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

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

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)

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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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) Go with Characters, excepet for novels that actually include a Dramatis personae, such as the X-wing books.  -Finlayson 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * 05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Follow the book.

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 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,  . 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  talk  What I do 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Erl. --Mir  len  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)