Talk:Character

Etymology question

Why is it being reported that the Greek etymon is "caracter", with no "h"? "Ch" is the conventional way of transliterating the Greek letter known to us who speak English as "chi". -- Mike Hardy

==Removed etymology==

The word originates from the Greek word [χαρακτήρ] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) via the Latin word character, an instrument for marking or graving.

per WP:NOT —Wahoofive (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

WP:NOT what? dab (𒁳) 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

character (word) (originally character (sign)), appears to have been created earlier this year in an attempt to establish an article that encompasses several general uses of the word character. However, it seems to be little more than a combined wiktionary entry / disambiguation page masquerading as an article. There is already a character disambiguation page which adequately directs readers to the many character-related articles on Wikipedia, and character (word) offers nothing over this other than being a bit more explicit in how it goes about saying that the word character gets used in all these different ways.

I was going to nominate the character (word) for outright deletion due to redundancy, but it appears policy is to instead suggest a merge in this kind of situation. Therefore, I'm suggesting that the content of character (word) be reduced to a bare minimum and merged into both character (this disambig page) and the Wiktionary entry for character. —mjb (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what exactly you're suggesting to merge, but the disambig page shouldn't contain paragraphs of information. If the (word) article contains links to articles that could be referred to as just "character", those links should be included on the dab page with a brief phrase of description, but nothing else. I have no objection to the (word) article being deleted, as it does seem to be essentially a redundant dab page. Propaniac (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a combined wiktionary entry / disambiguation page masquerading as an article"? You will be surprised to learn that discussions of etymology of any length are rooted out with dedication by the dominating editors at wiktionary. For them, a "dictionary" is essentially a glossary and should not contain prose. Which makes wiktionary essentially useless for the purposes of a real dictionary. See also Category_talk:Etymologies. We have lots of articles on words and etymologies. E.g. god (word). "Character" is a very complicated case, much more involved than god or even witch. dab (𒁳) 11:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you arguing about the viability of the Character (word) article here
WHY DID YOU MOVE Character (sign) TO Character (word) IF YOU KEEP LINKING TO Character (sign)
You can keep your precious headings and reorganization if it means two fewer things for you to kvetch about. I added symbol and sign (semiotics) to, shockingly, the "Signs and symbols" section. But I don't think Character (word) or Character (sign) should be linked until you can explain what that article is actually about, since you're not happy with its former description. Oh, and when you explain what the article's about, the article should actually be about that. Not what you imagine it might someday be. Propaniac (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

character...

hw can we measure one's character? what is the meaning of character? Characters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.121.16.151 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE

What on EARTH is this?!?!?! This age is SOOOO Rubbish! Somebody fix it PLEASE - somebody must care that I don't have a decent explanation of character! This isn't going to get me one is it?

I've fixed the page, it looks like someone just copied a load of crap from some website, getting rid of the make up of the text, either way it doesn't belong on a disambiguation page. Feyre (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to arrangement

I have reversed a recent edit that altered the layout and I have removed persona, for the following reasons:

1) The sense of character as symbol is not the primary or most-common usage, it is one among many.

2) The page is not a list of see alsos. Persona is a particular type of Character (arts), as is unseen character, stock character, etc. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. no.
2. I can see there are problems of scope overlaps with Character (arts) (a 2009 creation). It appears somebody has written a sort of counter-article to [[persona]. For the purposes of this page, persona will just be linked as a sub-topic to Character (arts) for the time being.

as explained at Character (symbol) (read that?), the primary and most general meaning of the term is "sign" or "symbol". All other meanings are derived from that and strictly semantic restrictions of the general meaning. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Stop anyone on the street and ask them what a "character" is, and you'll be disabused of your illusions. It's etymological origin does not indicate most-common current usage. I see nothing in the article indicating priority of usage.

2) Character (arts) is a 2009 creation because it was moved. Didn't you check?

3) A disambiguation page is not the place for a series of subtopics on a particular article. They belong in a See also section in the article. Persona is no more significant than stock character or unseen character. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann obviously did not check, considering that Character (arts) is a 2008 creation. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is much older than that. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the new title is not. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new title is not. No, the article is much older than that. The subject of the article, however, remains identical in every way. The new title removes the potential for confusion, to which you appear to have fallen foul. I suggest consulting some reliable sources--they'll clear that up in a jiffy. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pretending as though you did/do not know what I was talking about only makes you look ignorant. I suggest learning some manners. And,~~ clearly, the article is not identical to its previous state. Almost identical, but not identical. The new title has increased the potential for confusion, to which you seem to ignore (despite the examples of such with the other editor you are condescending to in this section, and people on the article's talk page). Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "potential for confusion" to which you refer? From the discussion on Character (arts) it seems apparent that you are confused about what the word "symbol" means as well. Let's not generalise to the entire readership of Wikipedia on the basis of your own failings. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused about anything, nor am I generalizing based on my feelings or perceived failings. I am not the only one who has disagreed with you about the new article title, so why do you not focus on that? Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the evidence of your posts, yeah, you are. You imagine that the "symbol" in Character (symbol) is the same thing as the "symbol" in Character (arts)#Characters as symbols. Confused is a generous way of describing it. Most people are able to grasp that and that is the source of the "confusion" you have referred to. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing out loud. You are the first one who related the article Character (symbol) as the same thing as "symbol" in Character (arts)#Characters as symbols when replying to me. Yeah, you keep on believing that I have been confused about anything in our discussions. I love it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, where, specifically, was that then? It's recorded on the talk page. "I do not blame you for character symbols being in this article" you wrote. There's nothing confusing about the article. It's just you. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been confused in the least. And I have now explained on the talk page. My response there is sincere, and that is all I can leave you with. Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]