appropriately under the title "Fictional character." By what "bizarre" leap of logic do I imagine that Character (arts) would cover more than fictional characters? Perhaps because more than fictional characters are in it. Characters as symbols? One of my original thoughts about this topic was, "Do characters as symbols, which sometime relate to fiction, really need to be in an article about fictional characters?" (Though I have now looked over the section, and do not see much of a problem with it and now see it as beneficial.) An editor above even objected to changing the article back to "Fictional character" on the basis that character symbols are also in this article and therefore presumably are either not fictional or are part of the arts (as a result of mankind's artistic nature when creating.) That is one example of this article being confusing. You are the one who made a big "whoop" about moving this article to "Character (arts)" on the basis that "we need an article that addresses the concept in general as used in a wide-range of arts - theatre & drama, opera, literature, etc.," as if they cannot all simply be addressed under "fictional." Your move was not about what you view as the more common name.


 * As for wanting information on other sources I have consulted. A dictionary of critical terms in the arts? In literature? In theatre? In film? All of them, and, as I said before (read what I said), while all list under "character," that is because "fictional character" is but one definition of "character." Of course, there is not a definition in the dictionary titled "Fictional character." Why would there need to be when the definition goes into all its other aspects? Just as there is no definition called "Character (arts)" or "Character arts" to discuss "character" in the arts. I wrote: "this article covers more than just solely fictional topics." Such as, you ask? I already went over that.


 * You say it gets really bizarre when I wonder why character symbols are in an article about fictional characters. The section discusses "albeit without sources and with a strange emphasis given to such a minor work of literature, the symbolic and representational functions of certain characters"? I ask, "So what?" You ask, "Why does that not belong in an article on fictional characters?" I say I still do not see a huge reason for an article about fictional characters to have a section about character symbols, which may or may not be made-up by writers. A real symbol (as in a symbol from the real world) being used in a fictional work does not make that symbol fictional, no matter what you say. Now that I have looked at it, though, I do not object much to it being in the article and now see the beneficial aspect of it being included.


 * You say that we do not call characters of a fictional nature "fictional characters." I say, um, yes, actually, we do. Consult other sources than just a dictionary. For example, a group of writers, or screenwriters while you are at it. Just because the dictionary does not outright state "fictional character" does not mean that we do not call these characters "fictional characters." Do you actually need me to offer you a list of sources where the word "fictional character" is used to describe made-up characters? When Googling "Fictional character," it is amazing how much more information you get on "character" relating specifically to fiction than you do when Googling "character." Go try it out yourself.


 * I am glad that you got a good laugh at my saying "Plenty of characters who appear in novels, plays, films, etc. are fictional characters." But, no, silly, all characters who appear in plays, films, etc. are not fictional. If I have to give you an example where characters in plays, etc. are not fictional, then that is plain sad. Your problem is that you relate the term "character" to only mean fictional. But if "character" only meant fictional, we would not have disambiguation pages for the other ways the term is used, and this article would simply be titled "Character." Luckily, for readers who visit here, Wikipedia understands the difference.


 * I do not need to kindly go consult WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL, and neither does any other editor here who has agreed with me. This article being titled "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)" is no more original research than it being titled "Character (arts)." In fact, "Fictional character" and "Character (fiction)" are much more valid article titles than "Character (arts)" due to the fact that characters relating to fiction are more often called "fictional characters" than they are said to be "characters of the arts." I have not acted like an expert; you have, and to no avail in getting most editors to agree with you thus far. If you really could not care less what I "imagine I know or understand," then stop trying to give me lessons on something you think you know more about than me.


 * You can bitch, insult, moan and groan all you want about keeping this article titled "Character (arts)," but so far...more editors have agreed that this article should be disambiguated by the word "fictional" or "fiction" in it, whether it is titled "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)." I can even go to WP:Third opinion if you want. But stop preaching with these long-ass essays about what you feel "character" means and "how wrong I am" about the definition of "character" or anything else. Right now, I am trying to gather consensus about the title of this article, not have some long, drawn out-debate, consisting of insults which understandably keeps other editors from weighing in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiple question marks in a row, accusations of drug use, extensive sarcasm... you're not doing yourself any favors here, Dionysos. Powers T 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When the discussion becomes that surreal, I find it difficult to know what else to conclude. How much time and energy has been wasted by these discussions that would have been better spend improving the actual article? Plenty. That accounts for my incredulity. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments have made this discussion surreal for me as well. I did not ask to go into this essay of a debate in which you proceed to "teach me" what is correct and what is not. You did. And quite frankly, I am the one who should be incredulous here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22, you're really not paying close enough attention to the actual content of my arguments, which is resulting in your by now extensive confusion. My references to Achilles were to demonstrate the inappropriateness of your suggested organisation into two parallel articles: fictional characters on the one hand and non-fictional characters on the other. They wouldn't fit into that arrangement. And all characters are fictional not "according to me" but according to the dictionary. Basing your arguments on a misunderstanding of my own simply demonstrates the flaws in your general approach, namely that you are relying on the unreliable information currently existing in the relevant Wikipedia articles and not on a consultation of reliable 3rd-party sources. Yes, that old chestnut. I notice you are still failing to do consult them.

And I see from your last post that yes, you are indeed confused about the difference between the material in Character (symbol) and that gathered under the section heading Characters as symbols. They are two completely different things. Have you not grasped that? An example of the first is the letter A. That's a character. And example of the second is, to use the one in the article, The Great Gatsby. You see? Only the latter would be appropriate material in this article, because the two refer to completely different senses of the word "character". I am amazed that you need this explaining. There is nothing confusing about talking about the symbolic aspects of characters in this article. Hence my queries about your level of intoxication.

"more than fictional characters are in it", you write. Oh yeah, where? Specifically. You understand now that the section in this article "Characters as symbols" is in fact talking about characters in works of fiction, yes? I don't doubt this sounds patronising, but for crying out loud! It's not that complicated... You've even misunderstood User:Zxcvbnm's concern. He/she is saying that there are examples of "fictional characters," in the sense of letters of alphabets that are not "real" (I assume). This is the etymological origin of the word "character." If you'd taken the time to do the research I'd suggested, you'd understand this. But no. The Ancient Greek word kharaktêr doesn't mean someone in a play, etc. It's a mark or symbol. Aristotle, for example, when discussing what we mean by character in this article, uses the word ethos (though this doesn't strictly speaking align with our modern sense either). "Character" to describe someone in a play etc. doesn't appear until 1749 in English.

You've misunderstood, too, the rationale I presented for the page move. Let me try to lay it out in as simple terms as I can: every single "person" who appears in a novel, a play, an opera, or a film is a character. (Actually, film requires a caveat, since it's the only term that doesn't inherently mean "fictional", since there are documentaries; but they do not have "characters" in them, so can be excluded from our concerns.) They are all, by definition, fictional. I did not include this in my page move description, because this is the definition of a character. It would be to state the obvious. I see now that you need me to do so, so there it is. If you need sources, I will provide them for you. My move was based on the ambiguity of "fiction", but you've already made it clear that you're not interested in that reasoning, so I'll leave it at that. "Character", not "Fictional character" is the way that the sources I have consulted describe the subject of this article. That is the most-common form. Which means the article ought to be under "Character (disambiguated somehow)". The arts is preferable to fiction because the latter is ambiguous and carries ideological baggage that the former does not. Your "as if they cannot all simply be addressed under "fictional." is a result of your own flawed understanding of what I wrote.

You write: "while all list under "character," that is because "fictional character" is but one definition of "character."" No, no, no... and if you'd actually bothered to look, you'd know that. But you haven't. So stop wasting my time and go look. The only sense of the word "character" that those specialist dictionaries discuss is the definition #10 according to your dictionary.

You write: "I say I still do not see a huge reason for an article about fictional characters to have a section about character symbols, which may or may not be made-up by writers. A real symbol (as in a symbol from the real world) being used in a fictional work does not make that symbol fictional, no matter what you say. Now that I have looked at it, though, I do not object much to it being in the article." Those statements are dumb, pure and simple. You don't even understand what a symbol is. Go look it up.

Then you get really idiotic. So go on, give an example of a character who appears in a novel, etc. who is not fictional. You know why you can't? I credited you with more intelligence than I now see I should have. Let's take this slowly, shall we? The word "Character" means many things, only one of which refers to "people" who appear in novels, etc. Hence the disambiguation. All "people" who appear in novels, etc. are by that very condition, fictional. Got it yet? Dear me...

And still you're making this nonsense argument about "characters in the arts". You write: "characters relating to fiction are more often called "fictional characters" than they are said to be "characters of the arts." For crying out loud! Did you not read the posts above? Did it just go over your head? Do you truly not understand that the form (disambiguation) in no way refers to actual usage? "Character" is the common form. Not "Fictional character". I know because I bothered to check. I thought before that you were being disingenuous with that argument. Having repeated it now, I understand that you were actually serious. Astonishing.

I have no desire to give you lessons. I assumed I was discussing improving this article with someone capable of following the discussion. I find I was mistaken.

And no, Wikipedia is not a head count. Hence my encouraging you to read the policy articles. Wikipedia is not about publicising what you understand to be the truth, however well-informed you imagine you are. Instead, we refer to sources. I've made that request several times now, but you've ignored it. I invited you to collaborate on improving the article with reference to sources, but you appear to be more interested in chasing your own tail. I've spend considerable time explaining my position and describing how I arrived at that--namely, by following what policy suggests we do in these circumstances. But no, you go right ahead and ignore it. It's kind of entertaining watching you expose how little you've grasped. But like I've already said, that's energy that could have been so much more productively spend actually improving the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DionysosProteus, I am just going to say W-R-O-N-G (wrong) on most of what you have stated. You continue to presume that you know what I am thinking, as well as others. You continue to belittle and patronize, and I have no desire to debate with someone such as that. In fact, you have been utterly ridiculous in this discussion, and I have to restrain myself from replying to all you stated in your recent reply. Nothing has gone over my head. Do you truly not understand that the disambiguation form effects the article title? "Character" is the common form, but relating to fictional character, it should be titled Character (fiction), no matter your feeling that the article should be titled "Character (arts)" as to address "the concept in general as used in a wide-range of arts - theatre & drama, opera, literature, etc." If these are indeed all fictional characters as you say, then, yes, the titles "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)" would do. Your move was nothing about the more common name. And now that we are talking about the more common name, I point out that such a name is "Character (fiction)," not  "Character (arts)."


 * No one said Wikipedia is a head count. I said this discussion is about achieving consensus. There are plenty of article titles on Wikipedia that are not exact to their dictionary definitions. You can insist that this article should be titled "Character (arts)" simply because the dictionary does not state the words "fictional character" together all you want, but that does not make you right whatsoever. If an article about fictional characters is going to be disambiguated due to the word "character" meaning things other than fictional, then I am not seeing why "Character (arts)" is more appropriate or common than "Character (fiction)." Take your preaching elsewhere, because I will not continue to sit here and be condescended to by someone who cannot handle the fact that consensus is thus far not with him.


 * Any other editors want to weigh in on this matter to achieve consensus, please do, without fear of insults by DionysosProteus. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't presume, I go by what you actually write. And I think you mean "affects". So, finally, you acknowledge that "Character" is the common form and to be preferred over "Fictional character". That's what the sources say too. Yes, the specific sources that are dealing with the topic at hand and only that topic. I know because I took the trouble to look. Whether it should be under "Character" or "Fictional character" is able to be resolved objectively by reference to the sources. That is not the case for the form of disambiguation, i.e., the choice between Character (fiction) or Character (arts), since it involves disambiguation internal to Wikipedia, which isn't found elsewhere; it's simply not possible to make a "common name" argument about those alternatives, since there is no way to verify any claim for priority on that basis. It is a question, then, of the most appropriate form. I gave a rationale for that, which you have explicitly stated you wanted to ignore. You are reduced to an "it'll do" argument. As explained in the last post, I did not give a "common name" argument in the initial rationale because it wasn't required. I saw the articles "fictional character" and "non-fictional character" and could see that that arrangement was senseless. As well as unsourced. It had also led another editor to try to promote their original research with "fictional fictional characters", which is patently nonsense. With regard to the (fiction)/(arts) alternative, I'm aware of the ideological issues in theatre and cinema studies. It was on the basis of that awareness, not "my feelings" that I made my rationale. But you chose to ignore that.

Instead, you've been wasting both our time with your absurd misunderstandings--I cite, for example, your inability to distinguish between the "symbol" discussed in this article and that in the Character (symbol) article. I haven't been preaching, but yes, my patience has been worn thin by your obvious ignorance and refusal to resolve this disagreement the way we're supposed to, namely by reference to sources. I took your initial concerns seriously. I went and did research about the subject. I invited you to collaborate on improving the article. That, after all, is what a talk page is for. But it is clear that you are not interested in improving it. It is clear that you are not interested in referring to reliable third-party sources. Just take a look at some of the nonsense you've come out with...

No, I wasn't insisting on (arts) over fictional character because of the dictionary. Try reading what I actually wrote. I consulted two versions of the OED. That was the starting point. I went on to examine several books and dictionaries of critical terms in the relevant fields: literature, theatre, cinema. That is "what makes me right". I checked the relevant sources. You, however, have based your claims on statements such as "Why should I read up on what a character is when I already know" and your "vast" study. It doesn't sound so vast from the way you write and the understanding you have demonstrated.

I took your concerns seriously and engaged in discussion because I thought you were serious. You have made it quite clear that you are not. You are "not seeing it" because you myopically refused to engage with the rationale. You are "not seeing it" because you preferred to wallow in your own ignorance and misunderstandings rather than go investigate and make a productive contribution to the article. Does such an attitude deserve my contempt? I believe it does. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since DionysosProteus is more of debater than I thought he would be, and since I would rather him know that I do not actually disagree with him on a lot of what he has said regarding characters relating to fiction, considering that I do plan to work on this article, I admit that I have been pulling his leg during this discussion. (Pardon me, if he is not actually a "he.") However, I did feel that the article should be titled "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)" through it all (and still do feel that way). Yes, I intentionally wanted to irk DionysosProteus. It is just that I was bored, and I love debates, so I wanted to debate the title. I like playing Devil's advocate, no matter how silly my opposition is in some aspects during whatever debate. When I saw how DionysosProteus had an air of superiority in his tone, combined with a condescending quality, in his first reply to my first comment in this discussion (yes, I perceived it as condescending), it simply ticked me off and I was in "annoy mode" from then on. Thus, yes, I was being disingenuous for a lot of parts. DionysosProteus is not the first editor I have irked in this way on Wikipedia; debates of such volatile nature entertain me. I could tell this would be volatile from his initial response to me. Yes, I am aware that Wikipedia is a place of seriousness, which is why, in all seriousness, I am for the article being titled "Fictional character" or "Character (fiction)." I usually do not see the harm in any debate, as long as it is relevant to the topic. But if the debate I started in order to play "Devil's advocate" spins into one which involves name-calling and such, I then feel that I have taken it too far, though this does not excuse other editors getting out of line. Nothing DionysosProteus has said about me here has terribly offended me, since I know where he was coming from and the frustration he was surely feeling. I am honestly not much against this article being titled "Character (arts)." I would still like to gather consensus about its title, however.


 * I want to state to DionysosProteus: If you believe that any of what I just stated to be "bull," believe me that it is not. I could surely redirect you to two other editors who can point out that I was surely intentionally being silly in debates with them. This is the first time I am admitting to this type of tactic I have used on Wikipedia, and I do apologize for doing it. It is something that I sometimes do in everyday life off Wikipedia, and one day brought it to Wikipedia. I would actually like to work with you to better this article instead of holding a grudge for initially being irked. It is not as though your initial response to me was anywhere close to as bad as the insults that came later. My original feeling that this article should be titled "Fictional character," other than feeling that "Fictional character" specifies the topic better than "Character (arts)" does, came from what Komusou said to Mike Klaassen in the section above about Klaassen's move: "WP:FICT allows articles about notable characters under the condition that we clearly inform the reader of their fictional nature, right after their name: thus, I believe that quantitatively, the #1 use for this article on Wikipedia is by far for leads such as, 'Foo Bar is a fictional character in the works of John Smithee.' Of course, the redirect was good enough too, but as per Wikipedia standards it's preferable to have the article sit at the name it's the most commonly linked to." That is what was in my head when I first opposed to your move. Yes, I know that you have now addressed your feeling that what is common on Wikipedia should not apply to the article title, but I just wanted to state where I was originally coming from before feeling irked. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Achilles and Andromache
I grant that these come closer to the borderline than some; but they are fictional; as fictitious as Chiron the Centaur who educated Achilles. But, above all, hard cases make bad law; to argue whether Lear is historical - and he belongs to no history we can believe - does not deny that there are historical and fictional characters, even if he did lie halfway in between. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, PMAnderson. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the organisation into "fictional characters" on the one hand and "non-fictional characters" on the other is bogus. The Greeks understood Achilles to be mythological, legendary, and historical, as indicated in my post above. Lear remains fictional regardless of whether there was ever a king with that name in real life (a historical person), because Lear is a character in a play (several plays, in fact). I haven't yet seen anyone offer a reliable source for a definition of "non-fictional characters", which would offer a more solid basis for a proper discussion. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have said this. Nobody has agreed with you; and your attempt to distinguish between Andromache and Lear on the ground that Andromache is not a character in a play ignores the Trojan Women; had you forgotten that obscure  playwright Euripides? The Greeks also believed that Deucalion was historical; we do not - not even the creationists (the old idea that he was a translation of Noah having gone out, like Noah's light). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, did I say such a thing? Both Andromache and Lear are characters and I've not at any point sought to make a distinction between them. Yes, and I have read both Trojan Women and Andromache, in the last fortnight, in fact. You've misunderstood the argument completely. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the previous posts a little more closely? "Nobody has agreed with you", you write. So? The absurd posturings of Flyer22 demonstrate why that is irrelevant. You'd like a source for original claim? Easily enough provided. It's irrelevant whether we think they were real people or not. The point concerns the bogus categories. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Greeks understood Achilles to be mythological, legendary, and historical, as indicated in my post above. Lear remains fictional regardless of whether there was ever a king with that name in real life (a historical person), because Lear is a character in a play (several plays, in fact). If this is not an effort to distinguish between Achilles and Lear, what is it? (And if Andromache is distinct from Achilles, on what grounds? Achilles, after all, appears in Troilus and Cressida.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You really do have trouble following arguments, don't you? The second sentence supports the first--it does not in any way attempt to make a distinction between them. Nor between Achilles and Andromeda. Did you have trouble following my "Both Andromache and Lear are characters and I've not at any point sought to make a distinction between them."? Let me say it once again: they are all characters, they all appear in works of fiction, it's the categorisation that's wrong. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you proceeded to make a distinction between them, claiming that Achilles is historical (which is doubtful) and that Lear is purely fictional. Indeed, you suit your user-name; you have now shifted what you claim at least thrice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. My position has remained consistent, based as it was on an examination of sources. It is your inability to follow the argument that has produced the illusion of my "protean qualities." The point I have made consistently from the beginning of these discussions is that "fictional" is a redundant qualifier. Regardless of whether the people on whom a character is based existed, were mythological, historical, legendary, or an invention of the dramatist. They are all "fictional", since they are all characters. All of my postings explain that fact in some detail, which others here have had some difficulty grasping, yourself included. Perhaps the new version of the article with its sourced definitions will enlighten you. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One hopes so; but experience does not indicate this is likely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters described by their name
Is there a name for this device? For instance characters like Mrs. Squeamish or Mr. Bold or Dr. Pessimist? It's only described as 'emblematic' in the article. --193.128.72.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Unusual uses that are longer than cameos
This section actually somewhat admits the unusual uses started as cameos but grew up to be full featured characters. So what is the term/article that can describe unusual uses that are more than cameos (including most of the examples in this section)? -Lwc (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality issues
Prompted by Flyer22's concerns about the article title, I've taken a look at the recent edits to this article and have to agree that its quality, which was originally at quite a low level, has deteriorated further recently. I have expressed concerns to the editor in question in the past, who seems to rely on highly dubious and unreliable sources for his edits--namely, a "Writers' Digest" series of writers' manuals. The way in which they frame the subject is not consistent with the majority of scholarship in any of the relevant academic fields (literature, cinema, theatre, et al). This article is not part of a fiction writer's manual, but an encyclopedic entry on character across the arts. I'm not sure if I will have the time to make substantial improvements just yet, but I will at least revert the most obvious deteriorations and remove the emphasis on fiction writing. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration, DionysosProteus. When this article explains what a fictional character is in a neater, clearer way, right off the bat, I may not object to this current title as much. Right now, it simply seems that this title combined with the lousy state of this article is confusing some editors and is having them think that this article should not be linked to for the explanation of what a fictional character is. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As indicated in the other discussion above, you appear to be confused about what the word "character" means. All characters that appear in a narrative or dramatic work (novel, play, film, opera, pantomime) are fictional, regardless of whether they are based on people that have existed or do exist. To explain what a character is, is to explain what a fictional character is: it's the same thing. Furthermore, it's not anyone else's job to make the article live up to your or anyone else's expectations. If you are dissatisfied with the present state (as you should be, of course) then you are as able as anyone else to improve it. Be bold. There is a wide range of dictionaries of critical terms available, and I'm sure your local library will have plenty. They would provide the most appropriate starting-point for improving it. They will also clarify its correct and most-common definition for you. I have made a start on creating a better version of this article that is properly sourced, but that is a fairly big topic and it isn't ready to be published here yet. I have, however, started from the ground-up, since I can't see that anything in the present article is suitable for salvage. I'm happy to collaborate on a re-write if you wish, but, for me, that would only be a useful exercise if we were to provide reliable sources in citations on a line-by-line basis. Otherwise it's just more original research and sub-standard writing-manual nonsense, which is what we've already got. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As explained in the other discussion above, I am not confused about what the word "character" means. I was not speaking of solely characters that appear in a narrative or dramatic work, novel, play, film, opera, pantomime, regardless of whether they are based on people who have existed or do exist (despite this article being about that). And despite the clear understanding of what "character" means, we still have an article titled "Non-fictional character" and this article describes characters based on people who have existed or do exist as "non-fictional." That is one of the points about this article coming across as confusing in its current state (or the state I was complaining about, depending on how this article currently looks now). To explain what a character is...is not always to explain what a fictional character is. Furthermore, I am quite aware that it is not anyone else's job to make this article live up to "my" or anyone else's expectations. Not only am I dissatisfied with the present state of this article (as I should be, of course), I am dissatisfied with its title. I wanted to be bold and move it back to the title Fictional character and work on the article that way. But I decided to discuss it first, because it seemed you would likely object to my moving it back to the name which is the more common out of the two title options in these two discussions. There is no valid reason why we cannot or should not have an article titled Fictional character.


 * If you are going to continue to patronize me or talk to me in a condescending manner, there is no need for us to continue having these discussions. I do not need a lesson on what "character" is or means, no matter what you may think. I object to the current title, and others objecting to the current title or feeling that we can have this article and an article titled Fictional character at the same time, just as we have an article titled Non-fictional character, does not makes us wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given much more detail in the discussion in the other section above, but the same conclusion I drew there applies here. I don't care if you're a professor of fiction or someone that never made it to school--either way, it's irrelevant to these discussions. The relevant appeal is not to anyone's credentials, but to reliable, third-party sources. You write: To explain what a character is...is not always to explain what a fictional character is.. But you are completely wrong about that. In an article that has been disambiguated from Character--whether appearing under the title Character (arts) or Fictional character, or any other variation that you care to name--the subject remains the same. The subject of this article is characters that appear in novels, plays, TV programmes, films, etc. Any other sense is dealt with in another article, not this one, whatever we entitle it. '''And the reliable, third-party sources that I have consulted all list their articles under "Character". That is the most-common form, and that is the title at which the article currently resides.''' You presume that the existence of non-fictional character article is valid. That is a presumption on your part that the article's lack of sources renders dubious. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given much more detail in the discussion in the other section above, but the same conclusion I drew there applies here. I am not wrong when I say To explain what a character is...is not always to explain what a fictional character is. In an article that has been disambiguated from Character--whether appearing under the title Character (arts) or Fictional character, the subject does not remain the same, when one is to cover a broader aspect of how "character" is used in the arts and the other is to solely cover fictional characters (not symbols and such). But, really, if the subject remains the same, there should be no objection to the title being "Fictional character" for all of it. Yes "character" is the most-common, but the current article is about "character" as it relates to the arts. It is not titled "Character (fiction)," is it? Though it should be. If you want an article about "character" as it relates to the arts, then you can have one. It does not mean that we cannot or should not have an article titled "Character (fiction)." Furthermore, I do not presume that the existence of the Non-fictional character article is valid, and nor did I state such. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Broader" how, exactly? "not symbols and such"????? What are you talking about????? How, exactly, does a discussion of a character's function as a symbol take it beyond the realm of fiction????? You understand the difference between what is being explained in Character (symbol) and what appears in the section in this article, right? No? And yes, there is a very good reason why there shouldn't be two articles, one entitled Character (arts) and the other Fictional character: because their subject would be identical in every way. You disagree? Care to explain, precisely, in what way they would differ? DionysosProteus (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone over things above. There is no reason to have this discussion in two different places. In short, this article should be titled "Character (fiction)" before ever being titled "Character (arts)." Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And your response to the initial rationale? To ignore it. Most productive. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And your response? Insults. How polite. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My response is incredulity. Incredulous that anyone could misunderstand what a symbol is. Incredulous that you misunderstand what this article actually says. Incredulous that you claim to want to have a discussion about the most appropriate title for the article, but explicitly ignore the rationale presented. Incredulous that you come out with statements such as : "the subject does not remain the same, when one is to cover a broader aspect of how "character" is used in the arts and the other is to solely cover fictional characters (not symbols and such)" and expect to be taken seriously. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Calm down. I explained above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of suggestion to merge persona
I've just removed two silly suggestions - that persona is a duplication of material here, and that they ought to be merged. They are two distinct, though related terms. Feel free to compose a section in this article on persona (you'd need more than appears in the article, though, to explain the relationship with mask and the difference between Roman and Greek theatrical practice). DionysosProteus (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The idiocy continues
Okay, I see there is more than one editor who has failed to understand Wikipedia policy, since Pmanderson has added a template claiming that this article is an essay in support of a single editor's opinion. I'm removing it. Pmanderson, you, too, need to familiarise yourself with the notion of reliable sources. Go check them. Then take the trouble to actually read the posts on this talk page. I've offered an extended discussion of why this article ought to appear under this title. The content is and remains the work of other editors. Flyer22 has indicated that her arguments were an adolescent prank. I'm assuming your addition of this template is in a similar vein, since you've failed to provide an explanation here. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My arguments were not completely an adolescent prank, as I stated above (though I am no adolescent, LOL; kind of wish I still were). But, yes, the majority of the arguments were of that nature. I am over that now, though, and am ready to focus more on the article's content than the title. We can all hopefully work together on this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost the right to have your opinions taken seriously when you decided to use Wikipedia as a forum for your adolescent impulses. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not lose any right on Wikipedia, and I was partly serious. Your not taking me seriously due to my "adolescent prank" on you does not bother me. Many editors would not take you seriously after the kind of unprofessional hostility you displayed in response to me during that. Out of the two, they would get over what I did a lot easier, (something I have seen time and time again viewing other similar matters on Wikipedia). Notice how I did not even have to be full serious for people to agree with me? Yeah. Though I have always been a skillful debater/persuasive person.


 * You can continue to hold whatever against me. I, however, move on without holding anything against editors unless they are vandals, pedophiles, or some other type of very shady editor. I will fix up this article when I get around to it; without your help is fine by me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That other editors chose to agree with statements that you have admitted were disingenuous merely demonstrates their willingness to support an argument without reference to evidence of any kind. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Consensus is not a headcount, but a process that reasons based on policy. Verifiability and reliable sources are the relevant criteria. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, not all my statements were disingenuous. And do not presume to read the minds of the other editors regarding why they "voted" the way they did. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim to be psychic, I indicated what the evidence demonstrates. I see your ability to follow an argument hasn't improved. And that any of your statements were disingenuous invalidates them all. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, DionysosProteus. Whatever. You say I still cannot follow an argument, as if I had any trouble following your hostility before, and that all my statements are invalid. Yes, your opinion. You can have it. Big whoop. Flyer22 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
I think this article needs to be rewritten, and ideally return to its focus on "fictional characters". Something along this line, with of course extensive sources. What do you all think?--Work permit (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs to be rewritten; I will support and defend any rewrite against the bizarre and incoherent POV now in control of this article. As a concrete suggestion, how about restoring the edit of 12 September 2008? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your concrete proposal and support it. I'm willing to go back even further if that's what it takes to arrive at consensus.  Sadly, the article I referenced above is taken from an even older version.--Work permit (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson, if you're referring to my discussions, then let me point out, once again, that they are based on sources, unlike the incoherence you've offered. Here's a sample: Not POV and not incoherent. Knock yourself out.
 * Aston, Elaine, and George Savona. 1991. Theatre as Sign-System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415049326.
 * Baldick, Chris. 2001. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 019280118X.
 * Burke, Kenneth. 1945. A Grammar of Motives. California edition. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969. ISBN 0520015444.
 * Carlson, Marvin. 1993. Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey from the Greeks to the Present. Expanded ed. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801481546.
 * Childs, Peter, and Roger Fowler. 2006. The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415340179.
 * Elam, Keir. 2002. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 2nd edition. New Accents Ser. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415280184. Originally published in 1980.
 * Harrison, Martin. 1998. The Language of Theatre. London: Routledge. ISBN 0878300872.
 * Janko, Richard, trans. 1987. Poetics with Tractatus Coislinianus, Reconstruction of Poetics II and the Fragments of the On Poets. By Aristotle. Cambridge: Hackett. ISBN 0872200337.
 * Pavis, Patrice. 1998. Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis. Trans. Christine Shantz. Toronto and Buffalo: U of Toronto P. ISBN 0802081630.
 * Rayner, Alice. 1994. To Act, To Do, To Perform: Drama and the Phenomenology of Action. Theater: Theory/Text/Performance Ser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 047210537X.
 * Trumble, William R, and Angus Stevenson, ed. 2002. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 0198605757.

Reverting to such an old version of the article has simply re-introduced even more errors (such as the "fictional fictional character" - there's no such thing -- and the incorrect definition in the opening sentence (characters do not "originate" from works of art), along with many more. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I've read most of those, and they do not support what DP has been saying. As for the quibble, it is insufficient to support accuracy - but I will substitute "in".  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the article, Pmanderson. You too, Work permit. It is appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, posting blatantly dishonest comments and claims that are so easily demonstrated to be falsehoods is not appropriate behaviour here. You clearly haven't read them, since they all support the position I have outlined. In fact, unlike those I have disagreed with here, my approach was to go research the subject in these and a handful of other critical works that I haven't yet had the time to type up biblio details for, and to arrive at my position on the basis of that evidence. Page numbers from the works above are easily enough provided, if further evidence is required. I undertook this research not because I am not familiar with the subject--on the contrary, I lecture on the dense historical and theoretical inter-weavings of terms like character, persona, role, part, protagonist at a post-graduate level--but because that is the most appropriate course of action, as dictated by Wikipedia policy. I remind you of one statement in policy in particular, from Consensus: "we work on a system of good reasons". Those reasons are founded not in your opinions, nor mine, nor any claims we may make about our qualifications to speak on the matter, but in the evidence of sources. I have provided them. There are plenty more that say the same thing. If you were to take the trouble to consult them, or any others, then you would learn that what I have written is an accurate description of what they say. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DionysosProteus states policy correctly; he has, however, neglected to supply any examples of factual disputes with the present text. We are not edited on the basis of (claimed) authority, but on the basis of citation and argument. Cutting and pasting a bibliography is not convincing to anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, you have failed to explain your mendacious postings here. Those are the reliable, third-party sources that provide the evidence for the factual inaccuracies that I have outlined in considerable detail in the postings above. Do not remove the tag. To do so is an act of vandalism. You have already introduced many more factual inaccuracies into the article than were present when these discussions began. Kindly stop your deterioration of its quality. The sources are there. Go check them. In posting the list, I do not seek to convince anyone. Rather, as outlined by policy, I provide evidence that you may go check yourself. Please do so before posting any more of this nonsense. You will then be in a position to contribute to the discussion in an informed way. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This, however, is a personal attack.


 * Claiming that support for one's position is to be found somewhere in a pile of books is not an adequate answer to a request for citation; one should specify both the sentence in this article which is in error and the passage, by book and page number, which controverts it. The first might be sufficient to get me to agree; claims without either are bloviation.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pmanderson, if you insist on lying on the talk page, you should expect to be called on it. You claimed: "I've read most of those, and they do not support what DP has been saying." It is easily demonstrated that this is false. What makes you think that you can get away with that? You will find the material you require under the articles "Character" in those listed above that are arranged in dictionary format (most of them, that is). Those that are not, you will find the information by consulting the index under "Character". Note: "Character" in both cases, not "fictional character". There are many for you to choose from; they constitute a "pile" because I read a "pile" before outlining the results of that research above. The page is riddled with factual errors and most of it is unsupported. I can see that you have difficulty understanding Wikipedia policy. Therefore, although only a small draft is ready so far--I've been working on other articles recently--I will publish a fully-sourced version to replace this one. It is not my job to correct your ignorance, point-by-point, and I see no use in outlining in detail the many factual inaccuracies in the old version. It is simpler to start afresh with material that meets all of Wikipedia's policies. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on this article, DionysosProteus. The rewrite is nice. I must give credit where credit is due. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do feel that we need some of what was in the previous version in this article, though...such as information about protagonist and antagonist, round vs. flat and dynamic vs. static characters. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want any of the old material re-instated, then you will need to go do some research and provide reliable third-party sources for it, complete with in-line citations, as I have stated countless times during these discussions. You two have wasted an enormous amount of time arguing points that are easily demonstrated to be false by means of citing those sources now provided in the article. Flyer22 has been openly disingenuous while Pmanderson has posted outright lies. Neither constitutes acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. You lost the right to have your feelings considered when you decided to use Wikipedia in that way. Verifiability states that unsourced material may be removed at any time. This article has been tagged for 15 months. Neither of you two have done anything to improve it in any way. On the contrary, you have made it far worse than it was when this discussion began. If you did some research and informed yourselves about the material, then you would know, for example, that the material on protagonist was not accurate--try looking it up in a dictionary. No, not the Wikipedia article, since that is wrong as well. Yes, the article provides far less information than it did previously. Nevertheless, it is now in line with Wikipedia policy, and I will be enforcing that standard in any subsequent edits. I welcome contributions that conform to that standard of quality. The adolescents can find someplace else to go sulk. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that does it. I did not lie; I may have erred. If there is a repetition of this incivility, I will resort to dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * However, the rewrite is indeed an improvement - although an account of the etymology of character really should at some point mention Theophrastus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, please feel free to report me where ever you wish. You lied, and the evidence is here. You claimed to have read those sources and that they did not support the position I had outlined. The new version gives detailed evidence of the fact that all of those sources do indeed support the position I outlined. If you insist on posting falsehoods, you should expect to be called on it, particularly when it is so easily demonstrated that you are lying. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DionysosProteus, will you get over your sanctimonious attitude, and take a compliment, and also learn to move on? Stop telling people what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia; no one on this talk page is a vandal. I have not lost my right to have any of my thoughts considered on Wikipedia. Your announcing that I have does not make it so. Jeez, no one wonder, judging from your talk page, others feel that you are difficult to work with. People are openly disingenuous on Wikipedia all the time, great editors included; some of them prank and joke with each other sometimes as well. So what? Adolescent to you, because you believe this place should be straight-laced serious 24/7? Oh well. As long as they are not pranking or adding jokes into the articles with their additions, or being grossly uncivil or threatening other users or going against any real Wikipedia policies, all is okay. I did not make this article worse at all. If you want to take that up with Pmanderson, then so be it, but leave me out of it. Though I must state that your saying we made this article worse contradicts what you said earlier about this article being better back when you moved it than it was before your rewrite. Well, guess what? That version looked a lot like the version Pmanderson restored it to. You say that I did not improve this article in all of the 15 months it had been tagged for additional sources and whatever else? Well, neither did you. I did not even know that this article had fallen into the bad state it was in, until I finally clicked on this article after months and months of never looking at it again. Really, it could have been since 2007.


 * Saying that simple information about protagonist and antagonist, round vs. flat and dynamic vs. static characters should be sourced is ridiculous. Contested information is what needs to be sourced. Does Wikipedia require that we source "the water and sky appear blue during the day" comments? Of course not. That is because it is common sense. Simple uncontested information about protagonist and antagonist, round vs. flat and dynamic vs. static characters is fine without sources. Complicated, likely to be contested information is what should be sourced. And not all of that information about protagonist was inaccurate. You want to continue to act stuck up and superior, then do so. But if there does come a day when I edit this article to actually have a shot at GA or FA status, or, hell, even DYK before either of those, I will not have you standing in my way reverting me on the principle that you must be against anything and everything I do on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, when you chose to behave like a child, you lost the right to be taken seriously in any way whatsoever. There are plenty of other sites where you can indulge such impulses. Wikipedia is not one of them. Your posts have been and remain incoherent--for example your most recent statement "Though I must state that your saying we made this article worse contradicts what you said earlier about this article being better back when you moved it than it was before your rewrite.". I said no such thing. And your ignorance is displayed both in your misunderstanding the point about protagonists and failure to understand Wikipedia on reliable sources. You need to consult a dictionary about what the word "protagonist" means. And it is not merely "contested" material that needs sourcing. All information does. If what you've written in the last posting is really what you think--and who knows if it is, given the childish behaviour you've admitted to above--I don't doubt that your editorial contributions are as lack-lustre and low quality as your contributions to the discussions above. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DionysosProteus, I did not act like a child. You did, with your horrible insults. No one has called me out about my behavior; it was you who was called out. I challenged you to a debate, in which I was serious about. The fact that I became half serious in the debate does not matter. You keep saying I lost my right to be taken seriously. That is your opinion. No one agrees with you, and others in these discussions have been working with me, which would make you incorrect. Most editors here would say that you lost the right to be taken seriously here with your gross incivility. Gross incivility is not tolerated here and is against Wikipedia policy. What I did is not. There are plenty of other sites where you can indulge such impulses. Wikipedia is not one of them. Your posts have been and remain ridiculous. My saying that you stated this article was better back when you moved it than it was before your rewrite is true. You said, "I've taken a look at the recent edits to this article and have to agree that its quality, which was originally at quite a low level, has deteriorated further recently." You did say such a thing. It is right there above. What else does that mean if not that the recent state of this article I happened to come upon when our discussions started was/is worse than when you moved it? For you to act like you meant something differently shows your silliness and questionable word about anything here, as well as your ignorance. I have not failed to understand anything in these discussions, and especially not about protagonists or reliable sources. You need to consult a dictionary about what the word "protagonist" means. Not me. You also need to consult other sources besides dictionaries. I did not say that only "contested" material needs sourcing; I was speaking in general terms. As Verifiability says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This has been true on Wikipedia for the longest now. An example? Plot summaries do not need sourcing, because the film, television show, or play is the source. All you need do is look to some of the best film articles such as The Dark Knight, Transformers, etc. So, no, everything on Wikipedia does not need sourcing. You would know this if you actually learned to work with others, or actually worked on articles above B or C class. My editorial contributions and help on Wikipedia, such as sexuality topics, has been far from lack-luster or low quality, but I certainly do not have to prove myself to you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, Flyer22, do you never tire of being wrong? If, in this as in so many of the discussions on this talk page, you took the trouble to check your facts, it might be possible to take your opinions seriously. I agreed that the article had deteriorated since the cleaning up I did in September 2008. The article was restored to an even older version in the last few days. No contradiction there, unless, of course, you've failed to understand. It was ropey before I moved it; I improved it as best I could given the small amount of time I felt I could give it at that moment; it got worse after that. Not too difficult to follow, surely? Unless you'd care to explain where, exactly, that's contradictory?

You need to consult Verifiability. Try the very first sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." That's the standard expected. But, of course, you understand this, even though pretend not to: "Plot summaries do not need sourcing, because the film, television show, or play is the source." The play is the source, yet it doesn't need sourcing? Like I say, do you never tire? You also do need to consult a dictionary for protagonist, because your comments about it posted above indicate that you are ignorant of some basic facts. Just as they indicate you are ignorant about what a character is. All of this is detailed above. I could jump through just about every post you've made and pick out openly incoherent arguments, or those made on foundations explicitly excluded by Wikipedia policy. But, of course, you were only "joking".

As regards your behaviour, you admitted that you had behaved inappropriately. That is the childish behaviour to which I referred. The moment you decided to use Wikipedia as a playground for your pranks, you forfeited the right to be taken seriously. Any incivility from me was prompted by your sustained refusal to go consult sources instead of relying on your clearly inadequate "common sense" and your openly illogical arguments. I took the trouble to explain in some detail in two reply posts why the position you were outlining was incorrect. Before writing the first reply, I had composed the present article as a draft to serve as a foundation for a new article, so I knew that what you were saying was wrong. If you care to look back over what you posted and compare it with the information that is presented in the current version with sources, you will have that confirmed. Time and time again, though, you refused to refer to any sources. You just knew better, because you're a creative writer with a huge library. I invited you to collaborate on a new article to replace the inadequate old one, but you preferred to continue to air your ignorance on these pages. And to remind you once again, consensus is not a head-count. It matters not how many other people join you in a chorus of ignorance. The only valid criteria are those given in Wikipedia policy--hence my countless requests to ground the discussion in an evaluation of sources. But no, you just know better.

You subsequently claimed that you were being disingenuous. There are only two possibilities to explain what was going on there: either you realised that most of what you'd argued before was nonsense and tried to dismiss it as "joking", or else you deliberately posted incoherent and illogical arguments here. Clearly we treat Wikipedia in very different ways. I do not come here to make friends or joke around--I'm perfectly able to satisfy those needs in the real world, I don't need to come to an online encyclopedia to do that. That's what this is--an encyclopedia. Not somewhere for you to relieve the "boredom" of your life with "silly" opposition and "pulling my leg". That behaviour is quite appropriately described as childish. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DionysosProteus, do you never tire of being wrong and trying to be superior to everyone else? If, in this as in so many of the discussions on this talk page, you took the trouble to check your facts, it might be possible to take your opinions seriously. You agreed that the article had deteriorated since your move of the article. I said that the "even older version" was not too different than the version the day of your move of the article. Yes, you contradicted yourself, because the version it was restored to was not too different than the one the day of your move. Get it?


 * You need to consult Verifiability. I know what the standard expected is. I also know that everything on Wikipedia does not need to be sourced, as I demonstrated above. But, of course, you overlook the fact that things such as plot summaries do not need sourcing. How is the film, television show or play being the source mean that plot summaries need sourcing? It is sourcing itself. Get it? It does not need inline citations. You also do need to consult a dictionary for protagonist, because your comments about it posted above indicate that you are ignorant of some basic facts. Just as they indicate you are ignorant about what a character is. All of this is detailed above. I could jump through just about every post you have made and pick out openly incoherent arguments, or those made on foundations explicitly excluded by Wikipedia policy.


 * In regards to my behavior, I did not say that I behaved inappropriately. I apologized for doing it because it had annoyed you so thoroughly. But it was still a debate. I debated something. Playing Devil's advocate in the hopes of debate is not childish, no matter if the main reason is to make the other person prove their point. I did not forfeit or lose any right to be taken seriously. That being the case for you in regards to me does not make it so, and is something I do not care about. It does not matter that the incivility from you was prompted by my sustained arguments. That does not excuse your childish behavior. In fact, it does not take much for you to be uncivil, as others have pointed out and witnessed (from here and other areas you have edited). Part of my arguments for the change in title were honest. You say that consensus is not a head-count, but it has been demonstrated as one time and time again on Wikipedia. The only valid criteria are not those given in Wikipedia policy--hence which is why we have editors who collaborate on what is better for articles and what sources to use.


 * Yes, I said I was being disingenuous, which is true. That is only partly true, no matter that most of it was disingenuous. Clearly, we treat Wikipedia in very different ways. You do not come here to make friends or joke around, but that is a part of what Wikipedia is as a community. Plenty of people here are friends and joke around. It does not mean we come here to make friends and joke around. We, including myself, come here to write and improve articles. And the two people I debated with through Devil's advocate before you could see that I was only trying to spark discussion. They did not hold grudges or say that I should not be taken seriously anymore on Wikipedia, though  that could be because we are acquaintances. I am perfectly able to satisfy friendship and joke needs in the real world, as well. I do not need to come to an online encyclopedia to do that, but I have done that here because this is a working environment where connections and friendships are made; it was not to satisfy any needs, mind you, because none of my needs are satisfied on Wikipedia (unless it is a need to improve articles). That is what this community is. You can continue to treat this place as though it is your actual job, an actual job where no friendships and jokes are made, at that. But do not ascribe that to all or even most editors here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did check my facts. That's the difference between us. You spew your own "common sense" while I check reliable sources. No, your argument is nonsensical, once again. I described the state of the article after I had corrected it, not before. What would make you think otherwise (other than your own oft-demonstrated idiocy, of course)?

And yes, everything needs a source, as Verifiability clearly states. You ignore your own idiotic contradictions. You say "a plot summary doesn't need a source" yet you then admit that the play or whatever is the source. "It" is not "sourcing itself" because "it" is a plot summary, while the source is the play. They are two different things.

Then you go on to mimic my words yet again. I assume you keep doing that because you're too dumb to create your own. The material in the version you promoted on protagonist was wrong. You don't understand why because you're ignorant and ill-informed. But heaven's forbid I should prompt you to correct that ignorance. Why don't you remind us all what a symbol is? Or the "the broader way "character" is used in the arts"? You just keep assuming you know what you're talking about, when clearly you do not.

And feel free to indicate where my argument has contradicted policy. Oh please, yes, I'd love to hear more of your incoherent ramblings.

When you admitted that you posted disingenuously, you admitted that you behaved inappropriately, since to do so is inappropriate, as you well know. You think otherwise? This is an encyclopedia, not a playground.

Your statement "That being the case for you in regards to me does not make it so, and is something I do not care about." isn't English, and is typical of your prose style. Incoherent nonsense.

You write: "The only valid criteria are not those given in Wikipedia policy--hence which is why we have editors who collaborate on what is better for articles and what sources to use." Sorry, but that is just plain wrong, as well as poor English.

I'm glad that you feel you have a sense of community and friendships from editing an online encyclopedia. That's not something I seek or require from the experience. That you do is sweet, no doubt, but irrelevant. It in no way exempts you from the stated purpose of talk pages: to improve the article. I have seen no discernible improvement in the article from your contributions to this talk page. On the contrary, you have offered illogical nonsense backed up by nothing more than your own ignorance. I, on the other hand, consulted sources and provided a re-write that meets all the appropriate criteria. Try spending your energy doing that, for a change. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You say you did check your facts. I say we only have your word for that. My argument is not nonsensical. You described the state of the article after you had corrected it? Again, the state of the article after you "corrected it" was not too different than the previous state. All of the same elements were in the article, with only a few changes and additions, something you admitted to earlier -- that you had not changed much of the material in the article. What would make you think otherwise (other than your own need for superiority, of course)?


 * And, no, everything on Wikipedia does not need a source, as Verifiability clearly stresses its point about challenged information. You ignore these things to try and win arguments. Yes, I say that a plot summary does not need a source. That is not contradicting itself by saying that the plot summary itself is the source. A lot of people on Wikipedia have tried to tag plot summaries as needing sourcing. The experienced editors such as myself tell them, "It does not need a source because the plot is the source." When we say the plot does not need sourcing, we are saying it does not need inline citation sourcing; it does not need to be sourced in the way that other things are sourced on Wikipedia. You say, "'It' is not 'sourcing itself' because 'it' is a plot summary, while the source is the play. They are two different things." I say, "Get real."


 * I go on to mimic your words again and again, because I know it annoys you. I know that you are so uncreative that all you will do is throw out insults yet again, just like you just did. I did not say that all the material in the version I promoted on protagonist is correct. You cannot even grasp simple things such as that. You just keep assuming you know what you are talking about, when clearly you do not.


 * When I admitted that I posted disingenuously, I did not admit that I behaved inappropriately. You can draw that conclusion all you want.


 * As for my prose style not being English or incoherent nonsense, you are certainly not one to talk. It is sometimes not the best, but it is English. I do not seek my talk page comments to be the best in grammar. I save that for articles.


 * I wrote, "The only valid criteria are not those given in Wikipedia policy--hence which is why we have editors who collaborate on what is better for articles and what sources to use." Nope, not wrong. And again my English is bad? Others have stated the same thing of you recently.


 * I do not care whether or not you seek a sense of community and friendships from editing an online encyclopedia. Nor did I state that I seek that. I stated that such is a part of Wikipedia. You say that you have seen no discernible improvement in the article from my contributions to this talk page? Wrong. If not for the July 2009 discussion I started, this article would not be getting any appropriate attention for cleanup right now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22, firstly, you do not need to "take my word for it" - the evidence is posted clearly in the new article that I wrote along with its reliable sources. And, yes, my edits in September did improve the article, in light of which subsequent edits and reinstating an older version represent deteriorations. Any superiority in my position flows not from my own abilities but from my decision to follow policy and rely on sources, something you have demonstrated you are incapable of mobilising to support your "common sense". And the policy states clearly and unambiguously "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Any material without a source. The "likely to be challenged" does not define what needs sourcing, it merely states that controversial material must be sourced. You now say "the plot summary itself is the source", which, of course, is nonsense. A statement closer to being accurate, which is completely different, is "It does not need a source because the plot is the source." It cannot both not need a source and have a source provided by the plot, that is a contradictory statement. An accurate statement is "the plot is the source". ""Get real." you say. I say, learn the difference between a plot and its summary and perhaps you'll stop making contradictory and incoherent statments. In Hamlet, for example, one is 3hrs long while the other takes five minutes or so to read. But feel free to continue to demonstrate your inability to comprehend the difference. And in mimicking, you succeed only in confirming your childish propensities and inability to form a rational argument, nothing more, as confirmed further by your comments on your selective use of coherent English. I notice that you chose not to mimic "Why don't you remind us all what a symbol is? Or the "the broader way "character" is used in the arts"?" And, again, no, the material on protagonist was inaccurate. A protagonist is not always the main character in a play, but you'd have to know your literary history to understand that. Policy is the only valid criterion. And no, you have made zero contributions to the article. I, on the other hand, wrote a new sourced draft. I did so because I took your initial concerns about the poor quality of the old article seriously. You have since demonstrated that you are not someone who deserves to be taken seriously, regardless of whether you imagine that disingenuous pranks on the talk pages are appropriate. I have requested that you ground your opinions as expressed here in sources a great many times and to this day you have failed to provide a single one that supports any of the incoherent ramblings that you describe as your "common sense". Perhaps you might dust off one of those volumes from your huge library and enlighten us? DionysosProteus (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DionysosProteus, though I am now bored with you, you continue to be a joy to annoy. You continue to speak of Wikipedia solely being about rules (its policies), even though Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. "Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community... Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law." You continue to hold a silly grudge against me and treat me as though I am the enemy, or rather your enemy, even though Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." Your superiority problem is not solely due to following policy and relying on sources. I am quite capable of following policy and using sources; I do it all the time here. If I did not, I would have likely been banned from Wikipedia by now, and laughed right off the Rape and Pedophilia article talk pages, for example. And I have had support in these debates, especially in getting this article changed from the horrible state it was in. As for common sense, that is because I am aware of WP:Common sense. Yes, the policy states clearly and unambiguously "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." But it says "may." And, surely, if you go and try to remove unsourced material which speaks for itself (in other words, does not need sourcing) from a well-watched article, you will be reverted. You could, over and over again, cite Wikipedia policy about all unsourced information being removed, and yet most editors would still be against your removal and revert you; this happens all the time on Wikipedia, because we all go by common sense here, in addition to reliable sourcing. Some things here simply do not need sourcing. The "likely to be challenged" is most certainly what defines what needs sourcing here at Wikipedia; it is that way the majority of the time on Wikipedia. I speak of this because I have consistently seen this happen, in a variety of fields on Wikipedia. I and others say "the plot summary itself is the source," which is not nonsense. We are not super concerned with being technical with wording in edit summaries and on the talk pages such as you by saying "It does not need a source because the plot is the source." But I did state, "Plot summaries do not need sourcing, because the film, television show, or play is the source." As for the more accurate statement being "the plot is the source," yes, we say that as well, which is not too different than saying "Plot summaries do not need sourcing, because the film, television show, or play is the source." In fact, the "plot is the source" wording is what I use most often when speaking of this matter. Bottomline is that you knew what I was talking about (despite your acting as though my "bad English" kept you from understanding this). I do not need to learn the difference between a plot and its summary. And no thanks for the "lesson" on Hamlet. And in mimicking, what I succeed in is confirming your childish propensities and inability to form a rational argument without insults, nothing more. Why would I mimic "Why don't you remind us all what a symbol is? Or the "the broader way 'character' is used in the arts"?" when you were not the one stating such? And, again, not all the material on protagonist was inaccurate. Your acting as though it all was is silly (note: I said "all"). When did I ever state that a protagonist is always the main character in a play? I did not state that all the information on protagonist was correct, which I have stated more than once now. I said some information on protagonist and the other stuff I mentioned should be placed back into this article. You have focused in on the protagonist part, as though everything that section stated was false and as if that is all I mentioned. You could have simply tweaked the incorrect information before reinstating it in this article, instead of turning this article into a theatre. Policy is not the only valid criterion, as I have pointed out above with a link. And, yep, I have made contributions to this article. It got you to write a new sourced draft, no matter that you took my initial concerns about the poor quality of the "old article" seriously. Those concerns were valid. As for my demonstrating that I am not someone who deserves to be taken seriously, try convincing other editors at Wikipedia of that. I guarantee none will agree with you. I will dust off one of those volumes from my huge library later. Perhaps. But it is of no use trying to work with you, as you have demonstrated above by responding to a compliment and query with simply more condescending and belittling comments. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22, the problem is with your "common sense", which is neither "common" nor "sensible". You claim that I hold a grudge against you and treat you as my enemy. On the contrary, it is the nonsense you have spouted here with which I disagree. Remind us, again, what a symbol is. Or the broader use of "character" in the arts. Neither of those strands of your argument, along with most of the rest of it, is accurately classed as "common sense". And in terms of your complaints about using the talk page for personal battles, it is you who have been openly disingenuous, childish, and indulging in your "joy to annoy". In the first few posts I took some time to explain in detail how your previous postings were not in line with current published sources on the subject of the article. If you took the time to consult those that now appear in the article, you would discover that for yourself. "I am quite capable of following policy and using sources" you write; yet the evidence offered here demonstrates the contrary. I, too, supported your suggestion that the article needed improving, and I invited you to collaborate on doing so. You chose not to, and instead to waste our time with childish pranks. And you are quite aware that you are wrong about policy on sources. An encyclopedia collates knowledge published elsewhere. That you imagine that "The "likely to be challenged" is most certainly what defines what needs sourcing here at Wikipedia; it is that way the majority of the time on Wikipedia" is one of the reasons Wikipedia deserves its bad reputation. If the majority of articles follow you in relying on editors' "common sense" opinions, then it is an unreliable source of knowledge, just as the view of "character" that you have promoted here is a wholly inadequate account of that expressed in reliable, third-party sources. And yes, your claim that "the plot summary is the source" is nonsense. The plot of the play, etc., is the source, not the plot summary. And no, I don't know what you're talking about and have no desire to decode your garbled ramblings into coherent English. The description of "protagonist" was just one example - the old version was riddled with inaccuracies, but you'd need to know the subject or at least take the time to do some actual research to understand that. Unsourced material may be deleted at any time. I noted that the article had been tagged since 2007 and deleted accordingly. If you want that material re-instated, take the trouble to provide sources for it. And no, you have made no contributions to the article. Zero, zilch, nada. As demonstrated by your posting [|here], you fully deserve to be treated with contempt. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have stated what I have above, and yet you still try to insist that I am wrong and even twist my words, such as acting as though I said the majority of articles solely or even mostly rely on editors' "common sense" opinions (when I was clearly mainly talking about When to cite)? Not only that, but you continue to insult? Whoa. Just silly and pathetic. You also continue to try and ignore the fact that I said, "Plot summaries do not need sourcing, because the film, television show, or play is the source." Instead, you focus on the second "non-technical" wording I used in that regard. Ridiculous. Wikipedia has a bad reputation due to editors like you (who grossly insult while on Wikipedia) and vandals, as well as people unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works thinking that Wikipedia being "edited by anyone" means that it is generally unreliable, not me or others who know how to use common sense in addition to good editing here; the in-fighting is much joked about. Had you used common sense, along with reliable sources as Pmanderson did, you would not have been proven wrong by Pmanderson in one very obvious incident demonstrated below. I have endured enough of your silliness and abuse. Go find someone else to condescend to. I have better things to do with my time, on and off Wikipedia...such as wash my hair. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you bothered to check the sources, you would be aware that the two sources cited for the 1700s claim for earliest use both state that unambiguously. So by "used common sense" you mean "ignored what two academic sources say." Pmanderson's correction is a demonstration of how these pages are supposed to be used, which is in complete contrast to the idiocy you continue to offer, such as describing openly contradictory and incoherent arguments that you make as "non-technical". Feel free to read a book on the subject of character while your hair dries and the article may actually benefit from you at some point in the future. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Funny (...not). Like I stated, I have better things to do with my time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The lesson here, however, is that Aston and Savona made a statement that is not verbally correct; they were using the Shorter Oxford, but the real reason is that it did not matter to the point they were making whether Fielding was strictly first or not. (Harrison did not say Fielding was first; he simply quotes Tom Jones, as is sufficient for his purpose.) "And the moral of that is" to use sources intelligently; histories of the theatre should be the primary sources of this article - but they are not the best sources for, say, linguistic history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, User:Pmanderson, you are inaccurate, to put it mildly, in your description of those sources. They say: That is, Aston and Savona say clearly and unambiguously that the first use in that sense is 1749. Harrison agrees, explicitly. The article reflected the information given in both sources. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ASTON & SAVONA: "Its transliteration is first used in English to denote "a personality in a novel or a play" in 1749"
 * HARRISON: "The modern literary and theatrical sense of "an individual created in a fictitious work" is not attested in OED until mC18", and then he cites Tom Jones

Hyphen
Please try to write consistently within one dialect of English. Barely-surviving work would be correct in British English, and tolerable in other varieties, because barely modifies surviving. Earliest-surviving work is not defensible, and usage is against it; earliest and surviving both modify work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct grammatical form is earliest-surviving work, since earliest and surviving are not separate adjectives in this example. It is the earliest work to survive, not the earliest work nor the surviving work. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually "earliest" modifies "surviving work": it is the earliest among surviving works; if anywhere, the hyphen would be between "surviving" and "work", and that'd be really ugly. If it were both the earliest work and a surviving work it'd need a comma: "earliest, surviving work". But "earliest-surviving work" would mean the one which survived first, which makes no sense. So "earliest surviving work" is OK. -- A. di M. 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that unsolicited opinion; more clearly put than I managed. I should remind the self-appointed owner of this article that edit-warring is against policy. Edit warring for a dubious hyphen is unlikely to receive much sympathy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Expecting you to adhere to Wikipedia policy and to not to post blatant lies on the talk page is not too much to expect, neither does it indicate ownership. Your edit made it appear that the Carlson source supported your addition. It does not. Kindly familiarise yourself with the basic Wikipedia policies and try to edit according to their guidance. I note, too, that you have still failed to explain your unreasonable behaviour, Pmanderson. You made 3RR when you insisted on removing the legitimate tag and reintroducing factually-inaccurate material. DionysosProteus (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is a lie. I have only made three sequences of edits in the last twenty-four hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you claim that Carlson denies the platitude that Plautus used Greek material? Do you do so? Then it is uncontroversial, neither challenged nor likely to be challenged. As for the rest of this, what factual inaccuracy do you claim? Daring to edit the article you own doesn't count. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As with the vast majority of your previous postings you misrepresent what I have written. I did not say in the last 24hrs, but when you insisted on removing the tags and reintroducing inaccurate material. Still awaiting the explanation for your mendacious posting. DionysosProteus (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only mendacity here is on the part of DionysusProteus. I have not violated 3RR, which says not to revert any point four times in 24 hours; AFAIK, I have not edited any point more than three times, except to correct myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted the addition of the tags three times, despite having it indicated here why the article required them. Kindly explain why you posted the outright lie identified earlier. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully; the difference between three and "more than three" is essential here. It gives those who would change an article an advantage over those who would retain it, but that's intentional; we generally discourage article ownership. (That policy covers almost all of the behavior of DionysusProteus since he came here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the personal attack, what lie do you claim to have identified? I may have erred, but I am not conscious of lying; and rereading the interminable paragraphs of abuse here, I see none identified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you need it identified once more, do you? The lie you posted was this: "I've read most of those, and they do not support what DP has been saying." They do support exactly what I was saying. I knew that they did because I had read them within the last week and had composed the new version of the article. So kindly explain why you claimed that they did not. The article, complete with inline citations to reliable sources, demonstrates in some detail that they support my position. And it was inappropriate of you to remove a tag labeling the old version as factually inaccurate without first having settled the matter here. You are quite correct, Wikipeda does indeed discourage article ownership, so kindly do not do so again. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they don't. That is not a lie; it is a disagreement. It is possible that with better phrasing DP could find forms of statement which convey something more reasonable than the late text; but his efforts to explain himself here (at a minimum) have failed to communicate, and have certainly appeared, to the rest of us, to be incoherent and self-contradictory. This is not how encyclopedias should be written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The current article is fully sourced with the sources provided on this talk page, all of which supports the position I have outlined in some detail here. I see from the Achilles section above you failed to follow the argument. Your failure is not a result of any incoherence on my part. The article version I have provided is precisely the way Wikipedia policy asks that its articles be written, unlike the factually-inaccurate version you insisted on reinstating several times. If, as you claim, you were disagreeing rather than lying, then kindly explain where, exactly, those sources do not support the position I outlined. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits
I have undone the edit to the description of Plautus' work, since the source cited does not support the claim made. If you wish you add new material, kindly provide a reliable, third-party source that supports what you add. The edit also used commas inappropriately. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like any competent edition of Plautus? I shall be adding two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could try making your contributions coherent as well? "Plautus' Amphitryon begins with a prologue discussing which genre it is, which the speaker (Mercury by which characters it contains; since it has kings and gods, it can't be a comedy, and must be a tragi-comedy" makes no sense. The second sentence added is irrelevant to the subject of the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall be glad to add the missing word; this is what happens when one concentrates on useless footnotes. As for the rest, of course it's relevant; Plautus is as unlikely to have invented "tragi-comedy", or the distinction of genres, as he is to have invented Greek laws of inheritance or the myth of Alcmene. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain how to describe from where Roman comedy is translated is relevant to a discussion of Character? You also need to pipe the correct article title if you are wikilinking to Roman comedy. I am re-instating the original sourced sentence since you have introduced a leap of context. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the preface of the Amphitryon is relevant at all (which I doubt), what is relevant to the history of "character" is the first mention of "tragi-comedy" being determined by the cast list. This is far more likely to be Plautus' source - a century earlier and in Greek - than Plautus himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is your doubts that are irrelevant when there is a reliable third-party source that describes the relevance. I am asking you to explain why the second sentence should appear in an article on character. I understand that it is the first mention, etc., because I added that information. In your edits you are also adding unnecessary spaces. You also need to provide the source in the form used by the rest of the article. Please check also that the links you wikilink to are the correct article title and do not need to be further disambiguated. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, unless there is consensus to act, it should not be done; again, WP:Consensus is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to take what action, precisely? What "should not be done"? I asked you to provide an explanation justifying the inclusion of that second sentence. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I provided one; Plautus is (almost certainly) imitating Greek comedy; his play on (Greek) terminology is likely to be part of his original. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That he may have imitated the Greeks, including terminology for genre, doesn't explain why the sentence ought to be in an article on character. Feel free to paste it into the theatre of ancient Rome and/or Plautus, if you wish. But without some amendment, it doesn't belong here so far as I can see. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't play well with others, do you? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly keep your comments on topic PMAnderson and explain why the sentence ought to be included. Since you haven't so far, I will explain my assumptions, formed in lieu of an explanation from you.

You believe that the second sentence ought to be appear in this article on the basis of an implicit conclusion formed through its juxtaposition with the first, namely that if the play is a translation (rather than merely an adaptation) of a Greek original, then the passage that discusses the play's genre in relation to its characters must appear in the original; this demonstrates that character was used to define dramatic genres much earlier than Plautus.

Is that what you mean? If it is, I point out the following: the suggestion that Plautus' play was a translation of a Greek original is speculative; I don't have the Loeb edition here, but I assume that you've cited accurately and that this speculation is one made and marked as such by the critic. Unless the critic goes on to speculate that the passage in question, specifically, appeared in the "original", then to make that argument here is not only speculative but original research on your part. It lacks any evidence that the same discussion of genre appeared in the "original" Greek text. The implicit conclusion would need to be made explicit and supported by evidence.

Contrary to your suggestions in the section below, Carlson is not being "rough" in his treatment of classical theory, but rather is being far more careful with the evidence than you appear to have been. He writes: "a few critical observations in his [Plautus'] plays, most notably in the prologue to Amphitruo, which show that a definition of genre based on characters was already established" (1993, 22). This information is rendered in this article as "By the time that...", citing Carlson. Not only does the citation support the passage in this article, but neither make any claims about that usage being the first/earliest--they simply state what we are able to conclude on the basis of evidence, rather than speculation, namely that at that moment in history the usage was established. Yes, I'm aware of Poetics (1448b25). I'm also aware of the peasant in Elektra whose presence, less than 100yrs earlier, contradicts Aristotle.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your reasoning, but since you've failed to explain it I can only work on the basis of my assumptions. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "By the time that..." is not "was already established". The latter strongly, and reasonably, implies that the argument  already existed before Plautus' time, which is the point here at issue. I thank DionysusProteus for demonstrating that the correct tag here is Failed verification; I should not have permitted my reading of Carlson to be colored by DP's poor expression.


 * A reading of Aristotle which is contradicted by the Electra (and by the watchman in Agamemnon) is unlikely to be a reasonable or consensus reading. The Electra is about Electra, not about the herdsman; just as the Oedipus is about Oedipus, not the two herdsmen - however essential to the plot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual, you miss the point entirely. Firstly, the herdsman is a messenger, who appear in almost every tragedy. The peasant, on the other hand, is one of the main characters. Secondly, in mentioning him I don't make an argument for his being the central subject of the play; quite why you imagine that escapes me. Thirdy, "by the time that" and "was already established" are identical logical statements. "By the time that" positions the temporal sequence of events in exactly the same way. Fourthly, you've failed to engage with the main issue, which is to provide a justification of the inclusion of your second sentence.


 * I am removing the tags, since you have provided no evidence that the sources are unreliable or that the material in the article renders them poorly. On the contrary, you have introduced claims that are dubious. The suggestion that the article contains "too much jargon" is nonsense as well, as the information comes from articles on the subject of this article addressed to a general student of the subject that are in no way obscure or overly-specialised. If you wish to demonstrate that the article requires such a tag, you need to provide an explanation here. The same goes for the inclusion of the second sentence in the Plautus section. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted the wording and restored the wikilinks - please stop deleting them. The article text now almost mimes Carlson, to which you may hardly object. Please note too that "characters" is in the plural in Aristotle: "without action a tragedy cannot exist, but without characters it may". As should be clear, "character" is not being used to describe only an ethical disposition, but also a person in a play. Consequently, "merely" in that sentence in the article is justified. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not clear; indeed, it is one of the key points in the discussion of the Poetics. Attempting to impose one POV on this is contrary to policy.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What, precisely, is not clear? There is no point of view offered. The article reflects what the sources say. If you feel that those sources offer only one POV, then feel free to add more to achieve a NPOV account. Your subjective opinions are definitely excluded. You haven't yet offered a justification for the point at hand, which is the inclusion of that second sentence in the Plautus section. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it reflects what DionysosProteus thinks they say. That's the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please consider having nice cup of tea and a sit-down. Powers T 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this battleground, since it is plainly disputed; I have explained here why. DionysusProteus reads his sources as carelessly as he reads the protests of his fellow editors, or he would not be claiming the distinction of genre by character comes from Plautus - rather than the Poetics at 1448b.
 * The source is provided. Feel free to examine it for yourself. Carlson (1993, 22). DionysosProteus (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Carlson's phrasing doesn't make this accurate, or due weight Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you care to explain what you mean, then we may be able to discuss that. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough of this is enough. There is no dealing with someone who is unwilling to consider other views; if he is indeed a professor, I pity his students. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed the correction made to the claim for earliest usage in English. Might I point out that this is exactly the kind of contribution that I have been asking for time and time again on this talk page. Pmanderson, by consulting a reliable source, corrected an error that appears in two other reliable sources. That is exactly how the process ought to work and I am glad to see it. I am quite willing to hear other opinions when they are grounded in evidence in this way, and have expressed my desire for that consistently and frequently on this page. Discussions based on editors' "common sense", on the other hand, you are quite right, do not interest me and the inclusion in the article of those opinions would be inappropriate. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Survey volumes are likely to be as rough in their treatment of Greek critical theory as they are in omitting so well known an author as Dryden. This is the advantage of listening to common sense; I checked the point because it seemed implausible that a standard Greek term should have come into English so late.


 * Doubtless Tom Jones had a wide influence, and this has led to the establishment of the folk-theorem here.


 * But I am glad to see the nice cup of tea is having its soothing effect; it cheers but does not inebriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Carlson's survey, he is one of the most respected academics in the field and there is nothing rough about his treatment. I don't quite understand what you mean about the late entry of the term; whether the Restoration or a century later, it's still pretty late. Having drunk tea throughout the process, it was the sudden adherence to the procedures laid down in policy that I found so innovative. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So? That does not prevent his textbook from being as loosely written as Michael Rostovtzeff's. Sudden adherence for my first content edit is bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Having restored a version riddled with factual inaccuracies several times in the last few days, to claim that your more recent contributions are your "first" isn't quite accurate. And there is nothing "loosely written" about Carlson's book. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you all missed the point of this section entirely. Powers T 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Title: Character (fiction) or Character (arts)?
Before I leave this talk page for a good amount of time, I would like to go back to one of my two main concerns about this article -- the article's title. I want to get a sense of everyone's thoughts about what is the best title for this article. I intend for WP:Consensus to be achieved on this matter, of course. No doubt this may put people through more abuse from DionysosProteus, but I will not be a part of that. I will also not let this particular discussion become about any of what I stated above about "Fictional character" being the title. That has been cleared (there above), and the focus should now be on "Character (fiction)" and "Character (arts)" as titles. I am still for the title being "Character (fiction)," and cannot see any good reason why it should not be titled Character (fiction). DionysosProteus has already stated the reasons he feels "Character (arts)" is the better title, and will no doubt state those reasons again. Anyone else's thoughts, however? Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a summary as to why Fictional character is not acceptable. I haven't hours to spare to read through the bickering above.  Powers T 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the sources given in the article do not support it. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite my saying that I would not let this particular discussion become about any of what I stated above about "Fictional character" being the title, I will briefly oblige LtPowers. LtPowers, as I am sure you know, there are plenty of reliable sources titling characters of a fictional nature as fictional characters, as seen on Google Books and Google Scholar. Even for the title Non-fictional character. This is what I was going to get around to saying above when I first started the debate about the title "Character (arts)" in July 2009. We all know what I did instead after that (though I did mention a Google search), but oh well. I simply felt that since the "Fictional character" title is so commonly linked to on Wikipedia and since a variety of literary and scholarly texts I have at home do title these characters as fictional characters, it would be better to have this article titled "Fictional character." But DionysosProteus has listed only dictionary sources for the title. If we are to take the dictionary as determining the title in this case, I would not be against this article being titled "Character (fiction)." And, again, I am not that against it being titled "Character (arts)." It was rather that I felt "Fictional character" would be the better title, for the reasons I just stated above in this section, and still feel that way. Now, however, I would also prefer the "Character (fiction)" title as opposed to the "Character (arts)" title...due to feeling that "Character (fiction)," much like "Fictional character," is quite, or rather more, direct in specifying this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're abandoning a preferred proposal in favor of a compromise proposal. That's fine.  Powers T 14:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, since it fails to address the many more problems with the suggestions. Firstly, note that the google books search proposed for "fictional character" doesn't produce a significant number of results at all. None, so far as I have seen, offer a definition. This test is particularly relevant with the far more dubious term "non-fictional character". Secondly, there is significant ideological baggage with the terms "fiction"/"fictional" that the disciplines of the performing arts involved explicitly reject, mentioned above and relating to literary approaches to performance activities. Thirdly, considering the suggestion "Character (fiction)", many of the fields to which this article's subject belong would not describe their works as "fiction"--opera is the most obvious example--and the article should have the most-common title. They may be "fictional" but no one describes an opera as "fiction." That term is usually reserved for novels, as any visit to a bookstore will confirm. Flyer22 claims that "fictional character" is frequently linked to; if you consult What links here, you'll see that far more link to the present title. Moreover, as stated initially, the sources do not use the redundant qualifier "fictional" (with the exception of Pringle 1987). Yes, many of them are dictionary sources. Dictionaries of critical terms within the relevant fields. Flyer22 doesn't provide any explanation as to why that is a problem (assuming that she has abandoned her proposal that "character" means more than "fictional" in works of art, which I assume was part of the disingenuous prank she confessed to above). The only reason that the article acquired the disambiguation (fiction) before was that it had become involved in the project of a single editor who, armed with a writing manual, wanted to promote the particular mode of literary analysis that the manual promotes, thus not reflecting the breadth of current scholarship on the subject. WP:Consensus is not about a hand-count nor the balancing of editor's personal opinions, but rather on reasons--such as most-common use, the imperative not to mislead, etc.--based in an examination of reliable sources. The section on Aristotle in the present version is also relevant to the discussion. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't show up in google much; this is one of the reasons why Google is a poor tool, although an obvious one (see WP:search engines). When a character is known to be fictional, an author can just say character and will be understood, without the full phrase. Our titles do not have that option. Support as an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, our titles have exactly that option, thanks to the disambiguation page Character. That is precisely what it is for. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As stated more than once now, I pulled no full-on prank. I was quite serious about this title being changed and the lousy state of this article all the way through that debate. The fact that I wanted to irk DionysosProteus does not make those facts any less true. DionysosProteus's need to keep taking every discussion on this talk page back to that does not get around my points. Just because the Google Book Search does offer a direct definition for "Fictional character" does not mean that it does not produce a significant number of results for the wording. As it shows, the wording "Fictional character" is quite common when talking about fictional characters. The wording "fictional character" is not just usually reserved for novels. And, furthermore, have any of us read most of those books to see if they offer a clear definition for what a fictional character is from the beginning? It is a little silly to believe that they would not start off defining what a fictional character is, no matter that people are already aware of what it generally means. Also, "Fictional character" is frequently linked to here at Wikipedia; if you consult What links here, I am not seeing how "far more" link to the present title. Both titles seemingly have the same number of pages to show for how much they are linked to. And "Character (arts)" is partly linked to so much because it is the same article that had the title "Fictional character." An example? An article I worked heavily on, Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery links here, even though we linked to "Fictional character" there, not "Character (arts)." What else? I did not say dictionary definitions are necessarily a problem. But articles here often go on more than dictionary definitions, or not at all, sometimes either because the dictionary definition does not go into the needed detail or because it is not exactly correct. An example of the dictionary definition not being exactly correct is a topic I mentioned here before -- Pedophilia. We did not use the dictionary definition for its primary definition because it is not exactly correct. Pedophilia, as correctly defined, is the sexual preference for prepubescent children (preference on the part of a late teenager -- 16 and up -- or any legal adult). Not simply a sexual attraction to children. Many can argue that any (late teenager or adult's) sexual attraction, no matter how little or for whatever reason (such as sexual substitution, etc.), to prepubescent children is some sort of mental disorder (hell, a good argument can certainly be that any teenager lusting after a 7-year-old is not exactly a normal thinking process). But "true pedophiles" are what we call the ones with a sexual preference for prepubescent children. And the dictionary definition did not even specify the most important part -- "prepubescent." This could be because it first and foremost defines a child as a person between birth and puberty. However, we all know that the word "Child" has more than one meaning. With this article, "Character (arts)," we are talking about using the dictionary for its title, not just the primary definition. I am saying that I do not see why it has to be or should be titled "Character (arts)" over "Character (fiction)." Neither title is necessarily wrong, but this is a disambiguation title for fictional character. Why not title it "Character (fiction)"? Simply because some people would object to opera characters being called fictional? WP:Consensus is most certainly often a hand-count...based on the balancing of opinions and reasons, including most-common use as in this case. "Fiction" is the word more associated with character when speaking of fictional characters. Not "arts."

I do understand DionysosProteus's arguments for "significant ideological baggage" with the terms "fiction"/"fictional." But other than being rejected by some people when it comes to opera, why is "Character (arts)" a better title than "Character (fiction)"? It really all depends on some people not wanting their work to be titled fictional, even though it is? Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethos
A real account of characterization in the Greek drama would begin with Thespis; an account of the word character would include Theophrastus' Characters. But this is neither; it concentrates on the Poetics, which does not, in the original, use the word.

Ethos must be translated somehow, and "character" is often forced into the gap, since English ethos, "prevalent tone of sentiment" in an institution, is a different sense of the Greek word. But that does not imply that it directly applies to "the representation of a person", which is the intended scope of this atrocious article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, if DP reverts me again, especially to deny the existence of an active dispute, I will ask to have this article protected, and he can go write his blog somewhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As is usual in the low-grade comments you have offered on this talk page, you fail completely to refer to reliable, third-party sources. Kindly familiarise yourself with the relevant wikipedia policy articles, particularly WP:Verifiability. You will find there that Wikipedia is not designed to reflect your quaint opinions. Rather, it states information given in reliable sources. Ethos is rendered as "Character" in the source. In fact, it is translated in that way in every translation of the Poetics. And no, it is not a different sense, it refers to characters in tragedies. That is the subject of the Poetics. Insofar as the work addresses characters in tragedies, it is an appropriate subject for this article. I can only assume that you are being disingenuous.


 * As far as the tags are concerned, feel free to report me wherever you wish. It is you who is abusing the article. The article is fully sourced with reliable, third-party sources. It reflects the information provided in those sources accurately. You are free to point out any places where you believe it does not do so, and so far, with the exception of the quibble you made about a distinction between the logical meaning of "by the time" and "was well-established", you have offered no evidence that the articles does not reflect accurately what the sources offer.


 * The article, as you know full well since you have been following the discussions above, is a starting-point. I published it because you insisted on reverting to an old and factually-inaccurate, unsourced version. Feel free to add any material that you feel it requires, so long as you source it. If you wish the tags to appear, then you need to identify the specific problems you feel the present version has. That's how it's supposed to be done. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear what this post means: this article is DionysosProteus' blog, and it can only reflect his opinions; he will insult anybody who disagrees. Enough; unless more editors arrive to discuss these matters, no discussion is useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When your bizarre subjective opinions are supported by sources, as Wikipedia policy asks us to provide, I am more than happy to allow that information to appear in the article. When you insist on posting eccentric opinions unsupported by anything, then it is right and proper that they should be challenged. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you address your fellow editors civilly, as you have never done; when you supply actual citations (not a pile of books which somewhere, somehow, support your PoV; then we can continue this conversation. In the meantime, I have asked for more eyes, with more patience for continual sophomoric insult. Go abuse them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A cursory examination of the talk page above confirms that what you write is, again, inaccurate. I took the trouble to explain in some detail where the opinions originally expressed seemed to me to be false. I provided sources, not a pile. Many are in dictionary format and required merely scrolling to the article on the subject of this article, "character". Those that were not had clear chapters on its subject. Having provided these, you posted the blatant falsehood that they did not support the position I had outlined, despite the fact that my position was based entirely on having read precisely those sources in response the original expression of concern about the old version's quality. I then published the draft I had begun based on those sources, complete with inline citations. It is you, on the contrary, who has repeatedly reverted to inaccurate version and have misrepresented sources - as you do so with your latest edit of the Carlson citation. Aristotle's discussion of character in the Poetics is not only relevant to this article, the other sources provided all say that it is. It is only your own eccentric subjective opinions that continue to be in denial of these facts. By all means invite other editors to take a look for themselves. If they examine the sources and compare them with the article, they will find the article reflects accurately what those sources say. I notice, too, that you are attempting to supplant the edition of the Poetics cited with one translated in 1923. Janko's translation is from 1987, scholarly and reputable. Replacing it with one made 65 years earlier isn't really appropriate is it? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Loeb is normally, as here, neutral and fairly literal; it is therefore suitable for the Greekless reader. Janko has a thesis to pursue, and is translating to explain his point of view; this is perfectly legitimate for his ends - but not ideal for ours. Neither Aristotle's text nor our dictionaries have changed significantly since 1923.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Person
The article states that a character is a representation of a person. This would seem to preclude "characters" such as Puck, Old Major, Spock, and Bugs Bunny. Does everyone agree there is a problem?--Work permit (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There clearly is a problem, but DionysosProteus will just insult you and act as though "you simply do not get it" for pointing that out. I do not care that Bugs Bunny acts more like a human being than a bunny; he still is not truly representing a person.


 * Really, I am ready for the conclusion of what this article should be titled. There is clear consensus that it should be titled "Character (fiction}" over "Character (arts)." And one person's objection does not make it any less consensus and should not stop it from being acted on. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do always try to improve articles with references and citations, and so I'm sympathetic to DionysosProteus view of "show me". Unfortunately I'm not a literary major and don't have the wealth of references to choose from as he does.  But I'm sure DionysosProteus understands that Puck and other non-humans are still characters in the literary sense.  I hope he can help us fix just this one glaring issue with an appropriate reference.--Work permit (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Work permit, I just want to state that you seem like a very nice person. I thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, person is an interesting choice of word. If a corporation can be a person, I'd hate to argue that Spock can't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Good point, Pmanderson. The Legal person article, in regards to a corporation, for example, says, "This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts."


 * So...you feel that the "person" part of the lead is fine, I take it? I'm starting to feel that it is okay, though it could probably be clearer. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a classicist by inclination; I tend to hear persona, "mask", behind it. If you have another suggestion, let's hear it; it may be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have a better suggestion. At least, I have not thought of one. Maybe Work permit has a suggestion. If it bothered Work permit enough to make a section about it on the talk page, I feel that others (whether few or not) are likely to be bothered by it as well (though maybe not at first glance). Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DionysosProteus will delete anythikng without a reference. How about something along the lines of Baldick and others define a character as the representation of a person in a narrative or dramatic work of art (such as a novel, play, or film).  The term includes the anthropomorphic representation of any being, such as Puck, Old Major, Spock, and Bugs Bunny  With appropriate references that call Puck, Old major, Spock, and Bugs Bunney characters.--Work permit (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC).