Talk:Recurring characters in Asterix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Order of the major recurring characters
I wonder if we should not reorganize the order of the major recurring characters in terms of their importance to the comic, and not in alphabetical order.
Also, I think Getafix and Vitalstatistix at the very least and maybe even Cacophonix should be among the major characters, that itself is indicated in the intro of every book and we should maybe even have individual pages for all 3 of those characters.
- I disagree. Let's keep the major characters section as small as possible. And, personally, I feel that is much better to have a single good page for all the characters, than lots of little unsatisfactory pages. WP:FICT is in agreement on this. Bluap 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- But, Getafix has probably played a major role in the plots in more than half the comics and he probably appears in all of them. I think that makes him a major character. A similar, though not quite so strong an argument can be made for Vitalstatistix and Cacophonix. Whether, these characters can have pages of their own is another question. I think Getafix could certainly do with one. In fact, in terms of contribution to plot elements, it could be claimed that Getafix' contribution to plots in the series is more than Dogmatix. User:Gnikhil
- There's certainly room for discussion ... In some other languages most of the characters you mention have their own entries, and other series in English certainly give much less major characters their own entries, but that doesn't make it right ... In fact most of the characters in the entry which are listed as major once had their own entry and were consolidated here -- undoing that & correcting the links would be a major undertaking -- far more so than bringing them together ... I do think they could stand re-ordering (in fact I did that my self — moved Obelix & Dogmatix up into a new "Main Character section, and moved Bacteria down to be with Unhygienix) but there are a lot of factors involved... for example: Vitalstatistix position at the end lets his shield bearers' images hang down into the minor/villagers section next to their entry .. otherwise I'd have moved Impedimenta after him when I moved Bacteria.--Invisifan 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to like lots of little articles, since I am a big fan of cross linking and lists and categories, all of which are facilitated by lots of individual articles, however it does not seem as though that is currently necessary. I would suggest however that until this page gets unweildly, there is no need to break out the characters into their own articles. As for the original suggestion - maybe having more categories of characters would make sense: A and O as "main", D G C and V as "listed on inside cover", and then "everyone else". Personally I do not really see Dogmatix as being in the same league as A and O in terms of "main-ness". Within the "listed on inside cover" I would say that the order of listing should be as in the cover: D G C V. j-beda 11:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I put Dogmatix in "Main" because he (a) has his own separate article (b) had his own series of books and (c) is particularly (and disproportionately) liked by both fans & the authors ... I would say Getafix is the next most major - almost Main - then Vitalstatistix, with Cacofonix running a poor last among the intro-characters (barely above Fulliautomatix who in many respects is a more rounded & developed character ... Bacteria is at the other end of it - making it out of "Minor" solely on the basis of actually having a name IMHO ...--Invisifan 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with leaving Dogmatix where he is. Again, I think Getafix and Vitalstatistix should be added to the major characters. Cacophonix, I am not too keen on. Also, I am not too keen on adding a new category of characters, because that creates too many unnecessary categories. I see Invisifan's point on the aesthetics of the Vitalstatistix entry. But, I can find two panels, one, Vitalstatistix' only (no shield-bearers), two, shield-bearers only to take care of that re-organization. I also agree with j-beda that we keep everything here unless it gets too unwieldly. User:Gnikhil
- If we want to go ahead with a re-organization I'd prefer to keep Vitalstatistix on his shield--it just seems more appropriate--and put Impedimenta immediately after him ... proposed order then: Getafix, Vitalstatistix & wife, Cacofonix, Fulliautomatix, Geriatrix & wife, Unhygienix & wife ...Actually that gives me a thought--I'll add it this shortly --Invisifan 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with leaving Dogmatix where he is. Again, I think Getafix and Vitalstatistix should be added to the major characters. Cacophonix, I am not too keen on. Also, I am not too keen on adding a new category of characters, because that creates too many unnecessary categories. I see Invisifan's point on the aesthetics of the Vitalstatistix entry. But, I can find two panels, one, Vitalstatistix' only (no shield-bearers), two, shield-bearers only to take care of that re-organization. I also agree with j-beda that we keep everything here unless it gets too unwieldly. User:Gnikhil
- I put Dogmatix in "Main" because he (a) has his own separate article (b) had his own series of books and (c) is particularly (and disproportionately) liked by both fans & the authors ... I would say Getafix is the next most major - almost Main - then Vitalstatistix, with Cacofonix running a poor last among the intro-characters (barely above Fulliautomatix who in many respects is a more rounded & developed character ... Bacteria is at the other end of it - making it out of "Minor" solely on the basis of actually having a name IMHO ...--Invisifan 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to like lots of little articles, since I am a big fan of cross linking and lists and categories, all of which are facilitated by lots of individual articles, however it does not seem as though that is currently necessary. I would suggest however that until this page gets unweildly, there is no need to break out the characters into their own articles. As for the original suggestion - maybe having more categories of characters would make sense: A and O as "main", D G C and V as "listed on inside cover", and then "everyone else". Personally I do not really see Dogmatix as being in the same league as A and O in terms of "main-ness". Within the "listed on inside cover" I would say that the order of listing should be as in the cover: D G C V. j-beda 11:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's certainly room for discussion ... In some other languages most of the characters you mention have their own entries, and other series in English certainly give much less major characters their own entries, but that doesn't make it right ... In fact most of the characters in the entry which are listed as major once had their own entry and were consolidated here -- undoing that & correcting the links would be a major undertaking -- far more so than bringing them together ... I do think they could stand re-ordering (in fact I did that my self — moved Obelix & Dogmatix up into a new "Main Character section, and moved Bacteria down to be with Unhygienix) but there are a lot of factors involved... for example: Vitalstatistix position at the end lets his shield bearers' images hang down into the minor/villagers section next to their entry .. otherwise I'd have moved Impedimenta after him when I moved Bacteria.--Invisifan 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- But, Getafix has probably played a major role in the plots in more than half the comics and he probably appears in all of them. I think that makes him a major character. A similar, though not quite so strong an argument can be made for Vitalstatistix and Cacophonix. Whether, these characters can have pages of their own is another question. I think Getafix could certainly do with one. In fact, in terms of contribution to plot elements, it could be claimed that Getafix' contribution to plots in the series is more than Dogmatix. User:Gnikhil
[edit] Rough draft
- How about this: Trial version --Invisifan 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like it, but still think that the order should follow the inside front cover: A O D G C V - having the shield bearers next is a nice layout though. j-beda 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any question Vitalstatistix is more of a major character than Cacofonix, but the intro page is a precedent and it keeps the married men together ^_^ ... so I've rearranged it that way ... if there are no negative commentsin the next while I'll swap it into the live article some time after midnight (UIC) --Invisifan 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like it too. I still think Getafix, at the very least should be added into the main characters. With the new reorganization, that is easy to do and the next logical step :-). But, if I am in the minority, so be it. I can certainly see Getafix getting an article of his own very easily. There is plenty of material for that. User:Gnikhil
- Okay I'm going to swap it in -- we can change it more later if needed. Moving a character to a separate article means checking every article pointing here to see if it's for that character ... a major effort -- not one I'd suggest if I wasn't SURE it was meaningful ... While Getafix is my personal favourite, I'm not sure about making his article separate... He was important in the early albums, but not so much in the later ones -- Vitalstatistix is the reverse, I think he's had more major roles than anyone except A* & O† themselves ...
- I like it too. I still think Getafix, at the very least should be added into the main characters. With the new reorganization, that is easy to do and the next logical step :-). But, if I am in the minority, so be it. I can certainly see Getafix getting an article of his own very easily. There is plenty of material for that. User:Gnikhil
- I don't think there's any question Vitalstatistix is more of a major character than Cacofonix, but the intro page is a precedent and it keeps the married men together ^_^ ... so I've rearranged it that way ... if there are no negative commentsin the next while I'll swap it into the live article some time after midnight (UIC) --Invisifan 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asterix "first" page
You may want to change the wording on your additions refering to those pages:
-
- The story pages (starting on the next page) are self-numbered starting at 1a ... implying the character sheet occurs before the first page...
- Alternatively the actual page numbering is:
- Title page
- Indicia
- map of Gaul w/opening blurb
- Character reference
- ie. it's page number four...
- If you want to go with a totally non-standard interpretation of story numbering based on art with story information, it is still the second page (after the map)
- Finally, note that it does not always appear (skipped in 3 albums I can think of off the top of my head -- so it's "most", not "all"
- Dogmatix is not listed separately on that page, only as part of Obelix' entry — and only in newer editions the bulk of the older albums in circulation don't list him at all, so you should perhaps adjust the wording
- You shouldn't take the "/" out of "< b r / >" — xhtml mark-up requires it (wikiprocessing puts it back in the displayed page btw) so leaving it out is bad form (I've put them back)--Invisifan 10:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point (the br tags were accidentally chopped out at some point and I added them back in by hand, I was not intentially removing the slashes). If you have any suggested improvements feel free to make them. j-beda 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- There - I changed the wording to "beginning" - can anyone think of any improvements? j-beda 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] translation positioning
After some thought I think the notes on translations/other languages might be better after the descriptive text for each character (it's really more of a footnote than character information) ... I added those sections because many people were adding random & sporadic translations, and I thought it should be formalized (I originally was thinking of a table, but it would have been too unwieldy); so they were just left where the original notes had been, but after careful consideration I don't think that's the best place —anyone have an opinion? --Invisifan 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Names
The Dutch character names are:
- Asterix
- Obelix
- Dogmatix: Idefix
- Getafix: Panoramix
- Cacofonix: Kakofonix (*)
- Vitalstatistix: Heroïx (*)
- Impedimenta: Bellefleur
- Fulliautomatix: Hoefnix
- Geriatrix: Nestorix
- Unhygienix: Kostunrix
- Bacteria: Forentientje
(*) Until recently, the original French names were used for these characters.
84.195.78.97 12:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ouch - that's going to hurt after all this time - Asterix is quite popular in the Netherlands & Belgium and the translations have been around a long time (of course the new ones make more sense in that the originals were not even close to the right language) ...--Invisifan 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Baba
I was amazed that Baba was called Boy in the English translation. Especially considering that drawing a black character as blackface seems to be a sensitive issue enough in itself, in American culture. Well, one reason could be because the books never have been much popular in the US. The word maybe lacks those connotations in British English, what do I know. 惑乱 分からん 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the pirates are not "named" throughout the series (at least in English) -- no one ever calls the captain Redbeard, it's just assumed - he is always called simply Captain; Pegleg is actually referred to as such on only one occasion (Asterix and Obelix All at Sea) and in the same story the captain says: "YOU UP THERE, BOY!" ... which is the closest the black pirate ever gets to being named (in the original French I believe "Baba" is used). You're right though - it would never have been translated like that if the North American market were a consideration... but it's not. And in non-American English "boy" would as likely be used for any minor subordinate...--Invisifan 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brazilian, not Portuguese
I am Portuguese and I read these stories since I was a kid. The Portuguese version keeps most, if not all, of the original names (the only difference I noticed is that Idéfix is called Idéafix, as in "ideia fixa" - fixed idea). The changes you have in the page must be from the Brazilian version, so keep that clear.
- I've checked my sources on that & of course you're correct. I did see one other difference though: French: Bonemine, Portuguese: Caralinda, Brazilian: Naftalina. Also it's not clear if Portuguese for Fulliautomatix is Cetautomatix (following French) or Automatix (like Brazilian) — could you clarify? --Invisifan 11:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] French translation
Hail, I'm french and I don't agree with this : 'French: Abraracourcix ("à bras raccourcis" — "with arms up ready to fight")'. "à bras raccourcis" means "with arms shortened" while I don't know if in english you say 'ready to fight'. However this article is good. (Utilisateur:Lpn- on french wiki) Lpn- 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I believe a more exact translation would be "with arms cocked", implying drawing the arms up — bending at the elbows being he only "shortening you can do without amputation ^_^ —into a boxer's stance, but that expression is no longer in common use ...
[edit] Additional/alternative explainations of jokes
The name "Vitalstatistix" is also a joke on the character's girth. The commonplace British English meaning of "Vital Statistics" in the sixties and seventies was a woman's bust, waist and hip meaurements, as in "36-24-36". This may not be very PC now, but you can see how the joke worked. JohnDallman 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
