Template talk:Desperate Housewives

message: Sorry but these colours clash horribly, making it look unattractive, distracting, and difficult to read.  violet/riga (t) 13:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold! Change them! If you think you know a better colour then change them, when i added the reds i was trying to get the shade from the apple in the intro (it didnt go well) but feel free to change them ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you only just changed them and I've had nothing to do with any related articles I thought I'd give you the chance to try something different.  If I were to change them it would probably be just your standard grey/light blue shading, which I can do if you'd like but isn't particularly revolutionary.  violet/riga (t) 13:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I did the gray thing and just changed them; Template:Desperate Housewives Ok? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or I'll let you do it as you've done a good job there.  violet/riga (t) 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I based the colour scheame of an old nav template that has since been redesigned to use green :) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: I moved the non-starring roles to a "minor characters" section Pjär80 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor characters

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dots 

message: 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)
replies: text: Press releases credit him as guest star. Matthew 07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian 

message: Sorry, but this new green template just is hideous. Anyone strongly disagree if I change it back? Pjär80 18:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: 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)
replies: text: The actress who plays her - Joy Lauren - isn't credited anymore, which means that she ain't a main character; thus, she belongs with other former main characters (and as such she might guest appearances in the future, just like Rex, John, Karl etc. has done in the past). Pjär80 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep - she's back in the credits, and back as a current main character in the credits. Pjär80 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Danielle

message: 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)
replies: text: No! By all means no! The reason for the character articles getting too long is that the information about them is too detailed. See Wikipedia: Writing about fiction for more information. Pjär80 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you have a show with every single character having a huge contribution to an increasingly complex storyline as Desperate Housewives, detail is a necessity. No matter how much you try to simplify it, eventually the article will need to be split. Rather than taking on this task later when there's a extremely large volume of information, completing it now saves a lot of energy. Geoking66talk 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, and I think you'll see my point. We have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a DH fan site. :) Pjär80 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housewives additions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added Bob Hunter and Lee  

message: 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)
replies: text: I think we should add back at least starring characters such as Dylan, Caleb, Austin and Matthew. They all had/have a big impact on the story, maybe bigger than McCluskey. In the guest stars George and Ian definitely deserve their own page. Maybe Victor and Nora can have theirs too. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the deletion discussion for all those characters, the outcome of which was to redirect them all to the character list article.  As important as some of these characters are to the storyline, they need to have real-world context to deserve their own pages, and none of them do.  The articles were nothing more than plot summary, which fails WP:WAF and WP:FICT.  The same plot summaries exist in the episode articles, so additionally, the character articles were also redundant. --CrazyLegsKC 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So. On Google, Autin McCann, Ian Hainsworth, George Williams and Felicia Tilman have millions of answers. All 4 of them had promo photoshoots and a big importance to the plot. Dylan, Caleb and Matthew all are/were big parts of their season's mystery and had/have people talking about them for the whole season. Heck, there even was that Caleb actor controversy. While I agree that Nora, Victor, Martha, Carolyn, Alma, Gloria, Bob and Lee are nothing more than notable guests, they still had quite important storylines so I have mixed feeling about them. However I agree about the fact that Kayla, Porter, Preston and Ida are not notable/important enough to have their own article. Parker is slightly more important so maybe he does...
I think that's one silly rule to be honest. 172.159.78.7 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring Dylan's page back 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Housewives image 

message: 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)
replies: text: It depends on the character of Edie really departing or staying in season 5. If she stays, she should be in the group of main housewives. Lots of promo images feature her, and Nicolette has been along the other four main cast members in award ceremonies and stuff. Just go to Google Images and look for Desperate Housewives images and you will find that most of them include Edie with the other 4. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to add that I think that Katherine and Mary Alice Young should not be added in the main group. Their case is not the same as Edie's. They should be included only as "other main characters".--Lord Opeth (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Edie shouldn't be in the group of the main housewives. Whether she appears in promo images or not, Edie has never had a storyline that wasn't merely a support to one of the REAL main Housewives. Even when Bree was gone in season 3, her role was mostly to set up Gabby's plotlines. It should be Susan, Bree, Gabrielle, and Lynette. If Katherine becomes a real main Housewife in the fifth season, that can be discussed then. RosaAquafire (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which characters should be in the "Main housewives" group? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Karen McCluskey is as well then. Just read the concerns other editors have. I really liked that this template had the "Housewives" section but as I understand now it's a ground for editing warring! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A New Template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Julie, Karl and Danielle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The look! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Past characters? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The FOUR Protagonists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Box Color!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with you. There is no "former" in fiction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former characters? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Acquaintances" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Return of Julie's Page?