Hello, Sonofaphrodite. I would love to point out some things. First of all, please, don't call me stupid. This is not a warning, since I am no one to warn you, just a humble request. Secondly, I love to discuss this kind of stuff, specially with people that completely disagree with me, since that's the sort of discusions I learn more from, imo. I would like it if you came into the chat, where we could discuss the whole Enchanted Hearts stuff without bothering others in a thread dedicated to Major Changes in the wiki, our bad. So, I'm there waiting if you want to join me :D
If you're not willing to go, pelase let me know though here :)
Consider this an official warning, however. It is not okay to call someone you disagree with "stupid". There are ways to disagree, and that's not one of them, I suggest you learn that. Next time something like this happens, you will be blocked.
Your sarcasm and general arrogance needs to stop as well. You need to remember that this is the internet, full of all kinds of people. Not everyone picks up on things as well as everyone else, and not everyone speaks English as well as everyone else. I often see you being sarcastic, nasty, and insulting to a variety of users, and next time, you'll find yourself in a lengthy ban, and I really don't want to have to do that. If you can't be courteous to your fellow Oncers, please, don't say anything at all.
Hi, it has come to the attention of the administration staff on this wikia that several pages you created on Wikipedia for Once Upon a Time include whole paragraphs which have been snipped and copied nearly word for word from this wikia. Pages such as the Emma Swan, Mary Margaret, Snow White, Regina Mills and Evil Queen pages on Wikipedia, which contain variety of paragraphs that originally was written on this wikia.
I do hope you are aware that copying and pasting in information on another website without adding in proper reference citations of where that information originally came from is considered plagiarism. Originally, both Utter and I were going to ask you to cite this website if you are going to copy and paste information from here to another website, but now it seems we were told by another user on there that wikia is not a proper reference citation. All I ask right now is that you do not create any more pages in the future on Wikipedia by copying and pasting information from the wikia. People work hard on this wikia to write history summaries in their own words, and it is not appreciated you are taking all the credit for it on Wikipedia by just adding it in like that on your own whim.
>_> Totally messed up. People have worked hard to contribute to this wikia, and you're just copying their contributions and posting them on another site? That's wicked inconsiderate... If people wanted their edits posted elsewhere, they would've posted them there. If you want to post to the Wikipedia, then do it in your own words... You shouldn't be ripping off other people's writing.
I'm sorry if we seem really harsh on you, sonofaphrodite, but you should have not copied in the first place. The most current view of how the pages look still have a lot of text which is exactly the same from this wikia, and only some of the paragraphs have changed slightly in wording due to other editors editing after you. I would prefer if you don't "change things around a little bit on those articles" because that content was originally written on this wikia. If you really want to "change things around a little bit" the pages that are copied should be deleted completely and rewritten in your own words. But, I said *if*, Right now some pages are up as candidates for deletion, and honestly, I do hope they delete them because you obviously did not write all that material yourself, and even if you helped out partially with the history summaries on this wikia, it's still wrong to copy and paste and basically take all the credit for the written work for yourself. This might be the internet, but plagiarism is plagiarism, and this is why we are taking this situation so seriously.
I was trying to create a discussion on the forum, but the post button ended up blanking, which is a problem this wikia is often displaying, no offense. Then it somehow became a discussion article for some reason :/
It's not just this wikia, it's the new forums in general. Wikia staff "are aware" of the blanking issue, and are supposedly working on a fix. The only real way to get around it is to refresh, which is incredibly annoying. It also seems I can't move articles/blogs to threads on the new forum style. >< Hopefully they fix these things soon, as it's a widespread problem.
Sweetie, I have no idea what you are talking. I don't like "ripping people's ideas to shreds.". If somebody suggests something that in no way would ever, ever happen like Toy Story being on the show, then I would state it as so. I only voice my own opinion on people's comments just like how everybody else is doing, that is all.
Please don't mess with the intros. Graham is NOT a major character anymore, nor is Archie, etc. That status is meant for the CURRENT stars. I even undid those the first time, and you redid them. I don't undo edits for no reason.
Omg, shut the f*** up seriously!!!! You have no idea how annoying you are, do you? First of all, you KNOW that Ruby and Belle are going to be main characters in Season 2 and yet you still undid my edits to their pages. Also, the creators did not specify if Archie Hopper has been demoted as a character and yes, Sheriff Graham is a main character and, in fact, just because he's dead now does not mean he WASN'T a main character. Just because Archie wasn't in the Season 2 Comic-con poster does not mean he isn't a main character anymore. Henry Mills wasn't in that poster either and he is still a main character, am I right? Explain how if Archie wasn't in there, then he isn't a main character anymore, but somehow, Henry isn't in there and he still is credited as one in your eyes. Explain that to me, please. Some writers do this. If you don't believe, take the new 90210 for an example. The character, Ivy Sullivan, is a main character for Season 3-4, but she was barely in any of the promo pictures and the DVD covers for the seasons she was in. However, she was still a main character. Sheriff Graham was so not a minor character even if he was only in seven episodes total. If you put it like how you did, then readers will THINK he is a minor character when he was a major one. You don't even know what the hell you are f***ing talking about. Seriously, it is about time that you understand that you are NOT always right. When you admit that you are completely uptight about edits, sweetheart, you do not know how true that is. I am so sick of you, to be honest. I don't even know how you are the #1 editor on this wiki, you are SO not fit for that role at all. And when you say you don't undo edits for no reason, you are completely right, hon. You undo edits for YOUR OWN reasons, not anybody else's. You are such a selfish nerd, it is quite unbelievable, actually. And you know, Cora, The Blind Witch, and The Queen of Hearts are actually enemies of Queen Regina. If not, then why did you leave Queen Regina as the Blind Witch's enemy in her infobox, huh? Come on, tell me, why? I would soooo love to hear your reason because I know it will not make sense whatsoever. And by the way, Cinderella is a minor character, ok? And if you want Astrid to be titled Sister Astrid, then why not do name her in the title of her page as well? Honestly, I let go of the character focus incident because I understood some of what you said, but this is utterly ridiculous. Hon, hand somebody else your role on this wiki because, as I said again, you are so not right for it.
I'm doing what is, imo, best for the wiki. Just because an actor is starring, doesn't make their character "major", whether or not Belle/Red will be major in the season has yet to be seen, and Raphael Sbarge is no longer billed as starring. The other admins and I previously agreed to list only the currently major characters as major in the intro, that is what I am trying to uphold. I assumed, clearly incorrectly, that all your recent edits were changes to the words "major" and "recurring", and that is what Evan (SaberSworn) and I undid. I apologize if that offends you in any way.
If you feel I am doing something wrong, we can certainly have an actual, civil conversation about that. I freely admit that I can be extremely controlling here, and am making a conscious effort not to be. But everything I do, I do because I believe it's the right thing to. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes tho. >.> However, there is no need to insult me, or curse at me, please refrain from doing so.
Ok, um, I just want to apologize for my little...outburst...the day before. I honestly don't know why I handled it the way I did. I did feel like you are putting your own thoughts before others, even if their thoughts are often right and I guess that just pissed me off so because I do feel that the lead editor shouldn't do that. Just know that I am not changing things just because I feel like it, I am changing it because I feel that it would be a lot better not just for me, but for everybody else. For example, the Graham and Archie pages, I wanted to put them as major characters because I feel that status will continue with characters even if they are dead, and the writers didn't say that Archie was demoted to a recurring ora minor character, either. Just because he wasn't in the Comic-con poster does not mean he is not a main character, like how I explained to you with the character from 90210. And I guess you saying, "Oh, this isn't right." when it clearly is, like with the Ruby and Belle pages, just made me think even more that you don't listen to anybody else but yourself. I know this sounds a bit harsh, but it's true, but I shouldn't have put it out like that. Anyways, you're not selfish, maybe a bit too uptight about things at times, but definitely not selfish, so please accept my apologies.
And for the Ruby and Belle pages, I honestly felt you should've at least left them like how I edited them because they were recurring/minor characters in the first season and they are going to be main characters in the second season. And like I said before, just because a character is dead doesn't mean he/she isn't a character anymore.
It's alright. (Well, kinda lol) I just don't like being cursed at. We're both trying to do what's best, though. :)
You're absolutely right that just because someone is not in promos doesn't mean that they don't have a major part. But that comic con poster was made to promote their comic con panel.
The idea was that only the current main characters get the "major" in the lead, but perhaps this isn't the best way to do it, obviously. I think the way you worded it on Belle/Ruby/Red is a good way to go, for them. However, Raphael Sbarge is no longer billed as "starring", and, frankly, Archie/Jiminy was never a "major" character; he was meant to be, the star billing was in Sbarge's contract, but they went another way and he's a recurring character still. Just because the actor is starring does not make the character major, and whether or not Belle/Red/Ruby actually become major characters remains to be seen, imo, but it definitely deserves discussion.
I see, and I am sorry again. I was a little frustrated because, I don't know, I am way too much of a hardcore fan, I guess, lol. It's pretty sad, I know, to be this loyal, but I honestly can't help it, and when I feel things are wrong and I can't do anything about it, it bugs me a lot, even if it is the tiniest thing. And as for Ruby and Belle, as of now, they are 100% for sure going to be main characters. And keep in mind when I feel that people will get confused over the whole "who gets to be a major character thing."
I completely understand, I'm the same way XD However, please believe me when I say that I don't want you to feel like you can't do anything about something you feel is wrong here. That's not at all how I'm trying to do things. We have the same goal, and will be much better served to work together. :D
I think the issue here is that what constitutes "major", "minor", and "recurring" are not well defined, and I think a discussion should be had about that.
Usually, a major character is somebody who is in a main, prominent role, somebody who the show usually revolves around and their conflicts are usually th biggest driving point of the show. It doesn't matter if they are in all of the episodes, like the protaganist, or just in a handful of episodes, like Graham. Characters like Graham are what tvtropes.org would call a sacrificial lamb (or lion if he is a powerful character). They are dubbed as somebody who is introduced in a main role, kept around for a while to be liked, and then killed just to show how serious the show can be. Also, characters like Archie can be out of focus due to the writers not knowing what to do with them, but they are still billed as a main character. They can sometimes be written off or demoted to a recurring role as a result, but not always. This happens plenty of times in the Vampire Diaries, actually, and they have loads of main characters.
Recurring characters are basically secondary characters, like Kathryn Nolan or Sidney Glass The Blue Fairy. They can appear as prominently as the main characters, but they aren't as important, and they usually appear to serve as plot points for the main characters. Some recurring characters may have their own individual storyline. Recurring characters can appear as much as the main characters or they can only appear in a handful of episodes, (ex. 12 out of 22.). They can also appear in almost every season of a show and still be billed as recurring characters, unless they are popular enough to become main characters, like Ruby.
Minor characters are usually characters who appear who appears in a handful of episodes to very few or just for one episode. I'm not sure if these include guest stars or not, but they probably do. Cinderella would be a minor character, not a recurring one, because she barely has anything to do with the show other than serve as a teenage version of Emma, reveal some backstory for her, and then get engaged to Sean and and she only appeared in two episodes for season one. Nothing about her really drives the plot except for her pregnancy episode. Belle would be one too for season onebecause she only appears in three episodes. Usually, minor characters are characters who appears only for the tiniest spark of time and disappears immediately. Like I said before, they usually don't last for a lot of seasons, either, unless they are popular enough to become main characters.
I don't know if any of this makes sense, but I tried my best at explaining, lol.
Don't worry, you make a lot of sense. XD I agree with what you're saying here. However, my major disagreement is this: just because the actor is billed as starring does not, in and of itself, make them a major character. Archie/Jiminy is my main example in that. He's recurring. He is not a major focus of the plot, such as Rumplestiltskin or Emma or Henry. However, I recognize and acknowledge that this may just be my opinion lol.
To me, imo, a recurring character is a minor charter who shows up more than once. Like Ashley, but not Cinderella.
I think it's a good idea, however, to reflect status changes between seasons (such as Meghan Ory and Emile de Ravin's promotions to starring cast members).
Let me get some additional opinions on this, see if we can't come to a consensus. :D
I am pretty sure that major and starring means the same thing, in my opinion. You should definitely let me revise Ruby and Belle's pages again because there wasn't anything wrong with those edits in the first place.
Sonofaphrodite wrote: I am pretty sure that major and starring means the same thing, in my opinion.
But alas, they don't.
Raphael Sbarge was billed as starring every episode of Season 1. However, his characters appeared in the same number of episodes as those portrayed by Giancarlo Esposito-- a total of 9. I think we can all agree that Archie/Jiminy was not a main character.
As Giga said, just because the actor is given star billing, which is often a contract thing, does not make their character(s) major.
Even according to the creators, this show is about Snow White, Charming, their daughter, her son, and their relationship with the Queen and Rumpelstiltskin as the Curse gets enacted and then broken. Those" are the major characters.
At any rate, it should be decided by the community, I suppose, as Giga suggest.
Wow I just read through this whole thread.... =/ It surprised me very much, indeed...
I agree with the starring and guest starring thing. The major and minor thing gets very tricky. It's complex because, well, like...a character can appear most episodes as "starring" but their role on the show might be very limited to appearing in, like, one or two scenes in the background. Like, some of the seven dwarves. I think it would be sufficient to say they are starring, but their characters are not major. But i don't think we need to get so technical. I say just stick with starring/guest starring.
Nobody denies that these designations exist. I, however, deny that they are necessary. Do you really feel your enjoyment of this Wiki would be lessened if you're not told whether a character is "major" or "minor"? You've already experienced the subjectivity of this matter in a major way. Why be so contrary?
These titles represent how important the characters are as well as how much they would impact the storylines along with other reasons. I feel that we should keep them, but have everybody come to an understanding of what character is what. That is why I suggested to Utter Solitude about making a chart to show that.
Oh, yes. Charts make everything better. How about a Power Point Presentation? Or perhaps we can create a mnemonic or a jingle to help everyone keep track of the ever changing importance of characters past, present and future.
Go on Wikipedia, look up 90210 (TV series), and then click on Main Characters. Trust me, a chart like what you see on that page would totally help out. Also, it doesn't even have to be just for the main characters and as long as we alphabetize the names of all of the characters or something, then it should be easy to keep track of. Or we can just stick to the main characters and forget about the rest.
I dunno what to choose, lol. On one hand, the chart idea seems kinda nice. I mean, it is possible to have a character that is starring, but has a minor role on the show, or a major character who is guest starring, right? But I understand it might be too nicky picky for some, and I can see how perhaps for some it doesn't matter as much if the major/minor thing is laid out on the wikia. Me, I'm okay with either at this point. Either the botting or the charts.
Wow. Just read this entire thread in it's entirety. So perplexed.
Not to be rude or offensive or anything, but it really doesn't matter. It's all semantics and it does not affect my enjoyment of the show to be perfectly honest.
But just to CLARIFY .... Titles to represent "their importance" is inconsequential. There is no need to be so technical. I say this because, 90210 like Gossip Girl revolves around a set group of people. There is no set group of people on Once Upon a Time, everybody's story is equally important to the storyline/plot.
90210 cannot be compared to Once because they are not even the same format of show.
I get your argument and I understand it. But, you have to remember that no television shows are the same.
BTW ... For the record ... the term "Main Characters" just means actors(ess) who are series regulars (those who have contracts on the show) That's it. It's doesn't mean they are more important or have greater impact on storylines. For instance, Connor Paolo was a guest star on Gossip Girl for many seasons (4 to be exact) and was a "main character" even though he was never a "series regular." (never had a contract).
I'm about to run the script. I think we can all agree that arguing over the semantics of what word should be used is kind of ridiculous. Besides, according to the creators, this show is about Snow White, Charming, and the curse (the casting and breaking thereof, and therefore Emma, Henry, Rump, and Regina as well). The issue is, honestly, that many other characters are going to drift through in varying degrees of imporantance (Graham, August, etc). We can make a chart, for those who care to see the differences, but it's just a word in the lead section. >.>
If I may, I feel the chart is extra work - for everyone involved. By this, I mean, characters on this show come and go faster than water freezes into ice. You would have to update when there is a new guest star — which, is every episode. This show is built on guest-starring actor(ess). That being said, I just don't deem the chart neccessary.
- Additonal information is always nice but, additional information with purpose is better.