staff
235
edits
Content:Characters: Difference between revisions
→General notes on character relations
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===General notes on character relations=== | ===General notes on character relations=== | ||
Character relations are supposed to be '''lower case''', as well as '''short''' and as '''neutral''' as possible. | Character relations should be based on what is shown in the anime. Related works may be used to ''clarify'' relations in the anime (e.g. the anime doesn't make it clear whether character A loves character B, but the manga does), so long as there is no contradiction. Relations from ''outside'' the anime generally should ''not'' be added, but they ''may'' be added if they fulfil '''BOTH''' the following criteria (use your common sense before adding such relations; if on doubt, ask before adding!): | ||
* the relation is not related to the plot. For example, a family relationship usually isn't plot-related since that's a fixed relationship. However, it might be plot-related if it was revealed as part of the plot; for example, the fact two characters were siblings is revealed at some point (i.e. it is what people call a spoiler). Relations that are related to the plot should only be added when they happen in the anime, and if they do. This is really important: do '''not''' add relations for things that will only happen in the future! | |||
* the relation is clear and straightforward across all relevant franchise works (e.g. the work the anime is directly based on); this is important when a relation is valid in one work of the franchise (e.g. the manga the anime is based on) but not in another (e.g. another manga in the same franchise). It may be wise to treat all external relations as plot-related when the franchise is convoluted. | |||
There are many different kinds of relations that can be set and are self-explanatory by the name or relation they carry; others might need a comment to specify the relation a bit more. If on doubt, simply consider whether the relation type explains everything there is to be explained. Some relations will have standardized comments; others will require comments but not have a specific standard on them. When there is no standard currently set for the relation type, general rules and common sense apply; when examples are available, following them should be generally safe. Additionally, if a relation has ended, it is '''highly encouraged''' for the comment to specify the point in the timeline and the reason why the relation ended. Relation comments are supposed to be '''lower case''', as well as '''short''' and as '''neutral''' as possible. | |||
Character relations are furthermore '''always''' supposed to be two-sided; the vice versa option should '''always''' be marked. If a relation is truly one-sided (e.g. character A considers character B a rival, but character B doesn't think that way, or maybe doesn't even know character A exists), the comment should specify it as "on character A's part only", and the relation will ''still'' be set as two-sided. | |||
Some relations accumulate in ways that may seem less than intuitive. For example, if someone founds a company and works in it, they should also have the "is part of" relation to the company. Additionally, if they're a leader in the company (say, the CEO), they should also have the "is the leader of" relation, preferably with a fitting comment. This also means that, because the CEO of a company works in that company, they should have both the "is the leader of" and "is part of" relations to it. Generally, you should assume that relations accumulate. Going along with the founder/CEO example: | Some relations accumulate in ways that may seem less than intuitive. For example, if someone founds a company and works in it, they should also have the "is part of" relation to the company. Additionally, if they're a leader in the company (say, the CEO), they should also have the "is the leader of" relation, preferably with a fitting comment. This also means that, because the CEO of a company works in that company, they should have both the "is the leader of" and "is part of" relations to it. Generally, you should assume that relations accumulate. Going along with the founder/CEO example: | ||