Talk:List of stock characters

US & Canada Televsion Stock Characters

• The everyday, normal man

Examples: Jerry Seinfeld From Seinfeld, Alex Rieger from Taxi

• The liberal pothead

Examples: Leo Chingkwake from That 70's Show, Hayley Smith from American Dad, Towelie from South Park

• The oddball

Examples: Kramer from Seinfeld, Louie from Taxi

• The town drunk

Examples: Barney Gumble from The Simpsons

• The dim-wit

Examples: Peter Griffin from Family Guy, Micheal Kelso from That 70's Show

• The Strange Foreigner

Examples: Borat from Da Ali G Show, Bruno from Da Ali G Show, Fez from That 70's Show

• The Wannabe Gangster

Examples: Ali G from Da Ali G Show, J-Roc from The Trailer Park Boys

• The Angry Old Father

Examples: Red Forman from That 70's Show, Osar Leroy from Corner Gas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.101.181 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Wise Best FriendRobbmonster (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Femme Fatale

Lets not forget the alluring female Femme Fatale! TV shows have stock figures of the femme fatale: examples include; Queen of the Nile in which a vain Movie actress seduces men so she can sacrifices their souls with black magic in order to maintain her immorilty; Star TrekThe Mantrap in which a female vampire assumes a pleasing female form in order to kill men by draining them of their body salt so she can maintain her existance;Kolchak: The Night Stalker"Demon In Lace" a succubus murders men to maintain her immorality; "The Youth Killer" Helen of Troy sacrafives males to maintain her immorality';Otherworld (TV series); "Paradise Lost" Female scientists use science to drain men of their souls to maintain their immorailty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.89.128 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation not needed

I am removing the "citation needed" templates from the examples in the top half of the article. I really don't think examples, especially those with their own article, need some reference claiming them as a "stock character" to be valid. Named characters are likely to be more than stockery anyway, but they do give some idea, which is useful. If anyone strongly disagrees, please at least finish the job rather than just undoing! ---Robina Fox (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Gender Bias in Example Characters

While there are a few female characters on the list, nearly every example of a female character is in a category that is exclusively feminine. Most of the categories that can be fit by characters of any sex or gender only have male examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieguythe3rd (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not examples from other parts of the world?

Most of the examples here are tied to either US or Canada. Would be better to include popular and notable examples from other parts of the world too. Europe, Russia, India, China, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, you get the gist. 117.216.111.98 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this imbalance, just like the gender imbalance mentioned above, is not a result of any ill will but of Wikipedia's systemic bias of both types. Most contributors, me very much included, are just more familiar with US centric fiction than those from other parts of the world, and so are not able to provide such examples as you suggest. If you have knowledge in that direction, don't hesitate to WP:Be bold and add/exchange examples to broaden the basis and improve the list. Daranios (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "Multiple issues" box

This is a list-class webpage - a Wikipedia conduit to direct readers to the relevant entries / articles of the subjects and examples, so therefore it is like a disambiguation page. These claimed "issues" are erroneous.

Descriptions should be brief summaries extracted from the longer relevant entry to which it links - some are too detailed though as they should be just one or two short paragraphs to aid identification and show related characters. If a character archetype / stereotype does not have its own entry - if it is a sub-type, say - then link it to its closest relevant entry. Original research should not apply as this is not a place for a definitive entry. The responsibility for referencing falls to the actual entry of each character archetype / stereotype. Therefore there is no need to make citations.

All examples should be hyperlinked to the relevant entry if extant. Overlinking does not ever apply at all. No reader should have to go searching through the list for the first mention of a entry to find the relevant hyperlink. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@OnBeyondZebrax

Thank you for the new entry on helping diversify this list with more female characters and considering wider cultural groups. Please keep descriptions brief, though and there is no need to reference as these should be applied in the actual entry itself. You placed "Matchmaker" as the character, but this is a disambiguation page and so I have altered it to [[matchmaking|matchmaker]] as this is where I believe you intended it to go. Also, please just bullet-point list the examples in the final column for clarity and aim for ones to which there are hypertext links wherever possible - keep the prose for the description - I have bulleted this but there is little detail for some which if you can add the names, dates, links, etc.

Please feel free to add more female and non-Western archetypes / stereotypes to the list, with hyperlinks, but please follow the guidance above as there is a bit too much detail. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

In general I agree that citations for blue-linked entries are not necessary, although they do not hurt. Maybe the citations-needed refers to the minority of non-blue-linked stock characters we have in the list? Pinging @Edward321: who has added the tags long ago, maybe they would like to shed light on what the idea behind the tagging orginally was. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not that there should be no referencing at all - Machiavellian has one to direct people for the dictionary definition - which is to a degree superfluous, as anyone could think to look it up, but that does not mean it should be deleted, but it may not be in all dictionaries especially junior versions.

What really is the point here is that because this is just in essence a way-station to proper full entries. Just a few characters lower is Male buffoon (Hispanic) without a link to its own entry, but a reader can click on the examples given to find out more. Anyway, it is pretty obvious what it is from the name.

As pointed out above on the "Matchmaker", it is a good new archetype and is noteworthy, but there is a bit too much in the description that should be in the entry itself. The quote and the reference were too much. At some point, I would add the Chinese matchmaker in Mulan as another good example.

On scanning down there is the "Prodigal Son" entry in which some editor has really gone overboard and taken the paddles too with the examples all too obscure amongst the gross verbiage of the text instead of being in a straight bullet-pointed list.

So the point of removing this box at the top is because with entries, on the whole, an editor does not need to make a relevant reference, it is more important that there is a linked entry (with solid citations), or at else at least a good linked example or a q.v. to another character with a link to which it is directly tied, like "Miltonic hero" is a form of "antihero" - there is no entry for the former but the latter does have one. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

So again I agree that for the most part this is "a way-station to proper full entries". But those cases which do not link to full entries, like the "Miltonic hero", (or even Matchmaker as a stock character), there is at least the possibility of original research, which would be disproven by having references. So I can see how references would be beneficial for this minority of cases. I am not sure if this minor problem justifies the tags. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

As no further comments have been made in the last 3 weeks and a broad consensus from those participating is that the box is unnecessary — i.e. citations are unnecessary in general, unless they convey information, or a basis for the statement, not found in a hyperlinked entry elsewhere — then the removal of this box will be made after 7 days, unless there is input significant import to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.112.195 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)