This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error
Fox's official website forGlee lists his name as Jessie St. James (with the 'i'). I'm not sure if this was always the case, or if they have decided to change it recently to fit with "Jessie's Girl", to be sung by Finn in "Laryngitis". And it was never spelled out in the show. Thoughts? --Yvesnimmo (talk)18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They spell it Jesse in theepisodic releases. Google News throws back 7 hits forJessie and 57 forJesse, so my inclination would be to leave it as is for the time being. It's frustrating how many errors the official site is riddled with.Frickative18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good interviewhere if anyone is interested in fleshing out a paragraph about the piano player. If not, I'll get on it in the next few days.Frickative22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article from the Philippine Inquirer about Charice being a new character in Glee. Charice made a quick statement to abc-cbn news that she is not going to be. So I hope this clears up any stories that might come up in this article.
It was very impressive to look at both Rachel and Shelby perform in the Sept. 7th episode. The similarity between their looks and their voices is remarkable. It would be interesting to see discussion from the producers, writers and casting director about who came first, was this storyline part of the initial character trajectory for Rachel and Shelby?Signed, Lisa San Diego—Precedingunsigned comment added by98.155.67.74 (talk)05:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really in Season 2. How does she rank as a main character by Brittany and Santan who speak in most episodes are "recurring" characters?—Precedingunsigned comment added by98.225.167.9 (talk)20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't how to officially request but I want to request a revaluation of the quality scale of this article. It's not so much a list. I think that it has Good article potential.—Precedingunsigned comment added byJDDJS (talk •contribs)
It seems like it's "Jackson" on the show, as that's what Sue calls her, and it's whatIMDb says. But then again, Sue has a habit of not calling people by their properly. The officialpressreleases refer to her as "Johnson", but they've been wrong, too.Yves (talk)05:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In her first episode, Sue calls her by one name and then Will corrects her. I think she said Johnson (and Will said Jackson) but I can't be sure. I can't now, but later i'll try to find the episode online, so we can get a good answer.JDDJS (talk)05:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I just checked - Sue originally calls her Johnson then Will corrects her to Jackson. I'll amend the article and check it's consistent in the episode articles too.Frickative13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really fitting for an encyclopedic entry to basically have two whole paragraphs of nothing but rumors and speculation of a character and whether or not the creators/actors are trying to trick the audience?Flygongengar (talk)01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a couple of the tags because they clearly don't apply. With the exception of the copy editing one, which I know nothing, I don't feel the rest apply either. Can I remove them?JDDJS (talk)22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in season one, Karofsky was mentioned as being on the hockey team. I'm pretty sure he didn't appear in any of the scenes with the football team or with coach Tanaka.BlueMoonset (talk)05:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Karofsky today: his first lines on the show, right after he slushies Finn early in "Mash-Up", include saying to him that he's "dropped below us hockey dudes on the food chain", and Quinn calls Karofsky and his teammates "neanderthal puck-heads". The first time he's called a football player is by Kurt in "Theatricality", right after he and Tina are pushed into a locker by Karofsky and Azimio for wearing Lady Gaga outfits. (Kurt says to them that he and Tina wearing the costumes to express their individuality is "the same thing you do when you go to school with your football uniforms on.") In "Mattress", the two of them marker-up Finn's face in the locker room, in preparation to doing the same to his Glee yearbook photo, but while Azimio's in a football uniform, Karofsky's not.BlueMoonset (talk)17:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, in from Karofsky, they talk about a future episode, "Born this Way", to be released in April of '11, but it was just released. Should we change this?—Precedingunsigned comment added by98.169.45.99 (talk)16:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following character description to section 3.1 Students:Lauren ZizesLauren Zizes (Ashley Fink) is the president of the Mckinley High School A/V Club, is on the wrestling team and becomes a member of New Directions as of the "Special Education" episode. In the past, Lauren has tried out for the Cheerios, shown her love for Twilight (not to mention Puck and Mr. Shuster) and has aided Rachel in revealing that members of the glee club weren't pulling their weight.
Becky JacksonBecky Jackosn (Lauren Potter) is a member of the Cheerios and becomes Sue Sylvester's right-hand when she loses her grip on the Cheerleaders who are in Glee. People, especially Mr. Shuster, are speculative when Sue makes Becky a cheerleader, but both the viewing audience and the characters find out that Sue a handicapable sister named Jean, and Becky's jump rope ruitine wins Sue over. Sue treats her like she would any other Cheerio, keeping her weight in-check and In "The Rocky Horror Glee Show," Becky accidentally reveals Sue's plot to take down the school's production of the "Rocky Horror Show" by showing Mr. Shuester a video of Sue's Corner. Critics and fans alike have been very supportive of Lauren and the character of Becky. She has been sent as an ambassador to many events and was recently given an award for representing a special needs person on Glee.
Not done: Wikipedia is not forplot-only descriptions of fictional works. Instead of anin-universe summary of the scenes they have been involved with, sections on Lauren and Becky should have a real-world focus, concentrating on their character development, reception etc. Concise storyline summaries are fine, but as the two are background characters, such detailed plot coverage is excessive.Frickative10:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to update the article yourself, though note that we don't need episode-by-episode updates on the characters. Karofsky's homosexuality is important and should be added, but what more needs to be said about Blaine? The article summarises his character adequately as far as I can see.Frickative18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Only major plot developments or character changes need to be mentioned, which this article does. Also, Karofsky kissing Kurt doesn't make him gay.Yves (talk)04:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very end of the text sections, it says "Famed Broadway actress/singer Carol Burnett will play Sue's "famous Nazi hunter" mother in season two."
I noticed that it failed to mention that Sue's mother (Carol Burnett) already appeared in Season two, Episode 8, Furt. Other things, such as Sue's marriage to herself, or rather the rehearsal, weren't mentioned.
Please adjust the line about Lauren being a member of the Women's Wrestling Team, to be the Men's. In the "Wheels" episode, it is revealed that Lauren's parents had to sue the school to get her onto the Men's team due to equal play rules that exist in High Schools. There has been no indication since that episode that a Women's team was created. Also, please alter the spelling of the character's last name as noted in my original request for her addition. It is stated on IMDB.com and on Ashley Fink's official Twitter Account that the character's name is "Zizes" not "Zises" Thanks!—Precedingunsigned comment added byJlbushek (talk •contribs)19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THE GLEE CLUB NEEDS A LITTLE CHRISTMAS ON AN ALL-NEW “GLEE” TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, ON FOX
Finn tries to bring a little holiday cheer to McKinley High, and Artie discovers that Brittany still believes in Santa. Meanwhile, the teachers pick their Secret Santas, and one manipulative coach rigs the gift-giving in her favor in the all-new “A Very Glee Christmas” episode of GLEE airing Tuesday, Dec. 7 (8:00-9:01 PM ET/PT) on FOX.
Cast: Matthew Morrison as Will Schuester; Jessalyn Gilsig as Terri Schuester; Jane Lynch as Sue Sylvester; Lea Michele as Rachel Berry; Cory Monteith as Finn Hudson; Jayma Mays as Emma Pillsbury; Dianna Agron as Quinn; Chris Colfer as Kurt; Kevin McHale as Artie; Amber Riley as Mercedes; Mark Salling as Puck; Jenna Ushkowitz as Tina; Naya Rivera as Santana Lopez; Heather Morris as Brittany S. Pierce; Mike O’Malley as Burt Hummel Guest Cast: Harry Shum as Mike Chang; Chord Overstreet as Sam Evans; Dot Marie Jones as Coach Beiste; Max Adler as Karofsky; Darren Criss as Blaine; James Earl as Azimio; Ashley Fink as Lauren Zizes; Lauren Potter as Becky—Precedingunsigned comment added byJlbushek (talk •contribs)01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Heh, I sat and read through the releases for the past four or five episodes, but for some reason didn't check the upcoming one. Fox screws up its own characters' names a lot, but taken together, the "Special Education" recap and "A Very Glee Christmas" release should be good enough as far as I'm concerned.Frickative01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, I only noticed this discussion after editing. Have they said so in the show, then? I don't recall it and can't find any reliable sources that say so - I know it can be inferred from Kurt not having spoken to Finn since the wedding, but obviously that would be original research.Frickative05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm I could have sworn Kurt said, "they used up their money for the honeymoon to pay for boarding school" or something of the like, but, rewatching it, he says, "to pay for tuition". In episode six, Schue introduces it as aprivate school. Imma keep watching, but I think you may be right.Yves (talk)05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, to be fair it makes sense for it to be a boarding school, otherwise Kurt would have a heck of a long commute every day! I'm sure they'll clarify eventually.Frickative05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, for the not talking part, because it's weird Kurt and Finn haven't spoken. Also,Westerville is kinda far fromLima. And I don't know if you've seen the clip of "Baby, It's Cold Outside": they're alone there at night. Maybe we'll find out more with tomorrow's(today's) episode.Yves (talk)05:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glee is pretty fast and loose with details. Dalton's supposed to be in Westerville (about 100 minutes one way from Lima), yet the Dalton kids hang out at a coffee shop called "The Lima Bean", surely a reference to Lima, Ohio. Sue's coaching Aural Intensity, almost an hour and a half away from Lima in Fort Wayne, Indiana. They regularly bend logic with things like this. Also that Vocal Adrenaline is local enough that Rachel was able to spy on them so frequently last season, and the group made three trips to McKinley in the middle of the school day, yet they are somehow not in the same Sectionals or Regionals pool this year, even though they were last year.
{{edit semi-protected}}This following sentence needs revision, and it is pulled from the first paragraph under the Casting section of the page.
Instead of using traditional network casting calls, Murphy spent three months on Broadway, where he found Morrison (Will Schuester), who had previously starred on stage in Hairspray and The Light in the Piazza, Michele (Rachel Berry), who starred in Spring Awakening, and Ushkowitz (Brittany Pierce), from the Broadway revival of The King and I.
The text inaccurately names Ushkowitz's character as Brittany Pierce, who is actually played by Heather Morris. Ushkowitz's character is Tina Cohen-Chang.
I hope nobody objects to my replacement of Artie Abrams' photo. Artie looked even uglier than usual on the old photo, and the expression on his face was somewhat reminiscent of anaspie withDown's syndrome. Yuck! This picture looks marginally better---Artie's a nerd and not a retard.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNmatavka (talk •contribs)05:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive rationale aside, it's always preferable to use a free alternative over non-free content. I think the pic of McHale was fine, but there's alsothis more recent one it could be swapped with.Frickative05:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It surprises me that the actors (and possibly musicians) who play in the band that generally performs with the Glee kids do not get any notice or credit on the show, let alone here on Wikipedia. I cannot find any reference to their names or whether they are actual musicians or just actors who play musicians. A number of these people appear on most of the shows. Does anyone have this information?Frazzle (talk)17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did a little looking around tonight, and found some names and followed them to Twitter accounts: John Lock (@TheJohnLock) is the regular drummer, Scott Henson (@ScottHenson650) on bass (electric and upright), Spencer Conley (no Twitter account yet) on guitar (I'm pretty sure he's the redhead, though the only picture I could find had him wearing a hat), Mark Nilan Jr. on (electric) keyboards (@MarkNilanJr). There's also a second guitarist, a dark-haired guy named Eric Nicolau (@EricNicolau). All are real musicians, not actors, and are supposed to be playing student musicians at the school. I've stuck with the main band; there are also the string and other players to search out... Should we add a paragraph with a few cites? I found interviews with John and Scott on a website, and there are short paragraphs on a few of them at their school websites (of the "success story" variety) that could be referenced as well. I thought it would go in the "other students" section, much like I slipped in a few of the Warblers elsewhere on the page a few months back.BlueMoonset (talk)09:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the information in a paragraph about the school's Jazz Ensemble in the "Other McKinley High Students" section; it's about time this section had more than one student mentioned again. This seemed the best place for it, but there may be a better one. For Mark Nilan Jr., I went with his "about" page; there's also one fromWayne State University about their alumnus Mark that says he's on the show, if that's considered a better source. (I also found a tweet from Scott Henson that mentions Mark as the keyboard player for the show.)BlueMoonset (talk)04:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The commonly accepted last one in fanfic and such seems to be "Anderson", but I just now saw that this popped up here. Did someone confirm this in an interview or something? If not, we need to just list him as "Blaine" until he gets a canonical last one (which he needs to, because having fifty different fanfic surnames is annoying and confusing).—Precedingunsigned comment added by173.78.69.106 (talk)03:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about time that Sam Evans had a full page created about him. I know he isn't a main character, but Mike Chang isn't either and he has a page. There is also a lot of information that could be written about him, as he has played a prominent part of Season 2. Ideally pages for Lauren Zizes, Dave Karofsky, Coach Beiste and Blaine Anderson would be created, but Sam is the most obvious one that needs doing. Thoughts? :] -82.33.38.234 (talk)23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way forward would be to expand the sections here - not in terms of plot, but with casting, development and reception information, then if they grow to such an extent as to warrant separate articles, it's easily done.Frickative02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, although Jessalyn was retained as a series regular for season two, she was offered a reduced guarantee for the # of episodes she would appear in. The unpopularity of the pregnancy plot meant that her season one back 9 arc was dropped, and in early season two, another planned arc with Finn was abandoned because the producers decided it would be inappropriate, and gave her development time to Emma instead. I can throw sources for most/all of that your way, but it'll probably take me a few days to get round to it! If you want a jumping off point, Ian Brennan recently deemed it theworst story development to date.Frickative07:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I was just curious about it. I did some searching and apparently she's supposed to pop up at some point before the season's out.HorrorFan121 (talk)20:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Current rumors are that she'll show up at some point in the last six episodes of the season as part of a Sue Sylvester plot; Sandy Ryerson is also said to be part of this turn of events. The rumor points at the next episode, "Night of Neglect", as being when Sue starts this up. I haven't yet seen a reliable source on this.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBlueMoonset (talk •contribs)06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As long as the character has enough notability to warrant an article then you're free to add it. I've actually begun crafting one in my user space ([1]) for Blaine here because he's been getting a notable amount of media coverage lately andDarren Criss signed on as a series regular for season three. Lauren's I wrote during the O'Donnell fiasco, and has been getting an equal amount of media coverage.HorrorFan121 (talk)05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He should do by now, he's played a more important part than other characters that haven't been promoted to mains yet (Mike, Lauren, Blaine etc) but they have their own pages and he doesn't?! Why?!—Precedingunsigned comment added by86.144.94.141 (talk)23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed in the section immediately above this one, there is no reason. Anyone who wants to write an article about Sam is free to.Frickative23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be section about notable guest stars. like Neil Patrick Harris, that includes a short sentence about the character and maybe any other notable things, like Harris winning the Emmy. I would add it myself but I don't know who exactly to add and I need sources.JDDJS (talk)19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the guest stars have their own section, but I'll settle for how it is.However, is Sue's mom somewhere on the page? Never mind I found out where she was.JDDJS (talk)17:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finn (dad is deceased, mom is alive - Carole) Rachel (two gay dads are alive) Quinn (parents appear through season 1, divorce by the finale) Mercedes (dad is a dentist, referenced in the "Throwdown" episode) Santana (dad is a doctor with a "killer health care plan, referenced in "Britney/Brittany") Brittany (has two parents, referenced in "A Very Glee Christmas") Kurt (mom is deceased, dad is alive - Burt)
Unless I missed it (and I probably would've) I can't recall anything on Sam, Mike, Tina, Lauren, Puck or Artie. Would it be of interest for this to have it's own minor section on the page? Or does it notability? --Atalk/contribs16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Tina mentions that her only two Facebook friends are her parents inJourney (Glee). Puck's mom was shown in the episode when he dates Rachel and I believe he tells Quinn that his dad was never there for him and he doesn't want the same to happen to his child. Mike mentions that his parents don't want him to dress as a tranny inThe Rocky Horror Glee Show. InWheels (Glee), Artie mentions that his mom was also in the car crash but was okay afterwards, and also that his dad could drive him to sectionals. Whether or not this is notable enough, I don't know, but probably not.JDDJS (talk)16:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to find out about Sam's family in the upcoming "Rumors" episode, according to TVLine or a similar site. Of the parents we've seen, aside from Burt and Carole, the only other one I can recall having screen time is Puck's mother. We've also seen parents of some of the adults, though they're (briefly) mentioned in the "Acquaintances" section, which is probably not the best name. Maybe "Acquaintances and Relatives"? Or vice versa?BlueMoonset (talk)02:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Quinn's parents aren't divorced: her mother threw her father out of the house. Odds are they're in the process of getting a divorce, but I can't recall anything being said one way or the other this season.BlueMoonset (talk)02:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add the fact that Jacob's only 15 to his listing, since I thought it was significant that he was still that young—he gave that as his age in "A Night of Neglect" when asking Holly Holliday to wait for him. Given that in season one Rachel was a sophomore and both Kurt and Finn said they were 16, she must be a junior and they're both 17 now that it's a full year later (and they're likely juniors as well). Then I remembered that immediately afterward, according to Sue, he drove off in his car (license plate "JEWFRO") with Azimio and Becky. Fifteen-year-olds in Ohio can't get driver's licenses (permit only, and a parent must be present at all times); they're also only allowed a single non-family passenger unless the driver's parent is also in the car. I'm going to chalk it up to Jacob lying in an effort to gain Holly's sympathy. (Okay, it's the usual habit of entertainment not to let a potentially inconvenient fact get in the way of a plot device or one-liner. Logic need not apply. I can see them retroactively deciding that Kurt was a freshman in the first season, car and age and intelligence notwithstanding.)
And as long as I'm writing, are these pages supposed to be in American English, English English, or just be whatever the writer uses? I saw a spelling change from "pedophile" (American) to "paedophile" (English) in Sandy Ryerson's entry, which seemed unnecessary. (I've already noted that the serial comma is not used on these pages...)BlueMoonset (talk)14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh,Glee age timelines are a bit of a rabbit hole, no? As it's an American show, the articles should ideally use American English spelling. I honestly don't know if there's an accompanying guideline dictating grammar use, but personally, I've never used the Oxford/serial comma.Frickative15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I invariably use the serial comma, unless the extant style (or a rare particular sentence) militates against it...as it does on theGlee pages. Thanks for the information on which English to use. Next time I need to make a change to the main page, I'll restore the American spelling. No need for a separate edit.BlueMoonset (talk)20:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In "Born This Way" he actually says that he doesn't know if he's gay. I'm guessing since he said this in an environment that he was more comfortable to talk the truth, maybe it's worth adding?186.45.94.15 (talk)06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's still in denial. He hasn't been willing to face this—his original death threat was motivated by fear of exposure—and he's so unwilling to be outed by Santana that she's been able to blackmail him into changing his entire life. He's clearly attracted by guys, and hasn't had girlfriends before Santana.BlueMoonset (talk)14:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well until it's confirmed that he's gay, I think it should be mentioned that he doesn't even know if he's gay yet. He could be bi, but more on the gay side, sexuality is complex and I think him mentioning that should be added.186.45.94.15 (talk)17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't prove anything. He said that he doesn't know if he's gay, and there is no solid confirmation that he is totally gay. He may have been attracted to some guys but he might later on be attracted to girls, like I said, sexuality is complex and instead of trying to label why don't we just state the facts on the character that is clear. He stated he doesn't know if he's gay, NOT that he's not attracted to guys. So yes, he's attracted to guys but that doesn't instantly make you gay. All gay guys are attracted to guys but all guys attracted to guys aren't gay, that's basically my argument plus the fact that he's stated he doesn't know if he's entirely gay.186.45.82.159 (talk)04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved fromCharacters of Glee toList of Glee charactersa, with the rationale "most character lists are in thisformat". Typo aside, there are plenty of articles which use the 'Characters of...' title format, including theGood ArticleCharacters of Smallville.MOS:TV doesn't mandate a style either way, though the onerelevant talk page section notes "the name of the article can vary from "List of SHOW characters" to "Characters of SHOW", depending on the type of format the primary editors choose. A mere listing of characters would warrant the former title, while a page containing sections of prose for each character would require the latter title." I agree with this rationale, which is why I created the article atCharacters of Glee, and think it should be moved back.Frickative20:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, the article has been moved again, after being listed by the same editor atWP:RM as an uncontroversial request. Given that it is clearly contested, I'verequested that the moving admin restore the original title pending a proper discussion taking place.Frickative18:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping we can get a consensus here on how we want the layout of the article to look with regards to free images in the "Main characters" section. At present, I think there are three main versions to consider. For a long time, there were individual images for every main character, likeso. This version would either create a lot of whitespace between shorter sections, or depending on display size, push images down into other characters' sections. For instance, I'm seeing Ushkowitz next to the Quinn section, Agron next to Finn etc. Then we havethis version, with images just for those main characters who aren't already pictured in the group shotFile:Glee cast.jpg. And finally we have thelatest revision, with no main character images at all, except the group shot and pic of Morrison/Lynch together. If people could chip in with which structure they think is most suitable and why, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks!
This consensus could also extend to the recurring characters section, for significant ones such as Sam Evans, Jacob Ben Israel and Holly Holliday, some who have their own pages and some who don't. It would be easier to treat them the same, but if there should be a different rule there, we should probably decide that now, too.BlueMoonset (talk)12:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think we need an image for every actor in the first revision. I think we should base it off ofCharacters of Smallville (which is a GA), and have the main large image depicting the starring actors like we do now. If the character doesn't have a separate article or picture, then I feel we should use one here.HorrorFan121 (talk)19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first revision is overkill (which is why I removed many of them, resulting in the second revision), but I'm not sure it's optimal to use one image of eight cast members to represent the seventeen-strong main cast - particularly when they all play teen characters. At the very least, we might be able to get a free image of all the younger cast together from the tour, but Flickr is being temperamental at the moment so I can't comb theresults very well. Although, by basing it off the Smallville example, did you mean with a fair-use image? That would certainly be more representative, and if we waited until the season 3 promos come out, wemight get one of all of them together (presumably bar Gilsig), which could be justifiable from a FUR standpoint.Frickative00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if we can get a hold of a non-free image depicting all of the cast then that would work quite well. From my understanding, the non-free image atCharacters of Smallville represents the main cast and the free image represents the recurring actors that don't have separate articles. We'll have to see if we can get one in our hands when they release the yearly cast pictures.HorrorFan121 (talk)00:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Hopefully they'll include Mike O'Malley in the group promos this year - IIRC, Mays and Gilsig were in at least one last year, but O'Malley only had a solo picture. So, just to be totally clear, do you think if recurring characters get their own articles, the corresponding cast images should be removed from this article when that happens?Frickative01:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think the free images will be necessary on here if most of them get separate articles. All they'll need to do is click on the page link to see what they look like anyway. Haha. I feel bad forMike O'Malley andRomy Rosemont though. They're excluded from a lot and hardly ever used and I see a lot of potential in them. The same could be said forJayma Mays this past season, who aside fromAshley Fink, is my favorite actor on the show.HorrorFan121 (talk)02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing you wanted to create a page for a character, what sources/info would you need to include in order for it not to be deleted? Like if I wanted to create one for Sugar (I feel that she should have one as Rory does), what would I need?— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.145.178.133 (talk)13:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing, if you want the article to stick around for the long term, is to establishnotability: that Sugar is important enough to deserve an article on her own. You'd need more than what's available here in her Characters ofGlee article, though that will form the nucleus of your article. Rory's article was started but then was deleted for a while until there was enough material on him for it to stick around.
Try to find more information about Sugar's creation and characterization, if you can. There may be more information in subsequent interviews with or articles on Lengies, if there are any. (I think I may have seen something within the past month, around the time "Heart" aired.) Also, comments by others in the cast about Lengies and Sugar would be helpful. Equally important, you'll want to include more information about her critical reception—what reviewers have had to say about her character. Crucial episodes for reception would be "Heart", where she has a major storyline, and "Yes/No", where she has her only (albeit brief) solo line after she began being able to sing. There might also be material from "Hold On to Sixteen". Look around to see what's available, but don't just rely on material from the episode articles. Unlike Rory, there isn't much point in a separate music section, since Sugar hasn't yet done a solo song or even a duet.
All the information will need to havecitations, which you'll need to include as references, much like Sugar's current section on Characters ofGlee has. Be sure to include these when you post the article.
Best of luck! Let us know if you have any further questions. If you were to create your own account, rather than use your IP number, you could experiment with an article in your own "sandbox", which sticks around; Wikipedia'ssandbox isn't designed to let trial versions remain. Without a sandbox, the best thing to do is to keep a copy of what you're working on saved on your own computer for safety. You never know when the Wikipedia servers will hiccough and lose your latest work before it can be saved.BlueMoonset (talk)20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marley, Jake, Unique, Kitty and Ryder. They have all been promoted to mains. Should they have their own individual pages by now, like every other main character?— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.145.17.124 (talk)15:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not take up unnecary spaces because when you have the table it takes up 225,839 bytes and when you separate main from recurring it takes 224,682 bytes and this page is most likely going to get larger since season 5 is not finished and season 6 will come in the future. I never seen a table of cast member before why does only this page have one? /Alec115 (talk)18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just started working on making an article for Dani (Demi Lovato). I'm gonna add more things soon, you can of course help out with it.Here is what I've done so far.
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal wasno consensus. More centralized discussion might settle this, but for now there are two basic formulas for such titles. My personal preference is with those supporting the move, that they should all be "List of". But that's just my opinion. This one may use the less common structure, but there isn't sufficient consensus here to move it. --BDD (talk)15:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Both formats have been used for many years, and the "Characters of" naming include at least one Featured Article and one Good Article (Characters of Smallville). The current imbalance can in part be attributed to the nominator's recent series of renames. To quoteFrickative above, the last time this move was attempted (and failed, as it failed before that):MOS:TV doesn't mandate a style either way, though the onerelevant talk page section notes "the name of the article can vary from 'List of SHOW characters' to 'Characters of SHOW', depending on the type of format the primary editors choose. A mere listing of characters would warrant the former title, while a page containing sections of prose for each character would require the latter title." I'd also like to referenceBignole'sarguments when a request to moveCharacters of Smallville was made (and ultimately failed). There is no "standard format", and this article should retain the name it's had since 2009—it's been sufficiently descriptive all that time, and remains so.BlueMoonset (talk)16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you are quoting there is actually a proposal to the guideline that never made it! Also, I cannot see how there can have been a failedWP:RM when as far as I can see, this is the first. --Rob Sinden (talk)16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were previous attempts to move this page as you did, in October 2009 and May and December 2011, all of which were ultimately reverted.BlueMoonset (talk)18:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify Rob, it wasn't that the proposal never made it because it wasn't supported, it didn't make it because there was a lot of traffic at the time we were proposing the MOS to even exist. It had not discussion period, so it wasn't really rejected to much as it was lost in the traffic of everything else at that time. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is no "standard" when naming the article. Typically, if it's an article, it contains mostly prose information.Smallville has already been presented as an example, another isCharacters of Carnivàle. Lists, are built like lists. For example,List of Harry Potter characters. The naming of the article should reflect the structure of the page. There is a reason that season pages for TV shows are not "List of episodes in Show season 1". BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think that looking atLists_of_characters_in_a_fictional_work for the majority of the article titles, it would be a good move to do so, just because there is no official standard doesn't mean that we can't have a standard or develop a standard. Visual continuity isn't a bad thing, and having a consistent structure would help make the entire site better. I would suggest the change be made to all non-conforming articles.WildWikiGuy (talk)19:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot set a practice in motion for "all non-conforming" articles based on a single discussion on one article's page. That said, there is nothing atWP:NC that would require the article to be retitled based on the fact that other pages are using that setup. Especially when it could be argued that the "other way" isn't the best or most accurate way. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a suggestion for a larger idea, it's not setting a practice in motion, it's just an opening for a larger discussion of standards.WildWikiGuy (talk)00:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the discussion should really be, is "List of" the appropriate title structure for most of these articles. "List of" implies that it is an actual list. What appears on this page is not a "list". They are sections devoted to prose content. That isn't a list. A list is bulleted information. Otherwise, it would be like sayingThe Dark Knight Rises is really a "list" of information about the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key would be "featured list". This isn't a list, it's an article and would have to go to FAC not FLC. Just likeCharacters of Carnivale went through FAC. At the end of the day, this isn't a list. Just because it contains the characters that appear in a show doesn't make it a list. It's an article about the characters where every character has their own section. A list isn't that. BIGNOLE (Contact me)12:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposed title better describes what it is (i.e. a list), and as also mentioned in the nom, "Characters of Glee" just doesn't quite sound right. It would be good for consistency for all such lists to be titled "List of X characters". — Amakuru (talk)09:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's inaccurate though. It isn't a "list". The most "list" thing on this page is a table that just lists the characters. You cannot call sections for each character a "list", unless you're calling every other article on Wikpedia a list because it contains sections of information. By definition: "A series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other: a shopping list; a guest list; a list of things to do." - That's not this page. If it was merely a list, likeList of Harry Potter actors orList of fictional dogs, then you would be correct. That page and this page look nothing alike, and should not be treated the same. Additionally, perWP:LISTNAME, if you were going to be classifying this page as a list, at BEST, it would be an index list. Even though they aren't all the same name, they are all contained under the same topic "Glee". And index lists do not get titled "list of", unless there is a disambiguous page that already has the original title. There isn't an disambig titled "Characters of Glee". PerWP:NC, you need to name based on Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. "Characters of Glee", or even "Glee characters" (which is probably more accurate) is more recognizable, natural, precise, and concise than "List of Glee characters". The only thing in the 5 item checklist for naming that "List of .." setup wins out is the "consistency", because people have used it more. That does not make it better though, especially if it's not the precise label for the page. If it's the above two examples, then yes it is. If it'sCharacters of Carnivale,Characters of Glee, orCharacters of Smallville, then it isn't because they are not itemized names (the definition of a list). Maybe people should think about reviewing the other pages for accurate titles, than trying to convert these types of pages to inaccurate ones. Especially when the average reader is more likely to type "Glee characters" or "Character in Glee" than "list of Glee characters". BIGNOLE (Contact me)12:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why aren't the new recurring characters of the show (jane, madison, mason, alistar, Myron and rodrick) in the recurring area of the table of characters??? They should be on the list, because they were apart of the glee club, just like others who were on the list. Don't ask me, I'm new to this site, I don't know how to add the color on the board or any of that, but if anyone can, please add them to the table listZhyboo (talk)16:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See This is why I can't stand leaving messages on the article, because it's there months later and no one responded or made a change to it yet!! What big help you guys are!!!!!!! 😡😡Zhyboo (talk)18:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a random link addition. These characters are accessible DIRECTLY from the Table of Contents at the top of the page, which means that readers who take that option will NOT have read an earlier link to a particular episode. Use of links in this situation is different from having same links twice in same sub-section, where a reader will have had a natural flow of reading from first link.Jmg38 (talk)03:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every section in every article on Wikipedia is directly accessible from the table of contents, yetWP:OVERLINK still exists as a guideline. PerWP:BRD (and overlink), I am reverting your reinsertion of the links; please do not add them again absent consensus here.BlueMoonset (talk)05:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Alsosupport – these classes of articles are "list of [TV show] characters" articles underWP:NCTV, so this one should also be named that way as it's the standard naming convention. --IJBall(contribs •talk)23:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'd like to quoteBignole in their opposition to the request to moveCharacters of Smallville, which was a request made right after my original post above, and applies equally here:This is more than just a list. This isn't some table that basically lists out the characters, but a fleshed out article containing a group of articles that do not warrant their own page. There is a difference between how you handle list articles and regular prose articles. This page is modeled afterCharacters of Carnivàle, a featured "ARTICLE" not a featured "LIST". PerWP:SAL: "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." - This is not a series of items formatted into a list. This is very clearly a structured article discussing characters within a series. WHat naming conventions are you referring to in this nomination by the way? Nothing in NCTV says it has to say "list of", especially when this isn't formatted like a list page.. Note that I will be very disappointed if I see that the Featured ArticleCharacters of Carnivàle has been subjected to a request before this request (and the Smallville one) have been settled, since it would further fragments the discussion.BlueMoonset (talk)19:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The naming of the article should reflect the structure of the page. There is a reason that season pages for TV shows are not "List of episodes in Show season 1".
which initially had me mostly convinced. A bit later, though,User:Robsinden asserts that
If you look atWP:Featured lists, you'll see that a lot of "List of..." articles are more than just bulleted information. This is a list article, whatever it may be titled.
and while trying to verify that, I noticed that 76 TV show season pages have "featured list" status, whereas only 8 such pages have "featured article" status (WP:Featured lists#Episodes vsWP:Featured articles#Media). Those figures seem to me like a strong indication that such pages - despite the lack of the word "list" in the title and the fact that their season-level/prose content typically outweighs their episode-level/tabulated content - are generally considered to be lists. Using that as a benchmark, it seems clear to me that most would consider this and similar pages as more lists than articles as well.
The same observation means, though, that there's a hefty group of articles generally considered lists without being, and despite not being, titled as such, so while it may be somewhat useful in identifying what is and is not a list, it's mostly useless in making an argument for or against a title change. FWIW.
I think you're missing the point. The reason they are "featured lists" is not because of the title, but because of the structure. The real problem there is that people have created season pages that are so bare, they don't qualify to be classified as "featuredarticles", and as such people (instead of either filling the pages out or merging them like they should have) keep them alive by reclassifying them as "list" pages. If you look at the definition of a list, you'll see that this page (and many other character "list" pages are not actually "list". A "list" page would just be a page that contain a list of names, likely character and actor, and nothing else. There are pages like that, absolutely. This page, and others, are not. They contain real world content and plot information making them almost mini-articles without an article (which is really what sections on page really are). They don't warrant separation on their own, because they don't meet enough notability to be independent OR they just don't have enough information to justify splitting. As such, they reside together on one page. BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the structure of the TV show season pages in question I looked at resembles a regular articlemore than the structure of this page does. The reason for their "featured" status is clearly the article-y portion of the content, not the list-y portion. I suppose it's possible that it's the other way 'round for some I didn't look at, but I doubt that - an otherwise bare season page would have to pass based on nothing more than the strength of its episode recaps, which seems rather unlikely.
And yet, apparently the majority considers them lists. It seems quite obvious to me that this and similar pages would then be considered lists also.
Whether they're lists in the dictionary sense of the term is likely besides the point, because when all pages must be assigned one of two types, with "article" and "list" serving as labels for those types, then the terms' working definitions must necessarily be stretched quite a bit to accommodate everything. As such, a page containing a bunch of mini-"articles" can absolutely be considered a "list" in turn. What matters is whether they are or are not thought of that way in practice, which is where I figured my observation might be of use.
Support. Lists are articles. The two are not mutually exclusive. Containing prose content does not exclude an article from being a list. This article describes various characters from the series in summary style. See, for example,List of Twilight characters,List of Supernatural characters,List of Kinnikuman characters,List of Cheers characters. Moreover, the topic "characters of Glee" would not be a clearly notable topic for an article. However, as a list the contents here describe how a range of subjects fit into a particular predefined category. In fact,WP:CSC clearly indicates thatList of Dilbert characters is a list "created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.... Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their 'parent' topic." Note thatList of Dilbert characters also shares this same prose summary style.Dekimasuよ!20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I object to the idea that article titles, a reader-facing part of the encyclopedia, should be determined in any way by background assessment criteria. It is more important to get the titles right than to worry about whether this will cause a featured article to lose its status, a featured article to become a featured list, etc.Dekimasuよ!20:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a list of characters article and it should follow the (only) examples of such articles given atWP:NCTV guideline and which almost all other character list articles follow. As Dekimasu above noted, lists are still articles - what makes them a list is not if they are a bulleted list or not, but what content they deal with and how. In this case, the content is a list of characters from the television seriesGlee, hence why "List of" is the most accurate name. --Gonnym (talk)21:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The current title already implies the article is a list, or better. Indeed, better, as the list is so fleshed out that is more than a mere list. The current title is perfect. —SmokeyJoe (talk)04:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Not done: Wikipedia is not forplot-only descriptions of fictional works. Instead of anin-universe summary of the scenes they have been involved with, sections on Lauren and Becky should have a real-world focus, concentrating on their character development, reception etc. Concise storyline summaries are fine, but as the two are background characters, such detailed plot coverage is excessive.Frickative10:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, good catch,CTJF83chat01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
