Forum:Minor & Supporting characters

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Minor & Supporting characters

What is the definition of these terms? I'm wondering because characters like Big Macintosh are in Category:Minor characters, and I disagree with this (I think he's a supporting character). Flying High's signature 22:25, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

There is none. -Throwawaytv 22:31, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a category for Minor and Supporting characters then? Shouldn't they be deleted? (Sorry if this comes off as rude) Flying High's signature 23:27, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Because they are minor or supporting characters. The category is helpful and should not be deleted. If you're stuck up on definitions:

support |səˈpɔrt|

• [as adj. ] ( supporting) (of an actor or a role) important in a play or film but subordinate to the leading parts.

minor |ˈmaɪnər|
adjective
1 lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance : she requested a number of minor alterations.

There is nothing stopping Big Mac from being both a supporting character and a minor character. Let's not quibble over semantics here. -Throwawaytv 00:13, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think this should become a vote... Flying High's signature 17:44, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

He's also a minor character because in there are certain episode he did not do anything. -UglyTurtle

There are episodes where the main characters didn't do anything or didn't even appear. Flying High's signature 23:51, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest people just add random titles for the categories badge; you'll get these. Dispute the category by removing it and giving the reason in the edit sumamry and you won't run into any bother. --Smuff^{[The cake is a lie]} 23:54, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I see no need for those categories. They are useless. Their are being add just for the badges points.

I also see no need for "Category:Characters that are not ponies" - it is useless as it is obvious on whether the animal is a pony. Teyandee (Talk) 02:04, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

i think the catergories should stay, reason is that it keeps things more orginized i think this just started over a silly little thing-Mylittlewut 17:53, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Voting: Delete "Category:Minor characters" & Category:Supporting characters?[]

Support. They are useless and probably being made just for categorization badges points. Teyandee (Talk) 17:58, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral I don't think we need to delete both, or if we do, just combine the two to make it more simple. Shadowdemon137 18:01, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

You say they're useless. What are categories used for? -Throwawaytv 18:06, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

For categorization. But:

1) What are the rules for putting a character into those categories?

2) We need to avoid overcategorization like classifying ponies by mane/eyes/coat color.

Teyandee (Talk) 18:15, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, we should avoid overcategorization. However, categories by types of character–leading, supporting, minor–are useful for... well, whatever categories are useful for, I can't remember.

As for rules, let's go with Wikipedia's:

[Categories] should be based on essential, defining features of article subjects.

The type of character is a defining feature. However, I wish to avoid endless, fruitless discussion about whether Big Macintosh is a major character, minor character, leading character, or supporting character. We need to create a category that can include all characters that aren't leading characters and aren't background characters. Any suggestions? -Throwawaytv 18:35, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say he's a Supporting Character/Minor Character, but more of a supporting character. But what's wrong with him being in two catergories? -UglyTurtle

The categories overlap too much, we don't need both. However, I'm trying to reach consensus with Teyandee as for what single category can replace these two categories in a way that is clear and informative. -Throwawaytv 19:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'd ditch the "Minor Characters" category and stick with "Supporting Characters" for the animal companions and any (sentient) character who isn't obviously a background pony. That's how we already do it on the "Characters" page. --Tulipclaymore 20:42, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Great. -Throwawaytv 21:43, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It keeps the wiki organized and helps people navigate easier -UglyTurtle

Oppose i dont want to delete it, it helps orginize most of the wiki and stops it from being in chaos and having them search everywhere for one thing.-Mylittlewut 18:29, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

The preferred direction is to keep only "supporting characters" and ditch "minor character". Agreed? -Throwawaytv 21:45, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

i agree with throwaway, remove 'minor character' and keep 'supporting character'-Mylittlewut 22:16, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I say we just combine the 2. Minor/Supporting characters -UglyTurtle

"Supporting characters" was chosen. I think it's a reasonable compromise. -Throwawaytv 15:00, September 5, 2011 (UTC)