Soap Operas Template‑class | |||||||
|
Television Template‑class | |||||||
|
Sorry but these colours clash horribly, making it look unattractive, distracting, and difficult to read. violet/riga (t) 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the non-starring roles to a "minor characters" section Pjär80 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted somebody's change from pipes to dots back to pipes, dots are poor separators and render poorly. Matthew 12:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Wondering about Ian. As far as I can see, he is still credited as guest star in the latest aired episode, Dress big. What's the source for him being credited as main? Pjär80 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this new green template just is hideous. Anyone strongly disagree if I change it back? Pjär80 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we really say she isn't a main character anymore? We are still early into the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy77 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
She was credited last night (although she didnt appear). So, she is a main character. Frenchy 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy77 (talk • contribs)
I was thinking that since the articles for each of the main wives are getting pretty long, it would be smart to split it up into something along the lines of, for example, "Bree Van De Kamp (season 1)" or "Bree Van De Kamp in Season 1" and then having an optional row within this template (Desperate Housewives) and it would say something like, "Part of a series on Bree Hodge" with links for each season (abbreviated of course)." Geoking66talk 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Should she be added? I think she's quite an important charecter to be added, she was in four episodes in the second season and according to the wikipedia page on the forth episode of the fourth season, she makes an apperance in that aswell and might even appear after that episode. I think she should be added because she was an important role during the second season with the Bree/George storyline so I think she should be added. What does everyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1012233 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that seems fair enough. Also sorry for making the Stella Wingfield page, I wasen't aware of the epight episode rule before I made the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1012233 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I get why eight episodes is an approiate amount, but alot of charecters who have had less apperances have also been quite important to the storyline such as Phyllis, Stella and other charecters but I have to agree that Desperate Housewives has had a huge cast from main charecters, recurring charecters, etc so I think the eight episode rule is a good idea. I do think Cayolyn Brigsby should have her own page back. She played quite a major rule, fair enough she was in episode 1-7 of season 3 but she was quite an important charecter, anybody agree? Sam1012233 23:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
--Pob iii 13:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added Bob Hunter and Lee, please do not delete there pages I've worked hard on it. And I think it's silly to delete a page and then bring it back if they do appear in more than eight episodes. So until we can no for sure please leave the pages as they are. Sam1012233 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of cutting down charecters who are deceased for example Alma Hodge and Nora Huntington. But why has Dylan Mayfair, Parker, Preston and Porter Scavoa and Kayla Huntington been removed from main charecters? All of them are main charecters and need to be included especially Dylan who is obvisoly going to have a large role this series, also maybe Adam Mayfair could be added to the current cast along with Victor Lang and Ida Greenberg theese charecters have large roles and is stupid to cut them out. Sam10123 11:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, theese charecters are essential. Sam10123 11:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's one silly rule to be honest. 172.159.78.7 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am very annoyed! Dylan should have her own page! She is a season regular! She's been SO important to the storyline of this series so far and she's likely to last for a long time and she apperared on the same episode that Katherine apperared in so she has the right to have her page back like Katherine does. I see why Ida, Parker, Porter, Kayla and Preston don't have their own pages as they don't contribute much to the story but Dylan however, does. Sam10123 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The image has to go. You cannot have a copyrighted image in the banner, it clearly fails WP:FU. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OK let's discuss it. I think under this group should be only the 4 main characters. Any other opinions? -- 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Love the new set-up for this -- I think it should be left this way. RosaAquafire 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Katherine Mayfair should be added to the list. She is playing poker with them five years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.180.129 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that only the five main housewives should be included in the main characters list. Yes, Edie has been a supporting main charcater for most of the series, but it was confirmed by Marc Cherry before Season 2 that Edie would take the place of Mary Alice Young as the fifth lead, something that had already been established by the end of the first season when she is invited to poker. Also, Bree includes her as one of her friends when she explains to Katherine about 'niches'. Asf08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.50.16 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is a "housewives" group, then all of them should be included, the main ladies, Edie, Katherine and Mary Alice. But maybe we should eliminate the "housewives" group altogether because I don't think there is ever going to be a consensus, and we should do what was there before this whole division of characters, we should put all the main characters, including the housewives, the husbands and the kids in one group. There should only be "Current Main Character" and "Former Main Characters". But I know lots of people won't agree with me, and I can't understand why. Also, there should be "Recurring Characters" like before, but somehow there are no longer pages for any recurring character other that Karen McCluskey and Adam Mayfair. The template from like early 2007 was great, but some idiots changed it for some reason, and now if we try to get it back they will undo it. It's a shame... -- Renaboss (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
After all these edit wars I think the best division is "Current Main Character", "Former Main Characters", "Secondary Characters" as the most off-universe description among the ones suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:Navbox states: "There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles"
should colours of this template be changed to standard?
Nonstandard colours seem to be used often in TV series templates, like Template:Blackadder or Template:mrbean; there are precedents, and this template has looked like it does for really long time. I personally do not see reason for standardizing it just for the sake of it. Any other opinions? ASN (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In continuity to my recent post - see above, in the Which characters should be in the "Main housewives" group, post - I see that there is a slot in the template that lists who portrays the five leading characters. This doesn't show in the actual template, as there is an 's' missing in the word 'list'.
Also, should Katherine and Mary Alice be listed in the 'Main Housewives' group, as they are, technically, still housewives, and if not Katherine, then Mary Alice should definately be in the group, as, as Marc Cherry has admitted himself, she in the epicentre of the show, holds it together, and, in effect, is possibly the most important character. Asf08
Dividing the main characters in two sections is more complicated, it's an area for speculations and in fact is a bit unencyclopedic. Why "Katherine" is more notable/important than "Carlos Solis"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that, I was just categorizing them into their roles on the shows. Katherine is a Housewife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asf08 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Well then I guess I didn't think of that - good point. Asf08 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is a new template, which I have designed so that there is as little information as possible.
1. All of the main housewives are in prominence. Mary Alice is included as she has been present in all episodes, with the exception of 'My Husband, the Pig', and propelles the show through her narrative.
2. Recurring Characters are in the 'Current Characters' section, as they are still, technically, current.
3. All 'Other' information is now in a below section, and, to erase another category, I have included a link to 'Amas de Casa Desesperadas', which leads to the disambiguation page, with all of the different versions.
4. The 'Current Cast' section lists the cast in billing order, not in order of popularity. Also, Recurring characters are not included in this section.
5. I have centered the text in a bid to make it more distinguishable and easier to read.
I was also contemplating replacing the dot separators with the '|' characters, to see is it made it easier to distinguish the names and links from each other, but I thought it more polite to put this idea forward first instead of just going right ahead and changing it.
I hope you like it.
Could I also ask that you consider before changing it, as I did to the prior template, as I took a lot of time doing it, and tried to take into account people's opinions of the template. Thanks. Asf08 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Julie Mayer, Karl Mayer and Danielle Van de Kamp are all listed as current characters, but they're not. For starters, they're no longer credited as regulars, they just make guest appearances every now and then. Danielle and Karl haven't been see since early in October, and Julie was only in the latest episode, she won't be in the next few ones. They should be removed from the current characters' list and added to the former characters' list. -- Renaboss (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I am good with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Bt we don't want to give newcomers the wrong idea. I think that only people who cannot permanantly come back, i.e, Rex, because he's dead, and Betty, because of the basement prison thing, should be listed in former characters. As long as they recur from time to time, then i think that they should be included in current characters. Though I'm open to other points of view. Asf08 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the one hundredth, Rex Van de Kamp will make an appearance in flashbacks. Does that mean we should include a character who's been dead since 2005 in the list of current characters? I don't think so. Julie, Karl and Danielle should be removed from the list because they are no longer regulars and they haven't appeared on the show, even in season five, for a while now, and there's no mention that they should return in the future. Renaboss (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, everybody! First of all the template looks very nice. I love it. But there is one problem. You must change it!!! Look I think is goregeous but the rules are rules! So the title Desperate Housewives on the template, that looks exactly like the show logo must be change it. Wikipedia is an ENCUCLOPEDIA so change it! Because the Charmed template, was taken all of its color, the Grey's Anatomy template was taken the right to make the title like this so I don't see the reason why WE must OBEY the rules and you don't! So change the template FAST or I will do everything in my power to make it normal. Rules are rules, even if I simply adore the template. --SmartM&M (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we put the past main characters in italics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.184.158 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
TV series are like book, films, etc. and they have to be looked in the whole. The same way in a book there is no "current chapter" in a TV series there is no "current season". As WP:MOSFICT writes "At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'." Conclusion, they are no "past" and "current" characters. Afterall, it doesn't help readers who haven't followed the last episodes to easy access information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Only the FOUR MAIN Protagonists (Susan, Lynette, Bree and Gaby) should be listed in prominence. Katherine should be kept in line with the other SUPPORTING cast. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.20.250 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That red is horrible!!! It makes difficult to read the dark blue letters that contains!!! That color must be change.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunato luigi (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If Edie Britt and Andrew Van de Kamp are to be removed from the template, because they are not current main characters, then I'd say it's time to bring back the "former characters" section. Otherwise, put them back in the characters section. It doesn't need to reflect the current or upcoming season, but provide easy to access information on the series as a whole! Every article directly relating to series needs to appear in there, in my opinion. Firestorm566 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are the four primary characters filed under "Acquaintances"? This makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.82.187 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the character of Julie Mayer should have her own page again. She was a regular character in five separate seasons and has appeared in some form in every season to date and as it's been confirmed she's also going to be in season eight it means she would have appeared in every single season of the shows history. She's also been involved with some big storylines including the hostage episode in season three and she was a big part of the Fairview Strangler mystery in season six. She's also nearly appeared in one hundred episodes of the show overall! I think if characters like Bob and Lee can get pages, let alone separate ones, I think Julie should get her page back. She's been a constant presence throughout the shows run. What do you think? Sam10123 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)