Should we enforce a limit on character subcategories? Most of them refer to occupations and gameplay roles, which is probably why I have a slight distaste from other categories like "children", "teenagers" and the recently made "girlfriends" (which hasn't been alphabetized by surname). I don't want these to be gone for no reason, but on the other hand, I fear that this may end up pushing the boundaries too far. I highly doubt that we'll ever get a subcategory like "bearded characters", but... capefeather 04:46, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that there should be some sort of restriction to prevent things getting out of hand. Personally, I feel the "girlfriends" category is somehow out of place. It just doesn't feel necessary somehow and the original text for the category insinuated that only murders and accomplices who were also girlfriends were to be included. Surely if you have "girlfriends", then you must then have "boyfriends", "husbands", "wives" and so on. That's a slippery slope. I think the "children" and "teenagers" are borderline. To be honest, I only created the "teenagers" category because someone else made "children" and put Regina Berry in it. It just didn't sit well with me having a character that was facing two marriage proposals from older men being classified as a child. I just hope no-one tries to make an "adults" category. I think I would cry if that happened... Strabo412 13:59, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

An alternative at least for the children/teenagers bit is to have something like decade-of-birth categorization. capefeather 04:33, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea. As for "girlfriends" (and now "boyfriends" as well)? Strabo412 11:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading Wikipedia:Overcategorization and I haven't found anything that neatly applies to this. However, I think that I know what the problem may be. With "children" and "teenagers", the problem is that many of the major characters grow up, and thus at that point they aren't children/teenagers anymore, and yet they're still in one or both of those categories. It is an unavoidably temporary label. Similarly, "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" (honestly, I'd group them into one if we keep them) are unavoidably temporary, at least if you exclude stuff like common-law status. I thought that I might as well bring this up again with intent on a final solution before more time is spent because of the "limbo" status of this issue. I guess no one else cares all that much...? capefeather 21:41, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Are not all things temporary? But seriously, you make a good point. My vote is to remove all four of the offending categories. I also think, as with most things on this wiki sadly, that only you and I care about this. But hey, what can you do? If anyone wants to dispute their deletion, they are more than welcome to make their case. I'll not be holding my breath however... Strabo412 22:05, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Category arrangement Edit

I just wanted to say that I've been arranging character categories in (at least roughly) the following order:

  1. Characters
  2. Birth decade category
  3. Occupations
  4. "Situational" and gameplay-centric markers (defendants, villains, partners, etc.)

Just so people don't get confused. It just seems better this way *shrug*. capefeather 01:13, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

"Exclusives" and "Recurring Characters"Edit

When does a character become recurring? Do they have to physically appear, does at least an image of them have to appear, or can they just be mentioned? In particular, I'm thinking of Byrne Faraday (who only appears in Turnabout Reminiscence, but is talked about in Turnabout Ablaze), Misty Fey (who has the opposite situation from Byrne) and Cece Yew (who doesn't even have a profile image), but there are a few more. The name "Exclusives" also seems a little off, perhaps "Exclusive characters" would be better? "Recurring Characters" could be "Recurring characters" instead in keeping with the other non-title categories that are more than one word long perhaps? This is all assuming that these categories are being kept at all of course. The prosecution invites the defense to make their case... Strabo412 20:38, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I honestly see no reason at all to have these categories. The closest things I've seen in other wikis is the "characters of the day" categories at Bulbapedia, but for that it makes perfect sense due to the nature of the Pokémon anime. Here, the exclusive/recurring status of a character says nothing about his/her characterization. It's just vague trivia. capefeather 22:29, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

If no one speaks up about this, I don't see a reason to keep these... capefeather 14:35, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's finally done now... but I can't help but wonder what could come out of this. I've been fiddling with the idea of categorizing some of the character subcategories into something like "major roles" and "minor roles", but that seems to run into problems with gray areas like defendants and victims. capefeather 00:43, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

"Character of the day" is pretty cool. I actually like the idea.Ace Detective 17:58, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "character of the day" as Bulbapedia Bulbapedia uses it would really work with Ace Attorney characters since they have a habit of sneakily reappearing... Strabo412 18:54, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames and agesEdit

I think that the nicknames might be getting a bit out of hand. I know that there isn't an inherently bad reason to list everything that a character is called ever, but I just feel that it's bloating some of the character tables unnecessarily, and eventually it gets hard to figure out whether another "nickname" actually exists (e.g. the Gammel incident). I also think that some of these are really, really stretching it as far as considering them "nicknames" goes. I don't know if we should have yet another section for "every other address directed at the character ever" or we should just start cleaning some of this stuff up.

I'm also a bit uneasy on how the age section is being treated lately. At first, people kept putting in extra ages, so I went along with that instead of repeatedly telling people to read the actual table. Ultimately, though, I think that characters only ever need one age - which previously was just the age when they debuted - to get the point across. On the other hand, there may be good reason to keep in information like this since it is recorded in the games. There's also the fact that the age section is technically redundant with the year of birth section.

Just fishing for some thoughts on these matters. capefeather 16:42, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from (Phoenix's page in particular is ridiculously long). The age thing is simple enough; just make it for their first appearance in the games and only that. Perhaps appearances pre-début (like Phoenix in Turnabout Memories) could be put in one-of-those-things-I-have-no-idea-what-the-proper-name-for-is. (one of these fellows here)
As for the nicknames, how about making the nicknames and/or temporary nicknames part of the table collapsible as a compromise between information and aesthetics? Strabo412 23:50, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Character comparisons in personality sectionsEdit

The practice of comparing one character to another always seemed iffy to me. I mean I guess that Alita Tiala and Dahlia Hawthorne are similar in a sense, but most of the villains tend to be almost exactly the same manipulative assholes with many similar traits. So it seems like these two are compared because they're female. This is especially true of the endgame villains. At this point, I think that they should be removed because all they really do is randomly spoil parts of the series that are irrelevant to the character. Still, that reason is the only thing making me really want to deal with these things, so if anyone else has any thoughts... capefeather (talk) 00:18, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be focusing more on decribing and analyzing character's personality not on comparing it to the ones of other characters. Alita is not just like Dahlia, she definitely behaves differently even under this cover of innocence. Also, in my opinion her personality section is extremely vague at this point. Sligneris (talk) 21:10, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
I think that it's alright to draw comparisons to other characters, just so long as you aren't lazy about it. Dahlia and Alita might be similar in some respects, but just as important is how they differ. For example, although both women put on an innocent façade, Alita does so to get Wocky's money, while Dahlia does so to avoid suspicion. Or, to put it another way, one is a gold digger who is biding her time, while the other is a deranged psychopath. - Strabo412 (talk) 17:19, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible tablesEdit

I've been thinking that collapsible sections of the character infobox might be useful (*cough*), but I'm afraid that I'm not the most template-savvy person. Would anyone else who knows what they are doing like to have a go? - Strabo412 (talk) 17:19, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Characters and minor charactersEdit

Copied over from Strabo412's talk page to facilitate further discussion here.

Why aren't all the characters on the "characters" page? They appear in front of the characters, they talk to them. All of the victims are on characters, and we never interact with them at all. There's even a couple on both pages, like Jove Justice. There are others, like Carmine Accidenti who are on the main character page. We never meet him. There's the drunken witch and Jerrod Kessler, who appear in one part of a chapter in one of the manga. Kessler only appears in one panel. I don't see why he is less of a minor character than Rouge, who talks with Phoenix at length. This also means that if one is looking for a complete list of characters, they won't find one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnandsoon (talk). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

You're right, under the current definition of a "minor character" Carmine Accidenti and Jove Justice shouldn't in that category; I'll probably try and correct this after I've finished with this message, but this definitely warrants further thought. I believe the basic intention of the "minor character" category when it was created almost 8 years ago was to group together characters viewed by the games as so minor that they were unworthy of a court record profile. However, is this the best method now?
Personally, I believe more and more that a better method would be to move non-canon characters (i.e., characters exclusive to Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, manga, musicals, etc.) into a new subcategory (with additional subcategories within for each type of media). That way, when a user looks at the "character" category, they will only see characters from the main and side games. As for minor characters, I think it could regain its original intention without the clutter from non-canon characters. Or perhaps it should be removed altogether...?
What do people think? - Strabo412 (talk) 09:15, November 9, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with moving non-canon characters to a subcategory; in fact, I think that should be done with all character subcategories. It's a bit jarring to go on a page like Category:Villains and see non-canon characters lumped in with the canon ones. In fact, category diffusion as a whole is something I think the wiki would benefit from and I've had it on my mind for a while now.
As for the "minor characters" category, I've honestly never seen the point of it, since whether someone has a profile or not isn't the only factor in how "minor" they are (does anyone seriously think Cece Yew is less important than Kane Bullard?). To be honest, it feels like an arbitrary way to dintinguish characters and goes against the principle of treating them all equally.
While we're on the subject, I also think all animals should be moved to "characters". Bluebully (talk) 11:37, November 10, 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Sounds like a plan. Not sure quite how to implement it though. Should we put them all under something like "Non-canon characters" or separately by type of media? I do think the best way of dealing with categories like "Villains" would probably be something like what we do with Japanese-only characters at the moment (i.e., by alphabetising their categories like so: !Brett, Jezail), but using something like "*" instead. In fact, that might be a good stopgap at the moment until we come up with something better. I'll leave deleting "Minor characters" for now though... - Strabo412 (talk) 19:32, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
Great work! I wasn't sure how to implement my suggestion with extremely specific categories like Characters believed deceased, so your solution seems like a good compromise. Still, I take it you don't agree with including animals in the Character category...? Bluebully (talk) 23:59, November 22, 2016 (UTC)
I figured I would leave including animals and removing "minor characters" until after the weekend, just in case anyone had any objections. - Strabo412 (talk) 22:52, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
One more thing that I feel needs to be cleared up: if a character is canon, but their presence on a category page is based on a non-canon event, should they be sorted under the asterisk or not? What I have in mind is Maya being categorized under "Characters believed deceased" because of Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (although she was also briefly thought to have died in Bridge to the Turnabout, but that's beside the point) and Pearl being categorized as a witness based on Phoenix Wright: Asinine Attorney, among other examples. Bluebully (talk) 22:13, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
Makes perfectly local sense to me. I think the whole manner we deal with non-canon information on this wiki needs examining at some point. A "this is non-canon" template at the top of suitable pages would probably be a good idea, for starters. Perhaps separating canon characters from their non-canon counterparts might also be an idea (e.g., separate pages for canon Phoenix Wright and PLvsPW Phoenix Wright). But one step at a time... I think I might go ahead with the animal and minor character modifications fairly soon, since no-one seems to have any objections... - Strabo412 (talk) 22:55, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Well, no-one seems to have any problems with this idea, so I'm just going to go ahead and do it. - Strabo412 (talk) 19:24, December 8, 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone is removing some of the animals from the characters page. Not all of them, just some. Maybe they just missed a few, I don't know. But there was no actual decision to do so. Also, if we're going to be removing animals, why are we leaving Charley the plant, and robot characters on the characters page? I would honestly prefer we keep all of these on the page, especially since we've decided to keep non canon characters there. If we do remove them all, I know we have a page just for the robots, but are we really going to move Charley to a page just for him? Johnandsoon (talk) 18:20, March 4, 2017 (UTC)

It's not that someone is removing animals from the characters category, rather that someone is adding them to it. However, I believe it's probably better at this point to just add them all to the characters category, in a similar way to what I did with minor characters. - Strabo412 (talk) 11:25, March 10, 2017 (UTC)