I have about 15 of these books, and I'll be getting to work on updating a number of these titles. Working on synopses shouldn't be an issue, but I was curious about the way in which characters should be handled. Should I list every known character in the book (ie. text, those only represented in illustration, mentioned characters, etc.), or should it only extend to the major characters? Also, how are Anything Muppets handled in this case? --Cantus Rock 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, I think we've been listing every character that appears, either in text or illustration. -- Danny (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I just had a good idea. Maybe we could do like a denotation system for book characters in the wiki? Perhaps like (i) = in illustration but not text, and (t) = in text but not illustrated, or something to that effect, just to make everything clear? It would make sense, just so that its like if some one lists Mr. Hooper as a character it will be obvious that he's just in the illustrations rather than having any real bearing in the story. Just a thought on that.. --Cantus Rock 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, that seems a little messy, especially since many books, like I Think That It Is Wonderful have very little in the way of illustrations which specifically corresponds to text. To my mind, whether they're just shown on the front illustrations or what have you, they're in the book. The only possible grey area to my mind would be the unseen characters, if someone's mentioned but doesn't appear. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just like to get really meticulous with the details. Maybe there could be a single symbol like (m) or something to denote unseen or otherwise minor characters for us obsessive archivists. --Cantus Rock 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, we have a system like that for the movies and Muppet Show episodes. As an example, check out the Great Muppet Caper cast listing -- it's split into "Muppet Characters" and "Background Characters". The distinction is whether they have speaking roles or not. I think book characters could be split into lists in a similar way.
Matt, in general, I think we shy away from using symbols and codes on the wiki, like (i) and (t). Even if a code is explained on the page, it has the potential to alienate readers. I think splitting them up into different lists is an easier system for readers to follow. But please don't feel shy about being an obsessive archivist; that's why we're all here! -- Danny (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect, splitting the list accomplishes the same goal. I'll be starting on these books tonight. Thanks Danny! --Cantus Rock 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! -- Danny (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.