Talk:List of female stock characters

message: *Skater girl  (tomboy)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.1.118 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Where's the list of male stock characters? :) -- Kittenheel (Contributions) 12:47, 8 Jul 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I think there is considerable overlap between the List of tomboys in fiction article and the tomboy section in this article and they could easily be merged. --neonwhite  user page talk 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  True but i still think it would help both articles. Or maybe it should be merged with Tomboy? --neonwhite  user page talk 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to merge list of tomboys with something then that discussion would be best done at that article.  This is not the place since we have no reason to give undue weight to tomboys here.  I am therefore removing the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Which of the many senses of Companion is meant here? (Please look at that page before answering.)  The example is for a sense unique to one franchise.  The footnote is useless.  Why does the entry exist?  —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the literal answer to my first question is: none of them. I'll delink the word. —Tamfang (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, the article is currently linked to a dab page which covers all senses of the word and so seems appropriate.  Your objection to this seems unclear. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where in the article Companion did you find "One who associates with or accompanies another"?  Supposing that I do not know the ordinary meaning of the word, will I correctly infer it from that list of special senses?  Will I even guess that a more general sense is intended here?  Or, considering only the subhead Fiction, do Companion (Doctor Who) + Companion (Firefly) + Heroes of the Lance add up to enlightenment?  Will I accurately guess which senses listed do not describe 'female stock characters'?  If there is no link I'll turn to a dictionary, and – guess what! – find the intended meaning, which is not listed in Companion.  If we must have a link, :wikt:companion will do the job better. —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  That the reluctant companion is a stock character does not imply that companion-in-general is also a stock character. Trophy wife is on the list; Wife is not.  —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion 

message: How is "Gesture and Expression in Eighteenth-Century Fiction" appropriate here?  The first page does not mention any sense of companion.  The rest of the article is not freely available.  If it were, I'll bet that it's relevant only to lady's companion; a reader hoping for illumination of Sarah Jane Smith would be bewildered! —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: and as for the footnote

message: A stock character is generally defined as a template which multiple characters follow. These templates mean that individual characters have similar traits and story arcs. An example would be the spoiled little rich girl who is young, petulant, and  and through the course of the story learns a lesson about the real world. We could call this template "The spoiled princess". The individual character in the story doesn't always appear as a princess. Veruca Salt from Charlie and the chocolate factory may fit the template of the spoiled princess even though Veruca was not a princess. By the same token not all princesses are spoiled. Wonder Woman was a princess and yet she does not fit the spoiled princess template. 
There are multiple instances on this list where a person is listed as fitting a template because that is their title or profession. A given character may be a goddess or dominatrix as part of their back story but are they really in line with the template story arc of "goddess" or "dominatrix"? I believe that in many cases the answer is no. 
Another point is that there are many stock characters listed which overlap one another. A geisha, a prostitute, a madam, and a courtesan are very similar in function and in a given work of fiction they may all have similar story arcs. These should be combined under one stock character title with multiple examples listed. 
I may attempt some clean up in the future but was curious as to what other editors thought of this feedback. PPI (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stock Character V. Profession

message: *This chapter of the book Facing difference: race, gender, and mass media, entitled Asian Women in Film, No Joy, No Luck lists and analyzes many sterotypes. Quite probably the other chapters have more. Abductive (reasoning) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's an excellent source so I have added a citation for it. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no evidence that source is about stock characters, as opposed to steriotypes of women. Characters and steriotypes are different things. Please don't assume that because there is a steriotype, there is also a character without a very clear source. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: All of the examples - every single one of them - is just a wikipedia editors opinion. They must all be sourced or removed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true per checking on Google Books and adding sources.  Some of these might be an editor's opinion and in those handful of instance, I would agree after thoroughly checking for ourselves on Google Books and Google Scholar then we should remove them, but a good deal are verifiable and as such myself and others as seen in the section above on this talk page are actively searching for and sourcing those that can be.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have not verified a single example yet. The examples are where it is stated as unreferenced fact that "Kate Reed in Anno Dracula" is an "Adventuress." Source or delete. All of em. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you checked for sources?  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get assign you work, so you don't get to assign me work, unless you are paying my consulting rate. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic then who are you to tell us what to do?  If you are not willing to help out, then it seems counterproductive to just template and remove stuff without checking to see if it can indeed be sourced.  --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't source it, I'll delete it. I'm not assigning you work, I'm merely following WP:V. I consider removing unverified information to be "helping out." Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not make a whole lot of sense.  I am not going to the ends of the earth to find sources after all.  You are fully capable of going to Google Books and discovering that T. J. Wray writes, "From Bianca in Shakespeare's Othello to Vivian from (played by Julia Roberts) in the 1990 film Pretty Woman, the hooker with a heart of gold is a common stock character in literature, poetry, and film."  SeeT. J. Wray, Good Girls, Bad Girls: The Enduring Lessons of Twelve Women of the Old Testament (2008), 45.  Here we have a scholarly source that cites two notable examples of a particular type of female stock character.  My concern here is that you imply none of the examples can be sourced.  You say "all."  I have just proven that some of the examples on this list are indeed referred to as the type of stock character listed and that that type is indeed referred to as a "stock character" in a secondary source book.  Adding templates and removing stuff that can be improved (and with relative ease) just creates unnecessary extra work.  Why template Vivian in the list, for example, as unreferenced, only to have someone else come along, look for sources and add them as I did when we can remove the unnecessary template or tagging or removal step by doing a two minutes search on Google Books and then adding the source which again only takes but minutes (seconds if you type fast)?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: We are volunteers here.  If you have no interest in this article, hey, that is fine, but there is no need to interfere with the efforts of others to improve it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not interfering to remove unsourced info. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to have something actively being sourced deleted altogether is.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a unique definition of active. Before I removed those sections, nearly nothing had been done to source them in... forever. The last edit to the article before I removed those sections was almost 8 hours prior. Perhaps we disagree as to the definition of "active." Could you explain what "active," means, in your mind, such that I can accept your definition of "active," or reject it as overblown? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see below.  All of those examples are covered in published books for which we can expand the definitions and add verifiable examples, something I am in the process of doing.  I agree that that which is not verifiable and is just an editor's opinion should ultimately be removed.  I hope that you will agree with me now that we have the basis for further improvement and that redlinking is not the only option.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm sorry, I still support the deletion of this travesty. If it must exist, however, it must be verifiable, regardless of how NN it is. As long as you are actively improving it, however, I'll refrain from deleting the unverified information, so long as you leave the tag noting that such information exists up. When you are done being active, please note that, or just don't edit this article for, say, 36 hours, and I'll remove all the unverified info. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Travesty"?!  We can lay off the hyperbole...  Anyway, I do not believe in having others do what I can do myself.  As such, I have already removed all of those I am not finding good academic sources for (those that remain in the article are ones for which I have found sources, but now have to add them.  To do a good rather than rushed job, i.e. to actually revise the sections and not just toss in copy and paste content, I anticipate it taking about a week to finish.  Take care!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Seriously, enough of the members of the list have good secondary sources; these are not our opinions, but of the sources. It takes very little time to Google them up; try searching "Femme Fatale" in Google Books. Then try searching some of the others. Abductive (reasoning) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples are all made up 

message: Below are ones in the definition section that I could NOT find sufficient book sources to sustain their inclusion.  I am posting them below should others be able to find sources to better facilitate ease of possible reinsertion after sourcing into the article.  We should only include examples that are outright called a "stock character" in a secondary source.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ones [[User:A Nobody]] could not find book sources for

message: The following have potential as examples as the ones for which book sources most seem to exist for the definitions section:
*adventuress
*bad girl
*bimbo
*Cinderella
*damsel in distress
*dumb blonde
*femme fatale
*girl next door
*hooker with a heart of gold
*nurse
*outsider
*rebel
*tomboy
*wicked stepmother
Becasue the above have the best available sources, I strongly urge focusing on them first.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Path to improvement

message: Just a note that, if the merge goes ahead, I'd mark all these characters as "female" in the table, so that we can easily separate out the female ones any time we want them.  Also, the stuff that doesn't appear in the table I'd keep, although I might move it to articles such as "Widow (stock character)".  
--TimNelson (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: This looks to me like a category than someone created in list format by mistake. No such list can ever be complete, and it's questionable whether references or examples are needed here when most of the listed articles contain them anyway. Wouldn't this information be better conveyed with a category than a list? Robofish (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this be a category, rather than a list? 

message: I think that this should be added, but I am having dificulties finding sources.  A tough grandma would be an old lady, usually a grandmother, who is really strong, athletic, and a good fighter.  Examples include Gran'ma Ben in the Bone Comics and The Grandmother from Hoodwinked. `99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tough Grandmother