Talk:List of stereotypical characters in the world of drama

Original research? No sources? This list is a good candidate for deletion. -Willmcw 22:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Should each bullet point include at least one example? (Chief Wiggum or Long John Silver for example) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well-known stereotypes should have easily available examples. Minor characters may be hard to find names for. But somebody ought to do something - right now this reads as if it was written off the top of the head. -Willmcw 19:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Indian math genius
"The fast talking Indian math genius who has a degree from an Indian Institute of Technology"... I am sorry, I am totally unfamiliar with this "stereotype"... could you give me examples or sources?
 * Indian, as in from India. All of the Indian people that work with my dad talk overly fast and with an accent, and they're good at math. But everyone who works with my dad is good at math so that could be a stretch. Also, I think the content of this article should be placed under "stock characters" and have this redirect to that. --Kitty and a Bow 7:54, Aug 12, 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
If we do a merge (and it's probably a good idea), then this article should be merged into Stock character rather than vice versa. The latter is more thorough and is general enough to cover written fiction as well as drama. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC) According to a normal practice, there should be Stock character (main article) and List of stock characters (to declutter the main article). mikka (t) 21:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree vehemently! It is my pet peeve to see articles absolutely ruined by the addition of strings of lists that add nothing to the body of the article at hand.  By all means merge, but MOVE the ever-growing list of characters OUT of the proper article and merge here!  Quill 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (moved from other talk, to a single discussion place) Disagree vehemently! It is my pet peeve to see articles absolutely ruined by the addition of strings of lists that add nothing to the body of the article at hand.  By all means merge, but merge the inappropriate section only, that is, MOVE the ever-growing list of characters OUT of this proper article on stock characters and merge into that other list!  If examples are to be left here, leave only the true stock character, not the role and certainly not the stereotype, which seems to be taking over. Quill 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we should merge the list from Stock character into this article, and move/rename this article to List of stock characters. Do we have a consensus for that? I suggested the merge go the other way because it seemed easier to merge the shorter list into the longer and more general one, but you've convinced me. --Jim Henry | Talk 23:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that, Jim, but there's still the issue of stereotypes being placed in the list rather than the classic stock character. See also ethnic stereotypes in popular culture while we're at it, and there's one more article with a similar concept--can't think of it at the moment (another Wikipedia problem) but when I do I'll add it....  Quill 23:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

While we are at it I would also suggest to clean this thing of original research, with some weird descriptions, like "Angst-ridden Youth" is Harry Potter. Also, like e.g., in List of webcomics, I'd suggest to include only items that have articles, in order to enforce notability and verifiability, e.g, via possible VfD. mikka (t) 01:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So... this merge discussion stalled back in 2005? What's the hold up? SpikeJones (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely merge
Honestly, they're basically the same article with a slightly different name. If you were to just add "Stock Characters" as a subsection which is only for movies, you'd have no more trouble. What's taking so much discussion about it-- are we in Congress, or something?!