This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. 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. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

The example has been added "Cartoons have heavily done this, adults on Tom & Jerry; Ed, Edd, and Eddy; Cow & Chicken; Power Puff Girls; and The Proud Family to name a few, all have characters that wouldn’t show their face or wouldn’t show their head all together."

I'm wondering if this really is an example of an unseen character. The definition seems to be characters whose existence is inferred by dialogue of shown characters. In the cartoons, these character may be just out of frame, or just showing their feet or back. But they are still interacting directly with characters on screen.

--Bridgecross (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definition at the top of the article, I would argue that a character the audience directly perceives in any manner does not qualify as "unseen". The teachers in Charlie Brown are not "unseen" because while they are not literally seen, they are heard; we know they exist because we hear them ourselves. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources cited at the top of the article (one by Green and the other by Wellington) are attempting to describe a particular “unseen character” as it occurred in French theatre a few centuries ago. Yet this article is using those references as though the authors intended to theorize on the nature of unseen characters in general in all of theatre. There is no indication in the sources that that is either what the authors meant or what they intended. The article uses those two sources as though they provide a general definition that can be applied to all unseen characters; that is not accurate. In fact, it seems to be a bit of a Wiki-cheat attempting to bolster this article’s credentials. Wikipedia doesn’t need to pretend something is a source. In fact, lead sections are often without citations. I suggest to be honest and accurate, the sources be restricted to any passage that describes unseen characters as they were in the theatre of France back in those days. In fact, there is a passage that repeats the Green citation. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over a decade after this article first came under scrutiny due to insertions of irrelevant cruft, people who apparently refuse to understand are still cruft-dumping. I just excised a large chunk of the "US television" section (always the worst afflicted) referencing characters that do not meet the article's stated criteria regarding the dramaturgical concept of the unseen character.

If the character is a running gag that does not set the plot in motion (Crazy Rhoda Zimmerman), if the character is in any way depicted by an actor (a hand, a foot, the back of the head, a voice, a photograph), if a character is unseen for many episodes of a serial format but is ultimately seen and producers have always maintained that the character would be revealed, then the character is not unseen.

I've no doubt some ignorant person will come along and simply re-add these same list items or others. Get with the concept, people: the article refers to a storytelling concept with a specific and fixed definition that is not open to interpretation or manipulation. Canonblack (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hands and feet, disembodied voices, or photographs on the set which are not focused on close up, do not make a character "seen" if we still don't know their face. I absolutely agree with keeping the list limited to examples that cite sources and show some context rather than just collecting unsourced examples for the sake of examples, but your criteria are too strict and leave many genuinely noteworthy examples of the concept out. Even some of the people you left in the list actually fail your own weeding criteria — Vera Peterson in Cheers and Maris Crane in Frasier, for example, have both been seen in the body parts sense and/or heard in voice, and would thus have to be removed if your criteria were consistently applied. But they're arguably the two most megafamous and inherently noteworthy examples of the concept who have ever existed in the annals of pop culture, which is probably why you suspended your own standards to leave them alone rather than being consistent about it. And some of the examples you left in do much less "setting the plot in motion" than examples that you removed — Stan Walker on Will & Grace, for example, is a bigger driver of plot than almost any other example that's ever been added to any prior version of this article, even Vera and Maris. (I think the source which states that he's the all-time king of unseen characters driving the plot is exaggerating a bit, granted, but he is definitely up near the top of that heap by any rational measure given how much influence his actions have on Karen's.)

The criterion for inclusion should definitely be the ability to reliably source some context for what makes them noteworthy examples of the concept, rather than just listing names for the sake of names. But excluding people just because we've seen hands or feet or heard a voice is not the correct approach — if we've never seen their faces, then they are still unseen characters. The concept lives or dies on knowing what their face looks like, not their toenails. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think perhaps the criterion should boil down to "must be referred to as an unseen character in a reliable source". DonIago (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why Earl Hindman's character of Wilson from Home Improvement is not listed or discussed under the US Television section? Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that refers to him as an unseen character? DonIago (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's why I asked if that was the reason why he's not listed as one, as that he may not be considered one. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The classic example of the unseen character is Floyd Thursby in The Maltese Falcon. Exploring this type of character in novels and short stories needs to be examined in this article. L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article does not apply to novels and short stories, as these are non-visual media in which all of the characters are unseen except in the mind of the reader. Thursby only qualifies as an unseen character in the film adaptations of this work. You are welcome to start a Film section under Examples, which is what is really missing from this article. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is unclear on what counts as an "unseen" character. Many characters are technically never "seen" since they're only voices yet can have a lot of characterization, meanwhile some other characters can have minor appearences as cameos in picture frames but are only otherwise ever talked about, others appear physically in the work but only as silhouettes or only bodyparts being seen, this article doesn't do a good job of deciding what makes a character truly "unseen". ★Trekker (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion of what constitutes an unseen character in the lead of the article. Did you miss that? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Duffy of the 1940s radio show Duffy's Tavern, was known as the unheard end of phone conversations with Archie the bartender.

2. Pickles Sorrell, the Dick van Dyke Show. Interesting character (Buddy's wife) because in the first two seasons of the show she was played by two different actresses, then the actresses were dropped and she existed only as the object of conversation and on the unheard end of phone conversations. As Mary Tyler Moore moved from Dick van Dyke to her own show, Pickles is plausibly the start of the line of characters that includes Lars, Vera, and Maris.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before characters can be added to the list they need to have been mentioned by a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has LONG suffered from the problematic list of examples. The list of examples attracts people wanting to add their favorite example, often spurring arguments about what constitutes an "unseen" character, and unblanaces the article as the example section is longer than the main text of the article. What would people think about spinning it off into a separate article, titled List of unseen characters?

I do see that List of unseen characters is a redirect here. It was redirected in 2009 as the result of a (3rd) AFD. It was previously deleted once and kept once at AFD. I will note the first deleted version cited no sources and was very long. Subsequent iterations were shorter. The AFD that redirected it here noted that it should be recreated if the list of examples here got too long.

I really think a separate list would make sense at this stage. Thoughts of other editors? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Never been seen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30 § Never been seen until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]