Forum:'Minor Character' category

Forums: War Room → 'Minor Character' category

Note: This thread has been unedited for 4310 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

As a part of the first project of Minor Character Council, it has been Avatar_Wiki_talk:Minor_Character_Council#Minor_character_category|suggested by myself, that for future reference and ease, each character page be categorized as either 'Main Character', 'Supporting Character', or 'Minor Character'. Of course the 'Minor Character' category would help the council easily identify pages that need to be reviewed, and for stability and consistency, the rest of the character articles should be categorized as such also. The Council has agreed on this, and now I am bringing this to the rest of the community, to make aware, and to ask your opinions on the matter. Would you support these categories? Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 06:45, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I support the Minor Character Category. It would help organize all of the minor character pages. I'm not so sure about the Supporting Character category. I think that would be too much. I thought there was a main character category already.--_{Back for Korra Folks :)  Talk  Contribs  Following}  10:53, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I support the Minor Character Category, but I agree with Sky that there isn't a need for a Supporting Character Category. I actually proposed this earlier on the Category talk:Characters page, yet to my knowledge no one's responded to it at this time. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:14, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, scrap the other categories, but the Minor Character category idea still stands. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 11:21, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're 3-0 right now and since there are only five members of the MCC, this is pretty much decided. If I was to simply type in the categories box "Minor Characters", the first would be a red link, but would any subsequent one have a full link (making the category fully established)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H-Man Havoc (wall • contribs) This note was added on ~~~~~.

Not necessarily, Havoc. ;) In the unlikely event of the rest of the community objecting, community consensus does override any decision made by an individual user group. If this does go ahead, though, I do suggest that you don't try to do this by hand (for obvious reasons). Just poke me to add the category to all the pages concerned by bot. The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:01, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I understand it'll be quite a bit of work to do it manually... but I happen to know of a few characters off the top of my head that are indeed minor characters. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:03, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, but since we have a category for main characters, and since all characters are in Category:Characters, it's a pretty simple bot task for me to run to just add a minor character category to all characters that aren't main characters. :) As a side note, I would actually prefer to have a category in between main characters and minor characters. There are characters which recur quite often and drive the plot; however, without a third category to themselves, they would either be thrown in with the truly minor characters, or not even have a "classification". If such a category is made, then the characters for the "Major character" category will need to be added manually, after which all the minor characters can be done by bot. The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

That would be the hardest part, since supporting characters are between main characters and minor characters. But how do you program a bot to know exactly which category a character belongs to? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

We make a list and 888 tells the bot what to do. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 12:44, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I just need a simple list of which characters to put in the "Major characters" category, maybe on someone's sandbox. For the minor characters, I'll be able to just run the bot based on the logic of telling it to add a category to any page in the characters category that isn't in the main character category or the major character category. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:50, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my voice will be heard (newbie) but I would say yes to the Minor Character Category. It will be much simpler than putting up Protagonist,Antagonist or Neutral Categories for the characters. And I also like that the whole avatar Wiki community can decide on issues and not just the admin. I was lucky, the first wiki I decided to participate to is very welcoming.P.S. I don't know why I can't put my signature: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protorazor (wall • contribs) This note was added on ~~~~~.

You are a user just like us and it doesn't matter if you are new or old, you will be heard by everyone :) For the signature problem, I think its a wikia glitch. Things like these happen pretty often. :) Natsu-Talk-See My Work 04:19, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

So what becomes of this discussion? Will it go ahead? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:45, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be enough support for the idea. If someone can link to a page with a list of "major" characters, I'll be able to bot that and a category of "minor" characters straight away. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:08, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was one on this wiki. There could be one on Wikipedia... --—Haybernathy ^talk http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff433/Toph_Lover/KataangSprite.png 03:11, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one. ;) I just need a list written up of "major" characters, probably in someone's sandbox. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:15, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'll put one together. :) —Haybernathy ^talk http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff433/Toph_Lover/KataangSprite.png 03:17, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

For organization purposes, I'll support this User:Technology Wizard

Is this all? --—Haybernathy ^talk http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff433/Toph_Lover/KataangSprite.png 03:22, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thats all the major characters in the series. Natsu-Talk-See My Work 03:25, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Tenzin. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:25, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

If animals are not included, then yes thats it :) User:Technology Wizard

Where's Appa and Momo? Aren't they main characters as well? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:27, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oh oops, I didn't make myself clear. By "major characters", I meant people who aren't main characters but are recurring characters important to the plot of multiple episodes, such as Bumi, Pakku or Long Feng. We already have a category for the big people. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:27, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

In thats case, Jet, Guru Patik, Jet's team, the Earth King, and Xin Fu? Sorry for the bad spelling :s User:Technology Wizard

In addition: Piandao, the Boulder, Huu, Due, Tho, Hakoda, Master Yu, Gyatso, Combustion Man... and a few others I can't think of right now. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 06:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Add them here --—Haybernathy ^talk http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff433/Toph_Lover/KataangSprite.png 06:19, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Xin Fu is a "major character"? Dcasawang1 (talk) 21:14, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

And Huu, Due and Tho? Dcasawang1 (talk) 21:14, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it might be a good idea to limit it to characters that appeared in more than one episode... The 888th Avatar (talk) 04:28, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Xin Fu is a major character, as well as the others mentioned, because they appear in more than 1 episode and are crucial to the story. Master Yu and Xin Fu became bounty hunters on behalf of Lao Bei Fong, who wanted Toph back home. Huu, Tho and Due first appeared in The Swamp, but were key in defending the submarines for as long as they did in The Day of Black Sun, Part 1: The Invasion and The Day of Black Sun, Part 2: The Eclipse. These reasons have been justified. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:46, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the list, guys. The 888th Avatar (talk) 14:32, May 18, 2011 (UTC)