Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:09, 26 May 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Theatre Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 23 June 2008, see discussion. Keep, 19 January 2008, see discussion. Keep, 14 August 2007, see discussion.

The Diaz Brothers in Scarface

I always thought they were particularly funny unseen characters. They were a constant threat throughout that movie.

Rebecca

Does Rebecca (the character from the Daphne DuMourier novel of the same name) not belong on this page? Surely she's one of the most famous unseen characters of all time? Or maybe I missed something... :) -- LisaJay 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a page listed on this one where there is a list of unseen characters. Rebecca is on there, both referred to from the Hitchcock film and the DuMourier novel. Jonomacdrones 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See below. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

A spoiler heading would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeloow (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

The list

What happened to the complete list of unseen characters. Why are some of these articles missing? RobertCMWV1974 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3-2-1 PENGUINS: The face deal.

You never see GrandMUM's face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.94.145 (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the final episode (then the final episode, I understand NBC has asked that it be renewed), they do show her face. I was rather disappointed that they did that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.92.29 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Would Darth Vader count as a partialy seen character in Empire Strikes Back? Since although his armor is frequently seen, the only actual shot of him is the brief image of the back of his head in his meditation chamber... M Schwarz (May 20, 2007)

• No, since he is seen and heard at the end of Return of the Jedi. -- Interrupt_feed 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlton the doorman

In sitcom: Rhoda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.183.106 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

George Steinbrenner

"The real George Steinbrenner was going to appear on the season seven finale “The Invitations” but refused after learning that Susan Ross would be killed off." The George Steinbrenner article says different. -- Ianiceboy 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unseen characters in books

"Hidden characters appear in all varieties of fiction." I am intrigued by the idea of an unseen character in a book. I think these points need more elaboration. The article says only:

• books feature characters who are merely referred to.
• In the Xeelee Sequence of novels by Stephen Baxter, the titular aliens are mentioned numerous times, yet never actually seen.

It is true that, in a book written from a limited point of view, a character may be referred to within that point-of-view without being described within it. However, the reader experiences all characters, seen and unseen, in essentially the same way: both are described using the same medium, language, whether inside of outside the frame story. The degree of differentiation experienced depends on the craft of the author. This is a lesser distinction that that of an unseen character in a audio/visual fiction, who is literally unseen/unheard by the spectator, in contrast to the other characters on stage or screen. This difference is felt regardless of the craft of the actors and director. jnestorius 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that any discussion on this topic should make mention of Godot from Waiting for Godot. Zozoz 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What, no mention of Robin Masters?

Robin Masters being unseen is a major running gag of Magnum, P.I.. It is surprising that no mention is made of him. His own article seems to make him qualify as "partially seen character". Luis Dantas 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

-- or Ice Pick, for that matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A belated response (for the benefit of others who may be mislead by these two suggestions), but once again you are not understanding the concept "unseen character", please READ the article. Two different actors were credited as Robin Masters over the run of the series, therefore he is not an unseen character, even though he is only heard; if there is any sensory perception of a character, it is not "unseen". Ice Pick was never portrayed, but he also does not fit the concept of an unseen character: we never really learn anything about him other than that Rick knows him and sees him often. That is NOT an unseen character, it is just a name that is frequently dropped. Again, please READ THE ARTICLE before suggesting things that do not belong here. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Here are some references which could be cited in this article:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/123098/LB0242.shtml http://eoneill.com/library/review/24-1.2/24-1.2d.htm http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F11F7385A12738FDDAF0894DA415B848DF1D3

Or use some others. Sources are important. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

UK TV

I think this is too specific for the article, so I'm moving it out. -Malkinann 10:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unseen characters in United Kingdom television

The best-known unseen character in British television was Elizabeth, the wife of Captain Mainwaring, the main character in Dad's Army; not showing her added a touch of whimsical fantasy to the programme. In The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, Reggie's mother-in-law is never seen, but Reggie keeps thinking of her as a hippopotamus. In Are You Being Served? the action almost never left the department store, so the odd mention of the characters' lives outside the store tended to include unseen characters. The scriptwriters Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais included a large number of minor unseen characters in Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? and Porridge, in the form of people the leading characters had known earlier in their lives who were mentioned briefly. In hit sitcom Fawlty Towers, Sybil's best friend Audrey was only ever referred to, or in contact with Sybil Fawlty through telephone calls, but later appeared in the penultimate episode, played by Christine Shaw. In Drop the Dead Donkey the owner of Globelink News, Sir Roysten Merchant remains unseen throughout the series until the final episode, where the character Gus Hedges confronts him after Sir Roysten shuts down the company. At the end of the scene, Sir Roysten claims he has no idea who Gus is, despite the fact Gus has been one of his most loyal servants.

Brief mentions aren't enough. A character isn't a character unless other characters talk about them enough for the audience to form a detailed picture of them. 1Z (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List

That list of unseen characters is ridiculous and unnecessary. It takes up about 94 KB, which is absolutely ludicrous. Please leave it out of the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot

Someone above did mention Godot in Waiting for Godot, but nothing else has been said. I, for one, really think that should be in here, but someone with more knowledge on the subject should do it. -Gohst 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Godot is one of the most important examples of the 'unseen character' technique as seen on stage. - Mithead 09:04, 17 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.35.238 (talk)

See below. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems erroneous, ghost characters are existing ones, while Godot was supposed to be non-existing and only believed to exists by the protagonists (Beckett was a hardcore atheist and the very name 'God-ot' was intended as a ridicule of religious faith). Or am I overinterpreting? 37.190.150.20 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Chef from Star Trek: Enterprise

• I think Chef should be included in this list, since he is never actually seen or heard throughout the series. We do see him in the last episode, but he's portrayed by Jonathan Frakes as William Riker. -- Interrupt_feed 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ted's Mother

In Their Story Ted dreams about having hair and accidentally kills his mother, at which point she is clearly visible. So she's appeared once... R'win 08:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Detective John Munch

...of Law & Order:SVU & Homicide: Life On The Street (among others). Anyone remember seeing any of his wives? I can't help but think of him when it is stated in this article that Lenny Briscoe's wives were never seen or heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlg9999989 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One of his ex-wives made an appearance on Homicide:LOTS (her mother's funeral). Also, he married recurrer Billie-Lou, but they divorced before SVU started. Ralphmerridew (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwen was the one seen. He rarely names his other ex-wives. He did have a moderately long and tempestuous relationship with a "Felicia" or "Phylicia", I don't know the spelling, who I don't think was ever seen. In one episode we see him screaming at her outside the department's doorway, but she's offscreen and her responses are unheard.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a recreation of an article ("List of unseen characters") which was deleted after an AfD discussion

I have blanked it, in accordance with a suggestion on the Misplaced Pages help page. --Orange Mike 04:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the page, per criteria G4 (ref: Special:Undelete/List of unseen characters, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unseen_characters). The article was substantially a copy of the previously deleted article. Take it to deletion review if you'd like. Keegan 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Error: Sauron

Sauron should not be included as an example of this. He is seen in the Lord of the Rings books, near the end of The Return of the King. He appears to the Gondor forces in a gigantic clouded spirit form before disipating. He is also depicted ("see") repeatedly in The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Smyslov (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is he seen in the movies, however? If he is not seen in the movies, he is an unseen character in the movies, although not in the books. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's listed in the Books section of the article, and clearly this is in error. And he's definitely shown in the Peter Jackson movies, as the very first one opens with a battle scene where Sauron directly participates. Sauron very clearly appears in The Return of the King: "there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell." Smyslov (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whither narrators?

Naturally, a narrator who is a character in the show, like the eponymous Alfie, or Alan-a-Dale in Robin Hood (1973 film), would not be an unseen character, but what of the narrator of The Dukes of Hazzard, of whom the characters appear to be totally oblivious? (Waylon Jennings does appear in an episode, but as himself, with no in-context mention of him being the narrator.) And what when the characters are not oblivious of the narrator, as at the end of each "Pigs In Space" and "Veterinarian's Hospital" segment of The Muppet Show? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Purge

Currently the article is ~119kB long of that I'd say approximately 118kB is original research. I realise that a lot of work has been put into the article but Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. Just looking through the article some of the information that is contained is just wrong - for example "Ugly naked guy" is listed under both charcaters who have never been seen and characters who have been seen (he has been seen - in the episode where Ross gets his apartment). There is no way to verify any of the examples given (except the very few that are sourced) other than the word of editors, this is not acceptable - reliable source have to be provided. I'm pretty sure the subject itself is notable as its been a commonly used plot device in many different forms of media but as it is the article does not belong on WIkipedia. I'm going to remove all the list entries - apart from those sourced and stubbify all the (completely unsourced and OR ridden) individual sections. I'm sorry to take such drastic action but in encyclopaedic terms and by the standards for inclusion of content set out in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines the article is a disaster. I'll be looking for reliable sources from which the article may be re-written, I hope that other editors will support and contribute to this effort. Guest9999 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the bulk of the content, there was very little to save from the body of the text as it was completely unreferenced I ended up removing everything but the lead. The rest read more like an essay that an encyclopaedia article and was pretty much 100% original research. Articles should be built around reliable sources, not the other way around. Guest9999 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How about...?

How about ... 'er indoors' - Arthur Daley's wife in 'Minder'?

or

Pvt Godrey's sister Dolly in Dad's Army? (she made awfully good cucumber sandwiches you know)

86.156.91.140 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes a character notable?

I guess nobody know the answer. (Or rather: everybody knows some answer, but we will never agree on a definitive answer).

If the[REDACTED] article about a drama (TV show, stage play, whatever) does not mention the character's role in the events, then I would say he or she is not notable enough for the purposes of wikipedia. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mom and Dad

Mom and Dad in Cow and Chicken are never seen from the waist up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.191.175 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Al Bundy's mother-in-law

is a famous contemporary and somewhat recent unseen character, are there any references for this? I think it is a very notable example.Myheartinchile (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but her voice has appeared many times. So is that the same? After all, the character has an actress, so is that the same? Is there a difference between an unseen character and an unseen but heard from character? --Torsrthidesen (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Examples of unseen characters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This could be drastically improved by not only mentioning the character, but also explaining with a source statement, which the character is important. The lead section of this article itself states that: They are continuing characters — characters who are currently in frequent interaction with the other characters and who influence current story events — who are never directly observed by the audience but are only described by other characters. By providing arguments which support this statement, the article will be much stronger. Flibirigit (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we even need a list of examples? It's getting rather out of hand, in my opinion, as there is no real criteria for adding examples. Who decides whether an example is relevant? We had the same issue on the running gag article, and eventually decided to remove the list. Can I suggest we ask for consensus on this?

• Remove - the list is unnecessary - if the description of an "unseen charcater" in the article is succinct and accurate, examples are not required, and the list as it stands is getting unwieldy (it's about eight times the size of the article text) and there are no clear criteria for adding entries to it.
  • Comment - I have removed those entries that have no reliable sources. I still maintain that the list is not required, as it is a reproduction of a previously deleted article. -- JediLofty _Talk 09:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree the list had become unwieldy, but the new list is now boring and uninteresting, making the article irrelevant to our society. Perhaps the old version could be mined for a few more well-known and good examples, such as the chef from Star Trek: Enterprise.Njsustain (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - why do we need a list at all? Surely the concept can be explained perfectly well by the article text, which would negate the need for a list. -- JediLofty _Talk 08:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Examples are an excellent way of demonstrating concepts, are interesting, and perhaps useful. As many people insist on pointing out at every turn, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, NOT a dictionary, so a list of valid examples is completely appropriate. Njsustain (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have removed the examples -- JediLofty _{Follow me} 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Godot, Rebecca, Harvey

The following unseen characters seem worth mentioning, because they appear in the title but not in the movie/play itself:

• Godot, from Waiting for Godot
• Harvey, the rabbit from Harvey
• Rebecca, from Rebecca (film) or Rebecca (novel)

The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the hard line

I know that there are standards to uphold, but really, I've seen articles on subatomic physics under less scrutiny than this one. Carlton the doorman was one of the most well known unseen characters in TV history... a veritable archetype. The Rhoda page describes it without anyone taking issue... but here, the heavy hand comes down. This is an article about TV characters... how about some perspective when deleting people's work? Could you at least ask for a citation first? Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsustain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is the trouble when we include a list in an article like this - it gets out of control. The best way to ensure a list stays as focussed as possible is to request citations. And for reference - "Carlton the doorman" might be "one of the most well known unseen characters in TV history", but as someone who lives in England, I can honestly say that I have never even heard of him. This is another reason for citing sources... to ensure verifiablity. -- JediLofty _{Follow me} 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition, there is no stated objective boundaries for exclusion/exclusion. Should it be limited to "major characters" (whatever that may be) of a movie (such as Harvey)? Should obscured characters (like Wilson of Home Improvement or Charlie of Charlie's Angels) even be considered? If television series are discussed, would "one-off" characters be out of bounds? These need to be decided (in addition to having reliable sources with reviews or articles about the series or the characters themselves). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this page rather miss the point?

Very few of the characters described on this page are genuinely 'unseen characters'. An unseen character is, as the intro to the article states, "never directly observed by the audience but are only described by other characters."

The article takes this to mean 'never visually seen', which is not the usual meaning of 'unseen character'. The examples then interpret even this in an extremely loose way, to include people who are directly observed, as long as their face is obscured - e.g. Blofeld, Darth Vader, etc. etc. Even Charlie from Charlie's Angels isn't a good example, as he is not only seen (from behind), but heard.

Usually, an unseen character is one who makes no direct appearance in the story at all, not just one who can't physically be seen. Note that this clears up some of the questions that people have had about how you can have unseen characters in books. Good examples (mostly in the article already)include:

• Godot from Waiting for Godot.
• Maris Crane from Frasier.
• Mrs. Colombo from Colombo (I'm fairly sure she's never seen, anyway).
• Monkey Harris in Only Fools and Horses.

The common thread to all these characters is that they are repeatedly referenced, and provide some level of motivation for the plot, but never make any direct appearance of any kind.

Does anyone agree that this article needs a really big cleanup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAstonishingBadger (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just removed a number of bad examples. "Unseen" means unseen. If I can see your arm, I can see you. If I can see your whole body except for your face, I can see you. The description of "unseen character" is pretty clear. It does not say "a character who you can see part or all of with the exception of their face." This ain't rocket science, folks. Charaters from your favourite TV shows might be "mostly unseen", but that does not qualify them as "unseen", less still as paradigm exemples that illustrate the concept of the "unseen character". There are enough good examples of characters that really are unseen that there is even less reason to include any seen-except-for-their-faces cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.25.163 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Vera cheers.jpg

The image File:Vera cheers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Foehammer

A bad example in my opinion, since while he is literally "unseen", unseen characters mostly refer to characters that the audience only knows about because other characters mention them (literally "unsensed characters"). Kotiwalo (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

such as what?

>>A notable example is the long-running British radio soap The Archers which has featured several such silent characters, such as

such as who? 63.239.94.203 (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Aldonza "Dulcinea" Lorenzo del Toboso

I think this character is one of the most important unseen characters in literature. I mean, Sancho Panza's histories about her, are one of the principal motivations of Don Quixote; maybe is that she doesn't actually exist in the novel?.

(Sorry for the bad grammar/spelling, my English isn't THAT good.) 189.146.147.109 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Dulcinea is a figment of his imagination. Rv accordingly. Quis separabit? 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter O'Toole and Shakespeare

Maybe someone has more details on this one, as it perfectly fits the criteria for "unseen characters" listed above. Peter O'Toole had a sign on his door with a Shakespearian character's name on it. That character is listed in the cast for one of Shakespeare's plays, but never shows up. O'Toole's joke was that he was often missing from the room himself. I can't remember the name of the character or the play, or where I read this, but I'm pretty sure it's correct. Myles325a (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Colombo

I think she had her own show so why is she in this? Or I think it could at least be mentioned that she has been seen in her own episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.114.6.76 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See Columbo (TV series)#Mrs. Columbo. Do you have a reliable source saying she was ever seen in "Rest in Peace, Mrs. Columbo" or another episode? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the context of the show "Columbo" Mrs. Columbo is a classic unseen character. She's never seen in the "universe" of that show, yet Lt. Columbo speaks of her constantly. In the short lived show "Mrs. Columbo" they reversed the gag, in that show we see Mrs. Columbo, and she talks constantly about her husband, who is never seen in the universe of that show. Fish Man (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unseen but heard

I have heard the term unseen character used to describe people who are never seen to any degree, even from behind (i.e George Steinbrenner on Seinfeld). Examples of this include the P.A. announcer on M*A*S*H and the Carlton, the doorman, on Rhoda (only ever heard on Rhoda's apartment intercom). Thus the description in the intro that this type of character is only ever describe by others but never actually seen seems to me to be a little misleading as some are at least heard. --67.101.223.198 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, "I have heard" is not a source that can be used in a Misplaced Pages article. The term "unseen character" has a scholarly history, so you need to provide some significant source for a more permissive definition than the one used on the page. It does not surprise me that in common, casual usage the word is misused, but that is not relevant to the article. Secondly, you are completely wrong about Steinbrenner. He is seen in most scenes in which he appears. 99.192.65.58 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Friend 67's point was that the back of Steinbrenner's head is always seen, but we never see his face. It could be George Bush or George Clooney for all we know. -- Jack of Oz 10:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Same with Wilson on Home Improvement (TV series)... or Bill Brasky. Shadowjams (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Illustrative examples

For the first parts of this discussion, check here and here.

To summarize, yesterday there were 10 examples of unseen characters in the "Illustrative examples" section. Then today Rms125a@hotmail.com added 10 more examples. In previous discussions of listing examples, the consensus was to keep them to an "absolute minimum". I thought that more than 10 examples were not needed.

Rms125a@hotmail.com, you expressed concern that examples included "British television and radio series with no mention of U.S. serials" (although one of the 10 examples you added was also a British series). I replied that I don't think it matters what the country of origin is - there is even a French play and a Spanish novel in the examples offered. You also expressed concern that "using examples which are not antiquated or likely to be obscure" is a problem, yet among your additions were three television series that are 30 to 40 years old. But furthermore, I see no reason that a reader of the article has to have any prior knowledge of any of the examples for them to be useful. I have never read Don Quixote nor seen The Women, but the descriptions of how there are unseen characters in both illustrates the concept well for me.

If anything, 10 examples is far more than an "absolute minimum", but I can compromise and agree to that many. (It also makes a nice round number, anyway). I also don't mind at all if some examples that were on the page are moved out to be replaced by other examples you or someone else might think is a better illustration. So I have looked over the 10 that were there and the 10 that were added and selected four of the new ones that would be good replacements for old ones and so substituted them in. The new selection reduces the number of plays from 6 to 4 and increases the number of TV series from 1 to 3 (with all three now listed being among the recently suggested additions). This also seems to be a better balance.

I really cannot imagine how someone could read the page with the 10 illustrative examples as I have just edited the page and still not understand the concept. If that is right, then any more than the 10 listed go beyond the "absolute minimum" agreed to previously. 99.192.86.244 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.83.238)

Censorship

This is ridiculous. Misplaced Pages has always been a place supposed to include anything decent of interest. Deleting the full list of such characters was absolutely unnecessary and whoever did that is nothing more than a censorship Nazi on a power trip who needs to be reported to Jimbo Wales and have their editing rights taken from them. Regardless of whether some characters fit the description or not (you can always separate those who are 'heard'), to have a page like this without the Fat Naked Guy from Friends, Maris from Frasier or Mrs. Wolowitz from The Big Bang Theory is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.62.83 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Wolowitz

For some time there has been a note within the editable text in the "Illustrative Examples" section explaining why "Mrs. Wolowitz" in "The Big Bang Theory" is NOT an unseen character. First, an "Unseen Character" in the dramatic definition that this article is discussing, is not perceived IN ANY WAY by the audience, and is only known to the audience via being mentioned and/or described by other characters. Since Mrs. Wolowitz' voice is HEARD in almost every episode, she is not an "unseen character" by this definition. Furthermore, this character is actually, in fact, SEEN in two episodes. Therefore, clearly not an unseen character. Here are two screen grabs from "The Big Bang Theory" in which WE ACTUALLY SEE Mrs. Wolowitz. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130217165656/bigbangtheory/images/6/68/Screen_Shot_2013-02-17_at_17.51.21.png and http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120511174829/bigbangtheory/images/b/b1/She_Exists_-O.png Fish Man (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Columbo

Not sure if she qualifies as an "unseen character". Yes, she never appeared onscreen, on Columbo. But, one has to keep in mind that, they did do a short-lived Mrs. Columbo spin-off, where she was played by Kate Mulgrew. Because of that, she isn't really an unseen character.Coq87rouge (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that short-lived spin-off was that it received so much negative reaction that after the first few episodes aired, its producers immediately backtracked: the title was eventually changed to Kate Loves a Mystery, Mulgrew's character was renamed "Kate Callahan", and all references to Columbo were removed. "Kate Callahan" was now a divorcee, and completely different from the unseen Mrs. Columbo character depicted in Peter Falk's series.

As I recall, Falk was completely against this spin-off in the first place. Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link thought that the then 24-year old Mulgrew was too young for the part, and started to publicly say that this "Mrs. Columbo" was an imposter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Examples from Detective Novels

Motherless Brooklyn, by Jonathan Lethem, 1999, has a character named Ullman who is quite important to the plot, but is never seen. Also, The Maltese Falcon, by Dashiell Hammett, 1929-1930, has a character named Floyd Thursby, who is never seen or heard, but is quite important to the plot. Also, a character named Flitcraft, who is unseen and not heard from, comes up in The Maltese Falcon as well. 24.140.97.219 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Heard but never seen section

Characters that are heard but never seen do not meet the definition of "unseen character". This section does not belong on the page and more than mentioning that sometimes characters are visually present but never say anything. 99.192.49.119 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, rv Carlton (from Rhoda) accordingly. Quis separabit? 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Godot

Godot fits exactly the definition given in the article: "An unseen character is a fictional character referred to but never directly observed by the audience. They are characters that are "heard of, but never heard from". If anyone thinks that Godot does not belong -- first change the article -- then delete Godot. Of course, since it is fiction, there is no question regarding whether Godot or any fictional character actually exists.GretDrabba (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I re-added Harvey, which had been removed by a pestilent IP editor on the grounds that Harvey's existence cannot be confirmed. That was how Godot and Harvey both got removed in the first place. Quis separabit? 23:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First, Rms125a, if you cannot avoid making personal attacks then perhaps you should just not comment at all. Second, the page is not a list, so it is not important to include every and all cases of people you think are unseen characters. The examples are supposed to illustrate the idea, thus examples that are the least controversial and most clear examples of the idea are best, whether or not they are the most widely reported or the most famous ones.

The problem with Godot and Harvey both are that these characters might not exist at all. For Godot, Samuel Beckett wrote in a 1952 introduction to the play the following: "I don't know who Godot is. I don't even know (above all don't know) if he exists." So if there is a question whether or not he even exists, then he is a bad example to illustrate the unseen character.

The problem with Harvey is even worse. Dowd is taken by all the other characters to be mentally ill and imagining Harvey. If Harvey exists, he is somehow only visible to Dowd and not to other people supposedly in the same room with Harvey. The most conventional and simple interpretation of the play is that Harvey does not exist and just a figure of Dowd's imagination. So he makes a very poor illustrative example.

Finally, the page already has a lot of examples on it of characters whose existence is not questioned. There is no need to add more examples to properly illustrate the idea. So it is a very bad idea to add "examples" that might not be examples at all. If any classic example that was deleted should be restored, it is Dulcinea from Don Quixote. She certainly does exist (although her real name is Aldonza Lorenzo and her identity as Dulcinea is, as Quixote does with many people he meets, imagined) and certainly does not appear in the book(s). 99.192.95.249 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not right to begin a comment with an unwarranted potshot at another editor, or to dictate that one’s ideas should be accepted by being grouchy on a talk page. Nothing that 99.192.95.249 argues appears to be supported by what’s actually in the article: Fictional characters that are real, and fictional characters are not real? If that isn’t a lot of nonsense, then the article should be changed to match 99.192.95.249’s ideas — if the ideas are supportable. And there’s no offer from 99.192.95.249 of any wiki policy to support 99.192.95.249’s ideas of what must be excluded and what content must stay. The discussions to include Godot have been going on since June of 2007, when it was suggested that Godot should be included, then again in August and again in 2008, etc. The consensus — arrived at over seven long years — is in favor of Godot being included in this article.GretDrabba (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"First, Rms125a, if you cannot avoid making personal attacks..."

My apologies. My reference to a "pestilent" IP editor was a backhanded reference to King Henry II's purported reference to Thomas à Becket, which I believe is the adjective the king used. Just an ancient literary tribute. No serious offense intended, just trying to explain the back and forth of why I keep having to readd and redelete stuff. Again, sorry. Quis separabit? 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Rms125a. Apology accepted. 99.192.95.27 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

GretDrabba, I am not sure I understood the first half of your comment here, but it seems you do not understand how characters can be real or not real within a work of fiction. It is really quite simple. Each work of fiction presents a world that is different from the real world. Sometimes in a work of fiction there are characters who are not real. So in the film A Beautiful Mind, John Nash is real, his doctor, Dr. Rosen, is real, but Charles Herman and William Parcher are not real. They are figments of Nash's imagination. So characters can be real or not real relative to a fictional world in a work of fiction. In the film Tootsie, Michael Dorsey is real (an actor played by Dustin Hoffman), Emily Kimberly is fictional (the character that Dorsey plays on TV within the film), and Dorothy Michaels is not real (a persona that Dorsey makes up to get the job playing Kimberly). So the question of whether or not a character in a work of fiction is unseen but real or unseen because imaginary is a question that can be asked and makes sense.

As for the mention of discussions in 2007 and 2008, those happened at a time when the page was a dumping ground that tried to include every possible example (and without any citations) of an unseen character. But since then there was a major overhaul of the page where the example bloat was removed. Since the page is not a list, not all examples are needed nor are they desired. Just a few of the most clear-cut ones is sufficient. The page is not denying that Godot is an unseen character by not listing him precisely because the page is not a list and one should not expect all cases to be mentioned. It is merely not using him as a clear and uncontroversial example because the guy who wrote the play says he might not exist (within the world of the play) at all. 99.192.95.27 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

The editor 99.192.95.27 argues a theory or notion regarding what’s real and what’s not, but this theory isn’t supported — not with reference to anything that occurs in the article or to any published authority — so it appears to be what Misplaced Pages calls “Original Research”. (WP:NOR)

The same editor deletes content that’s accurate, supported, that’s added in good faith, that improves the article, and that a number of other editors believe belongs in the article. And this editor won’t offer any reference to a Misplaced Pages policy that supports such deletions. (WP:DP)

I think this article would be improved by allowing other editors to contribute in good faith, and by not having anyone’s participation prevented or circumscribed by one editor who wants operate outside of WP guidelines, and wants to dictate an article’s form and content based on his own privately held notions. “Misplaced Pages is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide … the better it is.” (WP:EP)GretDrabba (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not my theory. The theory that Godot does not exist was expressed by Samuel Becket more than 60 years ago - before I was even born.

Adding material in good faith is not sufficient for it to remain in the article. If it is inaccurate or unhelpful it should be removed, even if it was added in good faith. 99.192.94.117 (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

The interpretation of Beckett's words offered by editor 99.192.95.27 is his own interpretation, there are others. 99.192.95.27's interpretation is unsupported by any “reliable source” and is “Original Research”. The consensus on this page, over the years, appears to be in favor of keeping Godot and Harvey. Godot and Harvey should be restored. Rms125a has suggested two possible solutions (see below), and I would agree with both of the ideas, I think dispute resolution may be in order.GretDrabba (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not violate WP:BRD. I have not "interpreted" Beckett's words. I just quoted them. He wrote, "I don't even know (above all don't know) if he exists". No interpretation is necessary.

Also, you have not even addressed the issue of Keeping up Appearances yet re-added it. It is easily demonstrable that he is seen. Just watch the opening credits of any episode and you will see a picture of Sheridan. You also can easily find information to show that there was an episode where he was in a car and the back of his head was seen. He does not fit the definition of "unseen character" at all. 99.192.78.237 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

• A theory is a theory, which by definition is unproved. It is not a law (like gravity) or even an axiom. Therefore there is no reason to remove Godot or Harvey. They could simply be placed in a different section, with rewording. If necessary this may need to go to dispute resolution. Quis separabit? 16:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Placed in a different section? Like what? The examples are supposed to be illustrations of the idea the page is about. If there is some question as to whether these are examples at all, then they cannot be clear illustrations. Why are they needed on this page? Do you really think someone will read the page without Harvey and Godot and still not understand what an "unseen character" is? I find that hard to believe. 99.192.78.237 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

There is an editor — 99.192.78.237 — who is preventing other editors from contributing to this article by deleting their contributions. He justifies his deletions by his own unsupported notions or by convoluted, word-twisting arguments. It’s not right.GretDrabba (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This comment is not an argument for the inclusion of the specific items in question. It is just a personal attack. You are violating WP:BRD by re-adding edits under discussion and you also are re-adding cases of characters whpo are not unseen to the article without any discussion on this page. Please observe Misplaced Pages policies regarding editing. If you are not satisfied with the discussion here, you are welcome to ask for input from other editors. But edit warring is not proper procedure. 99.192.88.59 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Editor 99.192.88.59 removed in one large deletion a number of different entries, and the contributions of more than one editor — that’s not a proper procedure. If he insists on deleting content — he may delete one one entry at a time, then state the reasons on the talk page, and be prepared to discuss those reasons. The discussion for Godot, for example, needs to come to a resolution — it has been going on for years and the consensus is that Godot belongs in the article. This editor should consider some kind of compromise, as has already been suggested. This editor appears to be the same person using a variety of different names for his commentsGretDrabba (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not observing proper procedure, but if you insist that each item be dealt with separately, then fine. I will. I will now delete each one, one by one, and start a new section for each one on this talk page. If you follow WP:BRD you will not re-add any of them until they are discussed here and a consensus is reached. Here we go.... 99.192.88.59 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Maris Crane

Maris is not an unseen character. In one episode she is seen in a hospital bed and in another episode we hear her gargling. These are direct observations of the character that makes her not qualify by the definition as an "unseen character" 99.192.88.59 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

The important question is: Do you have any Reliable Source to support this interpretation? None are offered in this case. Editors don't agree with the above interpretation and sources don't support it. Interpretations that are a person's own ideas, but are unsupported, are Original Research, and Misplaced Pages requires support from reliable sources. A "Unseen Character" in a TV series, like this one, can be unseen in many episodes, for years and years, and then the writers have a bit of fun with "the exception that proves the rule" and allows the character to be seen -- but not directly -- as a way of maintaining the "Unseen" aspect. So even the writers appear to want this character to be considered an "Unseen Character" -- in fact that's what the character is known for. I suspect that the above editor says things just for the sake of argument. It may be fun for him, but it hurts the quality of the article, which is having a problem in that regard.GretDrabba (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In less time than it took you to write the above comment, you could have looked up Maris Crane on Misplaced Pages's Minor characters on Frasier page and found this:

"Maris makes only two onscreen "appearances": once in the episode Voyage of the Damned when her shadow is seen through a shower curtain (she is spoken to but makes no reply), and again in Rooms with a View, where she appears in Niles' memory, almost completely covered by bandages after surgery."

If you check both primary sources (the two episodes in question) you will see that she is not an unseen character. Q.E.D.. 99.192.88.39 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Says you. No one can be said to have "potrayed" her. A shadow and a faceless body in a hospital bed aren't "appearances" in any real sense, and she is in the same reference cited for several of the other "unseen" characters above, and even the article mentioned above which is from Misplaced Pages and hence not a source for Misplaced Pages, she is said to have made "appearances", quotated, meaning that they are not actual appearances and the term is being used ironically. 2600:1004:B103:745C:2D5A:C6FB:48DB:87F (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vera Peterson

Vera is not an unseen character. In fact, she was played by George Wendt's real life wife, Bernadette Birkett. She provided both a voice for Vera in a few cases and walked fully into a room with a pie in her face during a food fight. She is not unseen 99.192.88.59 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Again the question: Is there any reliable source that will support the idea that Vera Peterson is not an unseen character? Editors and sources claim that she is an Unseen Character, Vera is famous as an unseen character, that is her primary quality. She was never directly observed -- because she had a pie covering her face! That is a case of the authors creating a bit of comedy by making a point that she is never directly seen. The above editor seems to be allergic to reliable sources.GretDrabba (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I'm lying? Do you think I just imagined that Bernadette Birkett. George Wendt's real wife played Vera? Here is a picture of her from the food fight episode: . Tell me if you see one person or two in the picture. If you see two, then you see both Norm and Vera. 99.192.88.39 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

(See below where I respond further down ...) GretDrabba (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Good luck getting a consensus to agree with you that Vera is unseen in that episode. 99.192.81.244 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Sheridan Bucket

Sheridan Bucket is not an unseen character. In the episode "Let There Be Light" he is seen in a taxi as it drives away and his mother says goodbye. She also has a picture of him on her writing table that is shown occasionally in some episodes and is in the opening credits of every show. 99.192.88.59 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

“Reliable sources” refer to Sheridan Bucket as an unseen character. Sheridan Bucket is an “unseen character” not once, but many times during the run of the show. He is a remarkable and excellent example and he belongs in the article. The question to the editor who keeps deleting other's contributions is: Can anyone find a “reliable source” that says Sheridan Bucket is not an unseen character?

This article needs to be improved. It has problems, and it doesn’t have that much to offer on the subject. Considerations of the topic are not being addressed. For example: Why do authors use unseen characters — what is their value? Can using an unseen character be bungled? What is the difference between a unseen character that is simply “absent”, and one that is effective?

When an article is resistant to being improved it sometimes is because there is an editor who behaves like a troll guarding the bridge who won’t let anyone cross over, and other editors are prevented and discouraged from contributing any improvements.

Another problem is that this article, on Unseen Characters, doesn’t seem to want to play by the rules of editing Misplaced Pages, and that keeps it from improving. When the creators of Misplaced Pages dreamed up this democratically-functioning online encyclopedia they realized a danger was that if you allow anyone to contribute, then open the door to all kinds of ideas: good, crazy and foolish. So the creators of Misplaced Pages said, “No — we’ll require that all the ideas come from ‘reliable sources’ such as books and things.” Unfortunately, this particular article, operating outside of the ideas of WP’s founders, doesn’t have much appreciation for reliable sources, and is at the mercy of the problems that occur.

Here’s one example of this article disregarding “reliable sources”: Regarding the unseen character, Rosaline, in Romeo and Juliet, this article says that Rosaline “is crucial to how the title characters meet.” That’s not true. (Romeo and Juliet met at a party that Romeo and his friends attended, and would have attended whether there was a Rosaline or not.) The question is this: Is that particular idea in the article supported by any reliable source? No. And if this article played by the rules — such an error would have been avoided.

People who are interested in the subject of “unseen characters”, and who are familiar with Romeo and Juliet (as MANY people are), are going think this article is not good.

And why is Rosaline there and not Sheridan Bucket? Rosaline has zero personality, characters onstage wish she would vanish from Romeo’s thoughts, the audience agrees, and when she drops out, the best part of the play begins. Sheridan Bucket has more character, and is an “unseen character” not once, but many times during the course of the show. He perfectly fits the definition given in the article, and is famous for being an U.C., and is his authors mined his “unseen character” aspect beautifully for lots of humor and irony.GretDrabba (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

“Reliable sources” refer to Sheridan Bucket as an unseen character. - Are you sure they are "reliable"? Some seem just like random websites of no particular reliability. But also, many references mention that he actually is seen in the episode I mentioned.

Can anyone find a “reliable source” that says Sheridan Bucket is not an unseen character? - I already have done that. A primary source (the episode itself) shows Sheridan. That trumps any secondary source that incorrectly denies that he is ever seen.

This article needs to be improved. For example: Why do authors use unseen characters — what is their value? I agree, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Sheridan is seen, so is a subject for a different section.

...there is an editor who behaves like a troll guarding the bridge... See Misplaced Pages:Civility. But if you are complaining because I remove purported examples of unseen characters who are not actually unseen, like Sheridan, then your complaint is baseless even if it were expressed in a civil manner.

Romeo and Juliet met at a party that Romeo and his friends attended, and would have attended whether there was a Rosaline or not. - Whether this is true is not related to Sheridan, so should be in a separate section, but you are wrong. The reason Romeo goes to the party is because he is hoping to see Rosaline. Here is the relevant passage from the play:

Benvilio: "At this same ancient feast of Capulet's / Sups the fair Rosaline whom thou so lov'st; / With all the admired beauties of Verona. / Go thither, and with unattainted eye / Compare her face with some that I shall show, / And I will make thee think thy swan a crow."

Romeo: "I'll go along, no such sight to be shown, / But to rejoice in splendour of my own."

And why is Rosaline there and not Sheridan Bucket? - Because she is unseen and he is not. 99.192.72.53 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Again the question: Is there any reliable source that will support the idea that Sheridan Bucket is not an unseen character? Editors and sources claim that he is an Unseen Character, Sheridan is famous as an unseen character, that is one of his outstanding qualities. He was never directly observed -- only partially -- in a case of the authors making a point that he is never directly seen. To site an episode as a source for an interpretation is deliberately fallacious.

If a character goes completely unseen for episode after episode, and year and year, and then is, at long last, only partially shown -- then only an argumentative stickler who argues for the fun of it, for the sake of arguing, could say otherwise. This article is having a problem.

Rosaline is not crucial to the meeting of R&J, the article is mistaken -- the idea is ludicrous and unsupported by any source. The above editor claims that Romeo goes there to meet Rosaline, so he says, but that doesn't make her "crucial" to R&J meeting -- they would have met at the party anyway; Romeo, if there were no Rosaline, would have attended anyway and found other reasons to be there -- the author gives no reason to think they wouldn't have met if not for Rosaline. Rosaline is not in the play for the purpose of introducing the two lovers. What really matters is that there is no source supporting the comment. It should be deleted for the sake of accuracy -- and if anyone wants to argue that it should stay -- find a source to support it. The article suffers due to this kind of argumentative chop logic.

Editors should not operate in this way outside the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages with such a disdain for Reliable Sources.GretDrabba (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A primary source is a reliable source. This is why plot summaries for films and TV shows need no citations. It is understood that the film / episode itself is the source. If Sheridan actually appears in an episode, then he is not unseen. He does appear in the episode named (and in every opening sequence). Q.E.D..

You can argue all you want about Rosaline being unimportant, but Shakespeare scholars will not be impressed by your idiosyncratic opinion. 99.192.88.39 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Godot and Harvey

The problem with Godot and Harvey both are that these characters might not exist at all. For Godot, Samuel Beckett wrote in a 1952 introduction to the play the following: "I don't know who Godot is. I don't even know (above all don't know) if he exists." So if there is a question whether or not he even exists, then he is a bad example to illustrate the unseen character.

The problem with Harvey is even worse. Dowd is taken by all the other characters to be mentally ill and imagining Harvey. If Harvey exists, he is somehow only visible to Dowd and not to other people supposedly in the same room with Harvey. The most conventional and simple interpretation of the play is that Harvey does not exist and just a figure of Dowd's imagination. So he makes a very poor illustrative example. 99.192.88.59 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Again the question of reliable sources: Beckett's words have been interpreted differently by different people, is there anybody, or any source, that will support the above interpretation? Apparently not. (Obviously not.) Godot is considered and is referred to as an Unseen Character far and wide. He is one of the most famous of Unseen Characters. It impoverishes the article to leave him out -- and makes Misplaced Pages seem stupid for not having Godot there. (The same goes for Harvey.) The above editor's personal opinions are not a reliable source.GretDrabba (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Beckett's words have been interpreted differently by different people." It is bizarre that you speak of the need to "interpret" what is stated directly and clearly. The only people "interpreting" his words are people who want to prove that he said something other than what he clearly did. 99.192.88.39 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Eunice Chantilly

Eunice Chantilly is a weak example because she is not really a character in the show at all, just someone who gets mentioned on rare occasions. Bu this standard any time a character mentions in passing someone they one knew it could be counted as an unseen character. Or any time a character says "My grandfather once told me..." suddenly we should count Grandfather as an unseen character.

But also, when this page was nominated for deletion in 2008 (see here: "...keep the list to the absolute minimum..." the decision was that the examples had gotten out of control and should be pruned back to a bare minimum. Adding new examples (and very weak ones) like Eunice are not needed. A reader will know what an unseen character is without her on the page, so the added example exceeds the "absolute minimum" of the decision that was made then. 99.192.88.59 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Some sources for article improvement

When this article was nominated for deletion in 2008, the decision was to keep it, but that (1) examples should be kept to an "absolute minimum", (2) Examples should be incorporated into the text instead of presented as a list (which the page is not), (3) and that there should be an expansion of the discussion of the significance of unseen characters. Since then not much of anything has happened to address the third point. Editor GretDrabba commented in an above section, "This article needs to be improved. It has problems, and it doesn’t have that much to offer on the subject. Considerations of the topic are not being addressed. For example: Why do authors use unseen characters — what is their value? Can using an unseen character be bungled? What is the difference between a unseen character that is simply “absent”, and one that is effective?" These are all very good questions and finding sources that could answer them would help improve the article a great deal, finally adding the material suggested in 2008.

Finding the sources on this can be a bit tricky. The second reference cited in the article might be a place to start. But other than this abstract, I don't know how one might get a copy of the entire dissertation. The author (Robert E. Byrd) published an article in The Eugene O'Neill Review (Vol. 24, No. 1/2 (Spring/Fall 2000), pp. 20-27) called "Unseen, Unheard, Inescapable: Unseen Characters in the Dramaturgy of Eugene O'Neill". One would need academic access to get that journal, but it could be a useful source. One other possible source is an article from the New York Times called "The Phantom Characters Inhabiting the Stage". That article mentions several plays from around 2008, when the article was written, and their use of unseen characters. It quotes several playwrights on their reasons for using unseen characters - mentioning both artistic and practical reasons for doing so.

So anyone who feels motivated to take on a significant re-write to the article might want to start with these articles. If anyone knows of any other sources that could be useful, please add them here. maybe if a good enough list of possible resources can be compiled someone might just decide to take on the job. 99.192.72.53 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

An additional source: An article called "Tennessee Williams's Unseen Characters" by Susan Koprince appears in Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: Modern Critical Interpretations edited by Harold Bloom. Most of the article can be seen via Google Books, but not all of it. The article was originally published in Southern Quarterly (Fall 1994). 99.192.72.53 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

I thought I would add a few more thoughts here that I think might improve the article. First, the suggestions made above sound good. The editor could talk to his local librarian who might very well be able to get those things he mentioned through an inter-city or inter-state loan.

I believe the article does need to contain a good list of Unseen Characters, because simply pointing out examples says so much about this particular topic. Unseen Characters can obviously vary so much from one another, so there should be a reasonable number. Plus, after all, having a “list” was indeed a suggestion made back in 2008.

(When the above editor — 99.192.95.249 — says that the suggestion from 2008 was that there should be no list, I believe he's mis-quoting the actual suggestion which offers a choice: It says “keep the list” and this is followed by an alternative and opposite suggestion.)

A good number of examples for a list might be twenty or twenty-five. The examples should not be too obscure, unless there’s a good reason. There are a lot of Unseen Characters used for comic effect, but there are those that are serious, threatening or frightening Unseen Characters. Different types should be represented in the list.

In order to control the size of the list, I think the article could be changed so that there is one list section, and it could be headed “Twenty Examples”. Then editors will have the interesting task of comparing and rating each example against each other, and every good example that is added, will cause a less good example to have to leave the list. This way the list may improve over time, and it won't grow beyond twenty or twenty-five.

Characters like Godot, Harvey or Sheridan Bucket should be included — they are known far and wide as “Unseen Characters”, and are so definitive as Unseen Characters that if for any reason a definition doesn’t include them — then there is something wrong with the definition, and it should be changed.

The editor who keeps deleting these particular characters, should be free to express objections to them in the article itself — of course assuming such objections can be sourced.

The most serious problem that this article faces is due to the misbehavior of a particular editor, who deletes the contribution of other editors who come along and attempt to offer any improvement. If that problem cannot be solved, then the chance that there can be improvement is not good.GretDrabba (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"(When the above editor — 99.192.95.249 — says that the suggestion from 2008 was that there should be no list, I believe he's mis-quoting the actual suggestion which offers a choice: It says “keep the list” and this is followed by an alternative and opposite suggestion.)" - Now you are just lying by quoting out of context. The suggestion does NOT say "keep the list". It says "keep the list to the absolute minimum". You are attempting to bloat the list to be overly large (and doing so by adding non-examples).

But you are right that the suggestion to keep the list to the absolute minimum is followed by a different suggestion. It says, "or preferably incorporate it into the text". So what the decision is really saying is that the prefered choice is no list at all and the second best choice is a list that is kept to an absolute minimum. Twenty examples is not an absolute minimum. Any reader of the page with just ten examples will have no difficulty at all understanding the concept of the unseen character. 99.192.88.39 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

The definition, as it stands, in the article says not that an unseen character is “never seen”, but that he or she is never DIRECTLY seen. In the photo the above editor refers to above, I see one character directly and the other character INDIRECTLY — her face is hidden. The above editor may have a different interpretation — and he may be the only one — which is fine, but the question is: Can any source be found to use as a citation that supports the singular interpretation of this one editor? Apparently not.

A character that is unseen in one or two or ten episodes is indeed unseen. He or she is unseen once, twice or ten times. If eventually the TV show decides to have them seen INDIRECTLY — for example covered with a pie or bandaged up so that you can’t see them directly, then they are still unseen in that episode — based on the definition that is in the article.

And they are still unseen characters for the complete episodes that went before. Editor 99.192.95.249 may have a different interpretation — he may be the only one — which is fine, but the question is: Can any source be found to use as a citation that supports that particular interpretation? Apparently not. And unsourced material is not helpful, it’s not supposed to be used.

An important question is this: Is the definition used in the article accurate? I don’t think so. The use of the citation for this definition, and the first two sentences that contain this definition, appear to be bogus. Because first, the source cited at the end of the second sentence in the article is referring not to “Unseen Characters”, but to one specific and particular character that is in the particular 300 year old play being discussed in the source book. The first sentence of the Wiki article with the phrase “never directly seen” appears to be completely unsupported. Some wiki editor perhaps made it up without using a source.

And that’s the problem with the editing of this article — it operates outside the rules of using source materials, and the article is lousy with inaccuracies. And one particular editor is not allowing anyone to improve the article.GretDrabba (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"A character that is unseen in one or two or ten episodes is indeed unseen." This is absurd. By this definition, any character that is not on the stage or on screen for any particular scene is an unseen character for that brief time. Worse, if a character is in a scene but is offstage or off screen even for a brief moment during the scene, then at for that moment the character is an unseen character. So unless a character is on stage /screen 100%, you are willing to count them as unseen. Absurd! 99.192.81.244 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

It may seem absurd to you, but it is the viewpoint held far and wide. The characters Godot, Harvey or Sheridan Bucket seem to be universally recognized as unseen characters. They’re famous for it. So you may consider such a generally held opinion absurd, and there is nothing wrong with being the only person on the planet to hold a particular opinion, but that might explain why you can’t find any “reliable source” to agree with you and support what you say. Reliable sources are a fundamental idea of Misplaced Pages. You seem to be, in this article, attempting to wrestle Misplaced Pages away from its normal way of doing things and into embracing your ideas — even if you can’t find any source to support you — by the sheer force of your finger on the delete button.

But I'm suddenly more concerned about the definition in the first line -- if it's not properly sourced, as appears to be the case, then we've got to find a good source that contains a definition. I have been looking around and haven't found anything. Maybe somebody else can. I'm concerned -- especially following something you said in your last paragraph. The "Unseen Character" is a "thing". Isn't it? I'd hate to have it turn out that Unseen Characters are simple characters that are absent. That would be awful. It would mean that all that you and I have been arguing about is truly meaningless. I hope not. GretDrabba (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are tilting at windmills. There already is a citation in the article. A quick check of both the Byrd and Koprince sources I mentioned above shows that they give similar definitions. 99.192.91.239 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.95.249)

Headings re:radio

Eseentially, all radio characters are unseen, given the nature of the medium. Aren't characters such as the ones contemplated here really just "unvoiced" on radio as no one portrays them vocally as they have no lines? Do they really belong in this discussion? Also, and more to the point, while there are actual mentions of a British radio soap opera and its "unseen" characters, nothing in the article mentions an actual US radio series with such characters, so the "radio" part of the subheading is not really applicable with regard to the US as the article now stands. 2600:1004:B103:745C:2D5A:C6FB:48DB:87F (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rosaline?! No way! She doesn't belong in this article!

The article says Rosaline is "crucial" to how Romeo and Juliet meet -- that is so not true. R & J met at a big party. Did Rosaline have anything to do with them being there? No way. And is such an idea supported by any reliable source? No -- the article about Jeff Buckley doesn't belong here either. It's nonsense. It's just some Wiki editor who doesn't know the play making stuff up. So, I'll go ahead and remove it. Try and find a better example. StBlark (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look further up the page you will see a discussion of this example. It is explained that Romeo attends the party because he hopes to see Rosaline, so she is crucial to the meeting of Romeo and Juliet. The discussion above even quotes lines from the play to support this. As for the article, it contained information about the play to support the inclusion of this example. 99.192.65.83 (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Total rubbish. A[REDACTED] TALK PAGE IS NOT A SOURCE! No way! Plus the use of the play itself combined with some anonymous[REDACTED] editor's interpretation is ORIGINAL RESEARCH — that is a CLEAR violation of the principles found in WP:OR. The idea of Rosaline is contradicted by the article itself — read the third sentence. Oh, the misinformation that can be found in Misplaced Pages! StBlark (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

First, you are edit warring. Please observe WP:BRD Second, I did not offer the talk page as a source. I offered a previous discussion here as a place where a source is located. The source is the actual text of the play, which clearly indicates that Romeo is encouraged to go to the party where he meets Juliet to forget Rosaline and he decides to go hoping to see her. The play is the source. Third, the reliable source you have deleted that was used in the article for inclusion and you called nonsense is a valid source for the claim that she is an unseen character. Fourth, your attitude is not very constructive. You might be a better help here if you would discuss the issue without the snark. It does not seem like you are interested in that however. 99.192.52.124 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)

I just also checked the page for Rosaline. There is a section there that is called Rosaline as plot device that says, "Analysts note that Rosaline acts as a plot device, by motivating Romeo to sneak into the Capulet party where he will meet Juliet. Without her, their meeting would be unlikely." This sentence is followed by a citation referencing an article published in a scholarly journal. If your concern is one of referencing, then the news article that was already in the article sources the description "unseen character" and the scholarly journal sources the claim that Rosaline is important to Romeo and Juliet meeting. 99.192.52.124 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)

Total rubbish. First of all: Other Misplaced Pages articles ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES! Why? Here’s a good example: The source that’s used on the WP Rosaline article, that you say comes from “a scholarly journal”, that you attempt to use to support your dubious interpretation, in no way claims what you say: It NEVER says “that Rosaline acts as a plot device” and it NEVER says “Without her, their meeting would be unlikely.” If you bring something rotten from one article and bring it to this article, you compound bogusness on top of bogusness. That’s bad! You yourself claim that that same source supports the idea that “Rosaline is important to Romeo and Juliet meeting.” Where does it say that? Baloney. Be honest, please? In your comment above all that, you claim (I quote you) that “the actual text of the play" is a source for your interpretation of the play? Are you joking? It is utter nonsense — for interpretation you have to go elsewhere. The idea of Rosaline as an “unseen character” as this article intends is stupid, and she is absolutely contradicted by the third sentence in this article. Read it. A famous play and you can’t find one single proper source to support your idea? What’s the problem? StBlark (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are not listening, "First of all: Other Misplaced Pages articles ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES!" No one has cited other Misplaced Pages articles as a source. Please read the comments more carefully. What I said was that other Winkipwedia articles CONTAIN a source from outside Misplaced Pages that verifies the claim. There is a difference.

"It NEVER says...." It does say that Rosaline is the reason Romeo wants to go to the banquet where he meets Juliet, thus making her crucial to that meeting happening. Read the article again more closely and you will see that. Page 210 of the article in particular makes that claim.

If you still do not agree then perhaps this will be an issue we should take to WP:3. But I would hope you can get past your hostile attitue and language and actually check the sources. They do support the claims made and are reliable sources. 99.192.68.174 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)

Quote it! You have a source that supports your interpretations? Quote it! QUOTE IT! Let's see it! Quote the words! Quote the exact words! What is the link to your source? Share it! Put up or shut up! You say things that are not truthful. CONSTANTLY! You are not honest about what is contained in your source. StBlark (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First, you clearly have a problem observing Misplaced Pages:Civility. You should review the rules and try to abide by them. Secondly, There are lots of sources easily available that say that the reason Romeo goes to the party where he sees Juliet is because he wants to see Rosaline. The best source has already been quoted on this page - the play itself. I have already pointed you to that passage, but here it is again:

Benvilio: "At this same ancient feast of Capulet's / Sups the fair Rosaline whom thou so lov'st; / With all the admired beauties of Verona. / Go thither, and with unattainted eye / Compare her face with some that I shall show, / And I will make thee think thy swan a crow."

Romeo: "I'll go along, no such sight to be shown, / But to rejoice in splendour of my own."

If you need secondary sources, there is the one you deleted several times that I referred you to look at. The Gray article says that by making Rosaline a relative of Capulet that Shakespeare "gave Romeo a better excuse than a mere boyish prank in going to the banquet." If you need more sources, an article called "The Brevity of Friar Laurence" by Bertrand Evans in the Publication of the Modern Language Association (Vol. 65, No. 5 Sep., 1950, pp. 841-865) says Romeo "resolves to go, not, indeed, for Benvolio's urging, but 'to rejoice in splendour of my own.' In short, he goes to see Rosaline." In "Villainous Boys: On Some Marked Exchanges in Romeo and Juliet" by Trevor Howard-Hill, an article in the book Codes and Consequences published by the Oxford University Press in 1998, the author writes, "Romeo accompanies Mercutio in order to see Rosaline but immediately falls in love with Juliet." In "Romeo and Juliet: A Study" by Emily Hickey published in The Irish Monthly (Vol. 33, No. 380 Feb., 1905, pp. 61-72) the author writes of the party, "Romeo goes that he may see Rosaline." In a book called Romeo and Juliet: Language and Writing by Catherine Belsey and published by Bloomsbury in 2014 the author writes, "Paris has been invited to the Capulet feast to woo her, while Romeo has determined to gatecrash the same party in order to see Rosaline."

If that is not enough for you then the next step will be to get involvement from Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, but surely this is more than enough sourcing for the inclusion of this item 99.192.91.206 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.65.83)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Theatre articles
• Low-importance Theatre articles
• WikiProject Theatre articles