Forum:CT Archive/"Characters" or "Dramatis personae"?

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was "Dramatis personae" section when listed as such in the book; all additional characters would be in an "Other characters" section. When no Dramatis personae is provided in the book, the section is simply entitled "Characters." —Xwing328^(Talk) 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of our articles on books, films, television episodes, etc. include lists of the characters featured. Sometimes, our articles call this list "Characters", but other times, "Dramatis personae" is used. Recently, Adamwankenobi and I had a little back and forth on the issue at "The Cries of the Trees", so we decided to call this CT to see what others thought.

Should these lists of charactrers be called "Characters", "Dramatis personae", or something else? — SavageBob 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

[edit] Characters

1. — SavageBob 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. RMF 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Maybe I'm dumb, but had to look it up the first time I saw it. WhiteBoy 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Characters, unless the book itself has a Dramatis personae...then it should have both, IMO. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Sentry 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) – Clarity is more important than style. Besides, Dramatis personae is a phrase that meant to be used in theater. Michael A. Stackpole started using it in his novels, for some reason, but it is an awkward phrase that is of limited use.
6. Lord Hydronium 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Eschew obfuscation. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
8. I think Dramatis Personae should only be used with books that have an actual Dramatis Personae list, not for everything. - Bub
9. Dramatis personae is formal to the point of being slightly ridiculous. - Dark Spork 02:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Not a huge fan of dramatis personae. Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatis personae

1. Although I could go either way as long as one becomes the standard. Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. SFH 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) It makes us look less like a bunch of foam-at-the-mouth-nerds and more like the traditional book nerds.
3. Riffsyphon1024 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) More sophisticated.
4. Darth Kevinmhk 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC) just follow the book~
5. Cutch 04:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Sounds cooler.
6. Muuuuuurgh 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Skywalka 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
8. --Xwing328^(Talk) 05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Follow the book.
9. Snoop 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
10. KEJ 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Themelle444 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - RelentlessRecusant 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Well, it's in all the books...Orange_lightsaber^Villip 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
14. I'm a theatre junkie. besides, some of the NJO books have "Dramatis Personae" pages.Darth Ceratis 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatis personae + other characters

"Dramatis personae" section when listed as such in the book; all additional characters would be in an "Other characters" section. When no Dramatis personae is provided in the book, the section is simply entitled "Characters."

1. WhiteBoy 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Sounds like a winner to me. -- Ozzel 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Yes. -Finlayson 15:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
4. This is what I wanted when I first voted. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Much better. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Look OK to me! :) Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. LtNOWIS 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Mirlen 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
9. --Xwing328^(Talk) 16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote.
10. Sounds good to me Fatguy2006 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
11. I Says YES! Solo89
12. Darth Kevinmhk 13:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Change my vote. Didnt notice such a good idea was suggested.
13. I think we have a winner. jSarek 09:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Snoop 11:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
15. It took this long to come up with this idea why?Havac 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Tinwe 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
17. - breathesgelatin^Talk 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Imp 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Changed my vote. I think this is a good idea. - JMAS 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
20. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Both. DP should be verbatim from the front when it's there. Everybody else goes into Characters Enochf 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I realize that many of the Star Wars novels are using dramatis personae nowadays, but it sounds snobbish and pedantic to me. Wikipedia should be accessible to as many readers as possible, and that means not using fancy language for the sake of using fancy language. — SavageBob 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wookieepedia tries to follow standards set out by the Star Wars publishing companies when setting its own policies (like canonicity). IMO, following the standard name established by the novelists seems to be the best choice. However, as I said above, as long as one standard is settled on, either one is OK with me. Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think we should use Dramatis Personnae with books that have one, and Characters for books without one. That way, it's clear we're quoting the list where it exists and creating it where it doesn't. jSarek 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Another problem with "dramatis personae" (aside from the fact that it is horrendous purple prose, is that it doesn't work very well with {{mo}} characters. If Han mentions Big Bunji in the radio adaption of ANH, that does not make Big Bunji a dramati (?) persona. It makes him a character, {{mo}}. We'll also have to adopt "dramatis personae" for RPG supplements, video games, comic books, etc. Ugh. -- SavageBob 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think "Dramatis Personae" should be used ONLY if there is an official dramatis personae. Otherwise, "characters" can be used. This distinguishes between official info and our info.--The Erl of the CT Archive/"Characters" or "Dramatis personae"? ^{talk What I do} 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Per Erl. --Mirlen 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If that was how we were doing things, we would of course need to follow the book's judgement on who's in the list. I had a tiny edit war with Kuralyov about whether we should correct their typos. -LtNOWIS 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem with using existing DPs is that their logic can be rather unusual. Betrayal is a great example. One character appears twice under two different names to preserve a surprise, one character is only listed under a pseudonym, also to preserve a surprise, and a few characters listed have cameo appearances at the most. Iron Fist is like this too, with the fictional Hawk-bats getting their own section of the DP, even though every character in it is just a pseudonym of another listed character. - Lord Hydronium 03:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe a compromise of "Characters" by default and "Characters/DP" if there is an actual listing? WhiteBoy 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like slashes. - Sikon [Talk] 10:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Or possibly add an "Other Characters" section after the offical DP section. -Finlayson 04:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I like this idea. Added it as a possible vote. WhiteBoy 02:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• OK, the vote is now 9 / 9 / 20 for the 3 options respectively. Is this close to reaching a consensus for Dramatis personae + other characters? If not what about taking the top 2 options and having a runoff vote? -Fnlayson 18:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the last option (if only to stop the edit war over on the Tempest page). It also gives the novel pages a uniform look, which is always good. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I still think we should just go with characters, but I think that the last option is where consensus seems to be building. Shall we close this thread? —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, please. --Xwing328^(Talk) 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.