Talk:List of female stock characters

Where's the list of male stock characters? :) -- Kittenheel ^{(Contributions)} 12:47, 8 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Please create a different description for "Wannabe Gangster". I think the Wannabe Gangster type is entirely different from Ugly Sidekick. -- Kittenheel

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

This article seems to be original research and has no sources. The tomboys list is potentially huge but is growing slowly as sources are demanded. The problems of this article need to be attended to before any merger is contemplated. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have made a major cleanup by boiling this down to a list of stereotypes for which there are articles. Listing such articles is the main purpose of a list - helping readers to the detailed information. We don't need to list examples since they will appear in the target articles and will tend to overwhelm this one.

When the list was reduced, many omissions became obvious such as Mother-in-law and Pantomime dame. It seems best to work at this high level while there are still many gaps.

We might go on to list an outstanding example of each type once we have the master list down, for example Mrs. Hudson as the archtypal housekeeper, Widow Twanky as the archetypal pantomime dame or Mary Poppins as the archetypal nanny.

Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been continuing this programme but there is a disconnect with editors who cling to the unclean version. We should try to converge these formats to eliminate the flip-flops. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it exists is of little to no value. You've deferred to the "target articles" by linking, simply, to "Bride," "Aunt," "Virgin," etc? How does that give any information about the stock character types and how they're used in fiction? The target articles are irrelevant to the subject, and this article has no useful information. Cnanninga (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a list. The competing version tries to go into too many directions - listing stock types, describing them, listing examples. It does a poor job because it does not include well-known stock types such as the Bond girl and it is completely unsourced. The way I see it, if a stock type is not notable enough to have its own article then it doesn't belong here. And if it does have its own article then we should not duplicate that. The list should therefore just be a series of links.

I take your point about links to articles like Aunt being debatable. I'll prune my version to try to ensure the links go to articles or sections with some focus on fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]